Looking Ahead at Non-Conference Foes

Got this from UGA's athletics department today, and while there aren't many surprises here, I figured I'd pass it along.

Here are the scheduled non-conferece games for UGA during the next few years -- with the exceptions of the annual Georgia Tech game.

You can find the complete future schedules at Sic Em Dawgs. The only game here not listed officially on the Sic Em Dawgs list is the North Texas game in 2013.

Sept. 4, 2010 – University of Louisiana Lafayette, Athens (875,000)
Oct. 2, 2010 – University of Colorado, Boulder (825,000)
Nov. 6, 2010 – Idaho State University, Athens (525,000)
Sept. 3, 2011 -- University of Louisville, Athens (250,000)
Sept. 17, 2011 – Coastal Carolina, Athens (475,000)
Nov. 5, 2011 – New Mexico State University, Athens (925,000)
Sept. 15, 2012 – University of Louisville, Louisville (250,000)
Aug. 31, 2013 – University of North Texas, Athens (975,000)
Date TBA, 2013 – Appalachian State University, Athens (325,000)
Sept. 5, 2015 – University of Oregon, Eugene (350,000)
Sept. 10, 2016 -- University of Oregon, Athens (350,000)

UPDATE: A few of you asked -- the numbers in parenthesis to the right is the amount to be paid to the visiting team per the contract terms on the games. So UGA gets $350k when it goes to Oregon and returns the favor in Athens.

One Last Post About the Schedule

I think we've reached the saturation point on the discussion of the scheduling, but Mark Richt addressed the issue Tuesday, and I figured it would be worth posting his thoughts as a fitting conclusion to the conversation.

First, Richt talked about what the tough opener against Oklahoma State has meant to the teams in terms of preparation.

“I don’t know if we’ve ever gone into the first game of the year and I didn’t feel the excitement and the energy with the team, but I think there is a little greater sense of urgency," Richt said. "I think our coaches were more interested in starting the game plan for Oklahoma State a little bit sooner. They were wanting to get into breaking into scout team a little quicker to begin to plan. When you play a team that good it gets everybody’s juices flowing pretty good.”

It was an interesting comment from Richt to say the least, particularly since he spent most of the past few weeks saying the exact opposite. As a reporter, I figure I'll be lied to. I just ask that it's the same lie each time.

Anyway, from talking to players, that idea has been shared universally. The Oklahoma State game was a good opener because it has kept the Bulldogs focused throughout the offseason.

I have two qualms with this:

1.) Shouldn't a team be able to stay focused regardless of who that opening opponent is? Yes, maybe a really good team from another conference can provide more excitement, but I would hope it doesn't change the focus significantly.

2.) It really sort of piggybacks what I noted yesterday -- there is more thought, preparation and energy that goes into a "big game" and when those games are over, the situation is ripe for a let down.

As a few readers have pointed out, however, a good team doesn't allow that to happen. So the bottom line, I suppose, is that if Georgia wants to be a national championship team, this really shouldn't be an issue regardless. I can buy that.

That's the cost of the big game, but how about the benefits? Richt was asked about that, too, particularly in terms of a recruiting advantage that playing these games gets you.

“There is going to be a lot more attention on this game than there would have been if we were playing someone who’s not ranked as high," Richt said. "There will be national attention because people always want to compare leagues, and most people that I’ve heard said that the Southeastern Conference and the Big 12 might be the two best as of recent times, so they’re wanting to see which league is better. That will be a big question across the country. People may watch it just for that reason. More people will see and hear about Georgia because we are playing this game, and that’s good for us."

I'm not going to argue this point because I think it's a valid one. Georgia-Oklahoma State is a marquee game on a weekend in which there aren't many marquee games. My complaint about the scheduling thus far has been that these opponents have not usually ended up getting the type of attention that Georgia probably hoped they would when the games were scheduled.

A number of readers pointed out that they wanted to see big-time opponents or travel to places they wouldn't normally go. I agree -- but why not go all the way with it if you're going to ramp up the schedule? How about a home-and-home every three years with a truly marquee opponent, the way Ohio State has done in recent seasons with Texas and USC? Or why not at least make the trip a marquee event, as has been discussed with a possible matchup against Army in New York? I'll take either of those options over a trip to Stillwater any time.

Of course, there's another thing that has to happen before Georgia gets that recruiting bump from playing in such a big game on Saturday -- a win.

"It’s certainly better for you if you win these kinds of games as far as the perception of the voters and the perception of the recruits," Richt said.

But there's this caveat, he said: "This game, win or lose, should prepare us for what we are about to face when we get into league play," Richt said. "It’ll be good preparation for that.”

It's a sentiment mirrored by Bryan Evans, too.

"If we go out and win this game and compete with the No. 9 team in the country, we should have no doubt that we can compete with South Carolina or any other team," Evans said. "It’s just going to help us as a stepping stone.”

I like the theory, but I'm curious about this:

If they win, does it give them confidence or overconfidence for the following week?

And if they lose, what happens to that high morale Evans is talking about?

It's a question that really won't be answered until South Carolina arrives next Saturday.

ADDENDUM: After mentioning Richt "lying" to me, I realized that I was probably very unclear about what I meant.

I didn't mean that Richt's previous statements about the schedule were lies.

What I meant was: For all of preseason, he'd been saying the team had not changed its approach because of the big opening week opponent. Then Tuesday, he said they had and had begun preparing sooner. It was the exact opposite of what he'd been saying.

I was really unclear about what I thought Richt was being disingenuous about, and I apologize for that. I was tagging him a liar to defend my cause (and in truth, I really don't care that much about the schedule to begin with, but I thought it was an interesting discussion). I was annoyed because Richt really did seem to have done a 180 on his comments about preparation.

Sorry for the confusion.

The Cost of a Big Game

I wrote earlier today about Georgia's tough scheduling philosophy during the past few years. Since 2005, the Bulldogs have played (or will play this year) seven out-of-region opponents as part of Damon Evans' plan to market the team outside of the Southeast.

The thought process was that big games against non-regional opponents would create national attention. But until the Bulldogs head to Stillwater, Okla. on Saturday, I'm just not sure how true that has been. Let's take a closer look at how I'd rank the overall significance of the seven games through this season:

7. Arizona State, Sept. 26, 2009. I think I've heard more discussion of Tennessee Tech than of this matchup. Despite the name, I think most Georgia fans are essentially looking at this as a cake walk for the Dawgs.

(NEXT UP: LSU at home.)

6. Colorado, Sept. 23, 2006. There were really only two things to remember about this game: 1.) Joe Cox came in and led the Dawgs back from a 13-0 second-half deficit, and 2.) Colorado brought its mascot, Ralphi, the 1,300-pound Buffalo, with them to Athens. Colorado finished the season 2-10, which actually made Georgia's 8-4 campaign look pretty darned good.

(NEXT UP: Win over Ole Miss in Oxford, 14-9)

5. Central Michigan, Sept. 6, 2008. This was hardly a marquee matchup, but it did bring Dan LeFevour, who was garnering some early niche support for a Heisman, to town. This game was actually closer than most people remember in the first half -- probably a sign of things to come for Georgia -- but it featured two of the most memorable plays of the year for the Bulldogs: Demarcus Dobbs interception return for a touchdown at the end of the first half and Knowshon Moreno's leap. The latter didn't even make "SportsCenter," which in the end, probably turned into the most talked-about portion of this game. Final score, Georgia 56, Central Michigan 17.

(NEXT UP: Win over South Carolina in Columbia, 14-7)

4. Arizona State, Sept. 20, 2008. At the beginning of the season, this game looked like it was going to be a crucial step for the Bulldogs. Instead, the Sun Devils' offensive line was so bad it made Georgia's defensive ends actually seem impressive. Yes, as many as 30,000 Georgia fans traveled to Tempe for the game, but that probably helped gain respect for the Bulldogs far more than their 27-10 win over a lousy ASU team did.

(NEXT UP: Loss to Alabama in Athens, 41-30)

3. Oklahoma State, Sept. 1, 2007. In retrospect, it's hard to say what this game really meant. On one hand, the 35-14 beat down of the Cowboys put Georgia on the map following a disappointing 2006 season. On the other hand, a home loss to South Carolina came a week later, essentially ending Georgia's hopes for an SEC title. The Bulldogs spent the rest of the season trying to make up for the Gamecocks' defeat, and it's easy to wonder if things might have been different had Georgia opened against a less challenging opponent.

(NEXT UP: Loss to South Carolina in Athens, 16-12)

2. Boise State, Sept. 3, 2005. It might be hard to remember now, but there were a lot of people who thought the upstart Broncos would come to Athens and teach the Dawgs a thing or two about the impressiveness of the mid-majors. Instead, Georgia delivered a 48-13 beatdown that officially ushered in the D.J. Shockley era.

(NEXT UP: Win over South Carolina in Athens, 17-15)

1.) Oklahoma State, Sept. 5, 2009. No question about it, this is the biggest opponent to date, and it appears to be a tough test for Georgia. The Cowboys are a top-10 team from a power conference opening up a remodeled stadium before a lively crowd. But wouldn't you have said essentially the same thing about Arizona State before last year's game? I think the Cowboys will be decent this year, but they're still -- at best -- the third biggest name in the Big XII (and you could make an argument that they're actually closer to the fifth or sixth) that still has a lot of questions about the validity of their advanced billing.

(NEXT UP: South Carolina at home)

Now, you may disagree a bit with my rankings, but I think at the very least this should illustrate that the reward of a marquee matchup has hardly been worth the toll preparing for and playing a high-level team has put on the Bulldogs.

That, of course, is not to say that the plan has been a failure -- but rather that it simply hasn't been a success yet. There are some big games on the horizon, too. (*All schedules tentative, courtesy of Sic 'Em Dawgs.)

In 2010, Georgia plays at Colorado on Oct. 2.

In 2011, the Bulldogs open at home against Louisville on Sept. 3 and host New Mexico State on Nov. 5.

In 2012, Georgia goes to Louisville on Sept. 15 -- one week before traveling to Alabama.

In 2013, Georgia opens the season at Clemson on Aug. 31 with the Tigers returning the favor in 2014 in Athens.

So... what do you think? Are the tough opponents worthwhile -- particularly with an already arduous SEC slate and an annual date against Georgia Tech on the docket? Does the fact that Georgia is 5-0 with a number of blow-out wins in these games so far validate Evans' philosophy? Or does the fact that Georgia is just 3-2 the week after these games (with all three wins being decided by fewer than seven points) mean that the toll these games takes is more than they're worth?

Has Damon Doomed the Dawgs?

The grand plan seemed to make enough sense at the time. When the NCAA added a 12th game to the regular season, Damon Evans decided Georgia should add a big(ger)-name non-regional game to fill its annual slate. The idea behind the theory was that the games would garner national attention and help Georgia market itself beyond the Southeast.

Again, in theory, it was a win-win scenario. From a business standpoint, fans who had never been within 1,000 miles of Sanford Stadium would have a chance to see Georgia up close and personal, and maybe become fans of the Bulldogs along the way. From a TV standpoint, Georgia would be in line to headline the day's slate of games thanks to a matchup with national appeal. And from a football standpoint, the games would help Mark Richt and company widen the team's recruiting base.

In theory, it made sense. But with with easily the biggest of these supposed marquee matchups looming in Stillwater, Okla. in five days, has it really worked?

That probably depends on who you ask.

For one, the games haven't exactly lived up to the national billing. Last year's Arizona State trip was a lot of fun for the fans, but after the Sun Devils lost to UNLV the week before, the matchup lost much of its national appeal. As it turned out, the rest of Arizona State's season went down the toilet, too, meaning the win didn't even register as a particularly impressive one for Georgia by year's end either.

What did register was the inconvenience of making the trip.

"One of the biggest issues with it, just living through the Arizona State travel, that’s a tough trip to fly all the way over there and come back and be ready to keep grinding. The travel part is tougher than who you’re playing,” Richt said. “If all these teams we wanted to play would always come to Sanford Stadium or even Atlanta for that matter, I think it would be better for us.”

Richt has made no bones about saying he thinks the scheduling hasn't particularly worked in Georgia's favor, and while its hard to pin too much of the blame on the travel, Georgia did fall behind 31-0 in the first half of its next game after the ASU trip.

Of course, Richt's viewing the schedule from the perspective of a football coach, and Evans is obviously taking more of a business approach. On that level, he said, there's no questioning the success of the plan.

"It was an exciting time at Arizona State," Evans said. "I haven’t met a person yet who said it wasn’t a great trip, who said it wasn’t a great game. I remember Kirk Herbstreit saying, 'This is what Georgia needs to do.' I’ve always believed that and I will continue to believe that we need to continue to step out of this region. That’s why Oklahoma State, that’s why Arizona State, that’s why Colorado. Some might say, 'Damon, it’s too tough.' Maybe it is, but I’m not so sure. When you schedule those games, you don’t know how it’s going to play out. I know we’re in a tough conference but I want to get around and help grow that presence nationally, and I have confidence in us to be able to compete and beat those opponents, so that’s the route I’m going to continue to go.”

Evans may deem the tough scheduling as a win for Georgia, but the only wins that really count are the ones in the standings, and fans are getting a little tired of looking up at Florida -- a team that has made no bones about keeping a manageable schedule.

"Do we wake up and say, (UF AD) Jeremy (Foley) and I sit down, let's put together the most difficult schedule in college football? Absolutely not," Florida coach Urban Meyer said. "We have some great rivalries within the state. We're going to do that. There's not a whole lot of discussion about going out. Once again, our scheduling philosophy is we want to play at least one big time program. That's built in our schedule every year. Sometimes when you see USC play Ohio State, that's their big one. We already have FSU. Then we'll try every couple years to get another one in there. That's kind of what we've done."

That might be a valid point if Florida State had been a remotely "big" opponent at any point during Meyer's tenure, but that simply hasn't been the case. Still, it's a big-name opponent and the talent level on the field at FSU certainly takes its toll on the Gators.

Only... it doesn't really. That games ends the regular season for Florida, meaning the wear and tear of playing a top-tier opponent would only really be felt in a potential SEC title game (and yes, the Gators looked a bit "off" in the first half of last year's SEC championship) before the team got a month off to relax and recuperate before its bowl game.

That could be true for Georgia, too, but Evans isn't putting Georgia Tech in the same category as Florida State.

"In Florida, they have two teams (Florida State and Miami) who have historically competed for national championships that they play," Evans said. "We haven’t had that in-state rival that’s been at that high of a level."

Food for thought for those Tech fans who sit and wait patiently for each new AJC blog to post so they can immediately add a snarky comment.

But there's also this argument from Evans: If you win tough games, it gives you a clearer path to the national championship.

"What big games do for you is give you national exposure in the voters mind, so that’s what I hope these games will do for us," Evans said. "I don’t think it will backfire."

Oh no?

Well, it seems odd then that many of those voters are the ones penning preseason prognostications that say things like, "If Florida gets past its lone tough game at LSU, a national title seems a near certainty" and "The winner of Texas-Oklahoma will almost surely play for the national championship."

That's three teams that each play essentially one marquee opponent all year (at least "marquee" in the sense that the writers seem to be applying the term) and they're getting a free pass to a national title shot.

But let's take this scenario: If Georgia loses to Florida by 3, but Florida loses to LSU by 10, and both teams win the rest of their games -- including the Bulldogs' season opener against Oklahoma State -- both would have one loss, but the Gators would go to the SEC title game. Do you think there's any chance that Georgia would then play for a national championship over Florida? Hey, beating Oklahoma State in 2007 sure didn't help put the Bulldogs past a two-loss LSU team.

The bottom line is that the scheduling has been a business decision, and even that is only true if your business's mission statement doesn't begin with: Win football games.

I'm in no way suggesting Georgia shouldn't have a challenging schedule, but life in the SEC with an annual matchup against Georgia Tech is pretty challenging. That's the way Richt sees it, too.

And even if you want to award some bonus points for appealing to a broader audience, the fact remains that the new SEC TV deal with ESPN tends to negate that argument, too.

“The plan was never to have Oklahoma State and Arizona State and Georgia Tech," Richt said. "That was never the plan. We did it because we wanted to do it for the fans and to get out of the Southeast region, but living through it is a little bit tougher. We had enough to get Georgia out there, but now it’s every game, every SEC game at least.”

In the end, winning SEC and national championships broadens your national allure. Losing in Stillwater -- or perhaps more likely, at home to South Carolina a week later after an exhausting trip West -- doesn't make you a whole lot of new fans.

Evans has gone on record as saying he wants Georgia to emulate the success Florida has achieved. That just doesn't seem to apply when it comes to scheduling.

ADDENDUM: I'll have more on this in a little bit, but for those touting the worthiness of the schedule, here's one other note to consider...

In the five out-of-region games Georgia has played since 2005 (Okla. State, Ariz. State, Central Mich., Colorado, Boise State), the Bulldogs are 5-0 in those games, with only the Colorado game being remotely close.

But look ahead one week. In Georgia's next game after playing a non-region opponent, the Bulldogs are just 3-2, with all three wins coming by 7 points or less (and if you remember any of those three wins, you know they all could easily have been losses).

That simply underscores what both Richt and I are saying: It's not necessarily about the final score against the tough opponent, it's about the toll it takes to play them.

A Few Quick Notes

I'm over at the Butts-Mehre building for football interviews and figured I'd address a few things quickly that have come up...

-- First off, a bunch of people have emailed me already about the report on 790 in Atlanta about a potential home-and-home with Michigan beginning next year. If it's true, no one around here seems to know anything about it. But I doubt there's much truth to it.

For one, Georgia already has 12 games scheduled for 2011, so they'd have to drop an opponent.

Secondly, a game at the Big House next season would leave the Dawgs with just five home games.

Thirdly, I spoke with Damon Evans last month and he said he didn't expect to have three games against non-conference BCS opponents again soon, and Georgia already has Colorado and Louisville (respectively) on the schedule for the next two seasons (along with the annual date against Tech).

Simply put, there doesn't seem to be a lot of logic to it. Now, does that mean there aren't talks in the works for a series further down the road? That may be, but I would be shocked if this happened for 2010 or 2011.

-- Talked to Darryl Gamble, who said Nick Williams has now moved back to safety officially. Gamble said Williams has taken the move well and will bring back the "hard-hitting safety days" at Georgia.

-- Quintin Banks says he had an MRI on his knee recently and that it showed good improvement. He said the knee is still sensitive and has some swelling after workouts, but he's at about 95 percent now and expects to be out of his green jersey when camp starts next month.