Georgia Football: Average, Mediocre and All Down-Hill – Examining Mark Richt’s Legacy

Dude’s note: This post is stat-heavy.  I’ve done my best to present statistics within a readable narrative while addressing concerns, but know that none of this touches on the intangible look or feel of an “average” football team, because by definition something average must be measurable and calculable.  Of note: all win/loss data prior to this year is courtesy of the Stassen Database.  All win/loss data for this year comes from  I assume one future win for Georgia in one particular data set and that is enumerated clearly.

This is the part where I defecate on the notion that Mark Richt has created an “average” or “mediocre” program.

Theory: Mark Richt doesn’t win enough.

That’s a comical observation.

Mark Richt wins at a ridiculously high level much more often than what has been “average” for Georgia football.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

I took some liberty here and granted Georgia a bowl victory this year.  It may not happen, and if it doesn’t I’ll update this post.  But with that assumption, Mark Richt has won more than three-quarters of Georgia’s games at a rate that is 2.5 times higher than every Georgia coach prior to him.  Winning more than 75% of one’s contests in a season is stellar.  Richt can achieve that feat for the eighth time in 14 years with a bowl victory.  Georgia coaches hit that mark just 25 times in 109 years leading up to his arrival.

Theory: Mark Richt did well early in his career, but now he sucks.

That’s cute.

It really is.

But if we compare a trailing period of results, Mark Richt’s cumulative winning percentage is still strong.  To be fair, if you subscribe to this school of thought, you probably don’t know what I mean by a “trailing period of results,” so I’ll explain.

In the graph below, Richt’s winning percentage for the period “1” on the X-Axis (the line at the bottom, moving left to right) represents one single year and the most recent year—2014.  The period labeled “2” represents his cumulative winning percentage over the two most recent years (2013, 2014).  The period labeled “3” represents his winning percentage over the three most recent years (2012, 2013, 2014).

Why am I counting backwards?  I used this method specifically to evaluate Richt’s most recent years and if they look significantly worse than his early years.  After all, he sucks now (in recent years) but didn’t used to suck, right?  This should demonstrate that Mark Richt forgot how to coach football.

Alas, that doesn’t happen.  As you’ll see in the picture (graph) below, Mark Richt’s trailing winning percentage never dips below 0.670. even when I start with the alleged weaker period of his tenure.  The big red line you see is Georgia’s all-time, pre-Richt winning percentage.  That line, based on arbitrary components like history and math, is the “average” performance of Georgia football.  There is not a context for which Richt can be defined as “average” if we’re looking at silly factors like winning football games.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

For comparison’s sake, I included the career winning percentage of every man who ever coached Georgia for more than five years.  “But,” you may think, “Mark Richt is so damn volatile.”

No he’s not.  His line is a floating winning percentage varying by periods.  His career winning percentage is reflected by the last point on the graph—the one at the very top above 14 on the x-axis (which runs at the bottom of the page from left to right).  That number is a lot better than anyone else.  Don’t believe me?  Here it is.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

In this graph, Mark Richt’s winning percentage is the big blue line at the top of the page looking down and wondering what it’s like to not kick ass.  But hey, I’m a Richt homer.  A real fair-weather fan who only likes Richt because he wins games.  Wait, Richt doesn’t do that, does he?

You caught me!  I hand-picked distorted data by using every single game Mark Richt has ever coached at the University of Georgia.  That’s what you call a diluted sample, right?

Theory: Winning games means nothing.  Richt doesn’t win National Championships.  

That’s adorable.

Because prior to Mark Richt, Georgia ripped off National Championships all the time, yes?  Ignore the fact that Georgia football was established in 1892 and the Bulldogs claim two National Championships outright (1942 and 1980).  History and facts be damned!

Here’s a look at how long Georgia typically goes without a National Championship and how long Mark Richt has been coaching at Georgia.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

Why the hell was Richt expected to win a National Championship in 14 years when Georgia—on average—goes more than 61 years without one?  “But,” you are already saying, “that’s on average.”

You’re right.  After starting the program in 1892, Georgia went 50 years without winning a title.  The Bulldogs finally claimed one in 1942.  Then, Georgia went 38 years before winning another in 1980.  Georgia’s currently stuck in a 34-year drought.  But in an odd turn of events, only 14 of those years have been during Richt’s tenure, which means 20 belong to someone else.

Real quick question: Which of these numbers is less than 14?

  • 20
  • 38
  • 52

Theory: Yeah, but Richt doesn’t even win his own conference.  How could he win a National Championship?

Just precious.

Apparently, Georgia won conference titles at a higher clip before Richt arrived.  That’s true unless you look at trivial things like what actually happened in the real world.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

“But Dude,” you cry out like an ignorant child, “It’s been NINE years since Georgia won the SEC!”

That’s true.  I’m not sure how a nine year drought (relative to an average 8.8-year lag) is significant given the fact that no conference has ever dominated football the way the SEC has of late.  Oh also, with two more competitive teams in the SEC, the conference has become—mathematically—more difficult to win.

Theory: But what’s great historically for Georgia is just average on the national scale.  Therefore, the Bulldogs’ football program is mediocre under Mark Richt.

You should host Saturday Night Live.  You are that funny.  Will this be in your monologue?  Will you double as the musical guest?  Are any celebrity cameos planned?  Can you FaceTime me from backstage?  At least during the dress rehearsal?  Pleeeeease!  When the show is over and everybody comes out on stage, are you going to play it cool like you’ve been there before or are you going to hug everyone in sight as the best week of your life comes to a close?

I’ll start with your own narrow-minded view and give you the data that looks the best when defending your stance that Georgia football is nationally average or mediocre on a national level.

Over the past six years—the trailing period over which Mark Richt’s winning percentage is the lowest—Georgia’s winning percentage ranks 23rd in the nation.  So when Richt has been at his worst, he’s racked up a Top 25 winning percentage despite playing in the nation’s most difficult conference.

If one eliminates non-Power Five Conference teams (the likes of Boise State, Northern Illinois, Cincinnati, Central Florida and Brigham Young) Georgia ranks 19th.  At his worst, Mark Richt has been a Top 20 coach.  Ranking 19th out of 128 teams puts Richt in the 15 percentile.  Richt only falls into an “average” band if you equate “average” with the middle 70% of the nation.  That seems a bit extreme.

But here’s the kicker that ignorant folks like to ignore.  Mark Richt didn’t arrive at the University of Georgia in 2009.  He started coaching in 2001.  And try as you might, you can’t erase earlier years *[See note at end of section].  They really happened.  I saw them with my own eyes.

Since 2001, Mark Richt’s Georgia Bulldogs rank seventh in the nation in winning percentage among teams who have participated in Power-Five Conference competition every year.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

And lest you think I’ve manipulated the data unfairly, know that only two teams (Boise State and TCU) in the country were eliminated from the data above due to conference affiliation.  Work them back in and Georgia ranks 9th in the nation in winning percentage during the Richt Era.

Not only is that nowhere close to “average” or “mediocre,” it’s also a marked improvement—as measured by winning percentage and national ranking—relative to the Pre-Richt Era at Georgia.

  • Georgia Winning Percentage Under Richt: 0.738
  • Georgia Winning Percentage Prior to Richt: 0.632
  • Georgia Winning Percentage National Rank Under Richt: 9
  • Georgia Winning Percentage National Rank Prior to Richt: 14

*Ignorant Georgia fans love the “What have you done for me lately?” narrative.  I was going to spend time rejecting that like Mutumbo, but there wasn’t even a compelling case to start with.  Put bluntly, Mark Richt’s .750 winning percentage this season (2014, pre-bowl game) has raised his already Georgia-best career winning percentage.  So you can’t sell me on the idea that he’s hurt his own legacy recently.  Take your cereal and go back to SNL.

Theory: But Georgia isn’t winning the right games.

What the hell are the “right” games?  I’ve already addressed Championships, so I can only assume “right” is being defined by opposition.

This year Georgia beat three ranked teams (Clemson, Missouri and Auburn) by a combined score of 113-28.  Georgia lost to two other ranked teams (South Carolina, Georgia Tech) by a combined margin of nine points (with one game in overtime).

“Yes,” I hear you saying, “But Georgia always loses to crappy teams.”

Is that true, though?  This year, Georgia lost to a downtrodden but supremely talented Florida team.  Last year, Georgia was upset by Vanderbilt.  Those two teams were unranked but ended each respective season with winning records and boasted a combined overall record of 15-9.  That 0.625 winning percentage isn’t super incredibly fantastic, but it’s close to Georgia’s pre-Richt figure (0.632).  Also, Vanderbilt finished the 2013 season ranked by both the AP and the Coaches.

In 2012, Georgia lost on the road to No. 6 South Carolina and at a neutral site to eventual National Champion (and then No. 2) Alabama.  The Bulldogs didn’t lose any other games.  Nobody likes a loss, but were those opponents so egregious?

In 2011 Georgia’s season was book-ended by two opening losses and two defeats to close the year.  Those four teams were ranked 5, 12, 1 and 11.

Perhaps there’s a pattern of losing to inexcusable opposition, but it’s not evident.

Top 25 teams are good teams.  Good teams win football games.  When good teams win football games, someone else has to lose.  Sometimes the losing team is also a good team and sometimes the good losing team is Georgia.

Ten of Georgia’s last twelve non-Bowl losses have come to ranked opponents.  The average ranking of those 10 teams at kickoff: 8.1.  Seven of those losses came away from home.  So a program that has ranked ninth in the nation in winning percentage under Mark Richt has lost some games to teams with an average ranking of 8.1.  Is that so insane?

But if you want to talk more about losing to bad teams, let’s do that.

Mathematically speaking an “average” team puts up a .500 winning percentage.  Above that rate of success indicates a “winning” record, below that rate represents a “losing” record.  So .500 is average.  Mark Richt has coached 183 games at Georgia.  He’s lost 48 games.  Two of those 48 losses, a 2010 setback to 5-7 Colorado and a loss to 4-8 Vandy in 2006, came to teams that finished the season with a losing record.  Mark Richt doesn’t always lose to “bad” teams.  He loses to bad teams in about 1.093% of his games.  Further, only about 4.166% of his losses come to sub-.500 teams.  That’s not a pattern.  Those losses were anomalies.

As for the notion that Georgia “beats up” on crappy opposition in general and struggles at a higher rate than normal against Top 25 opposition, that’s simply not true.  But fittingly, most who make this claim also assert that Georgia is losing too many games to inferior competition.

Those two concepts—losing too much to good teams and losing too much to bad teams—are independently and congruently at odds with the fact that even within his worst retro-active time frame, Richt is a Top 20 coach.  In other words, if Georgia is losing more than peers against good teams and losing more than peers against bad teams, how are the Bulldogs in the nation’s Top 10 in winning percentage since 2001?  Georgia hasn’t registered the nation’s ninth-best winning percentage over a 14 year period by losing “too often” to any subset of teams.  Georgia has reached such success thanks to consistency and a ton of wins.

Disagree?  Holler at me.  I’m not too blind to learn.

I welcome rebuttals to this post, but I don’t really care to hear about the following topics:

  • Attrition via dismissal, transfer, etc.  Let’s talk wins and losses not personnel management.  Wins and losses are more significant than roster spots.
  • Georgia having “too much talent” to be this “average.” I wrote about that already here.  Four teams have had more success in the SEC than Georgia over the past five years; those four teams have also recruited slightly better.
  • Georgia not beating rivals.  Defining rivals is difficult.  Richt lost to three rivals this year (South Carolina, Florida, Tech), but he swept them last year.  There’s no concrete pattern of him struggling against rivals.  Just ask Tennessee and GT.
  • Georgia should be competing with the likes of Alabama.  Why do people say that?  Alabama has traditionally won games at a higher rate and won a ton more National Championships.  On top of that, Alabama football has never been stronger than it is now.  Further, the last time Alabama won a Conference Championship, it was by five yards against Georgia.  That seems pretty competitive.

Additionally, while I sincerely welcome disagreeing opinions, know that if you use the word “average” to describe Georgia football I’m going to assume that you mean “average” in a numerical sense and I’m going to expect you to have data implying that Georgia is at or near the mathematical mean of football programs.  If you think I’m being a stickler, head over to and tell me which of the leading definitions for “average” implies something intangible or immeasurable.  Similarly, if you choose to use a word like “mediocre” to describe Georgia football under Mark Richt, please do so by using logical standards for what is satisfactory and defining how Georgia has come up short.

In closing, you can spare me the assertion that I manipulated statistics or otherwise altered reality to support an opinion.  First and foremost, I used every single bit of win/loss data available on Richt.  There is no better representation of what Richt has done as a football coach than the outcome of every single game he has coached.  It’s really sexy right now to use five-year data to incorporate the 2010 campaign.  That’s not more accurate than what I’ve done here and I guarandamntee  if you are using five-year numbers now, you were using four-year numbers last year and three-year numbers the year before that.  That is manipulating data.

Secondly, I’m not a blind Richt supporter.  Following a 6-7 campaign in 2010 and an embarrassing loss to Boise State in 2011, I wrote the following words:

You may recall that on Friday I made the assertion that Georgia would enter this game as an underdog and play with the intensity that such a situation mandates and the competency that is intrinsic to the amount of talent wearing all red.  I was very, very mistaken.

In my observations (both at the game and on replay) none of the problems that have plagued the Bulldogs for the past few seasons were mended over the offseason. We brought in another stellar recruiting class, Richt acted tough at a few press conferences and in the end Georgia opened the game with a false start.

I later concluded the same article with:

Mark Richt had over eight months to get ready for this game and failed to do so.  I think we now have four months to get ready for the next coach in Athens.  Yes, it’s awfully early in the season but it’s hard to anticipate this team turning things around for a victory against South Carolina this week.  It’s hard to picture this team defeating Mississippi State, Florida or Auburn; and Tennessee and Georgia Tech are becoming increasingly frightening.

I sure hope I’m wrong.  I guess I should actually be hoping that Boise State really is as good as the Bulldogs made them look on Saturday.  If that’s the case maybe Georgia can make a run at the Gamecocks, the SEC East and the Conference Championship Game.

What happened next is history.

Georgia did lose to South Carolina the following week.  But then much to my surprise, the Bulldogs rallied to beat every other team on their regular-season slate.  Georgia improved in 2011 and the state of the program has continued to improve.  If you don’t believe me, look at what Georgia accomplished this year despite a coaching staff overhaul, mass attrition on defense, a plethora of injuries on offense and the suspension of the best player in the country.  Then look at how many freshmen contributed in major spots and how much talent (coaching and playing) will be back next season.  You can’t look at those two sets of information and tell me with any ounce of integrity that Georgia football is not better off than it was in September of 2011.  You’d be equally hard-pressed to credit that turnaround to anyone other than Richt.

My point is this: If there was ever a time that justified a change in coaching it was after the first two games of 2011.  Mathematically speaking, winning just five of fourteen football games from September 11, 2010 through September 10, 2012 was hard to ignore and that stretch could have been enough to negate Richt’s early-tenure good will.  That stretch was bad.  Really bad.  But if you’re going to include that data set when evaluating Mark Richt today (and I think we should, in a fair and complete way) we need to recognize what came before and after.

Most notably, we need to recognize that over the past fourteen seasons there’s only been one stretch that legitimized a “Fire Richt” movement.  That’s an accomplishment in and of itself.  And since that time, here’s what Georgia has done:

  • Overall Record: 39-12
  • Winning Percentage: 0.765
  • SEC East Titles: 2
  • Record vs. Five Biggest Rivals (Florida, Georgia Tech, Auburn, South Carolina and Tennessee as defined by 247Sports): 14-5
  • Winning Percentage vs. Rivals: 0.737

Don’t tell me I’ve distorted reality.  This is reality.  If you disagree, you should adjust the lens of your Georgia Football World View accordingly.  For once, it’s not me; it’s you.  Your expectations, your understanding or your interpretation is wrong.

By any measure within any context—his entire career, since his rough patch in 2010/2011, this season, etc.—Richt is winning games at a higher rate than any coach before him at Georgia and competing for (and winning) Championships at a more than acceptable clip relative to program precedents.  Oh and along the way, Richt has out-paced nearly 93% of the nation in winning percentage.

Mark Richt is not average.  Mark Richt is not mediocre.  Mark Richt is not declining.

That’s not debatable.

That’s all I got/


For video highlights of the Mark Richt Era, download The UGA Vault for FREE on iOS and Android here.

About dudeyoucrazy

College Football Writer

Posted on December 3, 2014, in Blog, Georgia Bulldogs, The UGA Vault. Bookmark the permalink. 17 Comments.

  1. This piece is not average. This piece is not mediocre. DudeYouCrazy is not declining.

    I’ll debate it. COME AT ME, BRO.

  2. Andrew, I appreciate your position, but I don’t honestly feel that you are trying to be objective. Florida had no history of success at all before they hired Spurrier and Meyer. LSU had little before they hired Saban and Miles. But, fortunately for them, they recognized the potential in their respective programs. And they now recognize that the SEC is THE conference and that the South is a draw for athletes nationwide, so they ask: “Why not us”? And they aim for championships, and they are not limited by their past, which is now completely irrelevant. The goals at the top SEC programs should now be championships. And, in my opinion, if Georgia cannot even win the east when UF, USC, and TN are all down, we have major coaching issues and must question the goals and direction of our program.

  3. You’re giving opinions while Andrew is giving facts. LSU had little before Saban and Miles? They had about as much history as UGA. Plus, Richt is better than Miles head to head.

  4. You are right. LSU was only slightly behind UGA in most areas before Saban and Miles. Since, they have won two national championships. Florida was way behind UGA, and they have won three national championships. I won’t mention Auburn, as many UGA fans dislike Auburn and question their integrity, but they have won and done well recently as well. If you measure success by head to head records and the like, then I leave that with you. Unfortunately, in athletics, success is usually measured in championships. And the fact that UGA has not won a national championship in so long, or even a conference championship in almost a decade, should lead to a desire for change. I fear we have rationalized to death our basic fear of success.

  5. Andrew, I love reading your articles. You use FACTS, not feelings. We all know our feelings betray us. I think Coach Richt is the right guy to lead the Dawgs and I will support him! He is a winner, period!

  6. Dude,
    Love the facts in the article. I will say that let’s dig into the winning % a little more. If you take into the account that UGA plays or has played 2-3 directional schools per year and Richt has a high winning % against .500 teams, then one could conclude that Richt wins 5-6 games a year against this group of teams. Looking back, and I don’t have all of the years, it looks like at least 2 of the teams we seem to play each year in our conference are .500 or worse. i.e Kentucky, Vandy, Tenn, and even SC this year. That means to come up with a winning % of .750 Richt hast to win 9 games in a 12 game season. Which means he only has to be .500 against the rest of his schedule. He only needs to have 3 quality wins. By quality, I mean beating a team in FBS and or with a record of better than .500. Now, I am not comparing him to any other program or to any other conference, but I do look at those numbers and think .500 or worse against quality opponents is not a strong resume. If you just look at conference record for this year, the picture gets even worse. The teams he faced in the conference this year have a combined record of 25-39 and he lost to 2 of those with a combined record of 7-9. I believe that Richt has made us competitive, but do not see the consistent wins each season get us to the next level….whatever that is.

  7. Jim, as always, thanks for reading.

    This is great commentary and to be clear: I don’t inherently disagree with it. In theory, a weaker schedule could help winning percentage.

    I think it’s important, however, to realize that Georgia is not alone in playing directional schools (one could argue that Georgia schedules stronger than many programs) or in having to play a conference slate that may feature sub .500 teams.

    I would assert that those two conditions are the norm among Power 5 conference schools. I haven’t picked through that data set in its entirety, but knowing that those similarities likely exist I do think its statistically significant that within similar constraints, under similar conditions, Richt is winning at a high total rate.

    In other words, I think one would be hard-pressed to assert that Richt’s winning percentage is diminished (over any substantial period, so as to account for the rotating SEC schedule) by weakness of schedule relative to in-conference peers.

    This data is not purely derived from win/loss records of opponents, but Jeff Sagarin’s ratings (which were previously used in the BCS formula and are still published by USA Today) detail relative strength of schedule (as a national ranking) on a basis that is adjusted weekly. Phil Steele may look at a preseason schedule and define a strength of schedule ranking, but Sagarin’s model adjusts every single week.

    I did a quick run-through of Sagarin’s data going back to 2001 (it’s easy to access and includes bowl games in its formulas). A few points of interest:

    –Since Richt arrived, Georgia’s average strength of schedule national ranking is 23.21.

    –That number is skewed low by early-Richt years. Interestingly, Georgia’s three “worst” years as far as strength of schedule came early during Richt’s tenure (#49 in 2005, #48 in 2001, #41 in 2004). Few fans have beef with his performance early on, but he won against inferior competition in those days (relatively speaking).

    –I say that with confidence because Georgia’s strength of schedule this year ranked 11th. In 2013 it ranked eighth. In 2012 it ranked 27th. In 2011 it came in at 36. In 2010 it ranked 7th. In 2008 and 2007 it ranked 11th and in 2006 it ranked 24th.

    –Looking at Richt’s “down” period, Georgia’s strength of schedule over that frame (2009-present) had an average national ranking of 18.67.

    –These are all strong numbers. Yes, Georgia has played FCS teams. Yes, Georgia has played SEC teams with losing records. Yes, Georgia has played inferior FBS competition. But no, Georgia has not played “easy” schedules.

    Again, this doesn’t directly answer the win/loss part of your assertion. So I know it’s not a “complete” response. But Sagarin knows his stuff (or rather, his computer does!). I put a lot of trust in his rankings (and always have). Accordingly, if Georgia is winning at a high clip despite a high rating in there, I think we can assume that Richt is not over-performing purely by beating up the little guys.

    An interesting data point I cam across along the way, Sagarin ratings love Georgia this year. Thanks to a strong schedule, a large margin of victory against some good teams and close margin in two of three defeats, Sagarin has Georgia as the nation’s sixth best team. That still puts the Bulldogs fourth in the SEC, though. Also of note: Georgia was 1-0 against Sagarin Top 10 teams and 5-2 against Sagarin Top 30.

  8. Dude,
    Great stuff. I agree Sagarin knows his stuff, but his current rankings have UGA 6?!?!?! That seems a good bit off base. I think we can all agree that UGA is not the 6th best team.

    Now to get to the part you said not to use, but my gut tells me that we are not getting the most out of our team with the current HBC. If you look at the teams that put the most players in the NFL from 2009-2013, UGA is #1 with 205. Our record over those 5 years is 44-23 which is a .522 clip. Something seems off there. We seem to have the best talent once they get to the NFL and yet when they are at UGA, not so good. I know that broke the rules, but found it interesting.

    Also, if you compare Richt to Spurrier when he was at UF, I feel like he comes up short. Spurrier was there less time and had more success.

    Spurrier – One national championship (1996), six SEC championships, eight SEC East titles, seven-time SEC coach of the year.

    Richt – two SEC championships, six SEC East titles, two-time SEC Coach of the Year.

    At the end of the day all of our points of view are opinion (hopefully based on facts and being a fan). As I have said, I think Richt has brought UGA back to relevance, after an 8-5 and now possible 9-4 season, I increasingly believe that he is not the right man to take us to the next level.

    As always appreciate the site, your views, and the opportunity for good debate.

  9. One quick correction: you say Georgia’s winning percentage over the last 6 years ranks 19th if you eliminate non-Power Five teams and then say that puts Richt in the 15th percentile over that period of time. But you can’t eliminate the non-Power Five teams to move Richt from 23rd to 19th and then include those teams in the denominator. But 23 out of 128 is still in the 18th percentile, so not exactly something that undermines your point. Enjoyed the post.

  10. As a fan, one also has to consider the integrity of the coaching staff. Do you want a coach that wins at all costs or one that has some backbone and integrity? What is a championship if it’s stripped away for playing through ineligibility? Cam Newton has his pay-to-play and laptop theft controversy still following him in his professional career and it’s always a topic when talking about his team in the year in question. With Richt that isn’t an issue. He builds teams that don’t rely on a single infallible player and therefore UGA doesn’t get into these situations.

    This may be an unpopular opinion, but if Richt goes so does a lot of our recruiting appeal. Players say over and over that it was the coaching staff and the environment they create that made them choose UGA over other top-tier schools. Players and their parents like Richt. He’s a nice and genuine guy. I’ve had the pleasure of interacting with him and Saban on different non-football related occasions and let me tell you the difference is like night and day. No matter who they replaced Richt with it would most likely leave the players reeling as so many of them came to UGA to play under him. I’ve learned to simply ignore the voices calling for Richts head that inevitably come around every year. I like the stat crunching in your article though. Very poignant and convincing.

  11. seconds left in the game this past Saturday. tech with no timeouts is trying to attempt a 53 yard field goal to tie the game. but wait the play clock is ticking away and tech doesn’t seem to have enough time to get the kick off…..8,7,6,5 seconds remain and tech is in major trouble. its clear to the dawg nation that even after the crazy squib kick we will win the game. but what???????? our head coach calls timeout and clearly has no clue about where the play clock stands. absolutely 100% UNACCEPTABLE. no way to defend this fellow dawgs and this has been a constant trend for many years. what should have been a glorious victory becomes an agonizing loss that cost us the orange bowl. 2 out of the last 3 plays in regulation were blown by CMR. gata jyd

  12. Good article. A couple of questions:

    What is the measure of success. I say it is titles, not wins. Is it too much to ask to win an SEC Title every 10 years? Since its last Championship in 05 they have only played in the game 2 times. And blown out in one (LSU), lost both. 0 titles.

    TN and UF have been historically bad the last few years, the worst together in a long time. SC was REALLY bad this year. And yet Mizz comes in and wins the East 2 straight years. The schedule was also in Georgia’s favor. When UGA was bad, TN and UF won national Championships. Even Auburn who is another big rival.

    Also, wins are important but ranked wins are even moreso. What is UGA’s record vs ranked teams the last 7 years?

    Finally I would make the case that your facts are skewed, but worth nothing. The state of Georgia has doubled in size in 30 years. More talent available than anyone in the SEC with no real in state recruiting competition (UF with FSU, Miami) and just about as much money and resources as any school (although they don’t spend it). Dooley, Goff and Donnan didn’t have the talent base that is in Georgia now. The stadium didn’t seat 92,000 for a full decade and they didn’t have the huge $$$ that have been rolling in after the inception of the new TV contracts and the BCS money.

    You do bring up some good points, but its not the full story. Richt has raised the bar, absolutely, but the question is where should be the ceiling? The past is no excuse to be settled. And the people that bring up firing Fulmer being a mistake are 100% incorrect. He should’ve been fired. The problem was they hired the WRONG person to follow him. Worrying that you will hire the wrong person is no excuse to not do something or to accept less that what you should expect given the resources. We saw some improvement this year but no consistency from game to game and lost to 2 really bad teams and after bye weeks. Next year is the 2nd under Pruitt, we need to see even more improvement.

  13. Thisa is the way his own legacy reads. Wlonderful person great man had no idea how to coach a winning football team!

  14. My issue is always the people that believe “any monkey could win 10 games a year with our schedule and our players” and “we have a top recruiting class every season!”

    Both of these statements are completely false. Richt doesn’t average a top 5 class. He barely averages a top 15 recruiting class. During the past 10 years Georgia brought in 9 five star players. In that same time frame Florida and Bama brought in over 25 each. LSU brought in just under 20. Georgia gets less four star players than each of these schools. So basically Mark Richt is winning at a high percentage with less talent than Saban, Miles or anyone at Florida.

    Top it off with the fact that Richt lets top players, no matter the number of stars, go if they are problems off the field. None of the others do that.

    When you realize that Georgia had more players drafted in the last 10 years than Bama did while having significantly less talented players coming from high school, you can only conclude that coaching was the difference. Richt turns 3 star players into NFL rookies.

    Don’t believe me? Nick Saban, Les Miles, Urban Meyer… never took the field with a Washan Ealey.

    You should do the research on the recruiting side. It’s enlightening. Adds perspective.

    Does he have coaching blunders? They all do. Spurrier once had his punter just turn and run out the back of the end zone. Miles is known for his time management failures. And Saban? Holder of the biggest blunder EVER with the “Kick Six.”

  15. I forgot to add that outside of the SEC title… the National Championship winner is from a vote. Like Dancing with the Stars or Survivor. The BCS and the playoff series are nothing but a pageant contest. I will never hold it against a coach if they are not chosen as the recipient of a National Title Trophy.

    Richt has had years just like other SEC coaches who made it into the National Title game. The difference was they were voted into the game and he wasn’t.

    Rules were literally changed to allow Saban (did not win division) to play LSU (conference champion) after two years of that rule being enforced which kept a Michigan team and a Georgia team from playing for the title while voting Florida (Meyer) and LSU (Miles) into the game.

    Think about it. Had Lloyd Carr (Michigan 2006) and Richt (Georgia 2007) been allowed the same opportunity as Saban in 2008, neither Urban Meyer (Florida 2006) or Les Miles (LSU 2007) would have been in the National Title game. Then LSU fans would be screaming that “Les Miles can’t win the National Championship!” Most likely, Saban would have been passed over for Oklahoma State in the 2008 title game.

    Until there is a real playoff system, claiming your coach can’t win the National Championship is like getting mad at him for not winning an Oscar.

  16. All the numbers are great. But the only thing that defies a coach and team is championships! The fact that Mark Richt has those numbers are great. But, when the game is on the line and you have to win…..UGA always chokes. Hints the 0 titles Georgia has since he’s been there. With the talent he’s had, there’s no reason they shouldnt have 3.

  1. Pingback: Dude’s Top 10: No. 4 – Mark Richt’s Legacy | DudeYouCrazy

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: