Mark Richt still gets it.

From an otherwise bland interview in today’s Post and Courier (Charleston) comes this:

What side of the BCS/playoff debate are you on?

”If you want to name a true national champion, you have to have a playoff. But is that in the best interest of college football?

I’m not so sure.”

What’s right with the current system?

”It still gets an awful lot of teams involved. Even though there’s a lot of bowl games, it gets a lot of teams and players in­volved.

We have the best regular season of any sport in the world because any game can literally cost you a national champion­ship. The regular season game between Southern Cal and Notre Dame a couple of years ago – that was exciting and it meant a lot. But if there’s a playoff system, at the end of the game, the players walk off the field thinking all right, we’ll see you again down the road. It would diminish the importance of each game.”


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, Georgia Football

6 responses to “Mark Richt still gets it.

  1. kckd

    I still don’t see how a four team playoff diminishes the system that much.

    Again, my only concern is to not have to see my team, in a major conference, do everything in it’s power to get a ticket to that game and have to watch someone else play simply because the voters said they weren’t as good.

    As long as you have the possibility of three BCS teams finishing undefeated then the system needs to change.


  2. Here’s the problem with a formalized four team D-1 football playoff: too much subjectivity.

    By that I mean you’re going to pick and choose who plays based on some criteria like polls or computers. The problem with that is that you still leave the system open to the possibility of criticism of the exact thing you’re concerned about.

    In my opinion, you’re just letting the nose of the camel into the tent. Your four team playoff won’t really solve anything, and will most likely lead to calls for a larger tourney to satisfy the disgruntled. And those are calls that will likely be answered due to a variety of interests. That’s a road I don’t want to go down.

    I have thoughts about a playoff format that is more defensible against complaints and manages to do as little damage to the regular season as possible here:


  3. kckd

    Not really. Again, my only complaint is having an undefeated BCS team not playing in the game. Not having a chance. I’m not complaining that the wrong teams are selected. I’m complaining that a team did everything in it’s power to win the NC and doesn’t get a chance to play for it. Two different things there. The four team scenario corrects that. There will never be a perfect way to do this, even the basketball tourney is not perfect, but you don’t have to worry about sitting at home if you are undefeated either.

    Four team playoff cures the undefeated non-champion.


  4. What are your criteria for selection?

    How do you make sure that, say, an undefeated Boise State isn’t left out to make room for a one-loss Southern Cal?

    What about years where there’s only one or two undefeated teams?

    It just seems to me that the one way a playoff works without question is to have it comprised only of conference champs. The catch there, of course, is that would mean some significant restructuring of college football (i.e., Notre Dame).


  5. kckd

    I don’t really care about the years when there are only one or two undefeateds. They still will have the chance to prove it on the field. I just want to prevent what happened to Auburn from happening to anyone else again.

    As far as the Boises and Utahs I don’t really care. They’re not BCS teams. If the Pac 10 wanted to expand let them throw their hat in out there. But you and I both know that winning on a couple of fluke plays over an OU team that won a weak Big 12, ain’t exactly what makes a NC. If the pollsters think they are good enough and put them up there, so be it. But we both know an undefeated BCS team gets in, that’s all I care about.


  6. I agree with you on that. The problem is that there will be constant, never ending pressure to grow the tourney.