July 27, 2015 · 11:31 AM

He’s only in it for the money.

Is it just me, or does Matt Hayes seem particularly fixated on Mark Richt’s latest raise?

19 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, Media Punditry/Foibles

Tagged as

19 responses to “He’s only in it for the money.”

  1. eethomaswfnc
    July 27, 2015 at 11:59 AM

    That’s possibly one of the laziest pieces of sports “journalism” I’ve ever read.

    Like

    • Nate Dawg
      July 27, 2015 at 12:04 PM

      This. I felt like I’ve read that article 14 times over the last 7 years.

      Like

    • Saxondawg
      July 27, 2015 at 3:37 PM

      Agreed. According to him, we recruit just as well as the guys who have won the championships. Except that we haven’t. We’re coming in about fifth in the SEC. That might be changing, but our production in the SEC pretty well matches our recruiting. The guys above us get a few more difference-makers per year.

      Like

  2. Marc
    July 27, 2015 at 12:04 PM

    Mixed up Liberty and Belk Bowl.

    Like

  3. Biggus Rickus
    July 27, 2015 at 12:15 PM

    That’s a lot of words written to say nothing.

    Like

  4. Uglydawg
    July 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM

    Lazy sport journalism seems to be the order of the day. A lot of it, both on TV and in print/online is just repeating what the reporter heard or thought he heard somewhere else. It keeps going around. A lot of these guys know less than the average reader of this blog. Much less.
    It beats working, though.

    Like

    • JCDAWG83
      July 27, 2015 at 1:20 PM

      If you’re a writer who wants to write on college sports, there’s not a lot to write about right now. These guys have to do something to sell ad space and since there’s nothing to really “report”, they have to come up with some sort of “perspective” article.

      I’m not sure they know less, but at this point on the calendar, they really can’t know any more than the average reader.

      Like

  5. UGA85
    July 27, 2015 at 12:55 PM

    I like the article. He specifically says that CMR is not the problem; the problem is his competition in the SEC. CMR would have been fine a few decades ago, when the SEC was just another conference and ATL was just another town and the country’s best football was played elsewhere. His problem today is that UGA now plays in the pre-eminent conference in the land, with most/all of our major conference rivals becoming players on the national stage. Football in the South has changed since Dooley and Bryant. This has been good for many other programs, but not so good for UGA.

    Like

    • JCDAWG83
      July 27, 2015 at 1:17 PM

      That’s how I read it too.

      Like

    • PTC DAWG
      July 27, 2015 at 3:12 PM

      UGA has been in the top 10 or around it much more under Richt than they were in Dooley’s years…So maybe it has changed for the better.

      Like

      • UGA85
        July 27, 2015 at 3:29 PM

        That may be true. But look at championships won by the SEC now, versus in the past, and UF and LSU, along with Auburn, have all benefitted from the better level of play in the SEC recently. UGA, on the other hand, has won fewer SEC championships, let alone national championships, than in Dooley’s era. Again, our lack of titles today seems more pronounced than in the days of “Bama and the seven (or so) dwarfs”. My expectations are higher, in large part because our peers have improved dramatically, and I see no obvious reasons why we haven’t or shouldn’t do the same.

        Like

        • Biggus Rickus
          July 27, 2015 at 4:17 PM

          Dooley won 3 SEC titles in his first 16 years. Richt has won 2 in his first 14. I don’t think Richt will go on a three year run like Dooley did with Herschel, but at this point we can still hope for it. There’s not much else to do for the time being, because Richt isn’t going to be fired unless he grossly underachieves in one of the coming years or goes another 5 years without winning a title.

          Like

      • JCDAWG83
        July 27, 2015 at 3:56 PM

        Comparing Dooley and Richt is like comparing a P-51 Mustang with a F-22 Raptor. Both are good for their time, but there is no way to make a direct comparison.

        The resources poured into football and the money expected from ticket buyers is not in the same universe when you compare the two eras, even if you adjust for inflation. When more is asked of fans, more is expected from them and that is fair. The results under Richt SHOULD be better/

        Like

        • DslDawg
          July 27, 2015 at 4:15 PM

          In today’s media and Internet world Dooley may not have survived the ’77-’79 seasons 5/6, 9/2/1, 6/5 to be there in ’80. In 1979 the Dawgs lost the 1st three games to Wake, Clemson, & S. Car.

          Like

          • Biggus Rickus
            July 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM

            The ’76 SEC title and the ’78 season would have gotten him to ’80. Now, he may not have survived the ’69-’75 seasons when he had one extremely good year and one other good year with no SEC titles.

            Like

  6. (@dwalters24)
    July 27, 2015 at 10:57 PM

    Last year, CMR ranked as the 7th highest paid coach in the SEC. However, CMR has the 3rd highest winning percentage among current SEC coaching. The two above him include Saban and Malzahn. Malzahn has coached approximately 160 less games than CMR, has only a .02% better winning percentage, and lost his lucky rabbit’s foot last year. Either his first year or last year was an outlier, and only time will tell. For now, I think it’s fair to say that CMR is equal to or better than Malzahn. The only problem CMR has w/ the SEC is that the vast majority of the programs over-pay their coaches.

    Like