Via the wonderful Double-A Zone blog…

• The text-messaging ban sticks. The Division I membership will get to vote on the proposal in January, but it will take a 5/8 majority to override it now.
• Baseball financial aid will be revised. Because baseball student-athletes share 11.7 scholarships among them, the portions can vary widely. The original proposal was to limit an individual’s share to no less than 33% of a scholarship. That has been changed to 25% of a scholarship. The size of a baseball squad will ultimately be capped at 35.
• The Final Four will be played in aircraft hangars soon. Instead of the current half-arena configurations we see when basketball tournaments are played in football domes, the Final Four in 2009 will begin using entire-arena configurations that will allow for more than 70,000 seats. Though I think the change will have some problems as the intimate 94-foot sport of basketball gets swallowed by these giant arenas, I like that students will have easier access to tickets in the future. Ever been to a basketball game at a dome? Lifeless is an understatement.

The last meta-topic we’ll touch on before this season starts is the ultra-subjective group of "elite" or "national power" teams. Stewart Mandel waded into this territory last week and fumbled around, and he really whiffed with his "what does someone in Montana think?" attempt this week.

Many getting involved in this discussion are dwelling, like Mandel, on the related but different question of being nationally recognized. Yes, everyone knows Herschel Walker. Uga is an icon. "Between the Hedges" means something to most knowledgeable football fans. The "G" is sharp and distinctive. None of that makes Georgia a national power on the football field. A powerful brand? Sure..probably even in Montana.

The question of actual power has to be fluid and kept in the current context because it wanes and waxes. History is full of teams and individuals that were once powerful and relevant but aren’t any longer. How a team has done since 1976 doesn’t really have any relevance to me. Power, though not a one-season thing, is still pretty short-term. Personally, I think we use the "elite" label a little too loosely in an everybody-gets-a-trophy kind of way. There are only a handful of programs each season who belong in the national title picture, and it doesn’t make sense to continually be on the outside of that picture and still be considered a national power.

Some will use historical criteria. Others prefer averaging wins over a reasonable period. Championships matter more to some. A coast-to-coast schedule impresses others. I think it’s much simpler and can be boiled down to three guidelines:

• You must show some level of consistency. FSU set the bar in the 1990s. One phenomenal season doesn’t make you a power.
• You should be considered at least peripherally in some recent national title discussions. Winning it really helps.
• You cannot consider yourself a "power", especially in the national sense, when you’re under someone’s thumb.

Georgia fans will recognize right away that I played the Florida card. It’s plain silly to talk about national power status when you’re on the wrong side of such a one-sided series. That means you too, Alabama. It also held a team like Texas up before Vince Young came along. It held Ohio State up under John Cooper. This point alone settles Georgia’s "national power" question for me, but we’ll look at the other guidelines anyway.

Has Georgia’s success been consistent? Last season was the first year since 2001 in which the Dawgs didn’t win at least 10 games. Not bad. But that ten win threshold, particularly in the 12-game era, still means at least two losses per season. They’ve won three divisional and two major conference titles over the same span and haven’t gone more than a single season without a trip to the conference championship game. That’s outstanding in a conference like the SEC. By itself, Georgia’s consistency seems enough to merit national power recognition.

Georgia hasn’t been a part of the national title discussion since 2002. Yes, they started 2004 ranked #3. That faded after a scare at South Carolina and a loss to Tennessee. It was nearly impossible to get above the noise of Southern Cal and Texas in 2005, and Georgia’s chances ended when D.J. Shockley crumpled to the turf against Arkansas. Georgia has certainly been relevant over that time and probably competitive with any team, but it’s hard to make the case that they belonged among the teams mentioned as title contenders.

The Bulldogs aren’t far from national power status. 2007 is very important in terms of consistency- they cannot slide lower than the 9-win total of last season. The national title discussion is already crystallizing around a handful of teams – LSU, Southern Cal, and Michigan with teams like Texas, Florida, and your choice of Big East teams on the periphery. Most importantly, the Dawgs must find a way soon to turn the Florida series. I don’t mean that Georgia must begin dominating the series. Just get it competitive again.

If you forced me to stick to these criteria to say who the elite teams are in college football, here we go: Southern Cal. LSU. Texas. Ohio State. Florida depends upon the consistency they show this year. Maybe Oklahoma (waning?). That’s it. No Notre Dame. No Tennessee. No Georgia. No Cal. Michigan? You’re close, but work on the consistency thing and on beating Ohio State.

There’s no shame to be where Georgia is right now. Most programs would kill for it. Let’s just not call it what it isn’t. Deep down, we know that there is a next step that Georgia has yet to take.

The preseason USA Today Coaches’ Poll is out this morning, and the Dawgs check in at a respectable #13.  That’s third-highest for any SEC team (LSU and Florida are #2 and #3).  Too high?  Too low?  Who knows?  We do know that poll position matters when it comes to the national title race, and the Dawgs aren’t far away from cracking the top 10.

The preseason top 10:

• Southern Cal
• LSU
• Florida
• Texas
• Michigan
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Oklahoma
• Virginia Tech
• Ohio State

Six SEC teams are ranked:  LSU (#2), Florida (#3), Georgia (#13), Auburn (#14), Tennessee (#15), and Arkansas (#20).  South Carolina, Kentucky, and Alabama also received votes.  Out-of-conference opponents Georgia Tech and Oklahoma State were also among the “others receiving votes” category.

As a reminder, here’s Georgia’s consensus preseason position over the last decade or so:

The Senator has some thoughtful posts up in the past couple of days about preseason polls and their effect on the postseason.

I looked at the story of Auburn 2004 myself last month (more from a scheduling perspective) and came to a similar conclusion but with one key difference: Auburn’s problems started long before the preseason polls. I believe that the mess left after the 2003 BCS established default 2004 contenders from the second that the final whistle blew. The 2004 preseason polls were just the culmination of the controversy and eight months of debate.

We see a similar thing already happening this season. Even before any official preseason polls have been released, those who help to guide the discussion are already setting the table for a Southern Cal – LSU national title game. It’s theirs to lose.

I don’t disagree with the merit and logic of delaying official polls. It’s clear that "name" programs get the benefit of the doubt. I do think though that delaying polls runs contrary to the nature of a football fan. We are constantly measuring ourselves against our rivals and opponents in everything from recruiting to scheduling. Many of the preseason polls included in Stassen’s analysis do nothing but drive magazine sales. If an Auburn fan can hold something over the head of an Alabama fan, it doesn’t matter how premature, inaccurate, or trivial the poll is. Mascots? Been there. Stadiums? Done that. Coaches? Finebaum stirs that pot every summer.

Will that change if official polls are delayed? I don’t think so. Fans will still support the preseason magazine industry, and the rankings are the core of that business. I even suspect that the official polls themselves wouldn’t change much. Why? Because, as the Senator reminds us, people who vote in polls are lazy. How true that is. What that means in terms of releasing polls later in the season is that the pollsters will "cheat". The groupthink would be established over the summer by the pundits and the magazines, and no observer of the game can remain untainted. Why take the time to pour over a month of football when Phil Steele has done all of the work for you? Take the preseason consensus, adjust for the losses over the first month of the season, and you’re done. For that reason, I don’t expect that any poll released for the first time in October would be much different than the polls we already see in the fifth and sixth week of the season.

While the flaw the Senator points out is very real, I’m not so sure that delaying polls would provide any real changes.

Rivals.com is reporting that Wake Forest men’s basketball coach Skip Prosser has died after collapsing during a jog. Prosser rebuilt Wake into a top 10 program and was in the middle of assembling one of the nation’s best recruiting classes. Our thoughts are with the Wake Forest fans this evening.

Georgia coach Dennis Felton joined Prosser this spring as part of Operation Hardwood in Kuwait, so we’re almost certain to have a comment soon from Coach Felton.

It’s that time of year when you begin going through the garage and taking inventory of your tailgate supplies. The chairs probably have to be dusted off. Menus must be planned. The generator might need some oil. You might even need a new tent. Yesterday the Georgia Sports Blog highlighted the latest in tailgating toys – a giant, inflatable canopy dwarfing anything you have at your tailgate now. Nice, huh? I can’t get past the fact that 1) it looks like a spider and 2) anything inflatable reminds me of that insect they have filling empty seats in Atlanta. I have no idea how that bee kept deflating during games in the early 1990s.

They take a slightly different approach to tailgate preparation in Iraq (h/t Deadspin):

Iraqi fans have been stocking up on gasoline and ammunition in preparation for their national soccer team’s Asian Cup semi-final against South Korea.

Outstanding. Those Iraqi fans must’ve done their postgraduate work at N.C. State.

It began earlier this month when Stewart Mandel wrote,

USC and LSU have to play for the national championship this season. It is no longer possible to envision any other satisfying conclusion.

Now the ESPN pundits have picked it up and are fully on board. (h/t Get the Picture)

On the inaugural edition of “College Football Live” on ESPN last night (featuring the same 3 gentlemen), we were told to expect a “national title” match up between USC and LSU.

Of course picking Southern Cal and LSU to play for the national title isn’t left-field analysis. They’re both good teams and reasonable picks. Just understand that you’ll be sick of Les Miles by August 22nd…if you’re not already.

Two storylines will collide on September 8th. This inevitable SoCal – LSU national title express meets the Virginia Tech sackcloth and ashes show. Heathers indeed. Surely the Tigers won’t be so insensitive as to actually try to win that game?

There’s an interesting discussion going on about the influence of ESPN in the college football world. We’ll pick it up with Kyle’s post here and then see responses here and here. Interesting stuff, mostly.

I have to admit that it’s good sport to watch the nascent sports blogosphere interact with the sports media. I can understand how the blogs which really began to hit their stride two years ago think that this is new ground, but it’s not. The first generation of online writers in the mid-1990s also butted heads with more traditional media, and we saw much of the same friction. If there’s a difference it’s in the competitive marketplace. Print journalism was (and still is) competing directly with a lot of these online sites. Innovations we take for granted on modern newspaper Web sites such as multiple daily updates, deeper online photo galleries, and even comments and discussion spaces were pioneered first online and adopted by print media in the fight for eyeballs. Inch-deep coverage wasn’t going to cut it as the predecessors of Rivals.com and Scout.com changed the marketplace.

Blogs have taken the interaction to a more granular individual level. Smarter journalists are jumping in with both feet and have built their own personal brands. Newspapers like the AJC have beat blogs with more frequent, brief, and informal updates from their journalists on the news beats. Several professional pundits have embraced the interaction and earned places as authorities and discussion leaders. The competition here has to do with insight, interesting ideas, and access. Unless Ivan Maisel offers compelling content, why read him instead of an interesting blog? We’re all just writers hoping that someone will find our content worth reading. Some do it better than others, and some stake their livelihoods on it.

With ESPN television, it’s a bit of a different story. There simply isn’t the competitive pressure. We have to differentiate between the ESPN punditry and the network itself. The pundits, from Simmons to Schlabach and on down, face the same competition in the marketplace of ideas as any other "print" journalist. But in terms of SportsCenter or Gameday or live coverage of games themselves, the competition (if any) comes from CBS, FOX, and other networks, not from Deadspin or DawgsOnline. ESPN Gameday might be cheesy, overdo the Virginia Tech story, or go to the wrong game. Who cares? We’ll watch anyway. Eyeballs and ratings – not well-crafted blog missives – are what drives ESPN. When someone carries more games or provides a better alternative to Gameday, the competition will tell the tale.

We complain about the influence of ESPN in college football, but what we might have seen is the Law of Unintended Consequences at work after 20 years.

Prior to 1984, the NCAA had strict control over which schools appeared on television:

Under the old NCAA plan, which had been in effect since 1952, teams were limited to six appearances during two seasons.

Schools which attempted to organize their own deals were threatened with banishment from the organization, and it wasn’t until Georgia and Oklahoma successfully sued the NCAA in that landmark 1984 case that things began to change. The CFA replaced the NCAA as the distributor of television coverage, but even that proved too restrictive for the membership. The moves by Notre Dame (NBC) and the SEC (CBS) in the early 1990s brought control of television deals down to the conference and even the individual team level.

But while NBC and CBS settled on those valuable broadcast rights, ESPN attacked with breadth. So CBS has the best SEC game of the week; ESPN will take the second-best…and the fourth-best. It’ll also add another game on ESPN2. They might even convince a couple of SEC teams to play on Thursday night. Combine that with the national and regional reach of ABC, and you have quite a network. NBC will have their Notre Dame game, CBS will have one or two games, but there’s a lot of action left over and a lot of demand for college football. Spread it beyond Saturdays, and there are even more opportunities to broadcast games with programs willing to sacrifice the tradition of Saturday afternoon for national exposure.

Think about what some of this additional coverage has meant to the game. Back in the days of few networks and NCAA limits on television appearances, would stories like Boise State or Rutgers ever catch on? Would anyone have seen all but a glimpse or two of the West Virginia backfield? It’s likely that a displaced fan in Oregon can somehow catch the UConn-Pittsburgh game. Through broadcast networks and pay-per-view, almost every Georgia game is available on television. Were such things even imaginable 25 years ago?

Increased coverage has done its part to make things more democratic. With more and more games showing up on television, there are fewer and fewer excuses for pollsters and the punditry to be provincial. Even more, it’s easier and easier for the college football fan to catch the BS and have their own informed opinions about the national landscape.

This widespread availability of games has come with a cost, and obviously networks are not bringing us more games out of altruism. Without the oversight and restraint of the NCAA or even the CFA, television networks can dangle some pretty juicy plums in front of conferences. Teams, particularly those mid-level programs who will do anything for a little more exposure, have begun playing on all days of the week. It’s hard for me as a fan of a program with plenty of exposure and cash to criticize this development, but I wouldn’t like my team taking a spot in one of those games.

There is a concern that ESPN is crossing lines in brokering out of conference games. Arranging games is nothing new. It’s how college football’s most cherished tradition and most valuable brand came to be. The Senator is nervous (with good reason) that the media conglomerate might take a greater role in the evolution of the college football postseason, yet we hold on to a postseason where matchups are already brokered well in advance by conferences and local chambers of commerce.

College football has brought a lot of the current state of affairs on itself. The 1984 decision gave greater negotiating power to teams and conferences, but it also transfered power from the NCAA to the networks. Some suggest that we’d have the same breadth of televised games regardless due to the growth of cable and satellite television, but I have to think that at some point the NCAA would have put a stop to things like Friday night college football. It could be argued that such limits would be to the detriment of smaller programs, but that’s a moot point; the CFA ship has sailed a long time ago.

We also fret over ESPN crossing over the news/entertainment line, but that’s not as big of an issue with me. I rarely rely on ESPN as a news organization. I never watch EOE productions. I watch sports. If ESPN has too much influence, it’s the tradeoff we make by giving media opinion such a prominent role in college football’s ultimate prizes. Again, media influence is hardly a new development. In recognition of that long-standing fact, ESPN and the AP withdrew from their participation in the BCS.

So what are we left with? A self-promoting media organization that brings us dozens of good college football games. Of course they have some awful commentators and analysts; that’s kind of unavoidable anywhere these days. I’ve had my criticisms of the coverage before, but it’s because I want a better product to watch and not because ESPN/ABC is leading us all down the path to prepackaged hell. I will close with this: with the NCAA more or less hands-off when it comes to the college football postseason, someone else will guide the process. The networks and their sponsors already have a large role in the BCS, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone to see them at the forefront of future changes.

In advance of the SEC media days next week, the league has announced the coaches pre-season all-SEC football team. You’ll have to look hard to find the Georgia representatives.

Brandon Coutu and Mikey Henderson from special teams were Georgia’s only first-team honorees.

The Dawgs had just one offensive player on first, second, or third teams: offensive lineman Fernando Velasco was on the third team.

Georgia’s two defensive representatives were on the second team. Safety Kelin Johnson got the nod entering his senior season. Surprisingly, linebacker Brandon Miller was named to the second team before he’s even played a down at his new middle linebacker position.

I can’t quibble with much. Maybe Brannan Southerland should have been on there somewhere. But most of Georgia’s playmakers from last season have either graduated or left for the NFL. And there’s an awful lot of Georgia’s depth chart that hasn’t had enough playing experience to merit much recognition…yet.

I do expect the Dawgs to have a few more names on the lists that matter at the end of the season, and part of the fun of this year will be watching who emerges as those standouts.

The media should have their preseason honors next week.

Wake Forest got tremendous basketball recruiting news yesterday courtesy of the state of Georgia.

Forward Al-Farouq Aminu and center Tony Woods, two of the top in-state prospects for the 2008 class, committed to the Demon Deacons yesterday. Though either could have played for most any team in the nation, Aminu had been a top target for Georgia Tech (his brother plays there), and Georgia was among the finalists for Woods.

The duo adds to what might be the nation’s best recruiting class. They’ll certainly have the nation’s best incoming frontcourt. Better Wake than Tech or Florida.

There was one very troubling thing. The SI article linked above includes this line:

Woods said he considered Georgia until "I saw their true colors come out during the recruitment. I like the Ivy League education at Wake.

I’d be very interested to hear more about what he means. Those two sentences together imply something about the quality of a University of Georgia education, but it could also mean any number of things. This puzzling quote is just a few weeks after Woods had said,

“The coaches from Georgia have made a good impression on me,” he said. “I like their approach. They’ve been real persistent, but in a good way. Sometimes coaches can be persistent, but annoying. They’re not like that. I feel like we have a good relationship.”

World Champs! (Houts is bottom row, second from left)

Georgia point guard and reigning SEC Freshman of the Year Ashley Houts was the only rising sophomore named to the USA U21 national team this summer. That team just won the 2007 FIBA U21 World Championship, and Houts was an important contributor off the bench for the national team. Though she was just a reserve, she quickly found a role as a spark that could pick the team up and get them through some rough patches. Teammates credited her for turning around a sluggish performance against Hungary. Stanford All-American Candace Wiggins said,

Ashley’s (Houts) shot and her defense in general gave us a lot of momentum going into the second half. We were able to take that energy that we ended the first half with and build on it in the second half. I think that was the biggest change of the game. Our defense intensified and you could just feel it.

Yep, that’s the player we came to love last year, and it sounds like someone ready to step into a leadership position when she returns to Georgia.

Houts kept a journal during the tournament:

• Final installment
• Installment #4
• Installment #3
• Installment #2
• Installment #1

We also learned this week that senior forward Tasha Humphrey was selected as one of 12 players to represent the United States in the Pan American games held later this month in Rio. Humphrey’s participation is very significant. Not only is it a great honor and recognition of Humphrey as an outstanding player, it’s also one of the first opportunities she’s had in several years to really work on her game. Tasha has spent the past couple of summers doing more rehabilitation than anything else. While her game has remained strong thanks to natural ability and the work put in during the season, missing that offseason work has slowed down her own development.

With the various injuries Humphrey has battled over her career, she’s often had to spend the first part of the season just getting back into playing condition. That was the case last year, and the situation was exacerbated by the suspension which kept her out of the first five games. By the time Humphrey had started to round into top form, we were into the SEC season. Things could be different this year. If she’s staying injury-free and playing against top competition at the Pan Am games, she’ll be that much better and ready to go out of the gate in November. With all eyes on her as a senior, a summer like this is just what the doctor ordered.

Blame this guy when Oklahoma doesn’t have 3rd string long-snappers in 2009

Oklahoma got what I consider to be a slap on the wrist yesterday for the Rhett Bomar business. Other than the loss of two scholarships for a couple of seasons and some minor recruiting restrictions, the only other penalty was the requirement that Oklahoma forfeit its 2005 season. When boosters are paying players, the penalties can be much more severe. Still, Oklahoma will appeal.

Is forfeiting games the most toothless penalty there is? It’s like not being able to pay the tab at a restaurant and, as punishment, having to say that you really didn’t eat the meal.

Rogue boosters are the worst nightmare for any program, and there are often few consequences for them when NCAA rules are violated. It’s usually the current student-athletes who have to pay the piper, and that’s the case again here. Bomar took the improper benefits, but the Oklahoma teams three and four years removed from Bomar’s transgression will be the ones to suffer.

The Falcons’ capable color man Dave Archer has signed on with Lincoln Financial to be part of the broadcast team for the regional SEC Game of the Week broadcasts. Archer replaces Dave Rowe. He’ll join Dave Neal and Dave Baker for the 12:30 broadcasts. This change is definitely an improvement.

I guess the AJC felt as if they couldn’t let Mark Bradley’s column go unanswered, so they woke Furman Bisher up to write some sort of response. The result is one of the more timid, mealy-mouthed, and noncommittal columns you’ll ever read from someone paid to be an opinion columnist. Of course it’s July and we don’t know what Tech and Georgia will look like in November. Who cares about Saratoga? This is the South, the preseason magazine have hit the stands with their prognostications, and we’re talking college football a month before practice starts. Either dive in and embrace it or go into hiding until the British Open.

But Bisher quickly leaves the subject of this year’s Tech-Georgia game and turns wistful as he joins in the "what if Taylor Bennett had played more" fantasy. It’s not the first time Bisher’s been down this road. He declared that Chan Gailey owed the Tech old guard an explanation after the Gator Bowl.

In Bisher’s efforts this time to paint this picture of a golden arm left "chained to the sideline", he takes some pretty big liberties with recent history. First, he lauds Bennett for "(keeping) the ship afloat against Connecticut," a game in which Bennett completed 11 of 30 passes for 142 yards against the formidable Husky defense.

I can’t believe that I’m not piling on Reggie Ball here, but it’s not as if he was without accomplishments after his freshman season. It’s true that he didn’t have the expected progression from that impressive debut to a mature, consistent, and efficient signal-caller. He was famously bad against Tech’s most important opponent. He did manage to beat teams like Clemson and Miami twice, added a win this season on the road over Virginia Tech, a second win over Auburn, and got his team into the ACC Championship Game. He reminded no one of Vince Young or even Joe Hamilton, but Bisher’s claim that Ball "was better when he got there than when he left" doesn’t stand up.

Bisher makes a reference to the 2004 Georgia game. "When Ball was crashing — and oh, how many crashes he had, not the most crucial of which was losing count of the downs and making a throwaway pass against Georgia — why not Bennett?" Well, for one, Bennett was redshirting in 2004 as a true freshman. He didn’t see his first game experience until 2005. Placing that "crash" completely on Ball is another questionable recollection. That series was a meltdown of the entire Tech offense, culminating in Ball’s blunder but highlighted by confusion on the sideline where offensive coordinator Patrick Nix inexplicably ordered Ball to spike the ball on third down.

That 2004 Georgia game does provide a good lesson in this grass-is-greener game. Bisher asserts that "Chan Gailey stubbornly stuck with Ball," but Gailey did try someone else when Ball was struggling, even if it wasn’t Bennett. Damarius Bilbo got a chance against the Dawgs and was even worse. 3 completions, 10 attempts, and 29 yards. Gailey eventually gave up and went back to his starter. The quarterback position was up for grabs several times during Ball’s four years, and each time he held off the competitors. Against challenges from Bilbo, Pat Clark, and Bennett, Ball stood out time after time. Tech’s own official site declared the position up for competition entering the 2005 spring practice, but Ball emerged again with a clear-cut victory.

We finally come to Bennett’s masterpiece – the 19-for-29, 326 yard performance in the Gator Bowl. I’ve talked about that game here recently, so we’ll avoid going back over that ground. What Bisher doesn’t tell us is that Bennett’s "dazzling day" in the Gator Bowl fizzled as the game went on. The nascent Young-to-Rice of Bennett-to-Johnson combination was held scoreless for the final 28 minutes of the game.

Bisher believes that "Georgia Tech hadn’t seen a passing combination like (Bennett and Johnson) since Joe Hamilton and Harvey Middleton." Hmm. Johnson’s performance against West Virginia certainly was a great final performance. He had 9 receptions, 186 yards, and 2 touchdowns. It was also hardly his only explosive performance of the season. He had six receptions for 115 yards and 2 touchdowns against a much better Virginia Tech defense. He had 9 receptions for 168 yards against NC State. He shredded Virginia for 165 yards and 2 more touchdowns. Was it really the quarterback?

We’ll let Bisher build Bennett up and watch Tech fans cling onto the hope that it just has to get better with Bennett. Behind Choice and another quality defense, I think they’ll be rather good actually. Bennett might just turn out to be better by default if he avoids the disasters that plagued Ball, but I’m not convinced that Bennett will be the right answer in those times when Tech needs the quarterback to carry them. It will be an entertaining story to watch in the fall especially knowing that the best quarterback in the state still is in Athens.

Why is everyone so hung up on schedules?

No, I know it’s July and we have little else to talk about. Scheduling debates are right up there with playoff proposals when it comes to pointless offseason parlor games. This week alone, scheduling – weak, strong, or otherwise – is mentioned in no fewer than three pieces in CFR’s weekly must-read Pundit Roundup.

So what is it about scheduling that has everyone weighing in? For most, I think it comes down to plain, old machismo. Manhood. Basically you have fans and pundits across the country calling each other chicken.

"Playing NW Georgia State, huh? Must be afraid to go outside your ZIP code for a real opponent."

"Oh yeah? At least we’re playing someone else who’s seen the Top 25 this decade. When was the last time that Wyoming Tech beat anyone?"

"We have to play them. They’re our traditional rival. It’s not our fault that they’re not Miami. ESPN still says we have the #20 schedule."

And so it goes. You’ve seen or heard that same "debate" countless times on message boards, talk radio, and so on, and now it’s bleeding into the punditry. Challenging a diehard fan’s manhood (in this case, their team’s schedule) is a quick and surefire way to provoke a response and generate some spirited discussion. But does it really change anything if you’re able to prove to the world that you really do have a tough schedule?

Who you schedule really doesn’t matter nearly as much as winning. Unless we’re dealing with a true BCS outlier like Boise, Utah, etc., an undefeated team from a BCS conference will almost always trump a team with a loss regardless of who the undefeated team scheduled out of conference. The quality within most any major conference (yes, even the PAC 10) will take care of that. Even when two teams share the same record, it’s my belief that their relative preseason rankings matter more than a strength of schedule metric.

A team certainly doesn’t need a grueling schedule in order to win the national title. In fact, Florida is the only champion in the 2000s with a Top 10 schedule. Most of the others were in the high teens to 20s. It should be noted that the strength of Florida’s schedule last year came from its conference schedule which required the Gators to play LSU, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia (plus two other bowl-bound teams in Kentucky and South Carolina). Florida’s nonconference schedule in 2006 was quite unremarkable with a struggling FSU as its highlight.

With that in mind, why aim to have a tough schedule at all? In terms of the goal of winning a national title, what is the payoff versus the unnecessary risk of a loss? If Texas can go through the Big 12 undefeated this year, I can virtually guarantee them a spot in the national title game even though their nonconference schedule consists of Arkansas State, TCU, Central Florida, and Rice. Sure, they’d have to have someone like LSU or Southern Cal lose along the way, but we rarely have multiple undefeated BCS teams. With this year’s Narrative already shaping up though ("USC and LSU have to play for the national championship this season. It is no longer possible to envision any other satisfying conclusion,") would bulking up the Texas schedule really do anything to sway a punditry already selling us on an LSU-Southern Cal title game? Nope.

So what does Mack Brown care if Mark Schlabach or I or some Dallas talk radio station or Raleigh sportswriter thinks that the Texas schedule is weak? All he knows is that if he wins, he’s in the national title game. Texas or any other major program won’t be lacking for exposure and airtime. What’s his incentive for another series with Ohio State or a similar team? Put in another light, if "the regular season is our playoff", why wouldn’t you make your "bracket" as easy as possible?

I will admit that I’ve come around just a bit on this subject. Though I still think that seeking out a regular season matchup between two Top 10 teams isn’t very rational (though it might be great for fans), I’m no longer 100% sold on the "path of least resistance". I can see the place for regional rivalries. I accept that you do have to placate the fans sometimes and schedule a game in South Bend. I can even buy that a tougher opponent might prepare you for other challenges down the road – perhaps even in a different season. Is it coincidence that Georgia’s three recent SEC Championship appearances have come in years when they’ve had a "real" opening game opponent? Probably, but I’m hoping that’s the case again this year.

Those unhappy with this scheduling reality can complain about weak schedules all they like and try to change things with a campaign of shame, but in the end we have to get down to talking about incentives. Which behaviors get rewarded (in terms of titles and money), and which are penalized?