CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

collegefbfan8898 wrote:A coach starts out 0-2, and he is on the hot seat. But 10 straight wins and a division title later, his seat is cool as the other side of the pillow. Even though those first two losses were to two pretty good teams.

Yeah, but you have to look at the last few years. They have not been good like they used to. Recruiting was down. Etc.

It's not just those 2 games. And they really only got "beat" on one game. The other they had and gave away.

So it's a long story with Richt being in trouble.

I thought even then the anti-Richt crowd was jumping the gun... Then again, I'm from a city that demanded the head of the coach for back to back 6-6 seasons, and was rewarded with five years completely in the wilderness. (I'm still pro-Marrone though, even after 5-7.)

Much higher standards at Georgia than at Syracuse, certainly, and of course there are always issues that manifest themselves behind the scenes. Still... hard for me to sympathize with anybody arguing against a coach that has brought a team to 10 straight bowls.

A recent 5 million dollar study sponsored by Truth in Football Reporting funded by the US taxpayers concluded at the end of the year if you totaled up all the wins versus the losses they were even. All footballs games were won and all football games were lost. So with this information of 120 teams playing 13 games there were 1560 games played and the government understanding that all were won and all were lost, concluded that there were not 1560 games played but 2120. So the release Monday will be President Obama has increased football activity by 100%.

Well it is all perspective if a game is won or lost. I suggest if you are going to fire coaches with 10 game winning seasons because they did not win the undefined, who even knows what the heck it is, national championship because that coach did not win it for your school in the third year of a six year contract, you will fire coaches more often than I change Depends. A crappy deal no matter how you look at it.

And then of course there is the bigger question...can we do anymore to make the student athlete irrelevant to college football? Than may take another 5 million dollar study.