My God, we’re just ravaged by injuries.

Sometimes life really is like a Larry Munson monologue about the Dawgs’ prospects.

Georgia junior cornerback Asher Allen is still looking for his first interception of the season after getting three last year.

Here’s one contributing factor that has been kept under wraps: Allen has played with a broken hand during the final third of the regular season.

Defensive coordinator Willie Martinez revealed Allen’s injury today, he said, because the hand will be healed by the time Georgia plays Michigan State in the Capital One Bowl on Jan. 1. He previously didn’t want opponents to know.

Martinez calls Allen’s season “pretty good,” considering the injury.

Allen hasn’t been able to “catch a ball, not been able to grab and tackle. We kind of held that out of the media. He’ll have the full use of it in the bowl game. That’s pretty hard to do and also play. We’ve had to, at times, been conscious of that in certain schemes and what side of the ball he’s on because of the use of his hand. That’s pretty good.”

Maybe that explains some (but not all) of the tackling issues we’ve seen.

*******************************************************************

UPDATE: On a related front, if you’ve been waiting for Martinez’ mea culpa, here ’tis.

Advertisement

Does Rodney Garner want to coach in Austin one day?

One of my favorite bloggers, Jerry Hinnen over at The Joe Cribbs Car Wash, in speculating about whether Coach Garner is being interviewed for something other than the unoccupied head coaching position at Auburn, has this to say:

… I seriously doubt Garner’s actually in the running for the head job, but the hypothetical “Garner comes aboard as the DC” scenario is worth discussing. The first question to ask is if Garner would be willing to make the jump out of Athens; given his oft-stated goal of becoming a head coach and how useful the Auburn DC position has been in achieving that goal in recent years, I can’t imagine he wouldn’t. [Emphasis added.]

Hmm… and I thought the recent purpose of the Auburn DC position was as an audition for a similar job working for Mack Brown.  Seriously, Garner doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy who’s looking for one of those coach-in-waiting slots like Muschamp (who’s 5 or 6 years younger than Garner).

Besides that, Garner’s current head coach doesn’t think he needs any seasoning as a coordinator to achieve his ultimate goal.

… Richt said that the role of head coach doesn’t necessarily require experience as a coordinator anyway. He said the head coach’s job is more like a CEO, and Garner’s personality makes him an excellent fit for such a role.

“I think today people understand that the head coach doesn’t necessarily have to be a coordinator,” Richt said. “Now he’s been a recruiting coordinator, but I think that at one time that was more important than it is today. I don’t see it being as important. Head coaches nowadays are more of a CEO in nature, and if you hire the right people to coordinate your offense and defense, you can do extremely well.”

******************************************************************

UPDATE: The inevitable rumor surfaces.  Jeezus – is there an SEC head coaching opening in the last four years to which Spurrier hasn’t had his name linked?

******************************************************************

UPDATE: They’re interviewing Todd Graham?  Good grief, this guy makes Bobby Petrino look like Woody Hayes from a loyalty standpoint.  Per Wikipedia, “It was later revealed that none of his negotiations with Rice were in earnest, as he was negotiating his contract with Tulsa during the breaks in the Rice contract negotiations.” You hire this guy, you’ll get exactly what you deserve, Auburn.  Plus, my bet is that Malzahn gets offered the Tulsa job if Graham leaves, which means Auburn doesn’t even get the most attractive part of the hire.  If you’re Auburn, it makes more sense financially to eliminate the middleman if it’s high octane offense you’re after.

Wednesday buffet

Check out the tasty morsels set out for your enjoyment today:

• Hell hath no fury like a school scorned. David Reaves’ departure hasn’t set well with many of the Gamecock faithful, it seems (h/t Chattanooga Times Free Press). And he does come off somewhat weaselly in that interview (there is a distinction between visiting a family and a prospect – right, dude).  One wonders how much enjoyment Phil Fulmer is getting out of this.
• What were they smoking? How was the GPOOE™ not a unanimous first team All-SEC selection by the coaches?  Don’t get me wrong; it’s pretty cool that Knowshon wound up as the only unanimous pick on offense, but still…
• So much for the best possible matchups. Just like it already does in baseball, the NCAA admits it’s going to consider the cost-effectiveness of postseason matchups in more detail than ever before.  Because playoffs are all about quality meetings, unlike that crappy ol’ BCS.
• Bigger fish to fry? Speaking of the BCS, an overwhelming majority of people surveyed by Seton Hall University think Obama should keep his nose out of the college football postseason.
• The three amigos. Matt Stafford, Calvin Johnson and Reggie Ball as teammates?  Stafford doesn’t have a problem with that.
• Old habits die hard. So, this is how the University of Arkansas defines “commitment”:  an $8.75 million dollar buyout if Bobby Petrino leaves UA for another head coaching job before the end of the year.  By the way, speaking of habits, it’s good to see that the Arky faithful haven’t lost their touch for making FOIA requests.

This year’s model

Barnhart raised an interesting scenario yesterday:

… If we had a four-team playoff using the final BCS standings then the teams would have been Oklahoma (12-1), Florida (12-1), Texas (11-1), and Alabama (12-1). No. 5 Southern Cal (11-1), who has been playing lights out lately and could be the best team in the country, would have been left out. I believe, however, that if there were four teams in the championship instead of just two, then the voting would have been different in the final polls. The Alabama fans won’t like this, but if we had a four-team playoff I think the voters would have put Southern Cal, the Pac-10 champion, into the No. 4 spot. The voters would have rationalized that Alabama had their shot in the SEC championship game and rewarded USC. Now how big of an argument would that have created?

Regardless of whether he’s right about that last part, there’s no doubt that a four team “plus one” format this year would have resulted in a big stink over the fifth team on the outside looking in.  Add in complaints about Texas Tech  (that no-more-than-two-teams-from-one-conference rule is so antiquated, doncha know) and undefeated Utah being left out, how it’s unfair to Alabama that it had to play in (and lose) a conference championship game when Southern Cal and Penn State didn’t (and what about one-loss Penn State, anyway?) and so on and so forth… well, you get the picture.

Voilà, it’s eight-team playoff time!  At least.

Face it –  nobody will ever be completely satisfied, no matter what.  Every year, there’s a fact pattern that means some school gets screwed; there’s always a need for somebody to manufacture outrage about it, too.  (My favorite BCS/playoff meme right now is the “sure, Oklahoma and Florida is a great matchup, but…” one.)

This isn’t a screed against a playoff.  Just against those people who think that a four-team tourney will settle things.