I’ve read with interest plenty of discussion about the “three unranked seasons in the last five for Georgia” meme. It’s accurate on its face, but I’m not sure it reflects the entire story. Two of those three seasons are the ’09 and ’10 car wrecks – the lowest point of the Richt regime that left many of us seriously questioning his ability to return the program to relevancy. The next two seasons showed that we were wrong and that he could. So there’s an issue about momentum that’s not really addressed in the count.
Which brings us to 2013. It’s a Rorschach test of a season, allowing each of us to see what we want. For some, injuries robbed the team of its chance for a memorable year. For others, injuries were merely an excuse for explaining away shoddy special teams and defensive play that would have doomed the team to a disappointing year no matter what.
Sounds like the perfect lead in for a reader poll to me.
Before you jump my case for framing the question as I have, remember it’s not my meme. To the extent that the meme is being offered as an indictment of the program, it only seems fair to question the assumption that this past season isn’t an outlier, but more a case of certain chickens returning to roost.
Also, think about this: if Georgia does recover in 2014 to post ten wins and get back to Atlanta, does the five-year meme survive or mutate? My bet is the latter, at least if the Dawgs don’t wind up winning the conference and/or making the new playoffs.
Jimbo Fisher isn’t sold on the benefits of playoff expansion.
More on the increase in scoring: “That’s what fans want. That’s what ADs want. That’s what’s going to happen. And the rules are such they’re not going to slow it down so you might as well get used to it and you better find a way to play with it.”
Dan Wetzel’s BCS obituary is one of the most disingenuous things I’ve ever read. And I’m not saying that out of my longstanding fear of where we’re likely headed with college football’s postseason expansion.
I say it because it’s bullshit to insist that the BCS was created to line the pockets of John Junker, and then go on to admit that the new arrangement “… will make some bowls big money. Bigger than ever…”.
I say it because it’s bullshit to pretend that every argument raised in favor of the BCS was “ludicrous and demonstrably untrue”.
I say it because this is the biggest pile of crap of all:
No discussion of the BCS should focus on who got to play in the title game, even when the game ends up like the last one, a 34-31 classic that crowned Florida State national champions over Auburn on Monday night.
No BCS discussion should focus on who played for the title? Sure makes it easier to win your side of the debate, Dan.
“Deandre Baker is a hard person to replace,” (Eric) Stokes said. “He knew his thing. He had his technique. He did not give up a touchdown in two years. That’s really hard to replace.” — The Athletic, 4/15/19