Michael Elkon asks the musical question “Is Georgia the most underachieving team in college football?”. He doesn’t answer the question, leaving instead for his readers, but he does a nice job framing the debate, which I would summarize as follows:
- Georgia historically has been a good, but not élite, program. I agree. As I put it in a post earlier, Georgia has been a top twenty program that believes it’s a top ten one.
- With that in mind, Georgia under Richt has had three close shots at playing for a national title, 2002, 2007 and 2012 and come up short on all three occasions.
- Those two points lead to this question: “Is Georgia an underachieving giant or a team whose good, but not great, results reflect the program’s natural state?”
- If you believe the first is correct, then the program hasn’t been managed to its full potential. (Michael says Richt, but I’d argue you have to point to both the coach and the athletic department; after all, the underachievement predates Richt’s arrival.
- If you believe the second is the more accurate characterization, then Richt has done a respectable job with what he’s been able to carry out.
That is a pretty unemotional way of looking at what Georgia football has done, if you ask me. It’s still up to you to decide which camp you’re in. The only thing I’d add to the review is that if you’re someone like me who thinks there’s been a change in the level of support the program has gotten from the administration of late, that has to factor into the equation, too. Or, as some have put it, there really aren’t any excuses left for either Richt or the athletic department now (barring another insane run of injuries, like 2013, of course) to fall back on.
What do y’all think?