Nothing fancy

Not that I saw anything different watching the game live, but this Ian Boyd post makes it abundantly clear that it wasn’t scheme that did in Georgia’s offense, just plain old crappy execution in every phase of the game, particularly blocking.

Here’s the worrisome part:

In a rematch with Georgia, it’s hard to see many of the dynamics changing up front. In Round 1, Auburn simply outclassed a younger squad of big men.

To generate offense against Auburn requires dropping back and making the linebackers worry about covering routes in the middle or attacking the cornerbacks down the sidelines, when they’re isolated by coverages that involve the safeties in the run game. The Tigers tend to play things pretty basic and rely on strength and athleticism, and while they occasionally present an enticing target for a run, it’s hard to beat their big DL or speedy secondary.

The Tigers play fast in basic schemes and always know what they’re about. You’re either going to outexecute them up front and hope their safeties don’t clean things up, or you outexecute them down the field in the passing game.

In the event of a rematch, even assuming Georgia’s head is in the game, if the lines don’t play better, the Dawgs won’t win.

Advertisements

A stat that explains much

Hit or miss, bigly.

On non-garbage drives vs FBS opponents, Georgia's offense ranks 93rd in % of drives that earn at least one first down; UGA 7th in TD% on drives that earn at least one first down. #BoomOrBust

Offensive data for all 130 teams: https://t.co/uqz93MKx5U

— Brian Fremeau (@bcfremeau) November 14, 2017

Once they get moving, Georgia’s offense is hard to stop.  It’s getting them moving that’s the tough part.

Would they really keep a one-loss SEC champ out of the CFP?

I’m not saying the selection committee would do that to Georgia… but if they were inclined to do so, here’s a handy excuse:

As the committee of football philosophers meets Monday and Tuesday in Texas, studying the statistical and the unknowable, it might grapple with a fresh dynamic in its four-year existence. The way things have shaken, and shaken, across this fall in the kooky chambers of college football, it looks like these wise men could wind up awarding, or considering awarding, a playoff spot to somebody who spent a Saturday somewhere getting absolutely mauled.

This has not happened before.

In the first three years of the College Football Playoff selection committee, nine teams with a loss on the CV got playoff berths. Of those nine, only two lost by more than one possession: Washington, when it fell, 26-13, to Southern California in November 2016, and Ohio State, when it lost, 35-21, to Virginia Tech in 2014. “They kicked our ass,” Texas Coach Tom Herman, then the offensive coordinator at Ohio State, recalled this past summer, but they just did not kick it in the way other posteriors have gotten kicked lately.

How should a committee member, with the galling absence of an open bar in the meeting room, weigh such matters as No. 1 Georgia taking a 40-17 obliteration by Auburn on Saturday?

I can hear Herbstreit already.

No conference can serve two masters.

The Mountain West has to choose between that sweet, sweet television revenue and asses in the seats.

At the University of Wyoming, the trade-off the Mountain West is making for television is apparent.

The Cowboys drew more fans to Memorial Stadium for each afternoon game in September against nonconference foes Gardner-Webb and Texas State than they did for the conference opener against Hawaii, which kicked off at 8:15 p.m. Mountain time.

The Hawaii game was broadcast on ESPN2 as part of a deal that pays the Mountain West more than $100 million over seven years. The Texas State game was streamed exclusively on Facebook, which pays the conference nothing for the content.

The Mountain West has three years left on the TV contract that puts most of its members’ home football games on an ESPN channel or CBS Sports Network. As conference officials ponder their next move, the Mountain West is experimenting with alternatives to traditional broadcasting and weighing whether filling all those late TV windows is worth the money its members are making.

Actually, the TV money isn’t that sweet — about $1.1 million from their deals — which is what makes this a closer call than, say, the Pac-12’s, also home to the same dilemma. (HINT:  TV is winning.)

Ironically, their situation is more complicated because of Boise State.

Boise State’s membership agreement gives the school an additional $1.8 million, approximately, per year…

Then there is Boise State. Back in 2012, when the Broncos were still new to the Mountain West and not far removed from their BCS-busting days, they were wooed by the then-Big East during conference realignment. To keep Boise State, the Mountain West agreed to a deal that guaranteed the school more appearances on ESPN and more TV revenue than the other schools.

Going forward the agreement calls for the rights to Boise State’s home games to be negotiated separately from the rest of the conference.

Boise State is still a perennial contender in the Mountain West, leading the Mountain Division this season, but the Broncos have only won the division once in the last four seasons. Whether Boise State still deserves special treatment is something the rest of the conference wants to consider before another television deal is struck.

“I don’t want to say Boise’s brand is different, but when they came off Fiesta Bowl runs they were a national story. They’re not there today. They’re still excellent,” Burman said. “Boise still has a brand that’s different than the rest of us. But that discussion needs to happen between presidents and the commissioner about what does Boise merit three years from now and how does this get resolved.”

Boise State AD Curt Apsey said the school is open to having that discussion. He also added that while the Broncos and their fans would welcome more day games, they can’t come at the expense of TV revenue.

“It would be very difficult for us to give up the TV money and make it up in ticket sales,” he said.

Yep, the school that believed it should be treated like the big national kids cut itself a special deal that is no longer justified.

Maybe it’s a negotiating tactic.

Thompson is cautious about playing his negotiating hand with ESPN and CBS publicly, but the reality is this: If Mountain West teams want to play less night and weekday games it will drive down their value to traditional TV partners. But maybe it’s worth it.

“Yes, you’d hate to have to replace (the revenue). But does it put us out of business? No,” Thompson said. “However, I’m not an AD and they may say, ‘You’re an idiot for making that kind of statement.'”

Or maybe they’re just caught between a rock and a hard place.

“We don’t have the luxury of time to sit around and feel bad for ourselves.”

Let us hope that this ain’t one of those situations when saying something isn’t happening really means it is.