Nevada Dawg

All I have to say (as a Spectrum customer) is they d--n well better find a way to settle this pronto or I'm almost certainly off to Direct TV. I had to keep up with the game by finding a game summary on-line and updating it every five minutes or so. Just ridiculous in this day and age. As for the hated Gators, I went to the Talkin Dawgs site and looked at the game thread there. There are a lot of knowledgeable fans there, including several football coaches, and the consensus seemed to be that the biggest Gator weakness was their horrendous OL play. I can't confirm, of course, with my own eyes, but if that line couldn't handle a somewhat undersized Utah DL, what happens when they hit the SEC horror show of Georgia, LSU, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Some of the pundits who picked the Gators to finish 5th in the 6-team SEC East might not be as far off as I had earlier suspected they were. Incidentally, I fully expected Utah to win this game, though am surprised how easy it was given that Cam Rising could not go.

Here's a thought bubble. Imagine the reaction around the country if a PAC team not taken by another league (i.e., the Beaves) were break through and win the natty. Far-fetched, of course, but what a hell of a way for the PAC-12 to go out. The irony would be delicious.

I always loved it when my Dawgs were underdogs. Kirby apparently does as well, as anything in the media that can be construed as somehow disrespectful very quickly becomes bulletin board material. In the old days, Georgia was freqently tabbed as underdog. Not so much these days. As for the SC offense, yeah it looked sharp against SJS early and might well score 40 on UGA. However, I suspect that UGA might score 70 on the Trojan defense.

Yeah I had to look up the results of the USC-SJS game just to see how many points the Spartans put up. Before the game, I had guessed 21 and, of course they exceeded my projection, Lol!

Oh boy this article barely scratches the surface on elimination of rivalries and traditions. Most everyone I know from my cohort is pretty livid about what is happening after this year saying that they are not going to be all that invested any longer on a game that is losing its soul and becoming minor league pro football. I will certainly be sticking it out in the near future, but with a sour taste in my mouth' fully expecting to be disappointed with what transpires. But who knows. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. By the way, I fully agree with the author of the target article that the biggest single thing on the disappointment meter is the collapse of the PAC-12.....and all for the love of money!

If South Carolina beats North Carolina in week 1, they will almost certainly be rated in the top 25 when they play Georgia. Kentucky could well be as well. I know they will be physical (always are) and are supposed to have a very good defense (almost always do) I am not familiar at this moment with their schedule, but if not in the top 25 when the Dawgs play them, they'll be sniffing around the edges.

I absolutely loved the target article for this thread. and have many of the same points, here and elsewhere, over the past several months. What I loved most, traditions and rivalries, have become an afterthought to the almighty dollar, and a depressing number of fans seem just fine with this. i probably will not live long enough to see the grim forecasts of the target article play out in full, and like Annie, I hope that they do not. But neither am I as confident as Jon J. about the future and can even imagine the day when a bright Saturday might be better spent steelhead, salmon, or trout fishing that watching minor league NFL football. Sorry to be Gloomy Gus tonight, but dammit . I do kinda believe that this is the last year for the game that we've all known and loved.

I do think that most Dawg fans are more than happy with Mike Bobo. He was the architect of Georgia's highest scoring offense in history the last year of his former tenure as OC in Athens--and with a non-mobile, average-armed 3* at that. He did have Murray, still the SEC's all-time leading passer I believe, previously, but not the receivers he has now. This is an empirical question of course' but I suspect that scoring points will not be a major problem for the Dawgs this year. As Jon Joseph pointed out, Georgia struggled a bit with Kent State and a lot with Missouri last year. But they do play an SEC schedule and to say that they have but one formidable opponent is an overstatement. If you knew the league well, you'd have to acknowledge that playing Auburn on the road is always a tough game, just ask Nick Saban (and Brian Kelly who marched his LSU team into Jordan-Hare and found themselves down by 17 in a big hurry). The last couple years notwithstanding, South Carolina has always been a tough game for Georgia, Shane Beamer is building a nice roster in Columbia, ask Tennessee and Clemson after getting whipped by the 'Cocks last year in successive weeks. Ole Miss also gives the Dawgs problems, though the two teams haven't played in Athens for quite some time. Yes, the schedule is a bit easier this year, largely due to the SEC making Georgia cancel their original week 2 road game against Oklahoma. But to the OOC critics, I'd just say volunteer to switch their schedules with Georgia's and come play it.

One final point consistent with the last post of mine. It gets worse at RB for the Dawgs as #2 back, Daijan Edwards has a knee injury (MCL), although he is expected back at some point. At present, there are only two full-go scholarship running backs, a redshirt freshman who is coming off an ACL repair and a true freshman we got outta San Diego this year. At least these guys will get a lot of carries early in the year along with a preferred walk on perhaps.

Hate to be the bearer of sad tidings, but Kirby announced this morning that Branson Robinson is out for the season with an achilles injury. The walk-ons had better come through.

Honesty compels me to say that I am highly uncertain about the Dawgs chances of winning the natty this year. The roster is talented but certain position groups give me reason for concern, at least they do at this time. The later qualifier reflects the fact that players on Kirby's teams always seem to step up when their turns come to ball. Changes at QB always introduce uncertainties, although Kirby has said very nice things about starter Carson Beck and the backups are solid. The wide receiver room is arguably the very best Kirby has had at UGA. Yet, the RB room is banged up and lacks the passing threat out of the backfield that Georgia has always had. How much this hurts remains to be seen. The DL is neither as deep nor as talented as was true of the last two teams, although it will still be stout against the run. No problems with the OL; arguably the best in the country. So the Dawgs may well be there at the end but this is far from a slam dunk IMHO.

In the spirit of Charles's original post, it is interesting how promising classes can deteriorate. After losing in overtime to Alabama in the 2017 Natty (a game they damn well should have won!), Kirby and staff went out and signed the #1 class in 2018, and the young recruits vowed that they would win a championship during their tenure in Athens. They were right--at least the 55% of them or so that embraced the grind and stuck it out in Athens. For various reasons, the other recruits, including about half the 5-stars, never made it to the finish line in 21 to earn their championship rings. Just the nature of big-time college football today it seems.

I'm back after a major computer SNAFU yesterday. Great recruiters always recruit for their system. Georgia often passes on highly rated recruits for those rated lower that better fit that system. One recent example was a 4*, Quay Walker, who became a 1st round draft pick over one of your recent 5-star linebackers not named Noah Sewell. I knew Lanning would recruit well coming out of that Georgia recruiting machine. My guess is (and I've said this before here) that he will continue to favor the high schoolers and use the portal to plug gaps and weaknesses in the roster. As he puts three or four recruiting classes together, he will use the portal less and less. I hope that Lanning doesn't get caught up, however, in ridiculous NIL bidding wars for unproven high school talent, no matter how many stars the highly imperfect recruiting industry gives them. This often creates the resentment of older players but can lead to a class more concerned about $ than with playing the game (see T$M last year). As long as Lanning and his staff follow this recruiting model, I predict that the Ducks will eventually put together teams that can realistically compete for Nattys and give the Georgias and Alabamas a run for their money. Making the playoffs may not be so much of a hurdle after next year, but having the roster of studs who can actually win the trophy should be Lanning's and Duck fans' major aspiration.

David, I absolutely loved your post and hope that you are right about this. But I fear that younger fans will never come to realize what has been lost. Surely new rivalries will arise for all of us to become excited about, at least we can hope. Maybe something like Oregon vs. Wisconsin could become an item for example--but these could, as you suggest, take a good while to emerge. One thing that was discussed during the decision to admit Texas and OU to the SEC was that the move would NOT undercut any traditional SEC rivalries while also retaining the entering schools important ones, such as the Red River Rivalry and reinstating other important rivarlries of yesteryear, e.g., Texas-Arkansas, Texas-Texas A&M. If I sound like an SEC homer here I am sorry, but I think that the SEC expansion will be smoother and far less disruptive than that of the B1G.

I have said this many times, but the pageantry, rivalries, and traditions of college football are major endearments for many of us that serve to differentiate the college game from the soulless NFL. No wonder so many of us are p-ssed of at Fox and ESPN for ripping so much that away from us. I personally know of at least three old duffers like me who say that they are done with the college game now that it has become "semi-pro football" full of kids who care more about $$$ than the spirit of the game that they (the fans) loved. I would not be at all surprised if significant numbers of former college fans find other opportunities to occupy their leisure time on Fall Saturdays. Thanks Fox and ESPN!

This will be my only post on the subject. Truly there is no going back and I will be rooting for the Ducks to kick a-- in the Big whatever. But as one who was watching and rooting for PAC teams against everyone else since the late 50s, I see the implosion of thePAC-12 and the loss of many, many traditional rivalries rivalries as a net negative for college football. I also believe that it will be harder, not easier, for the Ducks to consistently make the playoffs as compared to what would have happened had the Pac-12 survived. I hope that I am wrong about this .Much depends on Lanning's development of a winning culture and my long- time assessment that B1G football is generally overrated, so I could well be wrong. But I am concerned nonetheless. At any rate, Go Ducks!

For me, it will be very interesting to see how the B1G's scheduling model will play out. Without divisions and a 9-game conference schedule, It will be interesting who, if anybody, will be permanent opponents. If there are three permanent opponents, it makes sense, both travel-wise and for some semblance of tradition, that they be Huskies, Bruins, and Trojans. But, that presents problems I'd guess for playing home and homes with each of the other league's teams during a player's 4-year career--Jon you may wish to check my reasoning on this. It does take two to tango, but 9 games leaves three opportunities to schedule traditional rivals like the Beaves and still have two baby seal clubbings should Oregon choose to do so. And who in the h--l is responsible for scheduling a 2 for 1 (did Boise really get 2 home games!) with the blue fielders?

Ii seems to me that should both schools wish to keep playing, it will happen. The only comparison I have is Georgia-Georgia Tech, a rivalry that survived through Georgia Tech's withdrawal from the SEC without missing a beat. Georgia Tech might even have been an independent for a while but joined the ACC, I am told, only after being assured that they continue their rivalry with the Dawgs. Some of the younger Dawgs fans would just as soon drop Tech for football, citing a noncompetitive matchup here. But most fans want to keep the tradition going, stating that rivalries are the essence of college football. I hope that there are similar passions for retaining Oregon-OSU.

Just my $.02 worth, but I agree with Jon. Ratings are really bogus and I am much more interested with on-the-field results. I think that it will be a while, if ever, before the B1G dominates the SEC in winning NCAA titles in men's football. I could be wrong, but it is really an empirical question.

Yesterday, the host of the Dawgnation Daily podcast raised the specter of continuing an automatic playoff spot for PAC with but 9 teams, arguing against it. Now Dawgnation doesn't have the strict rules of civility that FishDuck Forum does, so I challenged him calling him everything but a Dolt. Then I asked him if a (9-2 or 10-1) Independent like Notre Dame deserves a bid. Now this is a podcast, but he will think about it, and knowing his chain of logic, will conclude "hell yes" and justify it because it is Notre Dame. So that makes more sense than including a 10-1 or 9-2 PAC champion? I'm basically siding with Mr.Fishduck here but a little more broadly. A very good 9-2 or 10-1 Pac champion still deserves an automatic berth at the 12 team playoff table IMHO, whether it is Oregon, Stanford, Arizona or whomever!

Texas's arrogance is the major reason that the SEC has A&M, Missouri and (earlier) Arkansas. In this sense, you CAN blame Texas for early conference instabilities. This is why I never wanted them in the SEC, and if Oklahoma was coming over, I'd have rather taken Oklahoma State than Texas.

Well, I'd rather see the coast-to-coast option than the total disintegration of the remaining PAC-9. Except for the loss of league integrity, saying goodbye to Colorado is no big whoop in my opinion. Jon, I didn't see one of the biggest ACC prizes, Clemson, in your proposed C-to-C league. Was that an oversight or did I misread your post?

Yeah I guess we do see things differently OregonDucks.. My understanding was that Texas and Oklahoma approached and then petitioned the SEC for admittance after stating that they wanted out of the Big-12 and would be going somewhere. A friend at OU has told me (i know heresay) that had the SEC's response been negative, their back up option was likely to be the PAC-12. If....if there is a kernel of truth to this account, then it is probably inappropriate to say the SEC "stole" the two schools. True, the SEC didn't have to take them in (and I was against this expansion, by the way). It was an advantageous adoption however; that I can't deny.

Well as I mentioned above I believe, the Dawgs lost a 5-star LB commit today after earning the Williams commitment. But this has been expected and have already lined up a couple stud ILB prospects, one of whom will replace the departed. The point: This article on Georgia recruiting for 2024 is right on point.

If the headline to this story is true, it seems clear to me that the B1G is now the malignant melanoma of college football. Yeah, I know that the SEC expanded with the inclusion of Texas and Oklahoma, but at least those schools were in the geographical footprint (sort of) of the SEC, which I hope will not expand further. I'm already sick of the chaos.