Nevada Dawg

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.

It is a bit early in my opinion, but I should note that first year coaches typically have a brain fricken--t or two that cost them games. Kirby Smart had 2-3 his first year that were very costly. But he has managed pretty well since then and so will Lanning. Sometimes early extensions also have the effect of convincing recruits who like the Head Coach that he is likely to be around throughout their tenure should the commit to the program. In this sense, the extension is a strategic move that can later be undone should disaster strike for some reason which I don't foresee with a salt-of-the-earth guy like Lanning.

5-star recruits usually pan out although their likelihood of becoming a first-round NFL recruit for a composite 5-star (as is the prediction for a composite 5-star) is not very good. 4-stars are a wide class of young men. The people who follow recruiting extensively tell me that all are very good high school players but maybe one-third to one-half of them achieve that same level of "stardom" in college, and many never play much. Noah was a 5-star recruit (don't remember if he was a composite but I think he was).. The recruiting freaks on the Georgia boards said that he was by far the best ILB in the country that year. Kirby and ILB coach Glenn Schuman wanted him bad, but playing with his brother won out. Yet, I often wonder what Noah would have become had he came to Georgia and had been developed by Coach Schumann. As for portal additions at ILB, I know that the very strong Georgia preference is to get great guys out of high school and coach them up. One potential problem with portal additions is they may not fit the emerging/existing team culture, and I'm guessing that team culture is very important to Dan Lanning. Georgia took three portal additions this year, all from the SEC and one of those guys is already gone for not fitting in. Georgia has had some great portal additions, but they are extensively vetted and are more likely to be taken if they are a plug and play option.

Georgia is hard to go against in the ILB sweepstakes because of the almost ridiculous success Glenn Schuman has had developing his charges and getting them drafted highly in the NFL. He has two preseason All-SEC backers this year (three if you count Jalon Walker on the 3rd team, a guy who will play a lot but maybe never start a game this year). They also have three incoming (now on campus) ILBs all of whom were in the top 6 ILB recruits in the 2023 class. And they have another 5-star ILB recruit in this class, although speculation has it that he will decommit now that JW has committed to the Dawgs. However, there is absolutely no reason for fellow Duck fans to be down in the dumps about Duck recruiting. Consider that this is only Lanning's second year upcoming. Also, I have been impressed with the number of absolute stud recruits that Georgia has gone hard after this year that have the Ducks in their top four or five when they drop their top schools. That is a very good sign for the future, particularly after the Ducks make the playoffs a couple of times in the next 3-4 years. Both me and SoGaDawg think OT Baker is very likely a Duck. If so, rejoice, for championships are won up front and the Ducks badly need more trench monsters.

SoGaDawg is quite correct IMO that big games among elite teams are usually won in the trenches. These guys largely go unnoticed by the average fan unless they are racking up sacks or throwing devastating blocks, but Georgia's domination of both LOS the last couple of years is a major reason they have gone back to back. Hopefully the Ducks have several of these trench monsters ready to emerge. If so, winning this conference is hardly out of the question. Yet, Wrathis's analyses of the Trojans and the Huskies aptly illustrates just how tough a slough this is likely to be for anyone to win the PAC this year. I just hope that the winner is able to take home the trophy without having suffered two losses.

Welcome back SoGaDawg. I am also a Dawg partisan who has the Ducks as my #2. My history with the Ducks goes way back as I grew up on the West Coast and rooted passionately for PAC teams against anyone else. I became a Dawg fan as a young adult and 42 years living in the Athens area will almost ensure that you remain one. This is a great site. I contribute whenever I have something I think will interest Duck fans and have been very warmly received here. t here are a number of very knowledgeable contributors on this site whom I learn a great deal from. It is a fun place to hang out. So stick around. The Ducks fans appreciate good football, seem to want to know how Kirby and the Dawgs operate, and would probably appreciate a wider variety of opinions from that fan base other than my own.