BC in NC

The whole letdown-motivation thing is the one I’m watching most. It’s the one new dynamic that the coaches will have to confront, and we will know early on whether they’ve succeeded.

A new framework will be needed, and it could be built around enforcing academic standards. Fans who bemoan the loss of “traditional college football” should be in favor, as the student part of “student athlete” is the crux. Universities should be on board, as it plays to their core values as well. Granted, academic enforcement has been a laughingstock for years as the NCAA focused on the money side of amateurism, but there is a whole framework for accrediting colleges and universities that is separate from athletics. Applying a more effective accreditation metric to college athletics wouldn’t be inventing something new, it would be a matter of applying well-established metrics developed completely outside the current NCAA framework. That will actually be a benefit, as the NCAA has little credibility these days. The universities could even ditch the current NCAA framework and develop an accreditation mechanism and governance body based on the current accreditation agencies that govern the universities already. Those bodies (SACS, MSCHE, etc.) have a lot more credibility.

One other thing I meant to add in my previous reply… The dominant narrative is that paying players will destroy the whole student athlete framework, and players will just become employees of the college. It doesn’t have to go that way. There are student assistantships and paid internships all over the place in colleges and universities nationwide. These are paying gigs that are only open to students. The same rationale could be applied to athletics. And there’s no legal issue with restricting a paid position to a student. Employers are allowed to set job requirements, including requiring someone to be a student.

One thing the universities and NCAA could do would be to focus on academic requirements. Instead of trying to chase money trails, the regulators could focus on whether players really are involved in a legit academic program. There would be plenty of faculty and students willing to blow the whistle on sham programs for athletes, and it would be a lot easier to police. Athletes getting paid wouldn’t bug me much if they were truly students also; dropping the whole money part in exchange for tougher academic rules would be an improvement in my book. JUCOs would still be there for the players who couldn’t cut it academically, and it would encourage the high school kids to keep their grades up. If they could get paid right away in college, the prospect of the more immediate financial reward would encourage scholarship. Teams also would need to provide financial literacy training.

The needed rule change is one governing roster size, as being “on scholarship” will become meaningless eventually. Even if NIL collectives don’t get involved, prominent players will still get NIL deals that will allow them to give up a scholarship slot for another player. Players are also pledging to share their NIL money with teammates, which will further reduce the need for scholarship money to cover academic expenses. College football needs to drop the scholarship mechanism and set a roster cap as the main mechanism for determining team size. As player free agency gains more ground, there may need to be caps on the number of new players allowed to join a team per year, regardless of the method.

With a younger defense and a lot of returning production on offense, I expect average points per game to increase -- in part because it may have to, especially early in the season.

So many pundits talk about Walker‘s lack of snaps during his college career as being a detriment, but I think that can be spun as a positive. It means he has less wear and tear than other players.

Well, Fields did win that national title after transferring to Ohio State. Oh, wait...

I wish him the best; hopefully he has a strong season.

Don’t worry — if he doesn’t work out we’ll take him off your hands in a few years.

To Sav: What an idiotic reply

The 2017 trick or treating sketch with Bama stealing the kids' candy is my favorite.

Hopefully not.

In a lot of gigs, “spending more time with family” is code for getting fired or something else. But in college football, I can totally see it being the legit reason — especially for someone who has kids. He made more money in a couple of years than some people make in decades, and he had to be all but a stranger to his family to do it. I wish him the best.

Those IKEA punters can be good, as long as your sports medicine staff handles assembly correctly when the box arrives.

Riley's best hope is to turn USC into the next Clemson -- a heavyweight enjoying a conference slate full of cupcakes. Even if that happens, the SEC will still be well-represented in the playoff.

Assuming Bennett starts, the competition for backup QB at UGA will between Beck and Vandagriff. Stockton will be the new guy waiting his turn and growing into the system, most likely.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Bama isn't done with pulling wide receivers from the portal. There may not be anyone worth taking at the moment, but that could change after spring ball. Such a receiver would still have plenty of time over the summer and during fall camp to get acclimated.

My post was about perception vs. reality. I wasn’t arguing that we were worse than Bama, I was saying that many of us have a distorted view of Bama’s offensive power vs. ours. I’m also not saying we are superior to Bama on offense in general. I’m saying that the years of finishing behind them (and behind LSU in their championship year) have made it easy to have a bit of an inferiority complex as a Dawg fan. This year dispelled that notion, but it’ll take time, and a bit more success, for it to sink in.

If you win it all, there really isn’t a problem.

I think a lot of UGA fans watch Bama’s offense when it’s clicking and think, “why can’t we have that?” We notice and remember when Bama’s QB connects on the long throws to the elite wide receivers, and we quickly forget when passes are dropped or off the mark. We overlook our own QB’s successful long throws and focus on the drives that stalled. It’s probably due to the multi-year streak of losses to Bama while they were winning it all, along with losses to teams like LSU when they won it all. It’ll take time, and a bit more success against the best teams with those strong offenses, for things to even out.

Way to go Dawgs! Defense can still win a natty!

This is Kirby's most dominant defense. Our offense is not necessarily the best Kirby has had, but with Pickens getting a month's worth of bowl practices after making it back to the field, I'm hopeful that we will have enough variety to keep things going against 'Bama. I think the only way to beat them is to be able to mix it up enough to keep scoring points. If we start doing the same thing over and over they'll adjust and shut it down.

The obvious answer is to have a draft — college ball is the de facto minor league for the NFL already, so mirroring the selection process for rookies makes sense. Of course, this makes college football more obviously a profession for the players, so it probably won’t happen. Also, there will be players who genuinely want a specific academic experience, and a draft would get in the way of that. One solution would be to require an extra year or so of time between college and pro ball for anyone who doesn’t want to enter a college draft. That way, the players who are just looking to move on to the pros can take their chosen route and those seeking a specific academic experience would be able to do so.

We didn’t sustain offensive production — we let ‘Bama back in the game. We didn’t fight our way back to OT — we lost the lead. That’s my point. And as for the semi vs OU, rushing may work against some good teams, but I’m still waiting to see it beat ‘Bama. They adjust well and make it hard to win unless you can adjust as well. I’m not saying we have to go Leach-style pass happy, but we will need to sustain offensive production. That will most likely come with a balanced attack. If we go conservative to try and hold a lead, we’re toast yet again.

Elite defense can slow down good teams, but I think the game still favors the offense when you have the kind of talent and coaching that 'Bama does.

The question is whether a run-focused offense can compete against an elite high-power passing attack like 'Bama's -- it couldn't in 2017 when we had one of the best RB tandems ever in Chubb and Michel. I'm also not convinced elite defense can slow such an attack down enough for all 4 quarters. I think the only way to beat 'Bama is to be able to keep scoring.

In all of our recent losses to ‘Bama we have held a lead but have been unable to sustain offensive production. Whether we can finally break that trend will be the key to the game.

Ummmm…. The most obvious team to blame is Georgia. Had we knocked off ‘Bama in the SECCG the wouldn’t have made the playoff. Blaming a team with a first-year HC is just asinine.

Anyone who looks at the semifinal games to predict the final is an idiot. ‘Bama clearly was content to coast to a win. To say Georgia was “better” is to ignore ‘Bama’s win over Georgia.