Have You Kicked the 'Dawgs Today?: Answering the Georgia-Bashers
by T Kyle King on Jan 10, 2008 7:55 AM EST
in Football
Email
PrintIt is a great time to be a Georgia fan, just as long as you don't care what other folks say about you.
South Carolina fans will root for any other S.E.C. team except the Bulldogs. Big Ten fans hate us, think we're a media darling, and ask of us favors we would not so much as consider granting.
Alabama fans rank the Red and Black behind Kansas and consider putting U.S.C. ahead of Georgia because the Trojans "won (well, split) their conference and Georgia didn't even win the SEC East." (Arizona State and Southern California finished the regular season tied for first place in the Pac-10 with identical 7-2 conference records. Georgia and Tennessee finished the regular season tied for first place in the S.E.C. East with identical 6-2 conference records. Southern California won its conference championship. Georgia didn't win its division championship. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing.)
Sort of like believing it was worth paying this guy four million dollars to erase the shame of a 6-6 regular season, a loss to Auburn, and an Independence Bowl berth.
Florida fans, as usual, are snarky about the 'Dawgs, offering such snide observations unburdened by reality as cracks about Georgia's class and predictions of future losses to the Evil Genius while interjecting a backhanded attempt to "[g]ive Georgia credit because they were able to lose to South Carolina and Tennessee, which kept them away from LSU and a possible third loss."
Right. Because the Bayou Bengals' performance in the S.E.C. championship game was so impressive that the Bulldogs, playing the way they played in November and in January, likely would have struggled mightily in December against a team Georgia has beaten by a combined margin of 79-30 in the last two series meetings. Sure.
Finally, Michael Adams's recent remarks have provoked all sorts of negative reactions. Personally, while I have tremendous respect for those fans who are open-minded enough to give Dr. Adams the benefit of the doubt, I tend to agree with Vince Dooley that the university president's calculated campaign comes at a moment that is more than a little odd. Many Georgia fans favor a playoff (although, as I said before and I have said again, I am not among them . . . and, not very long ago at all, neither was the man who now holds the office Fred Davison once used to good effect against overbearing N.C.A.A. authority, not for it), but Dr. Adams's decision to rip on the Rose Bowl seems particularly ill-timed so soon after Bulldog Nation was positively pumped about the prospect of playing in Pasadena.
Playing in the Granddaddy of 'Em All or making James Carville happy? Not a tough call.
In the midst of all of this negativity, though, there is a ray of something that supposedly is sunshine. As noted by Senator Blutarsky and by Quinton McDawg, Stewart Mandel has Georgia as his preseason No. 1 team for 2008.
Well, I guess it's good to know that, apparently, the Sugar Bowl was aired in Montana and some fictitious ranchers in big sky country took the time to e-mail Sports Illustrated to let Bulldog Nation's favorite professional sportswriter know that they recognized our helmets and everything, but I'm sorry to say, Stewie, that you've arrived a little late to this party and admission is by invitation only, pal. The Bulldog bandwagon is all booked up and Mandel is flying standby. That's the price you pay for being a no-talent buffoon with nothing better to do than spew nonsense solely for its shock value.
For future reference, Stewart-come-lately, here is what a real Georgia man, the aforementioned Dr. Davison, had to say about the Bulldogs' 116-year-old gridiron tradition:
That it does, Dr. Davison . . . so much so that even government reform proposals sometimes draw their inspiration from college football. We in Bulldog Nation have been catching a lot of flak since demolishing Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl, but such, I suppose, are the perils of being a national power.
Go 'Dawgs!
17 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
LSU-UGA Detente
I'm an LSU fan, and your post got me thinking...is there any way to avoid the obvious "hate bowl" feelings i am seeing all over the internet for LSU-UGA next fall? I mean, from your above piece it is clear you see how badly UGA is getting hounded in media right now, and I have seenmany LSU fans getting pissy about UGA speaking their minds and saying -"we could have done better than tOSU" ...
I don't see where UGA and LSU should have serious "problems" other than one stands in the others way...this may be rambling but I hope my muddied point is getting across.
by CK on Jan 10, 2008 9:31 AM EST reply actions
I have no problem with the Bayou Bengals . . .
Although we caught a little flak from the Pelican State faithful in Athens in 2004 (following Louisiana State's 2003 national championship), that brief burst of unseemly arrogance since has settled into an appropriate sense of deserved confidence.
I quite agree that the top two programs in the Southeastern Conference in the 21st century have no reason to dislike one another, even if, on occasion, we have reason to root against one another when our interests conflict.
Congratulations on the 2007 national championship. We're looking forward to next season's showdown in Baton Rouge.
by T Kyle King on Jan 10, 2008 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
post 2003
see you around
by CK on Jan 10, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
Who are these bama fans?
by Jonboy on Jan 10, 2008 11:51 AM EST reply actions
Much obliged, Jonboy
The argument that Georgia, which did not appear in the S.E.C. championship game, should not appear in the national title game is a valid one, but there has appeared to be a level of disdain directed at the Red and Black in some quarters which seems to me to be wholly unfounded and which I find baffling.
I'm glad to know that isn't the prevailing attitude. Thanks for leaving a comment. We hope to see you in Athens next autumn.
by T Kyle King on Jan 10, 2008 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Actually, I'm "these bama fans"...
by Todd @ Dawg Sports on Jan 10, 2008 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
Well, O.K., then
Please feel free to drop by again so you can find whole new ways to miss my point altogether.
I'll apologize to you, Kyle, for my outburst...
- Kansas is ranked ahead of Georgia
- I considered ranking USC ahead of Georgia because the Trojans won their conference and UGA was the Eastern Division runner up.
Now the latter is where I really don't understand your position. I didn't rank USC ahead of UGA because of the "won their conference/didn't win their division" argument, although I did consider it. If you are okay with that argument being used to keep UGA out of the title game then why isn't it at least something to consider when choosing final rankings? Shouldn't, when considering an overall season in determining a final ranking, conference and division titles at some point cross one's mind?
by Todd @ Dawg Sports on Jan 10, 2008 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
We're good, Todd
I apologize for the shot at Nick Saban. Good-natured kidding around aside (and photo captions almost always are intended to add levity, even if, as in this instance, my humor was particularly smart-alecky), I believe my comments about Coach Saban consistently have recognized that he is a fine coach and I agree with fotodawg and dawgaddict that he has 'Bama moving in the right direction, however disappointing the Crimson Tide may have been at some points this season.
My overall points were threefold:
- I don't think it's possible to rank Kansas ahead of Georgia by any reasonable measure of ranking teams. Based upon resume, going 11-2 against Georgia's schedule clearly represents a greater achievement than going 12-1 against Kansas's schedule, which included no good out-of-conference opponents and only one good Big 12 team (to whom K.U. lost), as the Jayhawks missed Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech. By the who-would-beat-whom-on-a-neutral-field approach, the K.U. team I saw in the Orange Bowl played its best game of the year in the postseason, but that team would not have beaten the Georgia team that took the field in the Sugar Bowl. I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree upon this point, but I was somewhat incredulous upon seeing your rankings.
- While I understand that you ranked Georgia ahead of U.S.C., and while I agree that a person conscientiously could have ranked U.S.C. ahead of Georgia (and certainly could have considered doing so), I thought it made no sense to say that the Trojans' Pac-10 co-championship made them the champs but the Bulldogs' S.E.C. East co-championship meant they didn't even win their division. Obviously, the head-to-head tiebreakers broke for Southern California and against Georgia in those situations, but the record books will show "T-1st" next to each of them. It's either one or the other; either a co-championship is a championship or it isn't, but it can't be both. I didn't disagree with your conclusion; I thought you were cherry-picking your facts to suit your purposes by trying to have it both ways.
- I may be wrong, but, even when you have ranked Georgia highly this season, it seems that any reference to the Bulldogs invariably comes with an accompanying jab, which I simply do not understand. I get why references to Auburn and Tennessee come with shots; those are perennial 'Bama rivals. Alabama and Georgia have played only intermittently in both of our lifetimes, though, and there has never, to my knowledge, been any real hatred between the two schools. Each of us wants our team to beat the other when Alabama and Georgia play one another, of course, but mutual disdain has never seemed to be a hallmark of relations between Bulldog fans and the Tide faithful. Maybe I'm misreading you, but the overall impression I have gotten is that you have some dislike for the 'Dawgs which I simply do not comprehend.
Let me know if you plan to be in Athens for next fall's showdown between our respective teams and I will make every effort to ensure that our paths cross in the Classic City.
by T Kyle King on Jan 10, 2008 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
Well, hotheaded me...
On point one, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. My rationale is that, at 12-1, Kansas beat all the teams that they were supposed to beat (i.e. scrub teams that had no shot at the Jayhawks), while Georgia stumbled against a very beatable South Carolina and really should have, at least on paper, beaten Tennessee as well. We can debate the relative merits of UGA's wins and KU's, but when it comes down to it, I just really felt that, throughout the season, Kansas played consistently good football, while there were times that Georgia simply didn't live up to it's own capabilities.
As for point two, I see your point, and perhaps I am, at least subconsciously, "cherry picking" my facts. In my mind a co-championship of an entire conference is a different matter than a divisional tie settled by a head to head tie breaker that results in one team representing it's division in the conference title game while the other stays home. It's purely a matter of subjective perception, I suppose, and it even applies to USC. Even though I am aware of the split title, since they played in the Rose Bowl and have the head to head win over Arizona State, they are the "better" champs. Same with Georgia. Thought UGA wound up with the same conference record as Tennessee, they lost to Tennessee resulting in the Vols representing the division in the SECCG. Maybe that's crazy, but apparently that's just the way my mind works.
Point three, I wasn't aware that I had thrown any off handed jabs at UGA this year, though I wouldn't put it past me. Unfortunately, I have a bad tendency to make light of any and every thing, and, much like my poor take on your Saban ribbing, I may have come off a little obnoxiously. If you'll recall, I was pretty high on your Dawgs in the preseason (I picked them to win the East and to have a better than decent shot at the whole league), and have generally been very impressed with UGA ever since they got rolling mid-season. I'm sure I had some negative things to say around the time of the SC and UT games, but at that point I'm sure you would agree they were warranted. You are right to say that there isn't much rancor between the two fan bases, and I personally have always taken a "they hate Auburn and Tennessee, too, so they're okay in my book" approach to Georgia, so hopefully any negative comments I may have made about UGA were truthful and warranted and any, as you put it, "good natured kidding" between our respective blogs both past and future will be recognized as such and taken in the spirit it was made.
I unfortunately will not be attending the game in Athens next season. I actually no longer attend Alabama games for superstitious reasons (it's an incredibly long story, maybe I'll get around to posting on it one of these days), but if you are ever in Birmingham be sure to let me know and I'd be more than happy to buy you a beverage of your choice.
by Todd @ Dawg Sports on Jan 10, 2008 11:53 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks, Todd
Next season, I'll be rooting for the Tide in every game but one . . . two, in the not at all unlikely event that Alabama and Georgia both make it to the S.E.C. championship game.
Have a good weekend.
Snarky
That said, UF is already preping for your black jerseys in Jax next year. We're wearing kevlar. Beat that.
by mlmintampa on Jan 10, 2008 12:46 PM EST reply actions
The wisdom of the pro-playoff position . . .
- Michael Adams's about-face on a playoff isn't based on his belief that a playoff is a good thing per se, or that a playoff would benefit the Bulldogs in particular; it's based on his desire to be at the center of attention and in the seat of power. He is using this issue in pursuit of his own ends, which have little to do with what is best for the institution, its football team, or its fans, but everything to do with the desire to give himself greater control over money, which has been a hallmark of his administration.
- Even if many Georgia fans are dissatisfied with how the national championship picture shook out, no one should mistake Michael Adams for the voice of Bulldog Nation. By and large, rank-and-file Georgia boosters can't stand him.
- The 'Dawgs were done in not by the absence of enough of a playoff, but by the presence of too much of one. Under the system that prevailed in the Southeastern Conference from 1933 until 1991, there would have been a three-way tie atop the league, with Georgia, L.S.U., and Tennessee sharing the conference title with identical 6-2 records in S.E.C. play. As the conference co-champion, Georgia would have had an equal claim to the national title game berth and, since the Bayou Bengals lost their final regular-season outing while the Red and Black finished strong, the Bulldogs likely would have had the better argument. Georgia's national title case wasn't hurt by having one playoff game too few, but by having one playoff game too many.
Play offs
As I understand it the NCAA has never seriously looked into a 1-A playoff scheme. Adams wants them to at least consider it formally. Even if this fails, it is getting the idea in the pipeline. I liken it to civil rights legislation in that legislation often can be defeated the first time around but later adopted.
I have no doubt that Adams wants to make a name for himself, but if you are pro-playoff then embrace him. His motivates may bother you, but are you waiting for Rosa Parks to lead the movement?
Getting it on the agenda may plant a seed. College presidents have a life span of about 5 years at an institution--Adams is an anomaly--so you need to think that in another few years there will be a large turnover from the presidents now (obviously some will move around) where the proposal might gain traction.
Another whine I hear is that it would take a couple of years. I am guessing this is from the younger folks for whom "patience" is a four letter or foreign word. So it takes 2 years to review the proposals. Then another year to vote on it then another year to implement it. Well, if you start now then you have it ready to go in 4 years. If you wait 4 years, then it will be 8 years. This is like drilling for oil today--it is not going to pay off tomorrow but in a few years it will.
As for the three way tie scenario, heck if it were 1990 then UGA's loss to South Carolina would have meant nothing since SC was not in the SEC in 1990. Of course LSU's loss to Arkansas would not matter either (in terms of conference standings). I have no recall what the tie breakers were in those days or if the Sugar Bowl just got to pick the team. But then Spurrier was still coaching at Florida...
My Uncle...
I think Bama will be good in the future. Saban is recruiting like a madman. But UGA has more pieces in place right now to compete for the SEC & MNC. I am glad that we play them earlier rather than later next year, because I expect them to make a run at the end of 08 like we did in 06.
+1
SEC
As an alum at LSU and UGA I gotta say, 2008 National Champions University of Georgia. OK Bulldog nation, next year is your turn, as much as I want LSU to repeat, I am a realist. Show them what the SEC is all about.
Hopefully OSU repeats in the BCS final, they got a mauling from the Tiger Nation. They have no idea what a pissed of DAWG can do. NOBODY and I mean NOBODY can stand with the SEC.
I hope you heard us at the end of the game, yes we shouted LSU, LSU, but we were more animated hollering SEC, SEC, SEC.
I have friends and co-workers who graduated from the Big (sissies) Ten and cannot understand why we, as a SEC faithful pull for one another in Bowl games. They have no clue....when we don't play agains each other we pull for each other. GO SEC, GO DAWGS. Make it three in a row for the BCS Championship,.....Florida, LSU, DAWGS......
Beware the DAWG.....2008 National Champs...........
Mikeyb
by mikeyb on Jan 11, 2008 10:06 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
