Dawg Sports: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Contact negotiations: "Showing the love" Bar-right-arrows



Georgia Draws Hawaii in Sugar Bowl Pairing

Here's how crazy this season has been . . . when I recently asked, "Which of the B.C.S. bowls would you most like to see Georgia attend?", I omitted what turned out to be the two most likely possibilities.

Bulldog Nation indicated a strong preference for the Granddaddy of 'Em All, as 264 of the 320 votes cast expressed a desire to attend the Rose Bowl. That's a whopping 82.5 per cent who wanted to make the trip to Pasadena.

The Orange Bowl languished in a distant second place, with 42 votes (13.1%), followed by the Fiesta Bowl with a mere 14 (4.4%). Alas, the correct answer turned out to be "(d) none of the above," as Paul Westerdawg's nightmare scenario came to pass: Georgia will face Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl.

The good news, of course, is that the Bulldogs will be playing in the Superdome on New Year's Day. As much as I would have loved to have seen the Red and Black get a national title game berth, I couldn't conscientiously defend the notion of a non-conference champion getting a shot at the crystal football.

I know the B.C.S. has permitted such nonsense before, but past mistakes do not justify future foolishness and it is cognitive dissonance to claim that a team can be the best in the country without being the best in its conference, which is tantamount to saying you are the smartest person in your neighborhood but only the second-smartest person in your household.

What is beyond aggravating, though, is the fact that Georgia will be sent to play the Polynesian parvenus from the Aloha State. The Warriors' undefeated record was compiled against a woeful schedule and there is no upside for the 'Dawgs in facing them. Win big and you get no credit because you were supposed to win big. Struggle and lose respect. Lose and an enormous damper is thrown over a stellar season. Quite frankly, it's like facing Appalachian State, Louisiana-Monroe, or Stanford in a B.C.S. bowl game.

This brings us to our new poll question: "How will Georgia fare against Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl?" Your votes go here.

The bowl pairing stinks, but it is the Sugar Bowl and it gives Georgia the opportunity to cement a top five final ranking. Hey, it could be worse . . . we could be playing Fresno State in the Roady's Humanitarian Bowl in Boise at 2:00 in the afternoon on New Year's Eve like some Peach State teams I could name!

Go 'Dawgs!

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

crack
What?  Here is the problem your missing; obviously Georgia does not have the same clout that 4 or 5 other teams have in the Press.  Ie. that was Auburns biggest problem in 04 not the out of conference schedule.  We let the talking heads take a chance to play for the NC game this year without raising hell then they are going to do it again.  Most often the victor in an argument is not the one who is right but most often the one who is loudest(and usually the one who is wrong).

I know I can't spell but Georgia gave me a couple of degrees and they knew it too.  Oh yeah there in History and Comparative Lit. ... and I am really pissed

by tc4792 on Dec 2, 2007 9:23 PM EST   0 recs

I don't doubt that ESPN's lobbying . . .
. . . for Ohio State to face L.S.U. is why it happened, and you'll see on my BlogPoll ballot that I didn't vote the Buckeyes in the top two, but neither did I place the Bulldogs there.

It is true that the system does not require a team to win its conference championship to qualify for the national title game. It is also true that the two times the B.C.S. has produced such an anomalous result (Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003), a deserving team (Oregon in 2001 and Southern California in 2003) got jobbed.

You're right Georgia didn't have the clout. You're right that's probably the reason Georgia didn't get into the title game. Nevertheless---and I say this as a lifelong Bulldog partisan---we didn't deserve it because we didn't win our conference.

That, at least, is how it appears to me.

by T Kyle King on Dec 2, 2007 9:29 PM EST   0 recs

Not ESPN
Every media outlet last night projected LSU in the title game. Every major media website projected LSU in the title game. BCSguru.com projected LSU in the title game.

With on Florida going over Michigan last year based on UF winning its conference and Michigan not, everyone expected some 2-loss conference champ would jump over Georgia. LSU was the likeliest choice since it won Georgia's conference. No amount of ESPN lobbying (which didn't happen, by the way; it was all "I guess maybe LSU, but no one knows" from the WWL last night) made it happen.

http://year2.wordpress.com

by Year2 on Dec 2, 2007 10:06 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

You may be right about . . .
. . . what every major media outlet was projecting.

If you don't think ESPN was lobbying for Louisiana State last night, though, then you weren't listening to Kirk Herbstreit, Brent Musberger, and Chris Spielman's comments during the Big 12 title game after the Pitt-West Virginia final score came across the scroll.

Again, I don't have a particular problem with this result where Georgia is concerned. (I have much more of a problem with Ohio State being in the title game than with L.S.U. being there.) As a resume ranker, I completely buy the idea that a team that wins a conference championship game (which, almost by definition, pits it against a legitimate opponent) reasonably can leapfrog a team whose season is done.

The Worldwide Leader, however, was no neutral bystander observing events as they unfolded; the boys from Bristol had a preference, which they made known. The fact that the L.S.U. half of their argument was valid doesn't change the reality of the influence these particular pundits exert.

by T Kyle King on Dec 2, 2007 10:21 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Agreed as to Ohio State
I was amazed at the free pass they were given in the talking head conversation.

Given the way this has played out I'd just as soon not have a MNC game, as there simply aren't two teams who clearly deserve to be elevated to a championship game.  There will be plenty of time to discuss that in the off season.  

Now it's time to get ready for Hawaii's offense. For anybody that's really interested, Smart Football, had a nice post on defending the R&S a while back.

by 34hawk on Dec 3, 2007 8:24 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Big 12 CG
I could not watch the end of the Big 12 title game, but I did watch SportsCenter and College Football Final after it. No lobbying occurred on those shows. Perhaps there was some lobbying at the end of the Big 12 game on ABC with commentators speaking off the cuff, but there was none on the carefully controlled analysis shows on ESPN itself. And yes I know they're the same company. I don't defend ESPN too often, but in this case I don't see evidence of pre-planned lobbying for LSU.
http://year2.wordpress.com

by Year2 on Dec 3, 2007 10:02 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Leapfrog?
Kyle, I know that there is very little rhyme and reason to the voters' respective ballots.  I know that often, the ballots are filled out by assistants or family members.  I know that we can't ever expect logic or reason to spew forth from a bunch of passionate (slightly biased) coaches, or the list of has-beens and never-weres on the Harris rollsheet.  But is there a precedent in the history of balloting for the leapfrogging we have witnessed this evening? Has the best two-loss team in the nation (as decided by voters a week ago) ever become the fourth best team in the nation in the span of a week without having even played a game?  What's up with that?

by Tiller on Dec 2, 2007 10:10 PM EST   0 recs

We didn't "become" the fourth-best . . .
. . . team in the nation, we remained the fourth-best team in the nation while idle.

A week ago, Georgia's resume had the Bulldogs ranked ahead of L.S.U. and Oklahoma. Today, L.S.U.'s and Oklahoma's resumes had the Bayou Bengals and the Sooners ranked ahead of Georgia.

What changed in the interim? These things happened:

  • The Fighting Tigers captured the S.E.C. championship by beating a Tennessee team that defeated the 'Dawgs by three touchdowns earlier in the season.
  • The Sooners captured the Big 12 championship by beating the No. 1 team in the nation by three touchdowns.
  • The Bulldogs sat at home watching the conference championship games on television while the only two teams from Georgia's regular-season slate to have been in action yesterday---Tennessee and Troy---both lost.
In short, Georgia's resume, while still impressive, got marginally worse yesterday. L.S.U.'s and Oklahoma's resumes got markedly better.

Is there a precedent? Sure . . . my BlogPoll ballot, which changes in the face of new information every week, including this one.

by T Kyle King on Dec 2, 2007 10:29 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

What I had meant to say was...
...not that we 'became the fourth-best team', but that in the span of a week the nation's voters deemed that we went from the best two-loss team in the land to the fourth-best two-loss team in the land without having played a game...seems odd that three teams leapt over the Dawgs in the rankings.  A solid win over Hawaii in New Orleans won't garner us enough credit to rise much higher in the final polls.

by Tiller on Dec 3, 2007 1:56 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Well here is the pipe then
   I understand your argument.  I just don't agree with it.  I don't agree with your poll either; and by that I mean Oklahoma ahead of Georgia I agreed with Kansas and Hawaii though.  If your ranking teams relative to success fared against schedule rank then Georgia is an excellent choice.  Last week, if memory serves, they had the hardest schedule out of the top 10 (Saragins 16th).  I digress, give me a tangent and I take it.
   The BCS chose to allow any team with merit to have a shot at playing for the NC.  The system was based on pollsters and CP.  If they believe Georgia is deserving of a 4th place vote one week, and then the next decide to take away the precedent set forth in previous seasons, that were not affected by a previous 1 and 2 matchup (Michigan), there is plenty to be upset with.

And I wouldn't even bother spellchecking this.

by tc4792 on Dec 2, 2007 10:13 PM EST   0 recs

Regardless
I do really like the blog, I promise I will stop Bitc@#%* If you will put up a fire Terrance Moore and pin the tell on Stewart Mandell picture, game, etc.

by tc4792 on Dec 2, 2007 10:29 PM EST   0 recs

My problem with no champs
who aren't conference champs is that it leads to counterintuitive results when it comes to certain scenarios.  What do you say if a team is a 1-loss team, like a Kansas this year but with a much better resume, and nobody else has a better claim?

For example, if Georgia had beaten Tennessee but kept the loss to South Carolina and the Cocks ran the table with one loss (let's say to Florida) in the SEC, Georgia would be out of the conference title game.  Now let's say that same Carolina team lost to Clemson and North Carolina.  For argument's sake, they beat LSU in the title game.  Everything else is as it is today.  Georgia is undoubtedly one of the top 2 teams in that scenario, yet they didn't win their conference.  

Now I can understand the argument that if they didn't win their conference, they aren't deserving of a title shot.  However, what if the officiating in that game had been exactly as bad as the officiating from the West Virginia-Pitt contest?    Now it clearly violates your sense of fairness to say that Georgia is not deserving of a chance.  We wuz robbed, you might say.  

That scenario is extreme, and it is not the case in the here and now.  However, Murphy's Law (and fate's apparent hatred of the BCS) says that it will happen one day.  If, in that situation, you say OK to Georgia, you can say OK now.  

Also, no one can be in favor of any form of a playoff and still be against a non-conference champion getting in.  They are mutually exclusive.  

by Bodey on Dec 3, 2007 12:52 AM EST   0 recs

Hawaii very stoked just to be here
Georgia is a very good football team,we are  happy to be in a major bowl game period.We hope to hang in there with the dawgs & make a game of it,a Georgia blowout would not be good for the WAC's credibilty,& out here in Hawaii we won our first all out WAC championship.Boise proved last year that the small guys could beat a big time cartel school.If you saw that Fiesta bowl,it was one of the best bowl games I have ever seen.Certainly the most fun to watch bowl game last year.I hope that the sugar will be the best bowl game this year think of it that way & be glad you are in the Sugar, Aloha Kimo

by hawaii20lat on Dec 3, 2007 6:07 AM EST   0 recs

Nice of you to drop in....
... Any links and recommendations for Hawaii football blogs?  

by 34hawk on Dec 3, 2007 8:27 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Sugar bowl
I guess UGA got what they asked for. Bulldog nation didn't want to play in the conference championship game against LSU because they thought they had a clear path to the national championship game by sitting on the sideline this week. Not. You don't play the last week of the season, you get passed up   by the contenders. Hawaii is just about right.

by zen on Dec 3, 2007 8:15 AM EST   0 recs

Anyways, LSU was more worried about us
What are you talking about?  Everyone I know was pulling for Vanderbilt and Kentucky to win their games so we could get into the championship game.  Goal #1 of any year is win the SEC, and we had a team that peaked at the right time and would have, at a minimum, given LSU a great game.  Especially considering how they played in the championship game, we probably would have won as underdogs, just like we did in 2005, when we shocked Miles' first LSU squad.

I don't know who you've been talking to, but Bulldog nation was not content to sit it out.  We wanted to be there and play them.  You've got to beat the best to be the best.

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

by blackertai on Dec 3, 2007 8:30 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

You are clueless
"I guess UGA got what they asked for. Bulldog nation didn't want to play in the conference championship game against LSU because they thought they had a clear path to the national championship game by sitting on the sideline this week."  What?  I remember my first beer too, son.  

Don't presume you know anything about the Bulldog Nation if you ain't one of us.  You are an idiot.

by DavetheDawg on Dec 3, 2007 9:27 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Presume
We don't have to presume anything. The very fact that you all are calling for a blackout at the Superdome is evidence enough. Hawaii is the designated home team for the Sugar and guess what? Their home colors are BLACK and Silver. Yes, BLACK. Keep on going to your Rocket Scientist classes with your Basketball team.

HA HA HA HA

by zen on Dec 3, 2007 9:57 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Presume
We don't have to presume anything. The very fact that you all are calling for a blackout at the Superdome is evidence enough. Hawaii is the designated home team for the Sugar and guess what? Their home colors are BLACK and Silver. Yes, BLACK. Keep on going to your Rocket Scientist classes with your Basketball team.

HA HA HA HA

by zen on Dec 3, 2007 9:43 AM EST   0 recs

I presume . . .
from the fact that you left the same comment twice in a 15 minute span that you lack basic computer literacy. Actually, I suppose it is no longer a presumption when you leave behind digital evidence.

The basketball comment was a nice ad hominem attack. Come back when you have something moderately intelligent to add to the conversation.

This is not some message board where "ha ha ha ha" is a constructive response. Oh, and Hawaii's home colors are actually green, black and silver, Einstein. Anyone interested in the myriad of symbolism behind Hawaii's logo and color scheme can check it out at http://www.hawaii.edu/ur/News_Releases/NR_July00/logo.html.

by MaconDawg on Dec 3, 2007 11:35 AM EST   0 recs

i hope...
that the fans have moved on from getting screwed by the system (i realize people's arguments that we should have played for the MNC but come on in a flawed system like this did you really expect anything else).  We all really need to turn our focus to this game against hawaii and quit complaining.

Look at Boise St. against OU last year.  OU was down something like 27-10 in that game and before the game they thought they were just going to blow Boise right out of Phoenix.

Look at us against WVU in 2005.  In the Dome.  We were down 28-0!!!  We just assumed that gimmick spread offense would be nothing against an SEC defense.  Um, yeah those Steve Slaton and Pat White guys are pretty good now aren't they?

All in all, I just want people to move on from this because IF WE DO LOSE to Hawaii, prepare for never ending hell from everyone for the next years to come.  That my friends, is something I do not want to have to deal with.

by loran smith on Dec 3, 2007 12:26 PM EST   0 recs

Logic wept
(perhaps it felt abandoned)

Zen, the people calling for UGA not to go to the title game were either:

  1. A very small minority of UGA fans or
  2. Media persons who could charitably be referred to as idiots (e.g. the Macon, Ga talk radio afternoon sports guy, who lobbied for UGA to stay at home and get a BCS bid by default for a couple of weeks).
  3. The decision for UGA to wear black jersies, where applicable, was set in stone months ago and was always contingent on the particulars of the bowl game.  
Either way, leave the thinking to the professionals.

by peacedog on Dec 3, 2007 12:30 PM EST   0 recs

Given UGA's record against the defending Champs...
the Thinking Bulldog will be pulling for LSU baby!

by Chase Street Package on Dec 3, 2007 1:39 PM EST   0 recs

What he said...
Very articulate response, peacedog.  I'm ashamed at myself for arguing with a 7th grader.  I guess emotion got the better of me because this board/ blog rarely gets Neanderthalistic flamers like that.

And while my disappointment has not totally abated from Sunday's decision (I mean, how could it not?  The hard part occurred in Morgantown!What were the chances of Pitt beating WVU and giving all of us that unbridled hope?  They won despite the fact that there exists an even worse referee than Penn Wagers.) I am extremely proud of this team and am looking forward to playing our worthy opponent in Nawlins'.  

by DavetheDawg on Dec 3, 2007 2:00 PM EST   0 recs

Aloha from Hawaii
Don't take Colt and the Warriors for granted. Not only may the offense suprise you, but our defense can adjust.

Aloha

by Na Koa on Dec 3, 2007 2:43 PM EST   0 recs

Just thought I'd add this...
In case Dawg Nationis  starting to think "crazy,"  I just wanted to let you know that South Carolina is always down for a good, old-fashioned secession crisis.  Keep us informed--half the state won't have much to do this December, regardless.
--Robert

by a gamecock fan on Dec 3, 2007 4:05 PM EST   0 recs

DaveTheDawg
Dave, I should have added a third category.  Obviously, Sunday was a letdown for a lot of people and that's understandable.  I'm sure any number of people said things then that have already taken them back now that reality has set in.  That's not really a concern either, IMO.

I do think anyone who wanted UT to win so they could go to the SECCG for a "garunteed loss" was not thinking things through.  These same people will point to Missouri and say "see, we told you!".  I have a different outlook - I'll take our kids with our head coach any time, any where. You always want a chance to play for the SEC title.  Always.  Any national title chances will realistically spring from that.  But more importantly, it's just great for the program.  We will have a generation of fans who didn't go a hair under 20 years between SEC titles thanks to Richt.  In one sense, that's a good thing.  But in another, they don't understand what it can be like.  Which is why we have to preach "a shot at the SEC title is of paramount importance".

gamecock fan - chin up, man  ;)

by peacedog on Dec 3, 2007 4:15 PM EST   0 recs

Sugar Bowl Bound
My attitude may be in the minority here, but personally I'm just pretty damn happy to be going to the Sugar Bowl, although it was not my first choice. I was disappointed too on Sunday night, but not too much because I knew it was a long shot to begin with. I knew that if LSU won they had a shot at jumping us. They did, after all, win the SEC championship and that counts for quite a bit in my book. That's getting where you want to be by doing what it takes on the field. With all due respect to Hawaii, however, I'm not all that excited about playing them. I would have much prefered to being playing USC in the Rose Bowl. But, the Sugar is the traditional home of SEC elites and we can't be too pissed about that. Consider where we were after that Knoxville loss and look where we are now. The Sugar Bowl is a pretty damn good prize for our team coming together and being the great team we all knew was in there but just not being brought out. Next year, my friends! Next Year!!!

by ProfDawg on Dec 3, 2007 4:31 PM EST   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation community devoted to the Georgia Bulldogs.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
What's the Deal?
Millers_crossing
Mayor, you may have lost your title
Millers_crossing
Which of these teams will reemerge as national contenders?
100_0141_small
Marcus Howard is loved in the pro's
Small
Georgia bar in LA???
36413436t_small
ASU Tix in Hand; You East Coasters Will Have them Today or Tomorrow
Uga_small
Sturdivant Injured?  NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Uk_game_small
New Brass Recording of "Red and Black March"
Millers_crossing
Bama QB
Small
NCAA '09

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Managers

Beard_47_series_wins_and_42_points_in_2007_small T Kyle King

ad

Site Meter