Allow me to explain why Georgia is a good, but overrated, football team. Start with the Bulldogs pre-2001. Perennial underachievers in the always-tough SEC East, dominated by Florida and Tennessee. Every year, pre-season, you’d hear about how “this is Georgia’s year, with all this talent they will rise up and beat Florida and Tennessee to be champs of the East. If not now when?” Then they’d end up in third place. 2001 - enter Mark Richt. Not a bad year for the Dawgs, but losses to Florida and Auburn, and an early season loss to South Carolina, keep them out of Atlanta. 2002 - exit Steve Spurier. Florida ain’t what it used to be (see loss to Ole Miss for reference). Tennessee clearly isn’t either, losing 5 games for the first time in forever, as their season folds under a rash of injuries and a Kelley Washington problem. Georgia has their dream season, ending with an SEC Championship, a Sugar Bowl victory, and their current, good, but overrated status. So, it appears that 2002 was the year that Georgia finally rose up in the East, but as you can see, they didn’t rise up, the others fell down. You combine this phenomenon with the fact that there was a second-year coach in town, and it seems like you’ve got a brand new, better Georgia. But, to a large extent, its an illusion. The illusion was enhanced by the fact that Georgia got to play Arkansas in Atlanta – a team which could be described as “streaky” at best, and “piss poor” at worst – and further enhanced by an almost equally lame Sugar Bowl opponent (see Florida State’s Chris Rix sleeping through his finals.) Let me emphasize that I’m not saying Georgia isn’t a good team. The victory over ‘Bama at home in 2002 was very impressive. As was the victory over Auburn (close as it was). But that’s it as far as impressive victories go, and the Bulldogs get credit for a lot more. More than they deserve. So I think it will be a great game Saturday, but I think the Tigers will win. Georgia’s good, but not as good as everybody thinks they are.
Well Gorilla, If your theory is valid, how in the world do you explain how UGA ended up being ranked #3 in the nation? Seems somewhat inconsistent to me. The coaches poll reflected the same level of performance. Are you right, while all of the coaches were wrong?
I think points like this have been beaten to a poll. Let's just get the game on! The talking will be done on the field!!! GO DAWGS!!!
Any SEC team that goes 13-1 better be in the top 3. The better question may be: Why wasn't a 13-1 SEC team number 2 at the end of the season?
Vince Dooley paid off the SEC to let Georgia win to p-iss off Mike Adams before Mike fired his butt. And all the Fans asked the rest of the SEC to have an off year so we could win. Both LSU an UGA have been underachievers if you ask me. Both should have won more than one SECC since we started split play.
The polls don't disprove the theory - which was that Georgia is an overrated team - they are the basis of it. If Georgia wasn't highly ranked, it would be hard to call them OVERrated. The theory is that Georgia, while a good team, is a team that benefited in 2002 from facing several programs which weren't up to their usual standards for various reasons, such as Florida, Tennessee, and Florida State. All three of those programs were feathers in Georgia's cap last year, which contributed greatly to their final #3 ranking, and all 3 of those programs are examples of teams that were consistently dominant in the late 90's but fell off in 2002. That's an indisputable fact. Whether you think it means that Georgia was given undue credit for their accomplishments in 2002 is a matter of opinion. I do.
Anytime an SEC team gets a shot at the NC they need to make the best of it. We beat up on each other so much, it basically knocks us out. With all the teams needing so many home games to fund their programs, a play-off system would increase the chances of an SEC team making it to the dance. JMO We almost have to run the table to get there, or go out and develop a killer schedule.
