Dawgs are #1

[Bluedawg]

The AP has named Georgia as its preseason #1 with 22 first-place votes.


"To have people believing we have one of the best teams in the nation going into this thing, it's exciting for us," Bulldogs coach Mark Richt said in a telephone interview with the AP.

"I don't think anything is guaranteed, but we certainly have put ourselves in position where at least the college football world thinks we're pretty good."

Georgia is No. 1 in preseason AP poll (http://savannahnow.com/node/553601)

[dukie8]

The AP has named Georgia as its preseason #1 with 22 first-place votes.

does spurrier not give us the token 1 vote anymore?

[throatybeard]

does spurrier not give us the token 1 vote anymore?

Not in the media poll he doesn't.

[dukie8]

Not in the media poll he doesn't.

we didn't get a vote in either poll.

[bradjenk]

Of the top 10, Georgia has by far the toughest schedule: at So.Carolina, at Ariz.St., Tennessee (who's spanked them 2 straight years), Alabama, at LSU, Florida in Jville (very vengeful Gators), and at Auburn. They could be a great team and still lose 2 or 3. Unless we have another 2 loss team in the BCS championship game, I don't like Georgia's chances at all.

[Lavabe]

If this thread doesn't get a post from ugadevil, I don't know what will. Looking forward to his comments.

Two warmups first (GaSouthern and C.Mich), before a decidedly tough schedule.

Two-three losses is realistic. It's hard to say with anyone in the SEC East. You could legitimately say that UGA will win it, but you could also argue for Florida and Tennessee.

Whoever wins the SEC East then takes on the SEC winner (LSU?).

Too tough a road ahead, but I'd like to see them do it.

Cheers,
Lavabe

[Channing]

I like Auburn in the SEC West. I believe LSU plays Auburn at Auburn this year, and the hometeam has been pretty consistent of late in that matchup. Georgia has a brutal schedule, but I am hoping they can get through it with 1 loss!

[calltheobvious]

I like Auburn in the SEC West. I believe LSU plays Auburn at Auburn this year, and the hometeam has been pretty consistent of late in that matchup. Georgia has a brutal schedule, but I am hoping they can get through it with 1 loss!

The last time the visitors won this game was 1999 (Auburn, 41-7).

Auburn definitely should win the West. But don't be surprised ir Alabama or Ole Miss ruins somebody's season and turns that division into a complete cluster.

[ugadevil]

If this thread doesn't get a post from ugadevil, I don't know what will. Looking forward to his comments.

Two warmups first (GaSouthern and C.Mich), before a decidedly tough schedule.

Two-three losses is realistic. It's hard to say with anyone in the SEC East. You could legitimately say that UGA will win it, but you could also argue for Florida and Tennessee.

Whoever wins the SEC East then takes on the SEC winner (LSU?).

Too tough a road ahead, but I'd like to see them do it.

Cheers,
Lavabe

I won't put a lot in this thread because I see this as being one of those subjects where 10 people will give an opinion and will be determined to argue it to the death.

I'm excited to see Georgia get the attention in the polls and hope that we can play to expectations this season. As everyone has already said, it will be an extremely difficult schedule and the Dawgs will have to have a lot go right to go undefeated. I hope they can continue on the momentum from last season and keep it rolling into this year. There's a few things I'm interested in seeing in the Dawgs first couple games: 1. Special Teams - Georgia lost All-American kicker Brandon Coutu, and he will probably be replaced with a freshman. 2. Will Matt Stafford and the Georgia receivers be able to hit on all cylinders? 3. How will Caleb King and Knowshon Moreno look in the UGA backfield? Should be an exciting season in Athens.

[pfrduke]

does spurrier not give us the token 1 vote anymore?

It appears he abandoned the practice. Maybe he doesn't like David Cutcliffe?

[rockymtn devil]

In the thread started a few weeks ago about the Coaches Poll I noted that I pretty much agreed with the top 4. I think Florida is ranked a little high based on the defensive question marks (have they really improved that much from a 4-loss season?).

In terms of Georgia, tough schedule will make it hard to go unbeaten, but 1 loss is certainly doable and that should get them to the BCS Title game (most years, if you really are the best team in the country, you should be able to go 11-1 or 12-0). I'm not sure that the Dawgs would've been number 1 had the poll been conducted later (AP ballots were due on August 1st, I believe)--after the injury bug hit. The loss of a top-notch LT will be tough to overcome.

[Uncle Drew]

I won't put a lot in this thread because I see this as being one of those subjects where 10 people will give an opinion and will be determined to argue it to the death.

I'm excited to see Georgia get the attention in the polls and hope that we can play to expectations this season. As everyone has already said, it will be an extremely difficult schedule and the Dawgs will have to have a lot go right to go undefeated. I hope they can continue on the momentum from last season and keep it rolling into this year. There's a few things I'm interested in seeing in the Dawgs first couple games: 1. Special Teams - Georgia lost All-American kicker Brandon Coutu, and he will probably be replaced with a freshman. 2. Will Matt Stafford and the Georgia receivers be able to hit on all cylinders? 3. How will Caleb King and Knowshon Moreno look in the UGA backfield? Should be an exciting season in Athens.

UGA, on paper it looks like there are going to be some really fun parties to go to on Saturday nights this fall in Athens. There are question marks on every team and the only thing in my eyes I see really going against UGA is the schedule. But if the BCS BS can give us a national champion with two losses there is always a glimmer of hope despite the toughest schedule I've seen for any school in a LONG time. That being said that strength of schedule might help them the way the BCS is calculated. I of course will be pulling like hell for my Blue Devils, but I want to see UGA do well for all my relatives in GA. (Yes I have that one uncle that went to GT, but he's a yankee, we don't talk to him anyway.) :D

[GADevilFan]

Ha! Nobody talks to their Yankee uncles you are GT fans.

I consider myself a secondary UGA fan.... and they have been a lot of fun to watch these last few years. Lots of talent and top tier coaching staff. The UGA flags are flying everywhere in metro ATL...the expectations are incredibly high. It will be interesting and fun to follow....and I esp. hope Coach Cut and Devils can beat GT!!!

[JasonEvans]

Here is an interesting perspective (http://atlantasportsgenius.blogspot.com/2008/08/wave-grows-stronger.html) on why it is so important that Georgia be the preseason #1 (or at least preseason top 3 or so).

--Jason "also, if you want to know why Spurrier is not voting for us anymore, read this (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080802/SPORTS0102/808020303/1002/rss02)" Evans

[rockymtn devil]

Here is an interesting perspective (http://atlantasportsgenius.blogspot.com/2008/08/wave-grows-stronger.html) on why it is so important that Georgia be the preseason #1 (or at least preseason top 3 or so).

--Jason "also, if you want to know why Spurrier is not voting for us anymore, read this (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080802/SPORTS0102/808020303/1002/rss02)" Evans

I disagree with the bloggers POV. Ohio State started last season out of the top 10 (and, IIRC, also started out of the top 10 in 2002 when it won the national title).

Georgia only had to be judged in the "beauty pageant" because it didn't take care of business on the field (which, of course, runs in the face of the argument that the title isn't decided on the field). Had the Dawgs not lost to a mediocre SC team, they would've played for the title. Had the Dawgs not been destroyed by a good (but not great) Tennessee team, they would've played for the title. Don't get me wrong, where you start in the polls can be very important, but it isn't as important as what happens on the field.

Even in 2004 when Auburn got shut out of the BCS Title game, it had as much to do with a weak SEC (yes, SEC fans, it has happened) and the Tigers decision to replace Bowling Green with The Citadel when the Falcons broke the contract to play Oklahoma than it did with where they started in the polls.

[Bluedog]

I disagree with the bloggers POV. Ohio State started last season out of the top 10 (and, IIRC, also started out of the top 10 in 2002 when it won the national title).

I think last year was an aberration, not the rule. There were a record number of losses by teams ranked #1 or 2 in the country. Typically, those that begin at the top, stay at the top.

[rockymtn devil]

I think last year was an aberration, not the rule. There were a record number of losses by teams ranked #1 or 2 in the country. Typically, those that begin at the top, stay at the top.

Although that might be conventional wisdom, CV's wrong on this one.

BCS Title Game Matchups (preseason AP rank)

1998: Florida State (2) vs. Tennessee (10)
1999: Virginia Tech (13) vs. Florida State (1)
2000: Oklahoma (19) vs. Florida State (2)
2001: Miami (2) vs. Nebraska (4)
2002: Ohio State (13) vs. Miami (1)
2003: LSU (14) vs. Oklahoma (1)
2004: Oklahoma (2) vs. USC (1)
2005: Texas (2) vs. USC (1)
2006: Ohio State (1) vs. Florida (7)
2007: LSU (2) vs. Ohio State (11)

Six out of ten times in the BCS era the title game has included a team that started the season with a double-digit ranking (only three times have both teams started in the Top-5). Four of those six times, the team ranked outside the Top-10 ultimately won the title.

http://www.appollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=955

[The Dude]

does spurrier not give us the token 1 vote anymore?


http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080802/SPORTS0102/808020303/1002/rss02

[calltheobvious]

I disagree with the bloggers POV. Ohio State started last season out of the top 10 (and, IIRC, also started out of the top 10 in 2002 when it won the national title).

Georgia only had to be judged in the "beauty pageant" because it didn't take care of business on the field (which, of course, runs in the face of the argument that the title isn't decided on the field). Had the Dawgs not lost to a mediocre SC team, they would've played for the title. Had the Dawgs not been destroyed by a good (but not great) Tennessee team, they would've played for the title. Don't get me wrong, where you start in the polls can be very important, but it isn't as important as what happens on the field.

Even in 2004 when Auburn got shut out of the BCS Title game, it had as much to do with a weak SEC (yes, SEC fans, it has happened) and the Tigers decision to replace Bowling Green with The Citadel when the Falcons broke the contract to play Oklahoma than it did with where they started in the polls.


Sorry, RMD, we're boys on the PPB, but I can't let this business slide. Auburn didn't miss out on the BCS game because of the Citadel. The voters needed something to hang their hats on in setting up the match-up that most of the country wanted all season, and they found it in the Citadel. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been different if Auburn had beaten BGSU instead of the Citadel by 35? After Auburn couldn't pass OU despite the most impressive win in the entire regular season--24-6 over #3 Georgia--and the Sooners giving up 35 pts each to Texas A&M and Oklahoma State, you think that having Bowling Freaking Green on the sched would have made the difference?

As for the SEC being down that year, the facts don't back that up, either. If Auburn had lost to Georgia in the regular season and Tennessee in the SEC title game, there would have been four SEC teams in the top ten going into bowl season, LSU being the fourth. Three of those four teams won their bowl games, with LSU losing on a last-second prayer to Iowa in a game neither the team nor its coach cared anything about (Saban would depart for Miami shortly thereafter).

So, if Auburn had been worse, and LSU had cared to show up in their bowl game, nobody would have said the SEC was down. Quite the contrary, people wouldn't have been able to stop talking about one league having four of the top ten teams in the country. As it was, though, the perception of the entire conference ended up suffering because Auburn was incredible and thus added some losses to teams that in most years wouldn't have suffered those particular ones. Nonsensical, and unfair.

[rockymtn devil]

[/B]

Sorry, RMD, we're boys on the PPB, but I can't let this business slide. Auburn didn't miss out on the BCS game because of the Citadel. The voters needed something to hang their hats on in setting up the match-up that most of the country wanted all season, and they found it in the Citadel. Do you honestly think the outcome would have been different if Auburn had beaten BGSU instead of the Citadel by 35? After Auburn couldn't pass OU despite the most impressive win in the entire regular season--24-6 over #3 Georgia--and the Sooners giving up 35 pts each to Texas A&M and Oklahoma State, you think that having Bowling Freaking Green on the sched would have made the difference?

As for the SEC being down that year, the facts don't back that up, either. If Auburn had lost to Georgia in the regular season and Tennessee in the SEC title game, there would have been four SEC teams in the top ten going into bowl season, LSU being the fourth. Three of those four teams won their bowl games, with LSU losing on a last-second prayer to Iowa in a game neither the team nor its coach cared anything about (Saban would depart for Miami shortly thereafter).

So, if Auburn had been worse, and LSU had cared to show up in their bowl game, nobody would have said the SEC was down. Quite the contrary, people wouldn't have been able to stop talking about one league having four of the top ten teams in the country. As it was, though, the perception of the entire conference ended up suffering because Auburn was incredible and thus added some losses to teams that in most years wouldn't have suffered those particular ones. Nonsensical, and unfair.

I'll tackle this in bullet points.

1. I'm an Auburn fan (have family ties to it) and was upset to see them get shut out of that game.

2. Bowling Green did have an impact. Besides Utah and Boise State, BG was the best Mid Major team that season (9-3; finished ranked 27 in the AP Poll) and was a good SOS/computer ranking boost to anyone's schedule. When BG dropped Auburn and took a game with Oklahoma, it initially had a double impact. Auburn lost that good SOS/computer boost and Oklahoma got it. In the end, when the Sooners beat out the Tigers, it had an impact. A third impact was that Auburn replaced the 3rd best mid-major team in the America with a 1-AA opponent. 1-AA opponents can do nothing but harm to your BCS score.

3. The SEC was down.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt04.htm

This is Jeff Sagarin's 2005-2005 rankings. The SOS of SEC teams is pretty low. Auburn's schedule is 60; LSU's is 46; Georgia's 41. Given that the bulk of their games were against SEC teams, it's reasonable, IMO, to state that the SEC was down that year. Auburn suffered from that in the computer rankings (note: OU's schedule was ranked 13 according to Sagarin that year).

In bowl games, ranked SEC teams did as follows:

LSU-lost to Iowa
Georgia-beat Wisconsin
Auburn-beat VT
Florida (not actually ranked, but 1st receiving votes)-lost to Miami

[calltheobvious]

I'll tackle this in bullet points.

1. I'm an Auburn fan (have family ties to it) and was upset to see them get shut out of that game.

2. Bowling Green did have an impact. Besides Utah and Boise State, BG was the best Mid Major team that season (9-3; finished ranked 27 in the AP Poll) and was a good SOS/computer ranking boost to anyone's schedule. When BG dropped Auburn and took a game with Oklahoma, it initially had a double impact. Auburn lost that good SOS/computer boost and Oklahoma got it. In the end, when the Sooners beat out the Tigers, it had an impact. A third impact was that Auburn replaced the 3rd best mid-major team in the America with a 1-AA opponent. 1-AA opponents can do nothing but harm to your BCS score.

3. The SEC was down.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt04.htm

This is Jeff Sagarin's 2005-2005 rankings. The SOS of SEC teams is pretty low. Auburn's schedule is 60; LSU's is 46; Georgia's 41. Given that the bulk of their games were against SEC teams, it's reasonable, IMO, to state that the SEC was down that year. Auburn suffered from that in the computer rankings (note: OU's schedule was ranked 13 according to Sagarin that year).

In bowl games, ranked SEC teams did as follows:

LSU-lost to Iowa
Georgia-beat Wisconsin
Auburn-beat VT
Florida (not actually ranked, but 1st receiving votes)-lost to Miami

I'm not claiming that the Bowling Green fiasco (they backed out very, very late, and Auburn had to scramble just to fill the date) didn't hurt Auburn. I'm saying that in the court of public opinion, Bowling Green had the most marginal of impacts. The Herbstreits and Corsos of the world were beating the drums for USC-OU, and they got it, despite the fact that OU's defense was very often a seive.

Auburn absolutely dominated every regular-season game they played save LSU, and if Tuberville had wanted, he could have beaten Georgia by 35, Tennessee by 50, and everybody else by more than that. By the SEC Championship game, though, the handwriting was on the wall, and Auburn made a couple of mental mistakes they hadn't made all year to beat Tennessee by 10 points, despite completely dominating the game.

Normally I'd be interested in crunching all of the numbers you could throw at me. But in that case, I watched all three of those teams all year, and based on their bodies of work, there's was no reasonable argument for Auburn not being rated in the top two by thinking humans, except that they started lower than USC and OU, which is where this thread was before the hijack. Auburn had a better quarterback, running backs, offensive line, kicking game, and secondary than Oklahoma, and it really wasn't even close. And fwiw, I'm not conceding a single thing to the USC "we were dangerously close to losing to 5-5 UCLA" Trojans.

So, I readily concede the computers thought more of OU of USC, and that they would have thought more of Auburn had the Tigers been able to keep the BGSU game. But I won't concede that it would have mattered. The human polls drove everything, and there simply weren't enough people with Auburn in the top two for it to matter. Auburn was an objectively superior football team to OU, and it should have been clear to the country even before their pathetic secondary was completely exposed against USC.

Thought experiment: Part I: If Auburn had started #2 and everything else had gone as it did, what would have happened?

Part II: If the helmets had been switched, would Oklahoma have been able to overtake an Auburn team that had to hang on for dear life against two mediocre teams?

[ugadevil]

I'm SHOCKED that this thread has digressed to a topic about a previous year in college football and a team that may or may not have been robbed. It just goes to show that it's near impossible to have a conversation about who's the best because of the stupidity of the BCS and the lack of finality with all of it.

[rockymtn devil]

I'm SHOCKED that this thread has digressed to a topic about a previous year in college football and a team that may or may not have been robbed. It just goes to show that it's near impossible to have a conversation about who's the best because of the stupidity of the BCS and the lack of finality with all of it.

The other side of the coin is that, given how this discussion has switched gears, the BCS is great for college football. Even if it's terrible (it is), and even if we all moan about it (we do), at least people are talking about college football and, more importantly, watching it.

And the Auburn fiasco isn't special to the BCS. In fact, the BCS is more of an equal opportunity hoax than the previous system. Before there was 2004 Auburn, there was 1994 Penn State who, despite being #2, didn't even get a shot at the title, let alone a split. Under the BCS, teams from all conferences--and not just the Big 10 and Pac 10--have a shot at getting robbed.

[Shammrog]

Go Dawgs!!! Mark Richt is a great coach, and a better person. I am excited for us this year!

[Wander]

The other side of the coin is that, given how this discussion has switched gears, the BCS is great for college football. Even if it's terrible (it is), and even if we all moan about it (we do), at least people are talking about college football and, more importantly, watching it.


No, no, no. People would talk about and watch the sport just as much with a more intelligent system in place, and quite possibly more.

[rockymtn devil]

No, no, no. People would talk about and watch the sport just as much with a more intelligent system in place, and quite possibly more.

I'll look for a link when I have a minute, but ESPN ran a "BCS at 10" series earlier this summer and, IIRC, stated that ratings are up immensely for college football and bowl games during the BCS era.

Link: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?id=3402083

I think people forget how bad the old system was. Or, perhaps only those who lived in B10/P10 country were aware of it because we watched Penn State get hosed up close.

Most importantly, we're getting very close to the start of the season and it should be a great one. We have a solid slate of national title teams that are all loaded--Georgia, USC, OSU, OU--and we actually get to see two of them play early in the year.

[Wander]

I agree it's better than the old system. It still sucks. And by sucks, I mean sucks a lot.

[RPS]

I'm SHOCKED that this thread has digressed to a topic about a previous year in college football and a team that may or may not have been robbed.

Thank you, Captain Renault.


It just goes to show that it's near impossible to have a conversation about who's the best because of the stupidity of the BCS and the lack of finality with all of it.

I agree. But nearly as egregious is the blatent East Coast bias of fans and the media. The best football is played out west.

Link (http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/Orman1006/2008/07/25/PAC10_vs_SEC_since)

[Classof06]

Thank you, Captain Renault.



I agree. But nearly as egregious is the blatent East Coast bias of fans and the media. The best football is played out west.

Link (http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/Orman1006/2008/07/25/PAC10_vs_SEC_since)


I have nothing against the Pac-10 but if the best football is played out there, then why has the same team won the conference for the past six seasons?

[RPS]

I have nothing against the Pac-10 but if the best football is played out there, then why has the same team won the conference for the past six seasons?

Besides a nit-pick about shared titles, that fact illustrates the strength of USC rather than the weakness of the rest of the conference. Besides, if Dennis Dixon stays healthy last year, Oregon probably wins everything. It's tough to make an argument for the overall power of the SEC (good though its teams are) when the overall out-of-conference schedule is worse than that of many 1-AA (now some long name that shows that 1-AA championships are actually won on the field -- fancy that) teams.