re: Georgia refuses to play at Kyle Field conspiracy??

quote:

---

To be honest, you're going all over the place with your arguments.

Here's the reality... the 5 "permanent" games UGA wanted to have after GT and Tulane left the conference in the mid 60's were Bama, Florida, UK, Vandy, Auburn with 1-2 other games rotating among SEC teams.

But Bama dropped UGA for LSU... so instead they had OM, Florida, UK, vandy and Auburn as their permanent games. UGA scheduled games with Bama, LSU, Tennessee and MSU relatively equally.

BAMA ended the series, not UGA. If a team was ducking the game, it was Bama (though in reality they likely felt it benefitted them to look west for recruits rather than east).

OOC, UGA had regular games with SC, Clemson and GT... and for much of that time GT and Clemson at least were often ranked either when the game was played or at season end. UGA also put in regular season games against Pitt (a powerhouse at the time), ranked NCSU and Cal teams, as well as teams that should have been good like A&M, UCLA and UVA.

---

This is all bullshite. Georgia by your own admission was basically playing the LEAST AMOUNT OF SEC GAMES REQUIRED, especially after GT left.

These so called rival games that were so important:

Clemson: 43-18-4.
South Carolina: 54-19-2.

And of course, you happily kept a GT that de-emphasized athletics and whom you have lost to only 14 times in the past 60 years.

Against Alabama, Georgia has a losing record. 26-42-4, and had lost 5 of the past 6, with the 1 win coming only because of a bad call.

Additionally, while Georgia was playing the least amount of SEC games required most of the time, Bear was known for wanting more SEC games. And that is also reflected in the fact that Alabama would play 7 and 8 SEC teams every year regularly, and generally as often as they could.

Alabama had no reason at all to want to stop playing Georgia. Meanwhile, as pointed out Georgia already had a history of not playing many SEC games.

The idea that Alabama would want to get rid of any of these games is just bullshite. If you were an SEC team and you didn't play Alabama regularly, it's because you didn't want to.

So absolutely nothing you say lines up with history.

I'm not even sure why you are bringing up 1992+.

quote:

---

Again last 6 years of wally butts... bama was 3-3 against UGA.

First 2 years of vince dooley... bama was 1-1 against UGA.

Bama was good against Johnny Griffith... but so was everyone else.

---

Alabama won 7 out of the last 9 before they stopped playing Georgia every year.

The 1965 game Georgia only won because of a bad call, Alabama still won the NC.



Nobody was scared of Georgia.

quote:

---

UGA had 4 SECC's through 1965. 6 after that through 1992. Dropping Bama didn't have a huge impact on UGA's success one way or the other. Bama had 8 through 1966. 11 afterwards. It seems not playing UGA helped them more than it helped UGA.

---

You went so far back in time to make it look like Georgia was competitive, even the A&M fans are blushing.

Bear arrived in 1958. Georgia won 2 games over the next 7 years, and the one in 1965 was one every historian calls tainted over a bad call.

The 2 wins Georgia managed in the 10 games before that were both loses to Ears, the worst coach in Alabama history.

From 1958 to 1995, Georgia's record against Alabama was 4-13.

What's next, you going to pretend Georgia was a blueblood?

quote:

---

Currently, do schools of the league control scheduling? Or the league just has final say? We haven’t been here long enough to ever know or ask, I just figured it was the schools deciding

---

These days the SEC schedules them all and has since the 90s.

As far as Georgia vs Texas A&M goes, it's just a matter of 1 game rotation with 6 teams. Takes 12 years or whatever to rotate both home games. Georgia can't really control that, I only give them shite because it didn't start there.