re: Georgia should drop Ga. Tech and play Clemson during rivalry week instead

quote:

---

17 of UGA's wins against Clemson came in 1954 or earlier.

---

quote:

---

Since 1974

---

I have to ask first....why did you pick 1974? Since you brought up Clemson changing from a military school in 1955, why not use that in the wins and losses? Which I guess it wouldn't matter much because Clemson had only 8 wins against Georgia prior to 1974 (26-8-3).

quote:

---

Since 1974 UGA is 13-8-1

---

5 of those wins came when Danny boy was cheating his arse off.

Fair enough

If gt and ugag have any knowledge matches tech should get a better opponent for those, too.

quote:

---

See where I'm going with the tie-breaker argument?

---

Not only did I already address this, but the conference already faced this dilemna with the old BCS format.

Higher ranked teams move on when there isn't a head to head. If I remember, it was the third or fourth qualifier (conference record, head to head, common opponents, and then rankings).

quote:

---

Not only did I already address this, but the conference already faced this dilemna with the old BCS format.

Higher ranked teams move on when there isn't a head to head. If I remember, it was the third or fourth qualifier (conference record, head to head, common opponents, and then rankings).

---

I think BCS ranking was actually third. That's what happened in 03 when there was a 3 way tie for the East (6-2 UF beat 6-2 UG, who beat 6-2 UT, who beat UF).

quote:

---

You 2 are missing the biggest problem of non-divisional play: TIEBREAKERS!
How in the world are you going to fairly rank teams to see who's better than whom if they DON'T share common opponents? Now apply that to 14 (or more in the future) teams. With divisions, you EASILY have a format that can INSTANTLY organize 7 teams. When we go to 4X4 pods & pair them up, you'll organize 8 teams.

Next problem: FAIR SCHEDULING
For example: UGA/Auburn wants to play each year while TA&M doesn't want any annual matchups. With an 8 conf. game season, the Aggies will play every other team 8X in 13 years while the Dawgs/Tigers only play every other team 7X in 12 years. How is that fair for comparison?

---

Let's talk about tie breakers:

As it has already be mentioned, this is already happening so despite your overly dramatic post, it is a big nothing-burger..

Fairly ranking teams?..As I said, use the CFP committees ranking if some of the other tie breakers don't resolve the problem. The CFP Committee doesn't seem to have a problem ranking any team...If two teams are tied in head to head, conference record then the CFP has already broken down strength of schedule.

Fair Scheduling: That is why you have Athletic Directors. It is their job to work with the conference to hammer out schedules...you make it sound like it's not possible and it becomes just the opposite. When teams are no longer bound to playing the same teams that they have to play in their current divisions then it really opens things up...

There are times when divisional play has such an imbalance they one division should send two teams from the same to have the best teams...In the ACC example, Clemson and FSU probably would have played a few ACCCG's as the Coastal was way down...The SEC East hasn't exactly been lighting up the world until UGa woke up finally.

quote:

---

I looked up the series record for Georgia and South Carolina and I could have sworn that South Carolina had more than 17 wins against Georgia (I was thinking 21). Honestly, most of the games since 2000 has been good.

---

That's true ... the thing about many of our earlier games, especially as an Independent from 71-92, were also good games. But we (SC) lost just about all of the close ones. That was the difference. Plus UGA was, and still is for that matter, historically just a better program. UGA has had a huge advantage recruiting-base-wise, conference-wise, quality scholarships numbers-wise, etc.

Scholarship limits were one of the better things the NCAA did IMHO, it's brought parity to the game. I remember it wasn't that long ago that schools could sign as many as they wanted every season and have rosters with 200 players, then 145, 135, 125, 105, 95 and now 85 ... it's changed the game at the college level. 75 will be the new limit by 2030.

The taterhead poster above likes to play dumb and claim Clemson had to suffer under their all-male A&M status for the first 65 years of their existence but that's typical sheephumping BS logic because from 1890-1965 military all male schools had a huge advantage ... those were the places, like Navy, Army, Ga Tech, etc., where the best athletes wanted to go to school - especially on the east coast. And Clemson benefitted from that during those years especially.

Things are changing.

These days it's about facilities and amenities, conference affiliations, TV time ... more and more locality and in many cases, most actually, proximity to the prospect's home. Driving distance within that golden 250 mile radius, less than a four hour drive.

Georgia has long been a sleeping giant. Clemson has all the key elements to continue to experience success but they are also cheating ... and they'll get caught. It's a well-known fact, not conjecture, that they are paying players and how they managed to avoid being dragged into the Ole Miss investigation given their close ties to so many of those paid players ... it's beyond me. But it's how they do business up there, they've done it off and on for a long time and they are very good at it - but they'll eventually be caught and busted on some level. It's always just a matter of time with them.

In the meantime SC, who now can compete in all arenas previously mentioned like facilities, location, conference affiliation, fan following, etc., is catching-up. Spurrier proved it can be done here ... it's just a matter of time.

Population base is key. This state is growing like crazy, leaps and bounds, and that is really going to begin paying-off in short order. That and being a border state of Georgia's where, IMHO, we can go-in and sign talent from possibly the richest and most fertile recruiting grounds in the country.

It's all been amazing to observe over the decades.

For SC it's been a slow process but I give full credit to the vision of Paul Dietzel. He always said the key for us was going to be eventually becoming a member of the SEC and he put that into motion in the 60s. The man was and is very special to me and most older SC fans. It's finally started to come to fruition and nothing is more illustrative of that fact than our ability to rebound from where we were three years ago to where we are now ... because in the old days it would have taken us a decade or more to recover.

Paul Dietzel and Mike McGee should have statues in the middle of our Dodie complex given how they fought to improve our standing.

quote:

---

If gt and ugag have any knowledge matches tech should get a better opponent for those, too.

---

quote:

---

The taterhead poster above likes to play dumb and claim Clemson had to suffer under their all-male A&M status for the first 65 years of their existence but that's typical sheephumping BS logic because from 1890-1965 military all male schools had a huge advantage ... those were the places, like Navy, Army, Ga Tech, etc., where the best athletes wanted to go to school - especially on the east coast. And Clemson benefitted from that during those years especially.

---

Georgia Tech wasn't a military college.

Clemson obviously never benefited in football for being a military college. Clemson's overall records against many of the P5 teams indicates this.

quote:

---

200 players?

Why 75?

---

Back in the day, well into the 50s ... there were no recruiting number limits. So the big powerhouse schools, especially those in the Big Ten and the west coast with tons of alumni support, population bases and incredible media coverage (to include Notre Dame) had a massive advantage because they would literally sign and process 50 or 60 kids a year just to keep their rivals from signing them.

It was sometime in the mid 60s when, after Notre Dame signed a class of 81 I think it was, that the NCAA stepped-in and began to limit class sizes to 50 a year if I remember correctly. It has gradually shrunk since down to where it is now but there is a current push by some University presidents to shrink it to 20 a year with a max roster of 75.

That's still 30 more than is allowed on an NFL active roster.

It's all about booming populations, growing the mid majors and parity. Why? Because by doing-so the NCAA expands it's tax base making more and more programs profitable and able to operate in the black. Although they will tell you it's more about giving more under privileged student athletes a chance, expanding Title IX and I've even read some claiming it is good for local economies given the incredible building boom happening within almost all conferences right now with increased TV revenue being generated.

Funny how that works ... limiting scholarships means sharing the wealth on all levels and in all arenas.

Still, the powerhouses, (and there will be a changing of the guard to some extent ... or rather an adding to the guard), the powerhouses are still gonna get theirs because they have had a substantial head start. Those that sputter or stutter or misstep, like say for instance Tennessee, could see themselves relegated to a lesser standing or completely doomed to decline ala Minnesota for example ... who was a national power until the early 60s.

It's hard to come back once you're in full decline and after years of mismanagement.

ADs are now COOs and Presidents are CEOs and their number 1 money maker is football ... not so much in terms of financial reward or profits from the game itself, but moreso from perception of running a successful endeavor. It's a well known fact that when sports programs are having success enrollment goes-up exponentially ... which leads to more graduates, more alumni, wealthier alumni, enlarged endowments.

All ships rise with the ti... errrrrr, well, a good football program let's say.