Started By
Message
re: So There's A Good Chance We Go 10-3
Posted on 11/16/15 at 5:53 am to Dawgs28
Posted on 11/16/15 at 5:53 am to Dawgs28
quote:
Well actually you changed my wording. I said "traditional" :P
No you didn't. You said it originally...but when I showed we we do play a traditional SEC schedule you said this...:
What comes to mind when someone says a difficult SEC schedule?
1
Posted on 11/16/15 at 6:55 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Yes we have. When we beat them there was a couple of teams that had winning records.
Currently, not a single win comes over a team with a winning record and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by including their cupcake OOC wins.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:11 am to RD Dawg
quote:
What exactlyis your definition?
Teams that have been historically good over the long haul.
Bama
OSU
USC
Oklahoma
ND
You could make an argument for others but I wouldn't include Miami, FSU, Clemson, Auburn. A case could be made for Texas.
quote:
Are only "bluebloods" allowed to win a NC?
Don't be stupid.
quote:
The landscape of CFB is always changing.
Doesn't change the fact that we aren't a blue blood and we shouldn't expect to win the natty or even be in the race every year.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:12 am to djsdawg
quote:
If we want to get really specific, We were a blue blood from 1942-1946, 1975-1983, and 2002-2007.
Nope, we had some great teams during those times but we weren't a blue blood.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:17 am to Porter Osborne Jr
quote:
make an argument for others but I wouldn't include Miami, FSU, Clemson, Auburn. A case could be made for Texas.
There are eight teams that I consider "bluebloods".
Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Alabama, USC, Oklahoma, Texas and Nebraska.
Those are probably the eight best programs historically in CFB.
However, given the massive influx of high school football into the Atlanta area, there is absolutely no reason for Georgia to not take the jump into the next level.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:37 am to VADawg
I think the influx of non Ga and non UGA families to ATL has actually hurt us as much as it has helped. It is such a melting pot with less local loyalties... Plus, all them talent in one place draws in recruiters from around the region and beyond.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:37 am to VADawg
quote:
However, given the massive influx of high school football into the Atlanta area, there is absolutely no reason for Georgia to not take the jump into the next level.
I think that we can. I just think it's silly for people to act like we always have been.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:48 am to VADawg
How long does Nebraska stay on the list?
Posted on 11/16/15 at 10:53 am to ATLdawg25
quote:
How long does Nebraska stay on the list?
I don't think Nebraska will ever again be what they were under Osborne (and Solich to a lesser extent) but it feels too weird talking about the historically great CFB programs and not including them. They played for a national title more recently than Michigan and Michigan is at the very top of the prestige list.
Nebraska got all the great players for a long time because they were on national tv more than just about anyone else, and because Osborne started letting in some players with questionable (at best) character. Once everyone started playing on tv, recruits realized they didn't have to go all the way to Lincoln to play in front of a national audience anymore. No program has been hurt by the changing landscape of college football more than Nebraska.
This post was edited on 11/16/15 at 10:56 am
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:27 am to VADawg
I see a lot of merit with everything in your last two posts. I remember the days when Nebraska ruled the College Football world. Johnny Rodgers, etc.....the Oklahoma/Nebraska games were always an all out war and a LOT of fun to watch.
AND, I agree with your list, too. It would be very difficult to exclude any of the programs you mentioned. I agree that Nebraska will probably never return to their former glory days, but they were a HUGE power for a ton of years.
AND, I agree with your list, too. It would be very difficult to exclude any of the programs you mentioned. I agree that Nebraska will probably never return to their former glory days, but they were a HUGE power for a ton of years.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 1:45 pm to VADawg
quote:
Nebraska got all the great players because they were on national TV more than anyone else
If you're talking about the days when the NCAA limited regional and national TV appearences I really don't think they were on more than OU,ND,OSU,BAMA,USC or even Penn State.
A couple of different factors played a huge part of their success back then.Their "weight training and conditioning program" (think of East Germany during the Olympics in the 70's and 80's)And their "walk on" program.Somehow they were able to convince guys from all over the country to "walk on" at Lincoln.Imagine that.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 2:11 pm to Dawgholio
quote:
Currently, not a single win comes over a team with a winning record and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by including their cupcake OOC wins.
Why give anybody "the benefit of the doubt"? Why don't we eliminate all cupcake wins? I mean...only teams that play Georgia also play cupcakes right? If we eliminate all cupcake wins, does this mean Ohio State has no record?
Posted on 11/16/15 at 2:12 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
.Their "weight training and conditioning program" (think of East Germany during the Olympics in the 70's and 80's)
Is this a polite way of saying....steroids?
Posted on 11/16/15 at 2:15 pm to RD Dawg
Double post
This post was edited on 11/16/15 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 11/16/15 at 2:33 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Their "weight training and conditioning program"
Nebraska made BALCO look like child's play. They definitely had a big time steroids thing going on.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 6:48 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
quote:
Doesn't change the fact thaf we aren't a blue blood and we shouldn't expect to be win the natty or even be in hunt every year
WTF does one have to do with the other?WTH did OSU win before 2001?One freakin natty with Woody Hayes?
Michigan has won ONE natty since 1948 but their fans should expect to be in the hunt for it every year?Based off what?Natty's won from 1898 to 1948?Using that logic,GT should expect to be in the hunt every year.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 7:06 pm to RD Dawg
Football is cyclical based on countless variables. In this day and age, there is a direct correlation between monies spent and winning. There are exceptions, but the money helps with recruiting, scouting and training... I think that beating your rivals carries a lot more weight than you younger whipper snappers realize. We didn't have the BCS and even the SEC Championship game. We had Florida, Auburn, and Tech... With Clemson and UT as a second tier. Beating those three are the bench mark for many of us older dudes. Beating them in a down season is no less sweet. Richt has dominated Auburn and Tech. Same for UT... Y'all have become spoiled with it and have allowed yourself to chase a myth that was never there.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 7:15 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Why give anybody "the benefit of the doubt"? Why don't we eliminate all cupcake wins? I mean...only teams that play Georgia also play cupcakes right? If we eliminate all cupcake wins, does this mean Ohio State has no record?
So...in other words...you still don't deny that we haven't had a win over a single team with a winning record.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 7:47 pm to Peter Buck
"In this day and age . . . I think that beating your rivals carries a lot more weight than you younger whipper snappers realize. We didn't have the BCS and even the SEC Championship game. We had Florida, Auburn, and Tech."
That's no small thing, though. Old rivalries don't mean as much anymore, at least not necessarily - certainly, some fans still value them, but others don't. The structure of the system has changed. The elimination of the old bowl system even got rid of a lot of the inter-conference rivalry. For example, the old Rose Bowl wasn't just the two teams playing, it was the Pac-10 vs. the Big 10, and it meant something to everyone from each conference. That's gone now.
That's no small thing, though. Old rivalries don't mean as much anymore, at least not necessarily - certainly, some fans still value them, but others don't. The structure of the system has changed. The elimination of the old bowl system even got rid of a lot of the inter-conference rivalry. For example, the old Rose Bowl wasn't just the two teams playing, it was the Pac-10 vs. the Big 10, and it meant something to everyone from each conference. That's gone now.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 7:57 pm to FaCubeItches
...but a lot of the people in higher levels of giving are not into that as much as the kids...
Page 6 of 7
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News