If Oregon defeats Stanford tonight, and Oklahoma beats Oklahoma State next weekend....

Then could it be possible (hypothetical, I know) for a 2 loss SEC champion (hypothetical, I know!) to make the BCS title game? Or would all the one loss AQ conf champs have right of way just because of their better record? 

You would have (hypothetically):

1-loss Pac12 champ (Oregon)

1-loss Big12 champ (Oklahoma)

1-loss ACC champ (Clemson)

2-loss SEC champ (redacted for hubris)

Wouldn't winning the conference that has claimed the last 5 BCS championships count for something here? When the "extra" loss was an out of conference game against a top-10 opponent? 

Would the fans of this hypothetical 2-loss SEC champion still need to root for more losses for those 1-loss teams (in their conference championship games)? Or, would a 1-loss SEC West runner-up (Alabama, Arkansas) get in over the 2-loss SEC champion? Gasp, surely not, right? Right???

I figured that in order to really be a good commenter around here, I need to become a lawya. Therefore, I am taking the LSAT. In the morning. 

But UGA kicks off at noon, which means I'll miss at least the first quarter. Pray for me accordingly, as I'll be trying to focus in on a logic game and while desperately avoiding distracting thoughts, such as "I wonder if we're driving efficiently into the red zone and then settling for 3's?" or "I wonder if Miss St had some mysterious unexpected gameplan that is befuddling us?"

Tough stuff. I probably should have waited for the December test. But, as always....

Go Dawgs!

I assume one thing, and then I really only have one major point to offer to the maelstrom of commentary that is already taking place.

Assumption:  It is all about money (I also have no problem with that, if anyone wants to throw down a politico-economico-moral argument over the matter). Things like football tradition, cultural "fit", and so forth do play some role in this, but not in a "we have to pick a school that meets these criteria" kind of way. Rather, the school that is the best money fit will, almost by definition, be the best combination of those other criteria as well. The other stuff is already "included" in the price, as it were. When you take into account the headaches of travelling and getting along in all the other sports, cultural fit and geographical proximity and so forth pretty much become part of the money equation, and not some extra considerations that you have to worry about after you've figured out which option is the best economically.

So, What I'm Thinking

It's all wrong to ask "who is the 14th SEC team?" in a vaccuum, and then pick apart the various possible candidates in terms of this or that. The 14th team in, frankly, is going to be a very fortunate program that is getting in because the SEC basically needs somebody to come in along with Texas A & M.

It's all about the money, yes, but the money issue is "won" already by bringing in Texas A & M. At that point, you simply need to bring in a 14th, and almost any 14th will do. It doesn't even matter if the 14th team sets you back a bit in terms of money, because overall you are picking up gains by adding Texas A & M and that team.

In other words, the decision is not, given that we have 13 teams, who should the 14th be? Rather, the decision is, given that we have 12 teams, does expansion to 14 make sense? The answer to that question (apparently) is that, yes, it absolutely makes sense if Texas A & M is one of the two schools added. That is the necessary and sufficient condition for expansion to make sense. The particular identity of the 14th school is almost an afterthought. Which is why whoever finds their way in to that slot should give their AD a raise (or, in the case of WVU, perhaps just call this year a wash).

Think of it this way. Right now each of the 12 members of the SEC makes $X per year as a result of their conference membership. By adding Texas A&M, each of the 13 members are going to make some new amount $X + n. Something higher than the current X (and it's probably a home run, no-doubt-about-it kind of number that makes the decision a no-brainer). Now, at that point, sitting with 13 teams making $X + n per year, you need a 14th team for a variety of reasons. But it's entirely possible that there is no 14th team you can bring in that will move the money needle up any further. It may even knock it down a bit. Maybe no matter who the 14th team is, the per school share of money in the new 14-team conference is going to be something smaller than $X + n. But, that's completely, unequivocally, absolutely...OK. It does not matter if the 14th team down-ticks you just a bit, so long as you're still going up on the net compared to what you're making with only 12 teams. I think that's the situation the SEC is in here. Texas A&M as number 13 makes a lot more money for everyone. At that point, logistically we need a 14th. The 14th just needs to be someone that still lets the dust settle with a lot more money than the member schools currently make, even if that 14th school doesn't actually add (or even if it slightly detracts, theoretically) anything more to that number.

SEC schools will end up making more with A&M-plus-one than they currently make, so the whole move to go to 14 is a net gainer. That being the case, the 14th just needs to be a reasonable team. Not a homerun. Not a crown jewel. Not an excitement machine. Just a warm body that can hold its own and allows the conference to have 14 instead of 13. This is why the SEC is likely not in any hurry to go "recruit" anyone in particular. In the coming chaos, someone who works will come calling, and that will be fine.

So Who Will It Be?

Of course, the SEC isn't literally going to take just anyone. Frankly, I think you basically just have to ask and be a non-terrible program in a current AQ conference. That is a pretty modest criterion, but not everyone can meet it. I imagine it will be a team not already in an SEC footprint state, and probably not in the ACC (now that they're re-upping thier walkaway fee and showing some solidarity; I think an ACC school such as NC State or Virginia Tech  would fit the bill if they asked, but I don't think any will ask. I could be wrong.).

Among the current most obvious subjects of banter, West Virginia and Mizzou would both do, although West Virginia is preferable because they would go into the east and not require any further re-shuffling of the divisions. If the rumors are true, West Virginia is about to ask, and there you go. 

It doesn't matter if WVU does or does not bring in more eyeballs in the Pittsburgh market or anywhere else. It doesn't matter if the Mountaineers are a non-tight cultural fit, as long as they aren't absurd (and, honestly, they're about right). It doesn't even matter if WVU is a net money-loser in its own right. The issue is that, with A&M joining, the SEC is going to make more money per school than it does currently. A team like WVU coming in at that point is still going to maintain a net gain in per school money, even if WVU technically ticks it backwards a bit.

Greetings, people of OBNUG. I want to rant just a bit, and I'd love to hear what the Bronco Nation thinks as well. First, who am I? I am a diehard Georgia fan. I was at the 2005 game in person. I've moved around but now I'm back in Georgia (which is my home state, and I did obtain my graduate degree from UGA for the record). Being a Georgia fan used to be simple enough, but this isn't a simple world. Anyway, this isn't about our struggles.

The Boise State football program is the real deal. They do it the right way, they are amazingly good not only at developing players, but at turning over and reloading quickly. If I were a Nebraska fan, I would somehow be allowed to applaud you guys for the extremely impressive performance you put on two weeks ago. But in the SEC, I don't think they let me do that. So, I'm kinda here on the downlow. You guys are really, really good. I'd still have to hear all the arguments at the end of the season based on the resumes of all the contenders (that's only logical, right?), but I have no difficulty saying that in principle the Broncos are a team that could win a BCS championship game if they had the opportunity to play in one. I sincerely, strenuously hope that any coming realignment of conferences does not screw your program over. Because we would all be the poorer for it.

But hey, speaking of being screwed over, my rant after the jump?

Continue reading this post »

Huh? Huh? Anyone? My mom always said that if I just go up and introduce myself, people will like me. The jury's still out.

I'm coming into town for my first game in five seasons tomorrow. The usual group of folks I go with are somewhat scattered this week. Soo.....anyone got a tailgate in desperate need of another warm body? Anyone who agrees to say "Hi" if I come by can say anything they want about any statistical category they want, and I'll just smile. 

/hat in hand

With Georgia appearing to do the impossible this past weekend by managing to lose a game while also making most fans feel glimmers of hope (this is not a moral victory this is not a moral victory this is not a moral victory), I started thinking about games in which teams seem to play well but still lose. In that spirit, I got to thinking about general trends that show up in all games, rather than Georgia specifically. This week, I am determined not to touch Georgia specifics with a ten-foot pole.

(For the details of our "we-own-this-field-except-for-the-endzone" game against the Cocks Saturday night, I expect we will all be gnashing our teeth....erm, I mean, we will all be whistling optimistically at what might have been, when we read Bill C's in-depth analysis of this game later this week. I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that UGA is going to look dominant in terms of EqPts, F&P+, and Field Position. I wouldn't be surprised if the EqPts is a 20-point spread or more, in fact. Our downfall, as we know, was turnovers, and it really is that simple. A few redzone stutters in the first half didn't help matters either, but they wouldn't have mattered if a single turnover had not taken place.) 

In any case, as I thought about this for myself, I decided I'd throw together something a little more simplistic that uses the kinds of statistics we're all familiar with:  total yards and points. How often do teams do well in either category, and still lose? And, in the spirit of Erk Russell, is it better to be dominant on one side of the ball or the other? To the tale of the tape, after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

There are different opinions about what this even means, I realize. Yet I think it sums up what most of us would agree has been our major problem over the last few seasons. We have lost our identity. We're too cute, or we overthink ourselves, or we abandon a good plan that uses our strengths too quickly, etc. Whatever the exact nature of the problem (or maybe we just do all of the above), it's time to remember what it means to be "Georgia." And not just by having Herschel come bark at the kids, either.

I've given all the coaches "WWGD" bracelets. Hopefully it helps. I'm about to go with Bobo while he hits his warm-up bucket. I'm going to make him explain each swing he makes by telling me that it's what Georgia would do.

Be safe today everyone. Go Dawgs!

This google doc lists every offensive play that Georgia ran in its first five games last year. In other words, it shows our 1-4 start. The list covers 355 plays. Above the list of plays are two tables. One table shows UGA's yards per play and standard deviation for each of those first five games individually. It also shows the number of possessions we had in each game, and the number of three and outs we have.

The second table shows UGA's performance on every down for all five of those games combined, and then again for the four losses only (excluding the UL-Lafayette game, in other words).

Some quick analysis after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

This is my admittedly irrationally optimistic side speaking here, ok? Feel free to help me work out the kinks in my reasoning, if it is needed. I'm not calling anyone a fool for being a pessimist, because then I would be calling myself a fool in about fifteen minutes. But, somehow here I am, feeling mildly optimistic at this particular moment.

My reasons are fairly objective, too. Which is what's so surprising about it.

Continue reading this post »

If you're at the game, and you're all digitally interconnected and what-not, then why not post an update here for those of not fortunate enough to be at the carnival? Tell us about the sights and sounds. How much orange and blue is around? Are the fans "redding it out" pretty well, or are most people cheating on the lower half of their ensembles? And tell us about the atmosphere during the game too, please! Please?

Every season is different, so the postseason structure should be different, too.

(Originally written on 3/22/06)

Continue reading this post »