Does Georgia three peat in 2023?

[Voldog1998]

Would love to have an SEC/B1G Challenge like they do w/ basketball . Do it over 2 weekends. Would be incredible to have UGA go to Columbus or Michigan visit Tuscaloosa or KTown.

That would be awesome

 

[LouderVol]

Would love to have an SEC/B1G Challenge like they do w/ basketball . Do it over 2 weekends. Would be incredible to have UGA go to Columbus or Michigan visit Tuscaloosa or KTown.

yeah, try pairing schools based on how good they "should" be.

In the B1G you have two elite programs, a good one in Penn State. A bunch of mediocrity that can be good like Michigan State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, Illinois/Indiana seems like one of them is usually around 8-9 wins, Maryland. Then you have the garbage. Northwestern, Nebraska, Rutgers, and the other of the Illinois/Indiana pairing.

In the SEC you have the two constant elites, Bama and Georgia. Then there is usually another team lurking in the elite area LSU, Auburn, Florida, hopefully we sustain. Usually the ones who aren't in that elite are good. Then you get the mediocres who can be good, SC, Ark, Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky tries, TAMU. With really only Vandy and Mizzou being at the bottom. and really TAMU could/should be in that good but could be elite category.

I think the depth starts showing up pretty fast. I could see the top and the bottom of the games being pretty even, with both conferences winning some. But the SEC should dominate that middle 4-9 teams.

 

[DawgInterloper]

yeah, try pairing schools based on how good they "should" be.

In the B1G you have two elite programs, a good one in Penn State. A bunch of mediocrity that can be good like Michigan State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, Illinois/Indiana seems like one of them is usually around 8-9 wins, Maryland. Then you have the garbage. Northwestern, Nebraska, Rutgers, and the other of the Illinois/Indiana pairing.

In the SEC you have the two constant elites, Bama and Georgia. Then there is usually another team lurking in the elite area LSU, Auburn, Florida, hopefully we sustain. Usually the ones who aren't in that elite are good. Then you get the mediocres who can be good, SC, Ark, Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky tries, TAMU. With really only Vandy and Mizzou being at the bottom. and really TAMU could/should be in that good but could be elite category.

I think the depth starts showing up pretty fast. I could see the top and the bottom of the games being pretty even, with both conferences winning some. But the SEC should dominate that middle 4-9 teams.

I agree, and would add that the "elite" teams in the SEC change regularly, but there are always elite teams because the SEC gets more elite athletes. Georgia and Alabama are the most recent to be called elite, but in recent years it was LSU and Florida and Tennessee, and Auburn. And no doubt Texas and Oklahoma and probably TAMU are capable of joining the group of revolving SEC elites.

Another thing that separates the SEC, IMO, is that teams like South Carolina and Arkansas and Ole Miss, etc., have enough great football players to upset elite teams on a good day. Especially teams from other conferences that aren't accustomed to facing that kind of violence on the LOS.

 

[Proud Army Wife]

I agree, and would add that the "elite" teams in the SEC change regularly, but there are always elite teams because the SEC gets more elite athletes. Georgia and Alabama are the most recent to be called elite, but in recent years it was LSU and Florida and Tennessee, and Auburn. And no doubt Texas and Oklahoma and probably TAMU are capable of joining the group of revolving SEC elites.

Another thing that separates the SEC, IMO, is that teams like South Carolina and Arkansas and Ole Miss, etc., have enough great football players to upset elite teams on a good day. Especially teams from other conferences that aren't accustomed to facing that kind of violence on the LOS.

The SEC beat the ACC, Big10, and Big12 champs this year in blow outs. Out of conference fans scream about SEC bias until they get clapped Lmao.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

yeah, try pairing schools based on how good they "should" be.

In the B1G you have two elite programs, a good one in Penn State. A bunch of mediocrity that can be good like Michigan State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Purdue, Illinois/Indiana seems like one of them is usually around 8-9 wins, Maryland. Then you have the garbage. Northwestern, Nebraska, Rutgers, and the other of the Illinois/Indiana pairing.

In the SEC you have the two constant elites, Bama and Georgia. Then there is usually another team lurking in the elite area LSU, Auburn, Florida, hopefully we sustain. Usually the ones who aren't in that elite are good. Then you get the mediocres who can be good, SC, Ark, Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky tries, TAMU. With really only Vandy and Mizzou being at the bottom. and really TAMU could/should be in that good but could be elite category.

I think the depth starts showing up pretty fast. I could see the top and the bottom of the games being pretty even, with both conferences winning some. But the SEC should dominate that middle 4-9 teams.

I agree that it wouldn’t be easy to match them up every year, but I think it would create a lot of buzz and It might also make a difference in deciding who gets a final CFP spot. Hypothetically, If Tennessee had to go Penn State and we won by 2 scores, and Michigan barely held on to beat Penn State at The Big House. If we had a similar resume as Michigan we might get the nod for a final spot. I think it would be a lot of fun and also the example I gave is why I think neither conference would ever agree to do it.

 

[LouderVol]

I agree that it wouldn’t be easy to match them up every year, but I think it would create a lot of buzz and It might also make a difference in deciding who gets a final CFP spot. Hypothetically, If Tennessee had to go Penn State and we won by 2 scores, and Michigan barely held on to beat Penn State at The Big House. If we had a similar resume as Michigan we might get the nod for a final spot. I think it would be a lot of fun and also the example I gave is why I think neither conference would ever agree to do it.

I agree. I wasn't arguing against it, I was just fleshing out the idea as how I would like it. You would certainly get bad pairings every once and a while, but overall I think it would be a great thing, and would really help validate the CFP for me. Looking at Auburn going 3-9, and then to the national title the next year....

my argument for the conferences would be the money. Think of what you could do with the TV rights when you can guarantee ESPN 3 or more extra games with 10-15 million views.

It would I would think the leftover conferences, PAC, ACC, Big 12, should do to help them stay valid. Have a kinda round robin thing, where you rotate one conference always playing the other two, and make them the host. You aren't getting too many 10 million plus games, but you will get well over their average. and maybe in that rotation the teams you round robin with are constant in the three year cycle and you get a little rivalry going.

So that ACC hosts PAC and Big 12 one year.
Then PAC hosts ACC and Big 12 the next.
and finally Big 12 hosts PAC and ACC.

and when your conference isn't "hosting" those two others, you get back a cupcake game or whatever you want it to be.

That would be a cool little "alliance" to see. G5 could do it too. give the casual fan a reason to tune in "Oh man that X vs Y game was a classic last year, I want to be sure to watch it this year"

 

[RDU VOL#14]

I agree. I wasn't arguing against it, I was just fleshing out the idea as how I would like it. You would certainly get bad pairings every once and a while, but overall I think it would be a great thing, and would really help validate the CFP for me. Looking at Auburn going 3-9, and then to the national title the next year....

my argument for the conferences would be the money. Think of what you could do with the TV rights when you can guarantee ESPN 3 or more extra games with 10-15 million views.

It would I would think the leftover conferences, PAC, ACC, Big 12, should do to help them stay valid. Have a kinda round robin thing, where you rotate one conference always playing the other two, and make them the host. You aren't getting too many 10 million plus games, but you will get well over their average. and maybe in that rotation the teams you round robin with are constant in the three year cycle and you get a little rivalry going.

So that ACC hosts PAC and Big 12 one year.
Then PAC hosts ACC and Big 12 the next.
and finally Big 12 hosts PAC and ACC.

and when your conference isn't "hosting" those two others, you get back a cupcake game or whatever you want it to be.

That would be a cool little "alliance" to see. G5 could do it too. give the casual fan a reason to tune in "Oh man that X vs Y game was a classic last year, I want to be sure to watch it this year"

I would love to see that.

 

[LouderVol]

I would love to see that.

and to me it makes the playoffs much better because you have more cross competition. and you get to create some mini-rivalries instead of it always being a one-off neutral game.

 

[Ratvol]

Milton to Squirrel all day long. We gonna whoop Georgia’s azz.

Go VOLS

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

The talent amassed at Bama & UGA is unparalleled in the modern era so I wouldn't expect much deviation from previous years. There will be an outlier (like TCU/Tenn) then more of the same in the top 5; Bama, UGA, OSU, Oregon, USC, Mich, ... with FSU, LSU, Washington, Penn St, Notre Dame, Clemson and Tennessee as potential outliers. Hoping it's way more competitive next year.

 

[DawgInterloper]

The talent amassed at Bama & UGA is unparalleled in the modern era so I wouldn't expect much deviation from previous years. There will be an outlier (like TCU/Tenn) then more of the same in the top 5; Bama, UGA, OSU, Oregon, USC, Mich, ... with FSU, LSU, Washington, Penn St, Notre Dame, Clemson and Tennessee as potential outliers. Hoping it's way more competitive next year.

Frequently when a program has a lot of success on the field and recruiting, turnover in coaches and players becomes an equalizer. To Saban's credit, he's sustained his run at the top much longer than most, but it's starting to show weaknesses. UGA turned over half (5 of 10) of their on field coaches after 2021, and losing Monken after 2022 creates another big question mark for 2023. Plus the constant drain of talented players leaving early for the NFL and transfer portal leads to fielding less experienced teams.

Short version; the most talented rosters don't always make the best teams. Getting to the top is hard and staying there is even harder.

 

[Dudleys87]

It’s hard to stay motivated.
Its harder to stay hungry.
What’s even harder than that is to fight through complacency.
It’s the same system that Sabans runs. Eventually they’ll hit the wrong hire bug too.

Fans will scream fire them.
Fans will break TVs, send letters, and probably egg a few houses for losing to x,y, or z but it will happen.

Until then fk em. Have an Orange day!

 

[DirtyDawg]

I could come up with many valid reasons why GA could win again. I could also list many reasons why it’s highly unlikely. Who knows? Sure, we will be very good this coming season, but winning another NC is impossible to predict right now. There is a chance, maybe even a good chance, but that is something only time will tell. My honest opinion is that it isn’t likely that GA has the best team in the country 3 strait years. We will be very good, but it isn’t likely that things go our way a third strait season. The ball just isn’t gonna bounce your way every time. I think if GA is to win again they will have to be head and shoulders above everyone else, and while that might be the case, it isn’t likely. There is likely to be a team, possibly even one we don’t necessarily see coming that just has a great season and plays ridiculous.

 

[BlinghamptonVol]

If they 3peat, it’s gonna be at 14-1 with an L in Knoxville.