Why Dan Mullen Would be a Bad Choice for UGA (for now)

The Mullen lovers are out there.  They are few, but they are loud, and they lurk on message boards and comment sections, waiting for the perfect moment to strike.

Dan Mullen was a very successful offensive coordinator at Florida during part of their recent glory years, before he took over the head coaching job at a struggling Mississippi State program.  In his first season (2009), the little Bulldogs went 5-7.  In 2010, they had a surprisingly good year, going 9-4 (a mediocre 4-4 in the SEC), but with no wins versus the SEC West other than Ole Miss, a team which has taken the same spot as Vanderbilt but in the West as division punching bag.

Yes, his recruiting was outstanding, as he managed to get the #25 and #19 class in the nation according to Rivals and Scout, respectively.

But should we be so excited by 5-7 and 9-4 that we're ready to hand the reigns over to this guy after only two seasons under his belt?

First of all, Mark Richt isn't done yet, despite what some media pundits and strangely interested Alabama fans are saying.  We still have 10 games left to play and who knows what will happen.

Second, if you watched last night's ESPN game of LSU at Mississippi State, you might have noticed some very questionable coaching decisions.  Actually, look back before that to last week's game against Auburn.

Last week, when the Bulldogs had a 2nd and goal against Auburn with 10 seconds left in the game, Mullen decided to have his QB try to run the ball into the end zone.  He was stopped just short, and time ran out.  The game was over.  Anyone with basic knowledge of clock management in football was scratching their heads.  Why not attempt a pass first?  With 10 seconds, you have ample time to make a pass attempt, and if that doesn't work, the clock stops and you still have time to run the ball once more.

Here was Mullen's post-game explanation of the choice:
"You could go pass-pass, pass-run, or just run."

Yes, we are aware Coach Mullen.  You can either have 2 chances to score, or 1 chance to score.  You insanely chose 1 chance, essentially leaving a play on the field at the goal line to win the game.

He says he gave the choice to his quarterback, Chris Relf, who said he was confident he could get it in on just a run.  So he listened to the player, called the play, and they lost the game.

Skip to last night versus LSU.  With the Bulldogs down only 16-6 in the 4th quarter and 10 minutes left in the game, Mullen decides to pull his starting QB who everyone has raved about and put in his backup.  Although this is a surprising and confusing move, maybe Mullen had good reason to believe that Relf wasn't effective all night and that the backup might have more success.

But the real shocking decision came minutes later, when LSU tacked on an extra field goal to be up 19-6, and Mississippi State gets the ball with 2:53 on the clock and all 3 timeouts remaining.  The Bulldogs were still down by only 2 scores.  They would need to score a quick TD, kick a successful onside kick, and then score another TD.  It's extremely unlikely, but it's been done time and time again in college football (see Auburn vs. Utah State two weeks ago).

But Mullen decides to run the ball multiple times on this last drive, letting the clock run and refusing to take timeouts.  It was clear to anyone watching that he had given up; either he had no faith that his team could actually assemble a worthwhile offensive drive, or he just didn't care.  So he quit.  He let the game end without using his timeouts, and let his team go down without a fight.

A sad part was watching the backup QB and rest of the team running desperately to get in formation to run their final play with time running out, despite it being clear that their head coach wasn't going to call a timeout and didn't really care what they were doing out there.  He was just going to let it end, despite still having a chance to win.  What do you have to lose?  You're going to lose anyway, right?  If you turn it over and LSU gets the ball, they will take a knee and run out the clock anyway.  No harm done.

Now I don't want to say that these decisions should define the rest of Mullen's career.  He's still a decent coach who has recruited very well and had one good season at a struggling Mississippi State.  He could still do great things there, or at another school.  But decisions like those shouldn't earn you a job at a program like Georgia.  If anything, they should be warning signs that jumping on the Mullen-bandwagon might be a bit of a rushed decision.

Mark Richt may be done soon at Georgia.  None of us really know.  But I don't think I've ever seen Mark Richt give up on his team when down only two scores in an important SEC game, or any game for that matter.  And whether Mark Richt is good for the future of UGA or not, I'd rather have a coach who is smart enough and cares enough to give his team a chance to win, all other things aside.

Will the SEC East be a mess this year? (See: 2007)

In 2007, the SEC, like the rest of college football that year, was a complete mess.  There were no teams in the entire conference with less than 2 conference losses.  Georgia and Tennessee stood atop the East, each with 2 SEC losses, but the Volunteers would represent in the SEC Championship based on multiple close escapes late in the season.

The SEC East in 2011 looks like it could be just as much of a mess with no champion decided until perhaps the very end of the season.

Yes, Georgia already lost to East favorite South Carolina, but if you take a look at the schedules, the race isn't going to be over anytime soon.

South Carolina has likely wins against Vanderbilt and Kentucky at home, but I see them losing at least 2 out of Auburn, at Miss. State, at Tennessee, at Arkansas, and versus Florida. 


Florida has to play Alabama and at LSU, not to mention at Auburn and the rest of the SEC East.  Once again, it seems likely they would have at least 2 SEC losses as well.

Tennessee is about to go play in the Swamp this weekend, and they have an even tougher West schedule than Florida.  They play LSU at home and at Alabama, plus at Arkansas.

And of course Kentucky and Vanderbilt remain Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

Of course it's still possible that South Carolina, Florida, or Tennessee could be way better than they seem and could burn through their tough SEC schedules and remain undefeated in conference, but I wouldn't bet on it.  Georgia, meanwhile, has the easiest SEC schedule of them all, with games at Ole Miss, against Miss. State, and the annual rivalry game with Auburn.

Don't be surprised if the SEC East ends up similar to 2007, with each team having at least 2 conference losses, and maybe even with a tiebreaker determining once again which team will play in Atlanta for the conference championship.

UGA #21 in first USA Today Coaches' Poll

See the poll HERE.

This, in my opinion, is a good spot for the Dawgs. I expected anything between 20-25, and somehow we landed in the higher end of that. For an 8-5 team with a new QB, it seems like a reasonable ranking.

But some of the other choices are a little... questionable.

-Florida at #3? I understand they have been dominant the past two years, but they lost a TON on both sides of the ball.

-Oklahoma at #8? An 8-5 team at #8? I'm not sure if an 8-5 team has ever appeared in the preseason top 10.

-Arkansas at #19: Could they be very good? Yes. Do they deserve it now? No. Why are they getting it? Because the media loves Ryan Mallett.

Otherwise, not a completely terrible poll. I'm going to try to have the 2010 version of the Unbiased Preseason Poll up Monday to compare.

USC won't be ranked in Coaches' Poll.... at all

First, Lane Kiffin and the USC Sanctions were turned down by Tennessee after trying to get them to play in the 2011 Chick-Fil-A kickoff game in the Georgia Dome.

Now? The USA Today Coaches' Poll says that they won't allow USC to be ranked this season... at all. If the AP decides to follow the same path (which they won't), then does that mean anyone who ranks USC at all in pre-season rankings is overrating them?

Quick Look Back at SEC's Bad Calls in 2009

First, ESPN's Chris Low had a blog update yesterday remembering the bad officiating calls in the SEC last season. (Also note that Low mentions "Georgia receiver Julio Jones")

Then, watch this great YouTube video which shows those controversial calls and even refers to the NCAA football rule book to show why they were so bad.

Thanks to RC123au for the video. Interesting (yet painful) stuff to watch.

Conference Realignment Has Begun: Can We Please Keep This Regional?

As everyone knows by now, Colorado has agreed to leave the Big 12 conference in order to join the Pac-10. Although this was already somewhat expected, the news is still a bit shocking; this is the beginning of the Great Conference Realignment. It follows just a day after ESPN reportedthat Nebraska would soon announce its move from the Big 12 to the Big Ten. If this does happen, perhaps it would make sense for the Big 12 and the Big Ten to temporarily swap names.

So this is it. Now that the pieces are actually in motion, it's very likely that a lot more is about to happen, causing excitement and/or fear across the college football nation.

I still don't know how I feel about these changes. On one hand, it is pretty exciting to see a possible huge difference in the CFB landscape. On the other, this unfamiliar territory could bring a lot of problems with it, and it will be very hard (if not impossible) to go back once things are done.

Now that the changes are happening and inevitable, I only have one request: CAN WE PLEASE KEEP THE CONFERENCES SEMI-REGIONAL?

First, I present you with this beautiful map that illustrates the regional conferences of yesteryear.

As you can see, the conferences have been quite regional for some time now: the Pac-10 with Pacific coast states, the Big 12 with southern/middle states, the Big Ten with the Midwest/Great Lakes area, the SEC with southeastern states, the ACC with states bordering the Atlantic Ocean, and the Big East with... eastern states. Although there are three conferences overlapping in the East, there's at least a general sense of regionality. (No I did not put enough black or yellow for the Big East and ACC. The purple states are non-Big-Six-Conference states.)

Now, here is a map with the moves of Colorado and Nebraska.

For regionality's sake, this isn't too bad at all. Sure, Colorado isn't a Pacific-bordering state, but they are the westernmost Big 12 state, and now the Pac-10 appears to be turning into the "western conference." Nebraska to the Big Ten makes even more regional sense, because Nebraska may be considered part of the Midwest, already borders the Big Ten states, and was the northernmost Big 12 state.

Some reports have the remaining Big 12 south powers (Texas and Oklahoma) moving to the SEC. This would be fine, although it would no longer be the "Southeastern Conference" but rather the "Southern Conference," regionally speaking. Also, any swapping between the SEC, ACC, and Big East don't really affect the regional argument.

But other reports have certain Big 12 schools (such as Texas) trying to get into the Big Ten, while others (like Oklahoma State) could go to the Pac-10. Now this is where it gets messed up. If Texas goes to the Big Ten, it will certainly no longer be a Midwestern conference. Plus, why would the state of Texas be so far away from the rest of its conference foes? And Oklahoma State to the Pac-10? Oklahoma certainly can't pass for being a "western" state, and would be very, very far from most other conference teams.

HERE is a map on Wikipedia that shows the Census Bureau's four regions of the U.S.: the South, the West, the Mid-West, and the Northeast. I feel like this should be a blueprint for how to keep conferences properly regional. The Pac-10, as a Western conference, shouldn't be adding any states east of Colorado. It will simply span way too much landmass in the U.S. Texas and Oklahoma, if going anywhere, would make most regional sense to join the SEC (but a conference name change would be in order). The Big 12 north states would be sent to the Big Ten. And then the rest could be decided from there.

HOWEVER, I'm wondering if it could be best for the remaining Big 12 teams to simply replace their losses by adding two teams. TCU is an obvious choice for a good program within the region that could be added. Unfortunately, this realignment isn't based on region, function, or what's best for college football. It's based on money. This is why I worry about the regionality staying intact, and how its dissolution could damage college football forever.

The New UGA Football Dictionary is Underway (My Definitions)

I saw via a link from David Hale that via the blog and idea of Senator Blutarsky, many people are compiling a huge list of terms for college football fans.

I'll take a moment to publicly submit some of my own entries to this project.

• Bay-Bay (v.) - 1. to drop a ball. 2. to make an uncharacteristic mistake at the most important moment leading to an embarrassing complete failure. "I studied all night, but somehow I still Bay-Bayed on that final."

• Adversity (n.) - something you constantly face or struggle against (usually a lot), but it is impossible to be specified. "We faced a lot of adversity this year, but we kept working hard."

• Gradulate (v.) - 1. to formally express your joy or acknowledgement of something in a federal building and/or public forum. 2. see congratulate. "I want to gradulate the Florida Gator."

• Bad Deal (n.) - a past occurrence that humiliated and angers you. It will forever be in the mind of you and your football team (or just you). You'll handle it, and it's going to be a big deal.

• (To) Get a Ring/s (v.) - a phrase used often sarcastically to mock an over-the-top excitement over an achievement. "Wow, you've been playing that video game for a month and you finally beat it? Are you going to get a ring or something?"

• Straight Outta Crompton (adj.) - describes any unexpected or uncharacteristically magnificent performance. "Woah! Vanderbilt just beat Florida? That's straight outta Crompton!"

• Quarterback (n.) - the position in football responsible for passing or handing off the football, and sometimes fair-catching punts. "This looks like a great punt to return! We should definitely put a quarterback in there to fair-catch it. That will really catch them off guard."

• Walsh (v.) - to have the ability to do something well (such as kickoff into the end zone) but choosing not to do it to your full potential (for any reasons, but possibly for being told not to). "I can beat-box really well, but we're in a library so I'm just Walshing it right now."

• Black helmet (n.) - a bad idea, something that sounds fun but will likely end in sorrow.

• Penn Wagers (n.) - a person who ruins the fun, often at inappropriate times. "That guy who told us to sit down while cheering at the Georgia game was a total Penn Wagers."

Conference Realignments: Do we really need this?

The hot topic so far this off-season is an apparently unavoidable conference realignment, in which monumental changes will be made to every single conference as teams will switch to other conferences, west coast teams to east coast conferences, dogs and cats living together, and all other sorts of craziness.

The most recent proposition for possible changes is from Ron Morris at GoGamecocks.com. He's having visions of a college football world in which Missouri goes to the Big Ten, Arkansas to the Big 12, South Carolina to the ACC, and then Miami and Florida State to the SEC. Somehow or another, he ends up with a new SEC East consisting of Florida, Georgia, Florida State, Miami, Kentucky and Tennessee. Oh boy. Also, Georgia Tech sneaks their way into the SEC West. Right...

My question is this: Why are we making things so complicated?

First of all, is a conference realignment really necessary? From my viewpoint, the only problem with the "Big Six" conferences right now is that three of those conferences are lacking championship games, thus giving them an unfair advantage to reach the national championship. An undefeated Pac-10, Big Ten or Big East team could go straight to the big game without playing the extra conference game that faces the SEC, ACC and Big 12. Fine. We need to fix that.

I'm perfectly fine with the SEC, ACC and Big 12 as they are. If anything, the only real problem is the ACC's divisional titles of "Coastal" and "Atlantic," which really makes no sense. It might be nice for them to shake things up with a "North" and "South" type of division.

But that's debatable.

As for the real problem conferences, though...

Big Ten: Has 11 teams. Needs one more for a 12-team divisional structure with a conference championship. Notre Dame is the obvious choice here, if some deal could be made. If not, there are plenty of other non-Big-Six conference teams that could be taken. The MAC would be a good conference to raid for teams. Central Michigan or Ohio are good choices, for geographical and logistical reasons.

Pac-10: There are 10 teams (obviously), so if necessary, they could find a way to make two five-team divisions and hold a conference championship game. If not, they only need to add two teams to look similar to the rest. An often mentioned solution is to take BYU and Utah from the MWC. But the WAC is also a possibility. Boise State, Nevada or Fresno State are all good choices to fill that hole.

Big East: Here's the biggest problem, since the Big East only had eight teams. But there are plenty of Conference USA or Sun Belt teams that could move up. East Carolina, Troy, Middle Tennessee and UCF come to mind.

Of course there are plenty of negotiations that have to be made to make any of this work, but I think it makes a lot more sense to take teams from non-Big-Six conferences than to swap around teams that already have a good fit.

College Football on TV Again: Spring Games for your Withdrawals

I link to this website a lot, and for good reason. It's the ultimate television calendar for everything college football, perfect for planning your viewing schedule for the season.

As soon as this Saturday, college football will be on TV to help ease your CFB withdrawals.

This Saturday (March 27) at 4 p.m., the LSU spring game will be televised live on ESPN2, and Miami's game will be on CSS at 4:30 p.m.

Then, in only 2 short weeks after that, the G-Day game.

(Note: The website lists times in Central time, so one hour behind Eastern.)

Nightmares of a College Football Playoff

It's hard to judge the general sentiment of college football fans across the country, but by looking at internet polls and discussions, it seems like the vast majority are in agreement that the BCS system is unfair and/or ineffective, and there needs to be a playoff for FCS (Div. 1A) football.

It's only natural that watching the NCAA basketball tournament would re-ignite this discussion during the football off-season. For me, thinking of a college football playoff is a little bit unsettling.

The proposed playoff systems have been numerous and varied. There are calls for an 8-team, 16-team, and even 32 or 64-team playoff. The 8-team proposal usually calls for the "Big Six" conference champions to receive automatic berths, plus two other teams, determined by some sort of ranking as a wild card. These teams would essentially play in the BCS Bowl Games, and then have another semifinal round followed by the championship. The 16-team proposal is often based on the BCS rankings or some other ranking system. Here are my worries about a BCS playoff.

1. I love bowl season. Every December, we get to look forward to having interesting non-conference matchups almost every day as the bowls roll on. Even the low-tier bowls are fun to watch, and I usually watch as many as I can. How would a playoff affect the bowl season? I'm afraid a 16-team playoff would mean trouble for the bowls. It just seems like there would be too many games to mesh along with the other teams playing normal, non-playoff bowl games. The 8-team playoff could work with this better, but still, it's hard for me to let go of the bowl season the way we know it.

2. It would greatly lessen the importance of the regular season. Generally, an undefeated SEC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac-10, or ACC Champion would make the national championship game. (I leave the Big East out because, unfortunately, that conference doesn't have the same reputation as the others.) Auburn faced an unfortunate scenario in 2004 when three Big-Six teams were undefeated, but this is recently more of an exception than the rule.

Now imagine a playoff scenario. An SEC team dominates the regular season and becomes SEC Champion. Then comes the playoff game(s). The SEC Champ plays another conference champion, maybe the Big East or the ACC, a team that largely unimpressed during the season and lost 2 or 3 games along the way. Then comes the playoff game. We all know that upsets are fun to watch, but not when it's your team being upset. And often, upsets are upsets because the better team lost. Yes, the best team doesn't always win. So let's say the SEC team, largely considered the best in college football, faces some unfortunate circumstances and loses to the team that has generally sucked throughout the season. That's the end of the SEC team's season. One loss, and they're done, doomed to be the team that almost made it to the national championship game.

In the current system, your dominant SEC, Big 12, Big 10, ACC or Pac-10 team can go straight to the big game and win it all. In a playoff, it's possible that a 13-0 SEC Champ could lose to a 10-2 Big East or 11-2 ACC Champ. For many fans, this would be great and exciting. Who would have guessed that the team that no one liked could make it to the national championship game? But for fans who still considered the SEC team the best (especially fans of that team), it's an unfortunate consequence of a playoff system.

SEC Fans: A playoff would be an effective way to destroy the importance of the reputation of the Southeastern Conference (your guarantee for your undefeated team to make it to the big game). The same goes for four of the other Big-Six conferences. The winner in this scenario is the Big East (and of course the non-big-sixers).

3. A playoff won't eliminate common college football arguments. One frequent complaint of fans is the unfairness or bias of voters in creating the college football polls. They wouldn't go away, and in some playoff proposals, those biased rankings could determine which teams will even get a shot at the playoff. And of course, the big argument: Which is the best team in college football? Scenarios like the one above in #2 show why that will still be an issue.

It's a bit silly to think that a playoff will answer all of college football's problems, or "once and for all, determine the best team in the nation." That's, frankly, impossible, and will remain so. Even in a playoff system, there will still be complaints, arguments and unsettled issues. Instead of leaving an undefeated or deserving team out of the national championship, people will argue that deserving teams are left out of the playoffs altogether. Imagine an 8-team playoff with a 10-2 Big East Champ in, and a 10-2 SEC team left out.

I'm not completely against a college football playoff, I just don't know for sure what would be best. In fact, I'm not sure if there even is a "best" system. The arguments and complaints of college football will always be with us, no matter how we determine a champion. But if you think about it, those arguments and complaints are part of what makes college football so much fun.

Atoning for Past Predictions from 2009

Only minutes away from the 2009 college football kickoff, I decided to hastily post a list of my predictions for the season. Unfortunately, they didn't end up being very good, but there were a few good calls.

Let's start with the really bad ones.

1. Georgia will not lose more than 2 regular season games in 2009.

-Well, they did. They lost five. My original feeling as the season approached was that UGA would likely lose their opener at Oklahoma State, and then lose an SEC game later. I was right on that account, but I didn't expect Georgia would lose three other SEC games (and I doubt many did). To be fair, Kentucky, Tennessee and LSU were all strange losses, weren't they?

2. Florida, on the other hand, will lose at least 2 regular season games.

-They didn't. In fact, they didn't lose a single game until the SEC Championship. I thought for sure they would slip up after a disgustingly magical 2008 season, and they almost did to teams like Arkansas and Mississippi State. They even struggled with LSU, Tennessee and South Carolina. But those Tebow-led Gators would just not lose. Until they met the Crimson Tide.

3. Georgia Tech will lose 4 regular season games.

-I really thought that the ACC would be much improved from 2008, and Tech's miracle-run to nine wins would fall to at most eight, but the ACC was a mess again. Virginia Tech, Miami, FSU and Clemson were all good teams for parts of 2009, and three of those were close to knocking off the Jackets, while Miami pounded them into their poorly maintained turf. Even Wake Forest sent GT into overtime in Atlanta. Once again, they somehow survived. But they did lose two regular season games, and a third in the Orange Bowl, so I wouldn't say this prediction was all that bad...

4. Only 2 teams from the AP preseason top-10 would appear in BCS games.

-Well, I was wrong on this one, but not terribly wrong. Four teams from the preseason AP top-10 ended up in the BCS (Florida, Alabama, Texas, Ohio State).

5. Colt McCoy will win the Heisman, thanks to ESPN's help, but most fans will be upset that a non-Quarterback candidate that emerges during the season doesn't win.

-I honestly thought that this would happen, but Mark Ingram and Toby Gerhart flew up the Heisman watch lists and finished ahead of McCoy in the voting.

6. No non-BCS "big-six" conference teams will bust the BCS, or play in BCS games.

-I was very, very wrong. Boise State and TCU finished the regular season undefeated and played in a BCS bowl game... against each other.

And now for my relatively accurate predictions:

1. Kentucky will surprise in the SEC East, finishing either 3rd or 4th in the East standings.

-They did. They finished 4th behind Florida, Georgia and Tennessee. They also surprised in another way: by beating Georgia at home.

2. Likewise, Auburn will surprise in the West and perhaps even be a contender for the SEC West title.

-The West was a mess, with no teams being flat-out terrible (such as Vandy in the East). Auburn didn't have a great season by any means, but they probably did surprise many by turning around their 5-7 record from 2008, ending 8-5 with a win in the Outback Bowl against Northwestern. It would certainly be a stretch to call them a "contender" for the SEC West title in 2008 because Alabama was far-and-away the best of the West, but Auburn was as much of a contender as the other five teams in the division.

3. Tennessee will upset one BIG team. (hopefully not Georgia)

-This one is difficult. I really felt like the Vols had a chance to upset Florida in what would be a catastrophic event in college football, and while they did keep the game close, they lost. The biggest "upset" that Tennessee technically won was against then #22 South Carolina. But since we all considered Tennessee beating Georgia as a big upset in 2009, I'll consider my prediction accurate.

4. USC will not win the Pac-10. It will be either Cal or Oregon.

-This wasn't the boldest prediction maybe, but it was accurate. Believe it or not, but USC was ranked #4 preseason in 2009 after losing their starting quarterback and plenty of other talent. They were also largely picked as the favorite to win the Pac-10, largely because they almost always are. I had a feeling that the Trojans were overrated by the rankings and expectations, and that did prove to be the case, as they lost four games and finished fifth in the Pac-10. Oregon did, in fact, win the conference. (I didn't, however, really expect Arizona or Stanford to do so well in conference.)

This season, I'm going to do things differently. I'm trying to base my predictions almost completely on stats and objective information about each team and conference. We'll see how that goes.

More Percentage Stats: The SEC East in 2010

Production percentage losses in the SEC East for 2010 (listed from least losses to most):

1. South Carolina

Passing: Return QB

Rushing: 6.7% yards, 0% scoring

Receiving: 17% yards, 16.7% scoring

Tackles: 25.4%

Sacks: 46%

INT: 33.3%

2. Vanderbilt

Passing: Return QB

Rushing: 10.3% yards, 0% scoring

Receiving: 7.4% yards, 0% scoring

Tackles: 37.3%

Sacks: 52.5%

INT: 41.7%

3. Kentucky

Passing: Return QB

Rushing: 16.4% yards, 15.4% scoring

Receiving: 8.8% yards, 23% scoring

Tackles: 42.3%

Sacks: 36.6%

INT: 68.7%

4. Georgia

Passing: Lose 1-year starting QB

Rushing: 0%

Receiving: 9% of yards, 20% of scoring

Tackles: 47%

Sacks: 46%

INT: 40%

5. Tennessee

Passing: 95.2% yards, 96.4% scoring (losing 2-year starting QB)

Rushing: 65.8% yards, 68.4% scoring

Receiving: 21.8% yards, 14.3% scoring

Tackles: 43.3%

Sacks: 47.5%

INT: 50%

6. Florida

Passing: Lose 3-year starting QB (and Greatest of All Time)

Rushing: 33% of total yards, 46% of scoring

Receiving: 73% of yards, 64% of scoring

Tackles: 48%

Sacks: 68%

INT: 60%

My first thoughts after putting this data together:

1. It really is true that 2010 will be South Carolina's best chance to win the East.

2. Kentucky might actually be in position to finish second or third in the East.

3. Vandy returns a lot, but for them, that's a bad thing.

4. Georgia was hit pretty hard on defense, but overall, things don't look too bad.

5. Florida and Tennessee lost a TON. If Georgia is going to beat both of these teams in the same year, this might be the year to do it. Sure, new freshmen and recruits could be very good, but it's not easy to throw a bunch of new talent on the field and expect to win the division.

6. How crazy would it be if the SEC East standings end up looking like this list? On one hand, it would be very, very funny. On the other, it would be very, very sad.

What bowl will Georgia land in?

No one knows for sure, but I can tell you that most of the "experts" don't seem to really know what they're talking about with their bowl predictions.

Mark Bradley from the AJC wrote a column yesterday in which he sums up most of our bowl predictions, and he seems to relish in the fact that most are predicting Georgia landing in a lower-tier SEC bowl.

So here are the predictions by "experts" so far:

ESPN's Bruce Feldman: Independence Bowl vs. Missouri

ESPN's Mark Schlabach: Music City Bowl vs. Florida State

CBSSports.com: Liberty Bowl vs. Houston

Athens Banner Herald: Music City Bowl

My question is this: Have any of these guys even looked at the bowl selection process or other SEC teams' current records?

Looks like most of the "experts" are picking Auburn to beat Georgia, and that's how they explain our lower-tier bowl. But I'm not sure if they are even looking at things that closely. David Ching at the Athens Banner Herald says he's predicting Georgia will win against Auburn and Kentucky (which would put us at 5-3 in the SEC), but then he has South Carolina losing to Florida, ending up 4-4 in the SEC and yet being in the Chick-Fil-A, while he has Georgia in the Music City. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. He also has Ole Miss being in a better bowl than us, yet having a 3-5 SEC record. DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Here is the list of SEC bowls this year, and who they will probably take:

BCS National Championship: SEC #1

Sugar Bowl: SEC #2

Capital One Bowl: SEC #3

Cotton Bowl: SEC #4

Outback Bowl: SEC #5

Chick-Fil-A: SEC #6

Music City: SEC #7

Liberty: SEC #8

Independence: SEC #9

PapaJohn's: SEC #10

Of course it's still possible that no SEC teams will make it to the National Championship this season, so that would just knock each # up one spot (Sugar is SEC #1, Capital One is SEC #2, and so on.)

Now let's look at the current position of Georgia in the SEC (from ESPN.com).

SEC Standings

EAST	CONF	OVERALL
* - Florida	6-0	8-0
* - South Carolina	3-3	6-3
Georgia	3-3	4-4
Tennessee	2-3	4-4
Kentucky	1-4	4-4
x - Vanderbilt	0-5	2-7
WEST	CONF	OVERALL
* - Alabama	5-0	8-0
* - LSU	4-1	7-1
* - Auburn	3-3	6-3
Mississippi	2-3	5-3
Mississippi State	2-3	4-5
Arkansas	1-4	4-4

Right now with our SEC win/loss record (and our overall record), we'd likely be picked as the #6 SEC team (so if bowls were played next week, we'd be in the Chick-Fil-A).

If we beat Kentucky and Auburn, the absolute worst we could end up would be #7 in the SEC, which would probably land us in the Music City bowl. Even if we lost one of those two games, we'd still probably (at worst) end up at #8 (Liberty).

Why?

Because the rest of the SEC still has games to play to, and it's likely that some teams are going to knock each other out.

We know for a fact right now that we will end up in the SEC behind Florida and Alabama, because the worst they could do right now is end up 6-2 or 5-2 in the SEC. We'll very likely be behind LSU, unless they somehow manage to lose their last 3 SEC games and end up 4-4 in conference.

But here's the fun part.

South Carolina is currently 3-3 in conference (like us), but they still have to play @Arkansas and Florida. We all probably expect them to lose at least to UF, but I can see them losing to the Hogs as well.

We play Auburn (and then they have to play Alabama), so if we can beat them, we'll certainly be ahead of them in the SEC.

Tennessee is 2-3 in conference with remaining games @Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, and @Kentucky. I can see them losing at least one of those and ending up at best 4-4. Even if they win all three of those, they'll be 5-3 in conference (perhaps like us), and a bowl might choose us ahead of them for money purposes (especially the Chick-Fil-A) or even the Florida bowls.

And finally, Mississippi. They're 2-3 in the SEC with remaining games against Tennessee, LSU, and @Miss. State. Once again, I can see them losing at least one of those, maybe 2 (and possibly all 3).

Mississippi State doesn't seem a likely threat, as they still have to play Alabama, @Arkansas, and Ole Miss.

Vanderbilt, Kentucky, and Arkansas have no shot at finishing above us if we win our last 2 SEC games.

CONCLUSION

If we beat Auburn and Kentucky (even if we lose to Tech in the finale), the worst we could do is end up as the #7 SEC team which would give us a spot in the Music City Bowl. But it's much more likely (and in fact, necessary) that other SEC teams will beat up on each other in the next few weeks. In fact, we have a very legitimate shot at ending up as the #4 or #5 SEC team this season, putting us in the Cotton or Outback.

-------------------------

MY PREDICTIONS:

---------------------------

ALABAMA

Will beat LSU, Miss. State, Chattanooga, and Auburn

Final Record: 12-0 (8-0 SEC) (#1 SEC)

Bowl: BCS National Championship Game

--------------------------------

FLORIDA

Will beat Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Florida International, and Florida State.

Final Record: 12-0 (8-0 SEC) (#2 SEC)

Bowl: Sugar Bowl

--------------------------------

LSU

Will lose to Alabama, but beat Louisiana Tech, Ole Miss, and Arkansas.

Final Record: 10-2 (6-2 SEC) (#3 SEC)

Bowl: Capital One

-------------------------------

GEORGIA

Will beat Tennessee Tech, Auburn, Kentucky, lose to Georgia Tech

Final Record: 7-5 (5-3 SEC) (#4 SEC)

Bowl: Outback

------------------------------

MISSISSIPPI

Will beat Northern Arizona, Tennessee, and Miss. State. Lose to LSU

Final Record: 8-4 (4-4 SEC) (#5 SEC)

Bowl: Cotton

-------------------------------

TENNESSEE

Will beat Memphis, Vanderbilt, Kentucky. Will lose to Mississippi.

Final Record: 7-5 (4-4 SEC) (#6 SEC)

Bowl: Chick-Fil-A

----------------------------

ARKANSAS

Will beat South Carolina, Troy, Miss. State, and lose to LSU.

Final Record: 7-5 (3-5 SEC) #7 SEC

Bowl: Music City

--------------------------------

AUBURN

Will beat Furman, lose to Georgia and Alabama

Final Record: 7-5 (3-5 SEC) (#8 SEC)

Bowl: Liberty

--------------------------------------

SOUTH CAROLINA

Lose to Arkansas and Florida, beat Clemson

Final Record: 7-5 (3-5 SEC) (#9 SEC)

Bowl: Independence

-----------------------------------

KENTUCKY

Will beat Eastern Kentucky and Vanderbilt, will lose to Georgia and Tenessee

Final Record: 6-6 (2-6 SEC) (#10 SEC)

Bowl: PapaJohn's Bowl

------------------------------------

MISSISSIPPI STATE

Will lose to Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi.

Final Record: 4-8 (2-6 SEC) (#11 SEC)

Bowl: Not eligible

--------------------------------

VANDERBILT

Will lose to Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee

Final Record: 2-10 (0-8 SEC) (#12 SEC)

Bowl: Not eligible

----------------------------------

Even though this is my prediction, I think we'll most likely end up in the Outback, Cotton, or Chick-Fil-A (if I'm wrong on something in there). A Music City bowl seems possible as well, but I think the Liberty and Independence predictions are pretty stupid. The funny thing is, I'm not even being that biased toward Georgia here. I even predicted the loss to Tech.

So tell me, where are these "experts" getting their predictions? I'm guessing they're pulling them out of a place where the sun doesn't shine very much.

I could be wrong and we could lose to Auburn or Kentucky, or even both, in which case we wouldn't even be bowl eligible. But I think I'm a little more realistic than most with my predictions. I'll admit, an Auburn loss seems possible, but for now and from what I've seen (and with Georgia playing Auburn in Athens at night), I think we can win our last 2 SEC games.