tkyleking's Xanga

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:26:34 GMT

I HAVE MOVED!

You can find me now at http://www.dawgsports.com.

The weblog formerly known as "Kyle on Football" has changed websites and taken a new name . . . sort of like a mob informant enrolled in the witness relocation program.

While this site will remain up and running for the foreseeable future (at least until I can get seven months' worth of my previous postings moved over to my new site), all new content will be found at my new internet home.

If you had Kyle on Football bookmarked or linked, please note the change and update accordingly.

The name of the new site is "Dawg Sports." I hope you'll check it out and leave me a comment to let me know what you think of my new site.

Go 'Dawgs!

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:16:37 GMT

If you added up the total amount of moral culpability involved in every stupid thing a University of Georgia athlete has done since the day after Jasper Sanks was kicked off of the team, you wouldn't get half the amount of moral culpability of Reuben Houston . . . allegedly, of course.

That having been said, one player arrest is one player arrest too many and, while Mark Richt has never put up with anything like the degree of malfeasance tolerated at his previous coaching stop (Florida State) or at his alma mater (Miami) on a regular basis, we simply have to put a stop to this sort of stupid nonsense.

Yes, I know it's largely boys-will-be-boys tomfoolery, the results of dumb moves like letting your driver's license get suspended or having the misfortune of being well-known when, as a 21-year-old college kid, you happened to head downtown in Athens, where liquor licenses are handed out more freely than diplomas at Auburn.

Youth, celebrity, liberty, and opportunity often combine in dangerous ways and Georgia doesn't have anything like the culture of lawlessness that prevails in Knoxville, Tenn., and Columbia, S.C. Nevertheless, I expect the Bulldogs to adhere to a higher standard. The fact that almost all of it is foolish rather than felonious is not a mitigating factor in my eyes; when you're a high profile athlete, even your childish mistakes are going to have high profile consequences and, although that reality may not be fair, it is the reality.

If, while I was in college in the Classic City, a buddy of mine had gotten drunk and passed out in the men's room while using the facilities, the result would have been a funny story we would continue to kid him about to this day.

However, none of us were offensive linemen for the defending Southeastern Conference champions. Most students only embarrass themselves through their own stupid escapades. Athletes at major universities make us all look bad when they behave irresponsibly.

When you accept a scholarship to play football at the University of Georgia, you are accepting the obligation to represent the institution and the program in the most favorable light. That obligation is not limited to a player's conduct between the hedges. These idiotic offseason antics drive me up the wall.

On a more positive note, recent news out of Norman, Okla., lends further support to The Movement. The Sooners have agreed to a home and home series with Miami.

How does this help the argument in favor of a two-year series between Georgia and Michigan? Since one of the arguments against scheduling such a series is Georgia's annual neutral site contest with Florida, a partial rebuttal may be found in the fact that O.U. is willing to schedule tough out-of-conference opponents, despite the Sooners' annual game against the Longhorns at the Cotton Bowl.

Oklahoma and Texas have met in Dallas each fall, without fail, since 1929. Bevo and the Sooner Schooner haven't hooked up on one another's home fields since meeting in Norman in 1922 and in Austin in 1923.

Oklahoma gives up an additional home game every other year by facing a bitter division rival clad in orange at a neutral site in the opponent's home state for a game so famous, it has a nickname as well as a permanent off-campus home dating back to the Depression. Does that scenario sound familiar to anyone in Bulldog Nation?

Despite facing a significant scheduling constraint that mirrors one faced by Georgia, O.U. has been willing to go on the road to face quality opposition. Even if we omit future Big 12 rivals and mid-major teams from the list, we find an impressive roster of non-conference foes the Sooners have visited over the years.

Oklahoma faced Alabama (in 2003), Arizona (in 1989), California (in 1997), Kentucky (in 1982), Miami (in 1975 and 1986), Minnesota (in 1985), North Carolina (in 1988), Notre Dame (in 1968 and 1999), Ohio State (in 1977), Pitt (in 1965, 1971, and 1984), Southern Cal (in 1973, 1981, and 1988), Stanford (in 1978 and 1983), Syracuse (in 1994), U.C.L.A. (in 1990), Vanderbilt (in 1976), and Wisconsin (in 1969)---all on their home fields and all since 1965, the last season in which the 'Dawgs played a road game outside the South.

Now O.U., while working to keep the Red River Shootout in Dallas, has agreed to travel to Coral Gables once again. Oklahoma's neutral site game with Texas hasn't hampered the team's ability to schedule tough opponents . . . or to compete for national titles. With Georgia's national stature having been restored by Mark Richt, that final hurdle is the only one yet to be cleared.

The willingness to schedule top quality out-of-conference opposition like Michigan would enhance the Red and Black's reputation and permit the inevitable undefeated Bulldog squad to compete for the national championship at which Auburn cost itself a shot by scheduling weak teams in 2004.

High profile victories and solid strength of schedule are important ingredients in a run at No. 1 and Georgia has to come to that realization . . . Sooner or later.

Go 'Dawgs!

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:28:27 GMT

Yesterday, in defense of the proposition that Georgia and Michigan should schedule a home and home series in football, I contrasted the Wolverines' out-of-conference slate with the regular season opposition taken on by other Big Ten teams.

I subsequently stumbled across a snippet in the intercollegiate athletics blogosphere that has bolstered my argument: Ohio State weblogger Around the Oval cited a recent speech given by Jim Tressel in---of all places---Macon, Georgia.

The Wolverines' nemesis came into the Bulldogs' back yard and unwittingly lent his support to The Movement by underscoring my recent points regarding Big Ten scheduling.

The Buckeyes' head coach made note of O.S.U.'s upcoming out-of-conference slate, which includes a visit to Texas this fall, followed by a visit to Washington, as well as home and home series with Southern Cal and Miami, in future seasons.

For those of you keeping score at home, that means Ohio State's next non-conference showdowns with major powers will involve two trips into Pac-10 country and a couple of treks into the South.

At the outset of The Movement, I stated, "I can't believe Michigan will let itself be outdone by Ohio State."

Gutsy scheduling by the Buckeyes gives the squad from Columbus a leg up on its rival in Ann Arbor and no self-respecting Michigan fan could stand to concede that O.S.U. has outperformed the Maize and Blue in any arena. If for no other reason than keeping up with the Joneses, U.M. should answer the call and schedule the series with the 'Dawgs.

Having had the correctness of my position confirmed by Coach Tressel's speech in my home state earlier this month, I was due to be dealt a dash of humility, which Paul Westerdawg has been conscientious enough to provide.

My initial reaction to the hiring of Tony Ball to coach the Georgia tailbacks was cautious and tepid, but that was before Paul went out and gathered some actual facts to contradict my first impression.

Paul contacted Joe Kendall, a Virginia Tech weblogger, and requested Joe's assessment of Coach Ball. Joe's response was extremely positive.

I would encourage you to visit the Georgia Sports Blog and read the entire interview, but Joe characterizes Coach Ball as "truly a class act and a great coach," "a very thorough very results oriented coach," "extremely well thought of," and "a fierce competitor" with "tenacity and vigor" who "should help tremendously in [Georgia's] northern [recruiting] pursuits."

Joe's evaluation of Coach Ball is consistent with some of the comments I have received about Georgia's newest assistant, so, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will defer to the opinion of the majority and welcome Coach Ball to the Bulldog Nation.

Go 'Dawgs!

Monday, February 20, 2006

Mon, 20 Feb 2006 04:00:30 GMT

My recent examination of the non-conference schedules of S.E.C. squads lends itself to a natural segue back to the advancement of The Movement.

Bill Martin's response to my e-mail and The M Zone's analysis of my proposal both raised this question: "Can Michigan afford to schedule a quality out-of-conference opponent of Georgia's caliber?"

My own answer to that question was a resounding "yes," but, after I contrasted Georgia's non-conference scheduling with that of a comparable S.E.C. team, I thought it might behoove The Movement to offer similar comparisons of the Maize and Blue to their conference brethren.

The Big Ten expanded to eleven members in 1993. Set forth below is a list of the quality non-conference opponents faced by the 10 Big Ten teams not located in Ann Arbor, Mich., since that time. For purposes of this discussion, I have defined "quality non-conference opponents" as "teams from B.C.S. leagues in contests that are not regularly recurring rivalry games."

For instance, although Penn State's intermittent clashes with Pittsburgh were included, Michigan State's and Purdue's series with Notre Dame, Iowa's in-state rivalry with Iowa State, Indiana's and Kentucky's clashes of basketball schools (which have been perennial affairs each autumn since 1987), and various teams' showdowns with legitimate opponents from mid-major leagues like Louisville (in the Cardinals' pre-Big East days) and Southern Miss all were excluded, not because such games do not matter but because I am trying to illustrate the Wolverines' ability, vel non, to schedule a series with Georgia, even if the Maize and Blue still have the Fighting Irish on their schedule.

1993:

Sept. 4 - Purdue at N.C. State

Sept. 11 - Illinois at Missouri; Kansas at Michigan State; Washington at Ohio State; Southern Cal at Penn State

Sept. 18 - Arizona at Illinois; Kansas State at Minnesota; Boston College at Northwestern; Ohio State at Pitt; Iowa State at Wisconsin

Sept. 25 - Oregon at Illinois; Wake Forest at Northwestern; Rutgers at Penn State

Oct. 2 - Penn State at Maryland

1994:

Sept. 1 - Illinois v. Washington State (Chicago, Ill.)

Sept. 10 - Missouri at Illinois; Michigan State at Kansas; Stanford at Northwestern; Ohio State at Washington; Southern Cal at Penn State

Sept. 17 - Pitt at Ohio State; Wisconsin at Colorado

Sept. 24 - Iowa at Oregon; Minnesota at Kansas State; Rutgers at Penn State

Oct. 1 - Penn State at Temple

1995:

Aug. 27 - Ohio State v. Boston College (East Rutherford, N.J.)

Sept. 2 - Purdue at West Virginia; Colorado at Wisconsin

Sept. 9 - Illinois at Oregon; Nebraska at Michigan State; Texas Tech at Penn State

Sept. 16 - Arizona at Illinois; Washington at Ohio State; Temple at Penn State; Wisconsin at Stanford

Sept. 23 - Minnesota at Syracuse; Ohio State at Pitt; Penn State v. Rutgers (East Rutherford, N.J.)

Sept. 30 - Boston College at Michigan State; Notre Dame at Ohio State

1996:

Aug. 25 - Penn State v. Southern Cal (East Rutherford, N.J.)

Sept. 7 - Southern Cal at Illinois; Arizona at Iowa; Michigan State at Nebraska; Northwestern at Wake Forest

Sept. 14 - Illinois at Arizona

Sept. 21 - Syracuse at Minnesota; Pitt at Ohio State; Penn State v. Temple (East Rutherford, N.J.); West Virginia at Purdue; Stanford at Wisconsin

Sept. 28 - Ohio State at Notre Dame; N.C. State at Purdue

1997:

Aug. 23 - Northwestern v. Oklahoma (Chicago, Ill.)

Aug. 24 - Wisconsin v. Syracuse (East Rutherford, N.J.)

Sept. 6 - Indiana at North Carolina; Northwestern at Wake Forest; Pitt at Penn State

Sept. 13 - Iowa State at Minnesota; Duke at Northwestern; Temple at Penn State

Sept. 20 - Washington State at Illinois; Arizona at Ohio State

Sept. 27 - Ohio State at Missouri

1998:

Aug. 30 - Purdue at Southern Cal

Sept. 5 - Illinois at Washington State; Michigan State at Oregon; Ohio State at West Virginia

Sept. 12 - Duke at Northwestern

Sept. 19 - Iowa at Arizona; Missouri at Ohio State; Penn State at Pitt

1999:

Aug. 28 - Arizona at Penn State

Aug. 29 - Ohio State v. Miami (East Rutherford, N.J.)

Sept. 2 - Oregon at Michigan State

Sept. 4 - Nebraska at Iowa

Sept. 11 - North Carolina at Indiana; U.C.L.A. at Ohio State; Pitt at Penn State

Sept. 18 - Northwestern at Duke; Penn State at Miami

2000:

Aug. 26 - Iowa v. Kansas State (Kansas City, Mo.)

Aug. 27 - Penn State v. Southern Cal (East Rutherford, N.J.)

Sept. 9 - N.C. State at Indiana; Duke at Northwestern; Ohio State at Arizona; Oregon at Wisconsin

Sept. 16 - Cal at Illinois; Michigan State at Missouri; Minnesota at Baylor; Penn State at Pitt

Sept. 23 - Iowa at Nebraska

2001:

Aug. 25 - Virginia at Wisconsin

Sept. 1 - Illinois at Cal; Miami at Penn State; Wisconsin at Oregon

Sept. 6 - Indiana at N.C. State

Sept. 22 - Northwestern at Duke; Ohio State at U.C.L.A.

Dec. 1 - Missouri at Michigan State; Penn State at Virginia

2002:

Aug. 24 - Texas Tech at Ohio State

Aug. 31 - Illinois v. Missouri (St. Louis, Mo.)

Sept. 7 - West Virginia at Wisconsin

Sept. 14 - Cal at Michigan State; Duke at Northwestern; Washington State at Ohio State; Nebraska at Penn State

Sept. 21 - Wake Forest at Purdue; Arizona at Wisconsin

Nov. 9 - Virginia at Penn State

2003:

Aug. 30 - Illinois v. Missouri (St. Louis, Mo.); Northwestern at Kansas; Washington at Ohio State; Temple at Penn State; Wisconsin at West Virginia

Sept. 6 - Indiana at Washington; Rutgers at Michigan State; Boston College at Penn State

Sept. 13 - Illinois at U.C.L.A.; N.C. State at Ohio State; Penn State at Nebraska; Purdue at Wake Forest

Sept. 20 - California at Illinois; Arizona State at Iowa; Northwestern at Duke; Arizona at Purdue; North Carolina at Wisconsin

2004:

Sept. 4 - Michigan State at Rutgers

Sept. 5 - Syracuse at Purdue

Sept. 11 - U.C.L.A. at Illinois; Indiana at Oregon; Arizona State at Northwestern; Penn State at Boston College

Sept. 18 - Iowa at Arizona State; Kansas at Northwestern; Ohio State at N.C. State; Wisconsin at Arizona

2005:

Sept. 3 - Rutgers at Illinois; South Florida at Penn State

Sept. 10 - Texas at Ohio State; Cincinnati at Penn State

Sept. 17 - Illinois at Cal; Northwestern at Arizona State; Purdue at Arizona; Wisconsin at North Carolina

The Wolverines' in-state rival offers an instructive example. Like the Maize and Blue, the Spartans annually face a Big Ten schedule and an out-of-conference home and home rivalry with Notre Dame that (except for 1995 and 1996) has been played year in and year out since 1959.

Travel distances from East Lansing to other regions of the country are approximately the same as they are from Ann Arbor. Add to that the fact that Michigan State's historically has been the "little brother" program of the Great Lakes region and it becomes clear that, anything the Spartans can do, Michigan should be able to do better.

Since Big Ten expansion brought Penn State into the league, Michigan State has gone on the road to play at Kansas (in 1994), at Louisville (in 1995), at Nebraska (in 1996), at Oregon (in 1998), at Missouri (in 2000), and at Rutgers (in 2004). Before that, the Spartans traveled to face N.C. State at Raleigh (in 1976), Southern Cal at Los Angeles (in 1978), Oregon at Eugene (in 1980), Miami at Coral Gables (in 1982), Colorado at Boulder (in 1984), Arizona State at Tempe (in 1986), Florida State at Tallahassee (in 1988), Syracuse at Syracuse (in 1990), and Boston College at Chestnut Hill (in 1992).

In the last three decades, M.S.U. has ventured into warmer climes numerous times and, even excluding Kentucky and Missouri as border states, Sparty has scheduled three regular season road games in the South since the year Jimmy Carter was elected president. Meanwhile, Michigan's arch-rival, Ohio State, has played an away game against a Southern opponent in September as recently as 2004 and will do so again as soon as next fall.

As I have noted previously, the Wolverines have not shied away from facing tough non-conference competition, although they have been steering clear of the Old Confederacy for the last two decades. The Maize and Blue cannot fall back upon heat, humidity, and a tough conference slate as excuses when both Michigan State and Ohio State have done recently the very thing I am asking Michigan to do.

In fact, the Wolverines' major conference rivals are not the only Big Ten teams to have ventured into my neck of the woods in recent years. Michigan's last regular season contest in the South took place on September 21, 1985 . . . and every other Big Ten team has availed itself of our Southern hospitality since then.

On September 29, 1990, Iowa faced Miami in Coral Gables, Fla. On September 16, 1995, Michigan State faced Louisville in Louisville, Ky. On December 1, 2001, Penn State faced Virginia in Charlottesville, Va. On September 7, 2002, Illinois faced Southern Miss in Hattiesburg, Miss., and Minnesota faced Louisiana-Lafayette in Lafayette, La. On September 13, 2003, Purdue faced Wake Forest in Winston-Salem, N.C. On September 2, 2004, Northwestern faced Texas Christian in Fort Worth, Tex. On September 18, 2004, Indiana faced Kentucky in Lexington, Ky., and Ohio State faced N.C. State in Raleigh, N.C. On September 17, 2005, Wisconsin faced North Carolina in Chapel Hill, N.C.

No other Big Ten team has gone as long as Michigan without playing an away game against a Southern school. Seven of the other 10 conference squads have traveled to the region for a regular season contest in the 21st century, but the Wolverines haven't ventured below the Mason-Dixon line in September since the first year of Ronald Reagan's second term, at a time when the Berlin Wall still stood, the Soviet Union still existed, and the Cold War still continued.

Put another way, U.M. took on the Gamecocks in Columbia, S.C., during my senior year of high school. Last week, I received a telephone call from a high school classmate regarding the scheduling of our 20-year class reunion, but the Maize and Blue haven't been back in the meantime.

As a Georgia fan, I have little room to criticize, of course; the Bulldogs have gone twice as long as the Wolverines without leaving their region and I would not want to be accused of being the pot calling the kettle red and black. Nevertheless, when Michigan, which has a good argument for calling itself the most storied program in its conference, has gone longer than any other Big Ten team without playing a non-conference game in the South, it is time for the Maize and Blue to take a lesson from their league competitors.

Indiana plays Kentucky, Iowa plays Iowa State, and Michigan State and Purdue both play Notre Dame, yet each of these Big Ten teams still finds time to travel to the South every once in a while. With or without the Fighting Irish on their schedule, the Wolverines should step up to the plate and schedule a two-game series with the 'Dawgs.

Georgia and Michigan each stand to benefit from facing one another and both schools should be leading the way, not lagging behind, in the league-wide efforts to upgrade the out-of-conference schedules of two of the nation's premiere conferences.

Go 'Dawgs!

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:43:36 GMT

Recently, both Doug Gillett and I commented on the 2006 football schedules of the Southeastern Conference's member institutions.

However, Paul Westerdawg subsequently called our attention to Paul Finebaum's criticisms of the league members' non-conference slates.

While frothing at the mouth and with spittle flying from his lips as he ranted and raved with a maniacal gleam in his eye, Finebaum offered the following inartful hyperbole:

"The SEC officially released the 2006 football schedules recently, and don't be surprised if season-ticket holders across the South start demanding their money back. There ought to a [sic.] revolt. There should be class action suits. Yes, it's that bad."

Could someone please tell Finebaum to calm down? What's bad is Finebaum's proofreading; S.E.C. out-of-conference schedules are improving.

Since I run a reputable college football weblog rather than a sports talk radio show or worse, I'm going to rely on actual facts to demonstrate my point.

Are Southeastern Conference slates on the upswing in 2006? To prove that they are, I am going to compare each league squad's non-conference schedule from five years before with that from the same team's upcoming slate.

Beside each such foe, I will list that squad's record, final A.P. ranking (if any), and bowl game (if any) from the preceding years, 2000 and 2005, respectively. Division I-AA teams simply will be designated as Division I-AA teams, since it is of little importance how many games a lower-tier team won or lost if it is taking on a team well outside of its weight class.

Here is what we find when we give the schedules a look:

Alabama

2001:

Sept. 1 - U.C.L.A. (6-6; Sun Bowl)

Oct. 6 - U.T.E.P. (8-4; Humanitarian Bowl)

Nov. 29 - Southern Miss (8-4; Mobile Alabama Bowl)

2006:

Sept. 2 - Hawaii (5-7)

Sept. 16 - Louisiana-Monroe (5-6)

Oct. 7 - Duke (1-10)

Oct. 28 - Florida International (5-6)

Admittedly, the Crimson Tide was not the best place to start, but the arrangement of the alphabet isn't my fault. Alabama's 2001 non-conference schedule featured a trio of 2000 bowl teams with a combined record of 22-14, but the Red Elephants' 2006 slate features no out-of-conference opponents that made it into postseason play and their cumulative ledger is a woeful 16-29.

Clearly, 'Bama took a big step backward between 2001 and 2006 where out-of-conference scheduling was concerned.

Arkansas

2001:

Aug. 30 - U.N.L.V. (8-5; Las Vegas Bowl)

Oct. 6 - Weber State (Division I-AA)

Nov. 10 - Central Florida (7-4)

2006:

Sept. 2 - Southern Cal (12-1; 2nd; Rose Bowl)

Sept. 9 - Utah State (3-8)

Oct. 14 - Missouri State (Division I-AA)

Oct. 28 - Louisiana-Monroe (5-6)

The Razorbacks continue to schedule Division I-AA opposition, which is embarrassing, and the overall ledgers of the Hogs' Division I-A non-conference opponents went from 15-9 to 20-15, but Arkansas took a huge step up in the quality of its competition when the S.E.C. West squad from Fayetteville went from opening the campaign against a Las Vegas Bowl team to starting the season by taking on a Rose Bowl team.

Although Arkansas's out-of-conference games are a mixed bag, the addition of U.S.C. improves the Razorbacks' slate by leaps and bounds.

Auburn

2001:

Sept. 1 - Ball State (5-6)

Sept. 22 - at Syracuse (6-5)

Oct. 20 - Louisiana Tech (3-9)

2006:

Sept. 2 - Washington State (4-7)

Sept. 23 - Buffalo (1-10)

Oct. 21 - Tulane (2-9)

Nov. 4 - Arkansas State (6-6; New Orleans Bowl)

It's a shameful admission to have to make, but four out-of-conference opponents with a combined 2005 record of 13-32 actually represents an upgrade for the Plainsmen. Although Auburn's 2001 non-league slate was comprised of squads with a collective ledger of 14-20, the Cougars are a better B.C.S. conference opponent than the Orange these days and the defending Sun Belt co-champion Indians are an improvement upon the student-athletes from David Letterman's alma mater.

It is a rarity for an A.U. out-of-conference schedule to be anything short of shameful, inasmuch as the Tigers rank right up there with Kansas State, Minnesota, and Texas Tech among the most notorious consumers of cupcakes, but this is a step in the right direction, however small.

Florida

2001:

Sept. 1 - Marshall (8-5; Motor City Bowl)

Sept. 8 - Louisiana-Monroe (1-10)

Nov. 17 - Florida State (11-2; 5th; Orange Bowl)

2006:

Sept. 2 - Southern Miss (7-5; New Orleans Bowl)

Sept. 9 - Central Florida (8-5; Hawaii Bowl)

Nov. 18 - Western Carolina (Division I-AA)

Nov. 25 - at Florida State (8-5; 23rd; Orange Bowl)

In 2001, the Gators played three Division I-A teams from outside the S.E.C. during the regular season; during the preceding campaign, those three teams together made two bowl appearances, featured one final ranking in the sportswriters' poll, and went 20-17. In 2006, U.F. will play three Division I-A teams from outside the S.E.C. during the regular season; during the preceding campaign, those three teams together made three bowl appearances, featured one final ranking in the sportswriters' poll, and went 23-15.

Undoubtedly, Florida's out-of-conference matchups represent an improvement.

Georgia

2001:

Sept. 1 - Arkansas State (1-10)

Nov. 24 - at Georgia Tech (9-3; 17th; Peach Bowl)

Dec. 1 - Houston (3-8)

2006:

Sept. 2 - Western Kentucky (Division I-AA)

Sept. 16 - U.A.B. (5-6)

Sept. 23 - Colorado (7-6; Champs Sports Bowl)

Nov. 25 - Georgia Tech (7-5; Emerald Bowl)

The worst Division I-A squad on Georgia's 2006 non-conference slate came within one win of being bowl eligible in 2005. Compare that to a 2001 schedule including Arkansas State and Houston, who between them posted just four victories in 2000. Overall, the 'Dawgs went from an out-of-conference schedule against teams with a combined 13-21 ledger and one postseason appearance to an out-of-conference schedule against Division I-A teams with a combined 19-17 ledger and two postseason appearances.

The Yellow Jackets' slight slippage in the expanded A.C.C. notwithstanding, the Bulldogs' non-S.E.C. slate clearly is better in 2006.

Kentucky

2001:

Sept. 1 - Louisville (9-3; Liberty Bowl)

Sept. 8 - Ball State (5-6)

Dec. 1 - at Indiana (3-8)

2006:

Sept. 2 - at Louisville (9-3; 19th; Gator Bowl)

Sept. 9 - Texas State (Division I-AA)

Sept. 30 - Central Michigan (6-5)

Nov. 18 - Louisiana-Monroe (5-6)

The Wil_cats have gone from a 9-3 Louisville team that represented Conference U.S.A. in the Liberty Bowl to a 9-3 Louisville team that represented the Big East in the Gator Bowl, from a game against 5-6 Ball State to a game against 5-6 Louisiana-Monroe, and from a game against a 3-8 Big Ten team to a game against a 6-5 M.A.C. team.

All told, U.K.'s transition from out-of-conference matchups against three Division I-A teams that went 17-17 to out-of-conference matchups against three Division I-A teams that went 20-14 seems to be no worse than a wash, even with Scott Bakula, Kathy Ireland, and Sinbad on the schedule.

Louisiana State

2001:

Sept. 1 - Tulane (6-5)

Sept. 8 - Utah State (5-6)

Nov. 10 - Middle Tennessee (6-5)

2006:

Sept. 2 - Louisiana-Lafayette (6-5)

Sept. 9 - Arizona (3-8)

Sept. 23 - Tulane (2-9)

Oct. 21 - Fresno State (8-5; Liberty Bowl)

The Bayou Bengals went from scheduling no out-of-conference opponents of note to scheduling a B.C.S. conference team and a mid-major giant killer. There are no Division I-AA squads on L.S.U.'s non-league slate, but there is a 2005 bowl team. Granted, the opposition's cumulative won-lost record has gone from 17-16 to 19-27, but the Fighting Tigers renewed their one-sided in-state rivalry with Tulane in both seasons, faced a 6-5 Sun Belt team (M.T.S.U. in 2001 and U.La.La. next fall) each time, and traded up from Big West expatriate U.S.U. five years ago to opponents from the W.A.C. and the Pac-10 in 2006.

The numbers alone don't tell the whole story. Louisiana State kicked it up a notch when sending out invitations asking non-S.E.C. squads to visit Baton Rouge this year.

Mississippi

2001:

Sept. 1 - Murray State (Division I-AA)

Oct. 6 - at Arkansas State (1-10)

Oct. 20 - Middle Tennessee (6-5)

2006:

Sept. 2 - Memphis (7-5; Motor City Bowl)

Sept. 9 - at Missouri (7-5; Independence Bowl)

Sept. 23 - Wake Forest (4-7)

Nov. 4 - Northwestern State (Division I-AA)

Please. Leave aside the glorified scrimmages against Division I-AA guests; Ole Miss has gone from facing a pair of Sun Belt squads that went 7-15 to facing teams from the A.C.C., the Big 12, and Conference U.S.A. that went 18-17 and attended a pair of bowl games.

The Rebels' schedule has improved markedly.

Mississippi State

2001:

Sept. 3 - Memphis (4-7)

Oct. 13 - Troy State (Division I-AA)

Dec. 1 - Brigham Young (6-6)

2006:

Sept. 16 - Tulane (2-9)

Sept. 23 - at U.A.B. (5-6)

Oct. 7 - West Virginia (11-1; 5th; Sugar Bowl)

Oct. 14 - Jacksonville State (Division I-AA)

Once again ignoring the Division I-AA cream puffs, we find that M.S.U.'s out-of-conference opposition improved from 10-13 to 18-16 and now includes the defending Big East and (dang it all) Sugar Bowl champions.

Mississippi State took a huge step up in weight class when the Western Division Bulldogs went from taking B.Y.U.'s best shot to accepting a game against W.V.U.

South Carolina

2001:

Sept. 1 - Boise State (10-2; Humanitarian Bowl)

Nov. 3 - Wofford (Division I-AA)

Nov. 17 - Clemson (9-3; 16th; Gator Bowl)

2006:

Sept. 16 - Wofford (Division I-AA)

Sept. 23 - Florida Atlantic (2-9)

Nov. 18 - Middle Tennessee (4-7)

Nov. 25 - at Clemson (8-4; 21st; Champs Sports Bowl)

Is this how Steve Spurrier plans to revive his tarnished reputation as a coaching mastermind . . . by watering down the Gamecocks' schedule so much that their artificially inflated won-lost record will start to resemble that of the Gators during Darth Visor's heyday in Gainesville? Wofford's presence on the schedule is an embarrassment, now as then, but the rest of South Carolina's out-of-conference schedule is now equally weak, as well. The Palmetto State Poultry went from Division I-A opponents with a 19-5 cumulative ledger and two bowl appearances to Division I-A opponents with a combined record of 14-20 and one postseason berth.

If South Carolina's non-S.E.C. slate gets any more shameful, the 'Cocks will be required to relocate from Columbia, S.C., to somewhere in the Yellowhammer State.

Tennessee

2001:

Sept. 1 - Syracuse (6-5)

Nov. 3 - at Notre Dame (9-3; 15th; Fiesta Bowl)

Nov. 10 - Memphis (4-7)

2006:

Sept. 2 - California (8-4; 25th; Las Vegas Bowl)

Sept. 9 - Air Force (4-7)

Sept. 23 - Marshall (4-7)

Sept. 30 - at Memphis (7-5; Motor City Bowl)

Largely because the Volunteers routinely have home state advantage in eight games a year, Tennessee has had one of the Southeastern Conference's best track records of scheduling tough non-conference opponents. This fall will be no exception, as the Vols again face a legitimate slate from outside the league, going from three teams with a 19-15 record and one bowl appearance to four teams with a 23-23 record and two bowl appearances.

Playing Memphis on the road today is a bigger deal than playing Memphis at home was five years ago. Air Force and Marshall in 2006, like Syracuse in 2001, largely are spent volcanoes with better name recognition than talent, but the Falcons and the Thundering Herd are capable of pulling off the upset and the Volunteers have doubled their risk of being caught off guard by scheduling two such opponents. Leaving aside the college football establishment's inexplicable love affair with the Fighting Irish, the Golden Bears are as good a team now as Notre Dame was at the turn of the century.

At worst, Tennessee's 2006 schedule is as daunting as its 2001 slate and, because of the presence of a pair of non-traditional non-conference non-patsies from non-B.C.S. leagues, a fair argument could be mounted for the proposition that the Big Orange faces a tougher test this coming autumn than five years previously.

Vanderbilt

2001:

Aug. 30 - Middle Tennessee (6-5)

Sept. 22 - Richmond (Division I-AA)

Oct. 27 - at Duke (0-11)

2006:

Sept. 2 - at Michigan (7-5; Alamo Bowl)

Sept. 23 - Tennessee State (Division I-AA)

Sept. 30 - Kent State (1-10)

Oct. 28 - at Duke (1-10)

Five years ago, the Commodores took on no non-S.E.C. bowl teams and their Division I-A opposition consisted of squads with a cumulative 6-16 ledger. This year, although Vandy will tussle with Division I-A teams that went a collective 9-25, the 'Dores also open on the road against an Alamo Bowl participant and a traditional power with whom Vanderbilt has some history.

On paper, going from 0-11 (Duke) to 1-10 (Duke and Kent State) and from 6-5 (M.T.S.U.) to 7-5 (Michigan) doesn't look like a significant upgrade, but, as someone who was present at the creation of The Movement, I believe it is clear that, when an S.E.C. team substitutes an away game at Michigan for a home date with Middle Tennessee State, that squad has improved its non-conference slate.

Overall, S.E.C. squads may not yet be scheduling a quality of non-conference opposition worthy of a league of its stature, but at least eight teams (Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana State, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Vanderbilt) have upgraded their out-of-conference scheduling in the last five years and no more than two member institutions (Alabama and South Carolina) have regressed during that period.

Paul Finebaum calls this state of affairs so "bad" that fans like me should be "demanding their money back," staging "a revolt," and filing "class action suits." Even allowing for the requirements imposed by Finebaum's medium for sports talk radio hosts to utter outrageous and exaggerated nonsense for the sake of getting ratings, that bit of hyperventilation is ludicrous.

While I am not pleased with where the S.E.C. is as a conference with regard to non-league scheduling, no one who is familiar with the facts could deny that, on the whole, the conference is headed in the right direction.

Two out of every three S.E.C. schools face tougher schedules in 2006 than in 2001 while only one out of every six S.E.C. schools will face a weaker slate of games. Instead of insisting upon refunds, we in the South are proud, pleased, and looking forward to some quality intersectional matchups next fall.

Go 'Dawgs!

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:34:03 GMT

As I mentioned earlier in the week, today is Mark Richt's birthday.

If it weren't a Saturday, it would be a national holiday in Bulldog Nation.

Seriously, the next time Coach Richt's birthday falls on a weekday, every Georgia fan needs to take the day off from work. Think of it as the Red and Black equivalent of "senior skip day."

In any event, Paul Westerdawg has commemorated the occasion with a top ten list that you'll want to be sure to read.

In other news, Orson Swindle has compiled another list, which purports to set forth the ten least likeable people in college football. Tommy Tuberville failed to make the cut, which has generated some discussion.

Finally, The Lawgiver's recent comprehensive compilation of third down statistics has received a level of universal acclaim previously reserved solely for "The Sopranos."

Of course, this is college football, so you know there has to be an argument.

Who, then, is the contrarian who raised an objection? No one of note.

I told you so.

Go 'Dawgs!

Friday, February 17, 2006

Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:13:24 GMT

Maybe you didn't notice, but the intercollegiate athletics blogosphere had a great day.

My initial misgivings about the hiring of Virginia Tech wide receivers coach Tony Ball to work with the Georgia running backs have been assuaged somewhat by recent comments from thoughtful readers.

I have already acknowledged that the first of these remarks instilled in me a degree of cautious optimism, but subsequent observations by a second reader also deserve a reply.

I disagree with Grandypeace's contention that "a good coach is a good coach (and a good assistant is a good assistant)." Pete Carroll, Dennis Erickson, Steve Spurrier, and (in another sport) Rick Pitino all are good college coaches, but none of them were good pro coaches. Evidence suggests that Bill Parcells, a good N.F.L. coach, was nowhere near as good as a college football coach.

Ray Goff, a fine assistant coach, proved that he was not head coaching material. Jim Donnan was not as good a head coach in Division I-A as he was in Division I-AA and Gerry Faust was not as good a head coach in college as he was in high school. No one ever appointed a Stoops to be an offensive coordinator.

However, I concur with Grandypeace's other contentions: it is "more telling than anything" that Coach Ball is reputed "to be an excellent recruiter and a well thought of coach"; "Blacksburg's demons" cannot be placed "at his feet" (which, in my defense, I believe I acknowledged when I wrote that "Virginia Tech's history of faltering down the stretch cannot be blamed on Coach Ball, of course"); and "it's probably better that he's an 'offensive' coach."

All of these are good points and encouraging signs, but Grandypeace's concluding observation is his best: "John Eason might be moving on in the near future. . . . It's not impossible that Richt was lining up a guy that could coach either RBs or WRs for the foreseeable future. Flexibility is nice."

Grandypeace is right. Mark Richt's associate head coach and wide receivers coach, John Eason, is the oldest member of the Georgia staff. Among the 11 coaches who were on the sideline or in the booth for the Bulldogs' 2005 campaign, five (Mark Richt, Rodney Garner, John Jancek, David Johnson, and Willie Martinez) were born in the 1960s, two (Mike Bobo and Kirby Smart) were born in the 1970s, and three (Neil Callaway, Jon Fabris, and Dave Van Halanger) were born in the 1950s.

Coach Eason was born on July 30, 1945. While he is by no means an old man, he has been in coaching for a third of a century and Coach Richt knows that he will be wearing a headset in Sanford Stadium long after Coach Eason is spending his Saturdays relaxing on a beach in the Sunshine State. If Coach Richt hired Coach Ball with an eye toward the future---both in terms of gaining an advantage in recruiting and in terms of preparing for staff turnover in the next few years---my estimation of this latest hire becomes significantly more favorable.

Over at The M Zone, a good-natured satire of zealots overreacting to harmless mockery has provoked numerous zealots into overreacting to harmless mockery. Isn't that ironic? Yeah, I really do think so.

The second edition of The Weekly Weblogger Challenge is off to an excellent start, as both Burnt Orange Nation's Peter Bean and The Realist have taken up the gauntlet. Curiously enough, each of them chose to write about the changing of the guard under center for the 2005 national champions.

The Realist very cleverly couched his references in subtle hints and earned extra credit for mentioning Stan Jablonski . . . even though, of course, Lucy Bates was Phil Esterhaus's immediate successor as roll call sergeant on "Hill Street Blues."

Peter, on the other hand, chose to play it straight, working the names on the list into a perfectly legitimate posting that he might have written, anyway. Consequently, some of Peter's readers accused him of veering into Dennis Miller territory until he set them straight.

By the way, this is as good an opportunity as any to call your attention to Burnt Orange Nation. On the list of fellow webloggers who have assisted me personally in my awkward lurches into the blogosphere, Peter Bean ranks right up there near the top, behind only Paulwesterdawg and The Lawgiver.

Of greater importance to you, the reader, though, is the fact that Peter and his colleagues at B.O.N. (all of whom, much like my former "Dawg Show" co-host, seem to be named "Travis," presumably in honor of the commanding officer at The Alamo) run a website with first-rate content and a first-class attitude. I have seen first-hand how insufferable some members of opposing fan bases can become after their team has won the national championship (Clemson '81, Georgia Tech '90, Florida '96, Tennessee '98, L.S.U. '03), so it is nice to be given an example of how to act like you've been there before after your team has just finished No. 1.

Speaking of which, in response to my recent remarks upon the subject of national championships, L.D. has been kind enough to offer his thoughts, which he enunciates clearly and expresses graciously.

At this point, I believe L.D. and I have set forth our respective cases clearly enough that I trust the readers of both our weblogs to form their own opinions, but I would like to take a moment to give L.D. credit for one in particular of his several salient points:

"I have a personal belief," he writes, "that objectivity is a necessity for sport. Finish the race first, knock the other guy out, score more points than the other team. When subjectivity becomes part of sport, I think it becomes less a sport and more an athletic exhibition. Figure skating, diving, gymnastics, snowboarding (halfpipe, not the slalom). These are clearly athletic endeavors, and I have nothing but respect for the athletes who take part. But it is not sport. The subjective viewpoint of a third party as determining factor, I believe, brings these events outside the realm of sport."

Even if you happen to be on my side in this particular discussion, L.D.'s point deserves serious consideration. I do not know that I have a fully effective retort to offer to this observation, although I would note that college football's objective outcomes are influenced heavily by subjective factors.

For instance, MGoBlog's Brian (more about whom anon) recommends the following philosophy for BlogPoll voters: "At all times it should be an approximate ranking who would beat who on a neutral field this year." That "neutral field" business is because one of college football's greatest attributes---the pageantry and tradition of game day on campus---contributes mightily to the subjective, yet very real, factor we call "home field advantage."

Furthermore, interpretations of rules offered by officials during the course of the contest feature highly subjective judgments that heavily influence objective outcomes. A highly questionable celebration penalty in The Swamp very probably deprived Vanderbilt of a victory over Florida in 2005.

Accordingly, I doubt how tenable the distinction between "subjectivity" and "objectivity" is in sports. Rather than being neatly divisible, they are interwoven throughout the fabric of the game, with each being both a cause and an effect of the other.

A team's record is an objective fact consisting of the number of games that team won and the number of games that team lost. A team's strength of schedule also is an objective fact consisting of the wins and losses of that team's opponents.

However, I question whether either of those objective criteria can be considered in a vacuum without the intrusion of some subjective judgments about the way in which each factor influences the other. It seems to me that L.D.'s wrestling with the question whether Notre Dame's head-to-head win over Florida State in 1993 or F.S.U.'s better record (12-1 to the Irish's 11-1) that year ought to weigh more heavily in one team's favor confirms this fact about college football.

Insofar as football is as much a game of emotion as it is a game of inches, I believe a degree of subjectivity is inherent in the sport . . . and I believe that this is not a bad thing. I am a strict constructionist when it comes to Constitutional law and a New Critic when it comes to literature, but, where diversions such as sports are concerned, I'm prepared to accept a degree of uncertainty in the A.P. poll that I would not countenance in an erroneous appellate court ruling or a faulty reading of Faulkner.

Nevertheless, L.D.'s argument that, when we get away from questions like, "Who scored more points than whom?", we begin moving into controversy-over-the-vote-of-the-Rumanian-judge territory, warrants our reflective consideration and, if you haven't read his response, you have done him, me, yourself, and the sport a disservice. Shame on you.

None of that is to say, though, that there are not objective factors in college football. This brings me back to the aforementioned Brian.

If you ever wondered why I refer to Brian as "The Lawgiver," this is why. Brian is to the third down conversion what Hugh Kenner was to Ezra Pound.

Finally, the F.S.U. Cowgirls have been interviewed by Maxim. Oh, and photographed, as well. Don't say I never did anything for you.

And . . . hey! Let's be careful out there.

Go 'Dawgs!

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Thu, 16 Feb 2006 04:00:12 GMT

The inaugural edition of The Weekly Weblogger Challenge received responses from Peter at Tigerpundit, from Ryan at The Highland Road Blog, and from Brian over at MGoBlog.

Clemson weblogger Peter wins the award for being the first to complete the challenge, as a response was up on his Tigerpundit site within twelve hours after the gauntlet was thrown down.

Peter wins points for his segue from Joe Theismann to Joe Montana and I have resisted the urge to downgrade him for describing Sanford Stadium in the 1970s as seating "70,000-plus characters from a Patterson Hood song," despite my belief that more Drive-By Truckers ditties are populated by the Clemson faithful than by denizens of Bulldog Nation.

However, I had no choice but to dock Peter's score for his closing line, "They ain't never gonna change, either."

His reference, of course, was to the song "Never Gonna Change" from D.B.T.'s 2004 album The Dirty South. It would have been a nice Patterson Hood allusion . . . except for the fact that "Never Gonna Change" is a Jason Isbell song! That's like mistaking a Beatles song by John Lennon for one by Paul McCartney; it simply isn't done.

L.S.U. weblogger Ryan's paean to cultural regionalism wins the award for weaving the five disparate elements of the challenge most seamlessly into his narrative. In addition to slipping the references in surreptitiously, Ryan also made a good point. It was like something Donald Davidson might have written for Oxford American. (Oh, all right, Donald Davidson would have hated Oxford American, but you know what I mean. Such is the duality of the Southern thing.)

MGoBlog's Brian took his time, dropping the requisite names at intermittent intervals. My steadfast Southernness put Brian at something of a disadvantage, since no Wolverine weblogger could fairly be expected to know who Patterson Hood is . . . although it should be noted, for whatever it might be worth, that George Wallace won the Michigan presidential preference primary in 1972.

Nevertheless, Brian soldiered on, following up a reference to Maize and Blue recruit Adam Patterson with a note that Lloyd Carr was "recruiting two more kids from Patterson's hood," which gets the nod for being the most clever method for getting around the fact that a respondent didn't recognize one of the names I used.

All in all, it was a successful initial outing for what I hope one day will be viewed as an integral part of every Thursday in the intercollegiate athletics blogosphere, doing its part to bridge the gap between Mustache Wednesday and Friday Random Ten.

Accordingly, I bring you this Thursday's edition of . . .

The Weekly Weblogger Challenge

Kerwin Bell

Judah P. Benjamin

Phillip Freemason Esterhaus

The Council of Trent

P.G. Wodehouse

Have fun working those five names into your postings in the upcoming week. Don't forget to provide the pertinent links in the comments below.

On a different subject altogether, Michael is trying to get a group of college football webloggers from the Atlanta area together to meet up at the G-Day game on April 8. Any takers?

Go 'Dawgs!

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Wed, 15 Feb 2006 04:15:13 GMT

As usual, Paulwesterdawg is the man on the scene and he brings us the news that Tony Ball has been hired to be the Bulldogs' new running backs coach.

I am prepared to give Mark Richt the benefit of the doubt when it comes to selecting his staff. That having been said, my initial reaction to Coach Ball's hiring is rather tepid.

The athletic association attributes to Coach Ball "a long history of coaching both receivers and running backs." That is one way of putting it.

Another way of putting it is to say that Coach Ball has sporadic experience with coaching running backs, having done so as a volunteer for one year at South Carolina (1987) and as a full-time assistant coach for one year at East Tennessee (1989) and for three years at Holy Cross (1992-1994).

In other words, Coach Ball's resume lists no professional experience as a running backs coach at the Division I-A level. I find that troubling, particularly in light of the wealth of talent available to the 'Dawgs at tailback. What running backs coach wouldn't have leapt at the opportunity to work with the stable of Georgia backs? Was Coach Ball really the Bulldogs' best available option?

Yes, Coach Ball spent a year working with running backs in Columbia, S.C., and that year (1987) also happened to be the season that produced the Gamecocks' lone 1,000-yard rusher (Harold Green) between 1981 and 1995.

However, another former South Carolina running backs coach was hired at Georgia a few years back. In 1980, he was the position coach who led George Rogers to a 1,894-yard season and the Heisman Trophy. His name was Ray Goff. His coaching tenure in Athens, to put it delicately, left something to be desired.

Coach Ball has been a wide receivers coach for 13 of the last 16 seasons, including each of the last 11 years. His resume includes a pair of players taken in the N.F.L. draft: one in the second round (Andre Davis) and one in the fourth round (Ernest Wilford) . . . both of whom were receivers, not running backs.

Moreover, Coach Ball has spent the last eight years as an assistant coach at Virginia Tech. Given the difficult gauntlet Georgia annually runs through such late season opponents as Florida, Auburn, Georgia Tech, and (in three of the last four seasons) the S.E.C. West champion in the conference title game, the fact that Coach Ball comes to the Classic City from Blacksburg, Va., gives me pause.

The Hokies, after all, have a history of November swoons. In Coach Ball's first season with V.P.I. (1998), Frank Beamer's bunch lost three of their final six regular season outings. Following a pair of 11-1 campaigns in 1999 and 2000, the Hokies returned to form, losing four of their last six in 2001, four of their last six in 2002, and five of their last seven in 2003.

Virginia Tech's history of faltering down the stretch cannot be blamed upon Coach Ball, of course, but, when a fellow's recent coaching experience is with teams that run out of gas late in the season, it is fair to question whether he is up to the task of preparing his players to compete in the Gateway City, on the Plains, at the Flats, or beneath the Dome.

During his student career at U.T.-Chattanooga (1977-1980), Coach Ball played the position he will be coaching. That is encouraging and I am hopeful that he will be able to get the most out of the Bulldogs' talented backfield. Coach Richt's hiring has been effective, so I am prepared to adopt a "wait and see" attitude while hoping for the best.

Nevertheless, my initial reaction is reserved and cautious rather than enthusiastic and confident. Given the rebuilding job that lies ahead and the reliance that will have to be placed on the Bulldog backfield, I am less than thrilled by the latest addition to the Georgia staff . . . and I remain hopeful that, by mid-October, I will be issuing a public apology to Coach Ball for selling him short.

Go 'Dawgs!

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Tue, 14 Feb 2006 04:05:26 GMT

Happy Valentine's Day!

Although I have been slacking off a bit, the blogosphere has been a busy place of late.

Paulwesterdawg has delivered to the Bulldog Nation the welcome news that Rodney Garner will call the Classic City home for at least another season.

Doug Gillett has provided a good overview of the S.E.C.'s 2006 schedules, which generally have experienced a distinct upgrade.

Ian has proven that his definition of "hiatus" bears a close resemblance to Sugar Ray Leonard's definition of "retirement." (Insert your Inigo Montoya reference here.) In any case, Ian tackles a myriad of subjects, not the least of them being the lovely and talented Melissa Stark.

Orson Swindle has offered speculation on what I look like in a cowboy hat.

The inaugural Weekly Weblogger Challenge has generated a modicum of interest, receiving responses from Clemson weblogger Tigerpundit on Thursday and from L.S.U. weblogger Ryan on Sunday.

Meanwhile, The Lawgiver has been pacing himself at MGoBlog, peppering his postings with the requisite references. (If I had to guess, I would imagine that Brian was unfamiliar with my favorite band, the Drive-By Truckers, so I suspect that he had to Google Patterson Hood.)

The winners of the first Weekly Weblogger Challenge will be announced on Thursday, but, in the meantime, we have the following breaking news from Sports Illustrated: University of Georgia cheerleaders are good looking!

Yeah, thanks for the news flash there, fellows.

Go 'Dawgs!