Last week Blutarsky and I were holding on to a slim thread of hope that Coach Richt’s comments about the relative heat in Jacksonville were a bit tongue in cheek.

It turns out to be a variation on an old theme. Marc Weiszer of the ABH went back into his archives and found a similar quote from 2005. I know what Coach Richt says is technically correct – Georgia has adjusted to slightly cooler weather by that point in the season – but the state of the series is such that any comment about the conditions or the location is going to come off as whining. Weiszer notes that Richt’s 2005 comment came after a Georgia win, and it’s not a coincidence that a similar observation under those circumstances drew a lot less reaction.

It’s a busy weekend for the Red and Black…

• The Diamond Dawgs continue their final regular season series at South Carolina. Last night’s opener was a disappointment, and the lackluster offense that hurt them in the Vandy series showed up again in Columbia. Georgia had enough offense to overcome errors on Tuesday night in Atlanta, not so last night. Alex McRee will try to even the series tonight at 7:00, and the regular season will end Saturday afternoon.
• The men’s tennis team survived a close call with Illinois and advanced to the Elite Eight of the NCAA Tournament. They’ll get Texas next who upset SEC foe Tennessee.
• Men’s golf dug themselves a bit of a hole on the first day of the NCAA Southeast Regional but have come charging back today. They’re currently in sixth place and only one shot out of fifth. Only the top five teams advance, so Georgia has some work to do through the rest of the weekend.
• Softball advanced past Radford and will play North Carolina this afternoon. Georgia is in the odd position of being the #1 seed in the regional but playing on the field of the #2 seed. The regional, as in baseball, is double-elimination.
• The second-seeded women’s tennis team plays in the round of 16 on Friday against 15-seed Florida.

I admit I was a little surprised to see Kyle King unload on Jim Donnan this morning. Not many of us have especially warm feelings for the man as a coach or for the circumstances that led to his dismissal, but wanting to puke over the news of Donnan’s election to the College Football Hall of Fame seems a bit over the top.

Rehashing the Donnan era might seem as pleasant and relevant as revisiting the Gerald Ford administration, but since the door has been opened we’ll go through it. All of Kyle’s criticisms are familiar and valid, but that’s why Donnan was replaced. It’s possible to acknowledge the shortcomings of those five years while granting that, yes, Donnan did elevate the program. I can’t imagine anyone who was also at the 1995 Florida game calling the 2000 South Carolina game his low point as a fan.

Donnan’s comments about his time at Georgia that Kyle cites were, if anything, understated. “We did some good things [at Georgia]…I feel like we came into a program that was on probation and got it started.” We can’t even grant him that? It’s not as if he’s asking for a 2002 SEC championship ring (are they still available on eBay?).

Georgia under Donnan won more games than they had over the previous five years, and the four-year stretch from 1997-2000 saw the most consistently successful stretch of Georgia football since the amazing run ended after 1983. After coming in on the tail end of four straight seasons with six or fewer wins, Donnan began a streak of 8+ win seasons and bowl appearances which continues to this day. More importantly, Donnan’s recruiting efforts stocked the cupboard at many positions and provided a core of upperclassmen which would win two SEC East titles in Mark Richt’s first three years. Yes, I think it’s fair to say that Donnan helped to get Georgia’s resurgence started.

Of course it was Donnan’s inability to get the most out of that collection of talent that led to the coaching change. But the 2000 season was a great example of how Donnan had elevated the program and our expectations for the program from when he started. Instead of firing a coach for three consecutive seasons with six or fewer wins, we had grown dissatisfied with an 8-4 year that failed to deliver on the promise of a preseason top 10 ranking. The infamous “55 years” quote that serves as Donnan’s Georgia epitaph wasn’t a misjudgment of talent; it was justified enthusiasm over a roster we all knew was loaded.

Really, though, it comes down to this for me: Donnan, since leaving Georgia, has been nothing but a gracious advocate for the Bulldogs and deferential to Mark Richt. In his position as a member of the media, he’s managed to be frank and open when it comes to the Bulldogs without coming across as petty. He’s had plenty of chances to land the typical analyst cheap shots (especially when it comes to “meaningful player discipline”), but he’s even avoided those. In the eight seasons since his termination, Donnan has really only been openly critical of Michael Adams, and I don’t think he’s alone in those feelings.

Donnan’s detractors don’t have to throw a party over his Hall of Fame election, but they could do with a little bit of the grace he’s shown since he left campus.

On a somewhat-related note, I think Kyle, myself, and most of you reading this would agree that it’s a travesty that Erk Russell isn’t eligible for the College Football Hall of Fame due to the requirement “that one be a head coach for at least 10 years”. That’s a bug that needs to be fixed.

Rally Rat strikes again

No offense to the tennis and softball teams that recorded wins over Georgia Tech this year, but the rare possibility of getting swept in the major men’s sports by Tech wasn’t sitting well. Fortunately the Diamond Dawgs came through with a 7-5 win over the Yellow Jackets last night at Turner Field. It was Georgia’s 5th straight win over Tech in the annual charity game set up to benefit Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

It was a perfect night for baseball, and 24,665 humans as well as one very important rodent turned out to watch the game. It was the second-largest crowd in the history of the event, and it was the sixth-largest crowd for any regular-season NCAA baseball game. The event was well-run, and the highlight of the night was the presentation of over $2 million to CHOA.

To be honest, it wasn’t the prettiest game for either team. Walks, errors, hit batsmen, a balk, and poor baserunning were as much a part of the game as timely hits and pitching. Both teams overcame deficits, and a three-run seventh inning for Tech tied the game and set the stage for a great finish.

The late innings were framed by a pair of managerial decisions. In the 8th inning, Georgia pinch hit Jonathan Thomas for Zach Cone. The tactic worked on offense – Thomas drew a walk – but it was very nearly disastrous on defense. In the bottom of the 8th, Thomas misjudged a deep fly ball to the warning track, and the two-base error put the go-ahead run in scoring position with no outs. It was a clutch job by Palazzone and Weaver to bear down and keep the score level going into the final inning.

In the 9th Tech skipper Danny Hall elected to walk Massanari after Poythress doubled to the base of the 400-foot marker in center field – Georgia’s second near-miss to dead center of the night. Massanari had homered earlier in the night but hasn’t done much since the 3rd inning. The intentional pass set up Lyle Allen with two baserunners, and his single ended up plating the deciding two runs.

Allen was the star at the plate with two singles and a double, and Justin Earls came up huge on the mound after shaky control chased Georgia starter Cecil Tanner. “Earls changed everything, and he got control of the game,” said Perno. Dean Weaver was also solid in getting the last out of the eighth and holding Tech scoreless in the 9th.

An important final regular season series at South Carolina is up next. Georgia is already assured of a spot at the SEC Tournament and likely has an NCAA bid sewn up as well, but it’s all about positioning now. The key question though: will the South Carolina health department be waiting on the Georgia bus in hopes of taking out Georgia’s most valuable pet?

The NCAA’s Double-A Zone has a roundup of articles from conference spring meetings, and the economy is naturally a common topic. The ACC dove right in:

“ESPN.com’s Heather Dinich wrote, “cost containment” is a pressing issue during the first day of meetings.”

The ACC discussed several cost-cutting measures including moving the ACC baseball tournament in 2010 from Boston’s Fenway Park to Greensboro, N.C. But the conference’s coaches and adminstrators aren’t so quick to scale back their annual beach trip spring meeting. The ACC spring meetings are being held at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, and any Dawg fan who’s made the trip to Jacksonville knows that the ACC reps aren’t exactly slumming it. That’s raised some eyebrows…

“I think they need to re-look at this Amelia Island [trip],” (N.C. State college of management department head Art Padilla) said.

That’s not to pick on the ACC…they have a multi-year commitment to the Ritz-Carlton, and I doubt we’ll see very many conferences scaling back to the point of booking meeting space at the local VFW.

Mark Richt took a lot of heat last year over Georgia’s off-field discipline problems, but one thing we didn’t see was responsibility passed on down the chain of command. And you definitely didn’t see the University president calling out a position coach.

Tired of all the trouble that Florida State’s wide receivers are getting into, over and over and over and over again? Well, so too is Florida State President T.K. Wetherell. In a recent interview with the Tallahassee Democrat, Wetherell said it’s time for receivers coach Lawrence Dawsey to “step up” his efforts to control his players.

Jeez…and we think we have a meddling president. But more to the point, is Bobby Bowden actually responsible for anything at Florida State anymore other than seeing through an appeal to the NCAA in order to salvage his legacy?

The suspensions of three football players were reported last week by UGASports.com and confirmed by the University over the weekend. The only surprise is that medical reasons have ended Tony Wilson’s career.

For Figgins the suspension raises a question about the future of his career. Despite his shoulder surgery he was still considered the favorite to enter the season as the starting tight end. The depth chart will have to change as the result of the suspension, and as many as four players will get a chance at the position before Figgins is scheduled to return. Even before the suspensions were announced Mark Richt told the Roswell Bulldog Club (and presumably other clubs along the Road Tour) that both incoming tight ends (Lynch and Charles) would likely see time as true freshmen.

So Figgins faces the challenge of using the second half of his junior season just to battle back from behind and work his way through the depth chart. It would leave him with only his senior season in which to try to play most or all of the year as the starter. Of course that assumes he wins the job back, and that’s not necessarily a given with the talent coming in. A redshirt season in 2009 would allow him to rehab his shoulder completely and give him two full years to play, though, again, he’d be facing a much more crowded depth chart.

The question whether to redshirt Figgins needn’t be answered now; you don’t have to declare a redshirt before the fact. David Hale touches on the issues facing the tight end position without Figgins, and we’ll have six games to see whether those roles can be filled by others on the roster. If we get to October and the position looks to be in good shape, Richt might address the redshirt decision then. If the position looks shaky over the first six games or if a blocking tight end fails to emerge, you’ll almost certainly see Figgins return this year.

That leads to another question: would Figgins redshirting this season go against the spirit of the suspension?

PS…I know there are those reading this who will say, "Why bother to keep a repeat rules violator around any longer than necessary? He’s lucky to even be on the team." It’s true that Figgins’ attitude and behavior going forward will likely play into Richt’s decisions, but there’s also no need to cast off a potentially valuable contributor without cause.

Tim Tucker interviewed Mark Richt in Columbus about a number of topics, but most seem to be latching on to this one quote about the WLOCP:

“I don’t know what’s going to happen. But when people ask me the question, ‘Do you really think [Jacksonville] is a neutral site?’, I say, ‘No, it’s not neutral.’ When you play in the state of Florida every year – we fly, they drive; it’s hotter for us, it’s cooler for them. It’s played in a stadium that [used to be called] the Gator Bowl. But what the heck? If nothing else, we’ll make Jacksonville pay more to keep it there. . . . I wouldn’t feel bad having a ‘neutral site’ game in Georgia – in the Georgia Dome.”

"It’s hotter for us, it’s cooler for them." Come again? Richt’s distaste for the Jacksonville venue (current temperature: 85 degrees) isn’t anything new, but I can only hope this was tongue-in-cheek.

The thing is that Georgia is so close to leveling off this series. If they can pull off the win this year, they’ll be 3-3 over a six year period. That’s not bad against a program with Florida’s recent success. With the exception of last season, Georgia’s been right there in those games even in a year like 2006. To think that a mental block like this might be the edge in one of the most important games of the year is becoming disconcerting.

Even though Mark Fox added Philip Pearson to the Georgia staff a month ago, there’s still been one vacancy on the Georgia bench.

According to the Roanoke Times, Fox has filled that vacancy with Virginia Tech assistant Stacey Palmore. The interesting part of the story is that Palmore didn’t pursue the job; Fox targeted him.

If you want to know why Fox picked Palmore, this quote from Virginia Tech head coach Seth Greenberg should do it: “Stacey Palmore has become one of the premier recruiters in the ACC.” Palmore, a native of South Carolina, becomes the staff’s second proven and experienced recruiter with strong ties to the southeast. He’s a 1993 graduate of Livingstone (N.C.) College.

In addition to being the top recruiter on the Va. Tech staff, Palmore was also responsible for coaching the post position. There’s no guarantee of course that he’ll have the same duties at Georgia. The Bulldog staff now looks like this:

Head Coach: Mark Fox
Assistant: Kwanza Johnson
Assistant: Philip Pearson
Assistant: Stacey Palmore

Palmore’s bio states that he coached at Western Carolina in 2000, but that was after the coaching change and shakeup that ended with Jonas and Jarvis Hayes transferring to Georgia. He’s been in Blacksburg since 2004, and it’s impressive that Fox was able to convince a stable and established assistant from an ACC school who wasn’t looking to leave to take a chance on a new guy just starting out in the SEC. But working in the talent-rich state of Georgia (not to mention the proximity to his hometown) has to be attractive to someone who’s made his mark as a recruiter.

Speaking of Palmore and recruiting the Atlanta area, there are also rumblings tonight that Virginia Tech wing Terrell Bell is looking at joining Palmore in Athens. Bell is a native of Stone Mountain, Ga. and was recruited by Palmore as part of the 2007 class. Georgia’s need at wing is immediate, but Bell would have to sit out a year. That might not be a bad thing, though – he’s only been a 2.1 PPG guy in two years with the Hokies.

Stacey Palmore

You’ve got to hand it to Gary Stokan. It takes some incredible sales and persuasion skills to get Georgia fans and administrators to even consider giving up a home game to play a regular season neutral site game 90 minutes down the road in Atlanta.

I can understand why schools like Alabama and Virginia Tech might like to play in Atlanta. It’s a beachhead into some very good recruiting turf. It’s also the only neutral site game of the season for those schools, so the impact to the home schedule is more acceptable.

But Georgia? Why would a program give up a game at one of college football’s top 10 venues in order to play just down the road at a smaller stadium with a lesser game day experience? Why would we entertain the thought of playing a game against a quality opponent in our own backyard while limiting the number of fans and season ticket holders who would be able to attend and diluting our home advantage? Why would we tell the Athens economy – heavily dependent on the University and Georgia football – to stuff it while serving to line the pockets of the Atlanta Sports Council and their Atlanta partners?

Recruiting? It’s not as if prospects from the state of Georgia are unaware of the University of Georgia. Clearly any opponent would have more to gain on the recruiting front. Again, it’s an issue of surrendering a big home field advantage. At Sanford Stadium, Georgia could actually host recruits for such a big game and use the occasion as an opportunity to sell the overall program and campus. That’s not possible at the Dome where recruits would have to watch from the stands or at home.

I also think the exposure angle is overblown. Instead of getting to show off Sanford Stadium and Athens rocking for a big game, we’d be showcasing the Georgia Dome and Atlanta. The same television coverage of a game at the Dome would be there for a quality game in Athens.

This isn’t a strength-of-schedule question. Is it implied that Georgia couldn’t otherwise attract a big opponent to play in Athens? I don’t buy it. If we can find a big opponent, why wouldn’t we want every possible advantage to actually win the game while showing off one of college football’s greatest settings? Yes, a return trip would be in order. That’s how these things work, and, besides – aren’t high-profile road games supposed to be good things for us these days? Playing a tough opener is fine…just do it in Athens. If we’re going to play in the Dome, let it be in December.

I don’t blame Stokan. He’s looking out for his city and the people who pay him. I’m just surprised that Georgia fans and especially those in charge of the program would be so willing to line up to be used.

UGASports.com yesterday gave a heads up that three players could be facing suspensions to begin the season. The suspensions are of the dreaded "violation of team rules" variety, so no arrests are involved. It’s still disappointing, especially for Houston who was the one bright spot at defensive end since the end of last season. For Figgins, it could prove to be a turning point in his career. He had already missed time due to injury, and his chance to earn a starting role entering his junior season will be affected by any suspension. White and Ros are more than willing to step in, and Mark Richt has indicated that both incoming freshmen tight ends might play this year.

By this point we shouldn’t be surprised when news of suspensions hits. It’s amusing though that the reactions are usually as inevitable as the suspensions themselves. They’ll go something like this:

• Righteous rage: Make an example of them! Bring down the hammer! Yank the scholarship!
• Rationalization: Let he who never (had a drink / got a ticket / etc.) in college cast the first stone. Boys will be boys.
• Myopia: How come this only happens at Georgia? We have such bad luck.
• Unhinged conspiracy: Adams and Evans make us play by an unfair set of rules while Florida and Tennessee players could run over someone in the street and play the next week.

This year we’ll probably see additional comments along these lines: so much for all this leadership stuff we’ve been hearing about. Look – I’ve asked as many questions as anyone about whether things are really different this year, but even I don’t see a few discipline cases as evidence of failing leadership or a rudderless program. It was unrealistic to expect the program (any program, really) to go through the offseason with zero incidents. They’re almost like injuries now – you know they’re coming, and the only questions are how many, at which positions, and how severe?

Of course I’m pleased that Georgia fared well in the current APR figures. With graduation set for this weekend the APR release is a timely reminder of what’s most important to many of Georgia’s student-athletes. But as schools nationwide release and compare their progress rates, remember that the APR is a measure of academic progress and not necessarily of quality.

While I’m not claiming that Georgia (or anyone else) has an inflated APR because their players are all basketweaving majors or that those with low APRs are all struggling with astrophysics degrees, we also know that all majors and all universities are not the same. Progress towards any degree is better than no degree at all, so congratulations are still in order for those, especially the student-athletes, who are responsible for this good news.

We’ve discussed before that academic progress can be another area where money matters. We shouldn’t be surprised that just a single BCS conference school, Ole Miss, is among those getting dinged for a subpar football APR. Only two were penalized last year. Though the big schools appear more often on the men’s basketball list, the schools most likely to be penalized by the APR remain those smaller state schools who are less likely to have the fleet of tutors or academic centers that keep student-athletes on track.

The income disparity between the big programs and conferences and everyone else has been a hot topic lately for obvious reasons. The APR news is just one more data point. If you have the money to maintain a strong academic support system (and you place any kind of priority on academics), you probably did just fine on your APR numbers. It will be interesting to see on the heels of this news if some of the smaller conferences and schools begin to turn the BCS discussion from a debate about postseason structure to a more nuanced question of academics and socioeconomic opportunity.

Blutarsky voices the concern that’s buried down deep in a lot of our subconscious minds: Georgia is counting on a lot of injured players to come back healthy at key positions.

It’s something I’ve thought about too. We know that as many as three potential starting offensive linemen missed spring. Sturdivant and Vance haven’t played period since last fall. The starting five most seem to agree on has never been on the field at the same time. Is this line suddenly going to materialize in three months and be ready for a road opener against a Top 15 opponent?

It’s not just a problem for the offense. Jeff Owens hasn’t played a snap since September. The defensive end position is even more unsettled than the offensive line. Other than the emergence of Justin Houston during the spring, can anyone even pretend to know anything about the rest of the group at this point?

When we talk about players like Sturdivant and Owens and their ability to change the game, we’re talking about them at their dominating best. Yes, even at less than 100% they can be very effective players. That’s not the same though as the elite level of play that’s going to make the difference against Georgia’s toughest opponents.

Of course the ability of the lines to play at their best impacts other positions. On offense you have a new starting quarterback who still has no idea what kind of protection he can expect. You also have a group of inexperienced tailbacks who won’t know for several months where the best holes will come from. It’s a similar impact on the defense. There will be two new starters in the secondary with a lot of young depth behind them whose success and confidence will depend on the ability of an unknown group of defensive linemen to get pressure.

I’ll put it this way: limiting the amount of practice time missed by linemen this August might be the top key to success for this year’s team. Most everyone should be cleared to play in plenty of time for preseason camp. If the lines can get several weeks of consistent work together, they might be able to make up a lot of the lost ground. But every day missed by even the most minor hamstring injury or stinger or complications from last year’s injury will hurt Georgia more than it would other teams because of the time already lost.

If we’re hearing things like "90%" and "probable" about potential starting linemen in the weeks leading up to the season, it’s going to be a big red flag. There isn’t time to rest and rehabilitate during the season, and those problems that nag during August tend to linger on into the season.

The good news is that the reports are all positive at this point. Everyone is ahead of or on schedule to return, and the players, Sturdivant and Owens in particular, seem to understand the importance of getting back on time and in shape. I don’t doubt the ability of coaches Searels, Garner, and Fabris or the resolve of the players involved. As talented and committed as they are and for all the talk of leadership and attitude and intensity since last season, everything’s still at the mercy of the human body and its limits.

We detailed how recruiting has started to turn around for the Lady Dogs after a couple of slow years, and the program is already making an attempt to lock up one of the top sophomores in the state.

Erika Ford, an athletic 5’9″ sophomore guard from Chattahoochee High School in Alpharetta, has committed to Georgia for the class of 2011. She cannot sign a letter of intent until November 2010. Ford will be arriving just as the current incoming class of guards become upperclassmen.

Ford has already emerged as one of the top players in the state in any class. She was named 2nd team All-State as a sophomore in Georgia’s largest high school classification. She was also named player of the year in the competitive 7-AAAAA region. She also plays for the Georgia Elite U-16 team and was recently named the MVP of the Spring Break Classic Super Regionals tournament.

Commitments from high school underclassmen are nothing new in men’s basketball, but this is the first time I’ve seen it happen (certainly for the Georgia program) in the women’s game. Apparently Georgia saw her in a game where they were scouting someone else, and the process started from there.

It’s not hard to sound like the adult in the room next to people that equate a wildly successful and growing sport with a disaster of an economic system, so John Swofford came across pretty well last week.

There are many valid points and counterpoints when it comes to the playoff discussion, and folks coming at the problem from any angle have to concede the many tradeoffs that come with any postseason proposal. Swofford and others are appearing on behalf of the BCS have put forward some very familiar (and valid) defenses. The logistical concerns involved with a college football playoff are, I think, very underrated.

But Swofford’s concern that a playoff is a threat to the future of bowl games, though one of the most-reported parts of his testimony, was probably also the weakest.

Sponsorships and TV revenue that now go to bowl games would instead be spent on playoff games, "meaning that it will be very difficult for any bowl, including the current BCS bowls, which are among the oldest and most established in the game’s history, to survive," said BCS coordinator John Swofford in prepared testimony. "Certainly the twenty-nine games that are not part of the BCS would be in peril."

It’s not that a playoff wouldn’t impact the bowl landscape. It’s reasonable to expect that. But would it really be the end of bowls as we know them? Even if so, why should we care?

The BCS that Swofford defends is already a clear line of demarcation between the haves and have-nots of college football. If you wanted to devise a system that marginalized all but a select group of bowl games, you could hardly do better than the BCS. "Old and established" bowl games such as the Cotton and Citrus that as recently as 20 years ago played a role in deciding the national championship are now afterthoughts. Even New Year’s Day, once the sacred national holiday of college football and home of many of these traditional bowls, has been trampled as the BCS stretches the season an extra week in order to milk as much prime time as possible.

If Swofford’s reasoning is correct, why hasn’t all of the money and sponsorships and TV interest shifted to that top tier of bowls, the BCS? To be certain, those bowls have become very big money-makers. At the same time, other bowls continue to flourish despite being relegated to exhibition status. New ones are added almost every year so long as a sponsor and a time slot on ESPN can be found. It’s surprising that some of college football’s most influential figures can underestimate the demand that’s out there for the game.

No matter how much we romanticize them, bowls, at their most basic level, are business arrangements between a host city and sponsor, a TV network, and the teams playing in the game. If that arrangement works, the bowl succeeds. Even games that result in a financial loss for some of the parties aren’t necessarily a failure. The imputed value of the exposure and the ability to say you played in a bowl is worth something. Several bowls have survived and become annual traditions. Others have failed (anyone remember the Cherry Bowl?) Others take their place with all the tradition of a delivery pizza or a dot com. The process carries all of the same nice warm, fuzzy charm as a stock exchange.

Swofford’s job is to protect the business interests of the BCS conferences and their bowls and network partners, and that’s fine. Business is good. Congress has to realize that there are real economic reasons why the BCS works, and there will be much resistance to change from the key players who have a lot at stake. Just don’t expect us to believe that the BCS is concerned with any bowls other than the big five…we may be fools, but we’re not members of Congress.