The NCAA released its public infractions report on Georgia Tech Thursday. You can read the full report here. A few thoughts and questions based on the report…

First – basketball. The violations were deemed “major” in the eyes of the NCAA, “were also not inadvertent,” and “provided the men’s basketball program more than a minimal recruiting advantage.” With that in mind, does Tech now have cause to reduce the massive buyout due Paul Hewitt? I would imagine that someone at Tech is digging through the contract now to see how the compliance clauses read. Hopefully that person doing the digging is a better counsel than the one who gave the football program such poor advice.

“It is almost always the cover-up…”

Back to football. Of course the story is less about the $312 in improper benefits and much more about Tech’s response. Everyone from the legal counsel to the athletic administration to the compliance office contributed to a decision to willfully ignore the possibility of an ineligible player. As Tech’s president admitted, “it appears (the ineligible players) would quickly be reinstated” had Tech acted more aggressively and moved to declare them ineligible as soon as they were aware of a problem. But that timeline put Tech up against their three most important games of the year: the rivalry game with Georgia, the ACC championship game, and subsequently their first BCS bowl game.

Was it worth it?

No one will admit that it was. But if Thomas was a factor in Tech winning or not winning the 2009 ACC championship game, it becomes an interesting call. That game was an exciting display of offense, and both teams needed all of their weapons. A 70-yard touchdown pass to Thomas was a huge play in the third quarter. He finished with only two receptions, but there’s no questioning his impact in the game. Instead of heading to a BCS bowl, Clemson fell all the way to the Music City Bowl.

Tech lost two of the three games for which Thomas was retroactively ineligible, but they won the one that paid off. There’s no telling in which bowl Tech would have played had they lost the ACC title game, but no other bowl is close to the payout or exposure that comes from a BCS bowl. If Tech isn’t required to pay anything but the $100,000 fine, that’s a relatively small investment for a BCS payout.

So what?

It might seem tough to have to vacate a conference title, and four years of probation sounds ominous. But none of those penalties are constraints on the program going forward. There is no loss of scholarships, no postseason ban, no requirement to repay the gains of their violations, and no reduction in recruiting contact. Should there be? The program might have to whitewash their conference title, but the memory will remain of an exciting last-minute triumph and a trip to the BCS. On the other hand, I can’t get past the fact that all of this was over freaking $312. When you think about breathless stories of major violations, you think about cars, reckless boosters with envelopes full of cash, and sketchy six-figure “donations”. $300 is a rounding error in most of the infamous college scandals.

It’s worth pointing out that Tech’s penalties were similar to those self-imposed recently by Ohio State. The Buckeyes also vacated their wins using ineligible players and accepted probation. Ohio State vows to fight penalties with any teeth like the loss of scholarships or a postseason ban. If the Tech decision is any indicator, will Ohio State have anything to worry about? Of course the cases aren’t analogous from the value of improper benefits to the number of student-athletes involved to the school’s cooperation with the investigation. But in the end both cases involved programs playing ineligible players.

What can Georgia learn?

Tech did what many Georgia fans urged Mark Richt to do last season: play your best receiver anyway. Georgia was tipped off to the possibility of an improper benefit. While the NCAA took its time to rule on the case, the frustration was building each week. Georgia made the tough and unpopular call to keep Green on the shelf while there was still uncertainty. The news ultimately wasn’t great for Green, but he served his suspension and that was the end of it for he and Georgia as far as the NCAA was concerned.

The Dawgs face a situation now where two incoming student-athletes possibly received improper benefits. The severity of Tech’s penalties were ultimately about their response (or lack of response) to evidence of an improper benefit. Georgia will consider that precedent when deciding how to proceed with Jones and/or Caldwell-Pope. If there’s any uncertainty, I would expect them to be declared ineligible until the NCAA is able to decide otherwise.

Where was the media?

I asked this earlier, but it still amazes me. When you think about the concentration of college football media that passes through or resides in Atlanta, how could this story have slipped through until the day when the NCAA came forward to announce sanctions? Look at all of the actions that occurred just on the football side of things:

• You had the NCAA notifying Tech of a possible violation in November of 2009. They conducted interviews in November and December.
• In September of 2010, Tech’s president got a notice of inquiry from the NCAA.
• In December of 2010, Tech received a notice of formal allegations.
• Tech responded to the allegations in March of 2011.
• The school appeared in front of the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions in April 2011.

All of that, and the story stayed under the radar until today. I have to take my cap off to Tech for keeping it quiet, but even they couldn’t have done it without the complicity of a lazy media. It’s not the first time this year the Atlanta media have been caught asleep at the wheel.

The lack of media attention wasn’t necessarily a good thing for Tech. When the A.J. Green story broke last year, Georgia’s every move was open for scrutiny. They had no choice but to play it safe and by the book. Had there been a brighter spotlight on the Tech program, might they have been forced by the exposure to make the tough but wise call to shelve Thomas for the Georgia game? They still would have lost to Georgia, but they’d still likely also have their ACC championship banner.

Far be it from me to take much delight* in Georgia Tech facing an NCAA investigation. If it turns out to be street agent type of stuff, it’s the same kind of thing that could happen to any program, and we’re right in the middle of two Georgia student-athletes facing questions about improper benefits themselves.

What gets me is this: Atlanta is home to one of the more significant newspapers in the Southeast. It’s also home to two sports talk radio stations and major market television stations. Several regional and national college football pundits are based here. And we’re just finding out about an NCAA investigation into a BCS-level program on judgement day? That’s some good work. But I’m sure that if you wanted Brent Benedict’s thoughts on the situation, the Atlanta paper could have that for you by close of business today.

* If it turns out that Tech’s wins from the 2008 season must be vacated, it will mean that it’s been over 20 years since Tech beat Georgia without ineligible players.

Benedict a Hokie

Brent Benedict is headed to Virginia Tech. As always we wish him and any transfer well in the Corleone sense, and heading to a school we’re not likely to face is a lot better than had he decided on, say, Florida. His progress will be interesting to track if only to see just how far he can come back from his high school injury. I’ve heard outlooks on his recovery ranging from “ready to contribute” to wondering if he’ll ever see a down of live action. The accepted story is that the transfer had less to do with his recovery, but I’m not so sure. Him landing at another major program doesn’t necessarily indicate that the recovery is further along than we might have thought; a lot of programs would be willing to take a flyer on a lineman with his attributes and skill.

Numbers

A couple of weeks ago Marc Weiszer noted that Georgia had 77 scholarship players following the attrition of this off-season. Of course that number was reduced by one on Friday when news broke of Caleb King’s ineligibility. UGASports.com has a breakdown by class showing the number after King’s departure to be 77. At any rate, the Dawgs are well under the 85 scholarship limit.

It’s tough to get a read on the impact of losing King. On one hand, he wasn’t a consistent producer. His averages were fine – when he was able to play – but his great and impactful moments were few and far between. His contribution to the 2009 win in Atlanta puts us squarely in his corner, but he never came close to sustaining that level of production. It’s tough for a guy who’s been suspended and in and out of academic trouble to be much of a leader or mentor, so I’m not as bothered about losing the experience of a senior as I otherwise might be.

If there’s anything close to a consensus on King, it’s that his departure just adds fuel to the preseason meme: thin, no margin for error, what have you. It’s a drum we’ve beaten here too: Georgia’s 76 or 77 scholarship players are just one or two more than what’s allowed USC, a team on major probation. (As Weiszer points out, Florida’s numbers are even lower.)

There’s hand-wringing over the fact that the guys in place now pretty much have to produce in order for Georgia to avoid disaster, but that’s really not a huge development. With the exception of Sturdivant, a lot of the guys you’d list as crucial to Georgia’s hopes for a rebound season are still with the team. What’s changed is that the safety net is gone beneath those players. But few teams are able to sustain a championship run relying on reserves at more than a couple of positions. This lack of depth might have an impact down the road, especially along the offensive line, but another solid recruiting class could mitigate some of those problems.

King’s plans

Speaking of Caleb King, he plans to enter the NFL’s supplemental draft. As Seth Emerson points out, someone in academic trouble probably wouldn’t make the best transfer candidate.

It’s no consolation to Arkansas fans, but Ohio State has officially vacated the 2010 season and taken other actions as self-imposed sanctions for major NCAA violations. Those sanctions will likely only be the starting point as the NCAA continues to investigate the case.

It’s July 1, 2011, and things are a bit calmer than they were a year ago. Last year on this date we awoke to find a rumor, and then rumor turned to fact. We wondered if Damon Evans’ arrest was survivable, but then the police report hit and did us the favor of making a clean break the only possible outcome.

We’ve already talked about new athletic director Greg McGarity’s first year. His changes have mostly been behind the scenes, but there have been changes, and we’re mostly positive about them. We would remind McGarity that there’s a rapidly-approaching expiration date on the “that’s how we did it at Florida” talk, but we can’t disagree that he’s leaned on that experience to make some solid decisions and actions.

It’s a little too soon to expect many of McGarity’s actions to have much impact on the performance of Georgia’s teams, and they haven’t. July 1st also means the annual release of the NACDA Directors’ Cup ranking of athletic departments. Georgia placed 20th which is exactly where they were a year ago.

Georgia’s 829 points and 20th-place finish were third-best in the SEC behind Florida (#4) and LSU (#19). LSU finished only 2.5 points ahead of Georgia. Though the Bulldogs didn’t drop in the final standings from a year ago, it’s still the low point for the program since 1997. This year was better if you go by the four biggest sports: football, baseball, and men’s and women’s basketball all made the postseason. There were no team national titles this year, though men’s golf and women’s swimming and diving each finished second.

Georgia started the year with a weak showing among fall sports that left them tied for 131st out of 172 programs. Georgia doesn’t offer 3 out of the 8 fall sports, so they were already behind. But a weak football season and sub-par seasons for women’s soccer and volleyball left the 25 points awarded by making a football bowl game the only points Georgia would record in the fall.

Things improved during the winter. Both men’s and women’s basketball made the postseason. Gymnastics remained out of the national title picture but still added points as did swimming and track and field. Bulldog winter programs added 359 points – not bad considering Georgia only competes in 7 of the 15 winter sports.

Georgia’s spring sports were again the strongest group of programs. Every spring sport in which Georgia competed earned Directors’ Cup points: 445 in total. Baseball, golf, tennis, softball, and track and field all placed. In fact, the 50 points picked up by baseball was the difference between Georgia finishing out of the final top 20.

McGarity seems to have maintained the athletic department’s sound financial footing while maintaining and even improving academic metrics. But athletic programs are ultimately judged on the field. Most Georgia fans use the football program as their indicator for the health of the athletic department, and that makes sense given how important that sport is to the bottom line and the ability of every other program to function. But it will also be interesting to watch the Directors’ Cup over the next few years to see if McGarity’s leadership can produce a rising tide and more championships across the department.

Yep.

Congratulations to the Gamecocks for their back-to-back College World Series titles. It’s tough enough to get their once, but the transient nature of college baseball makes it extremely difficult just to get back to Omaha in consecutive years. They become the first back-to-back champs since Oregon State in 2006-07 and the first SEC team to pull off the back-to-back titles since LSU in 1996-97.

The win gives the SEC three national championships in a row. Had Georgia come through in 2008, we’d be talking about a conference dynasty to rival what’s going on with football.

Watching this week’s championship series I couldn’t help but think back to the SEC Tournament. We knew Georgia had an uphill fight just to inch their overall record above the .500 level. We knew that the three best teams in the SEC stood in the way, and the polls told us that those were three of the top teams in the nation. What we didn’t know was that all three of those teams would be among the last four standing in Omaha.

Looking back, Georgia on consecutive days had to defeat both of the participants in the national championship series. Not bad for a .500 club. There was no question Georgia could compete with the best in the nation. They’re close. The gap between a team like Georgia struggling to get in the tournament and a national champion isn’t huge, but it’s definitely there. It’s a better pitching situation on Sunday. It’s a deeper bullpen and bench. It’s more clutch hitting with runners on base and cleaner fielding. Can Georgia close the gap in some of those areas and be the team to knock South Carolina off its perch next year?

June 27, 1984 was a great day for the college football fan.

We should have noted this yesterday, but June 27th is the anniversary of a pivotal date in college football history. Thanks to the fine folks who maintain the “This Day in Georgia History” site, we’re reminded that on June 27, 1984 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled…

that individual colleges and conferences are free to negotiate their own TV package deals. This ruling was the culmination of a lawsuit filed jointly by the University of Georgia and the University of Oklahoma on behalf of the new College Football Association (CFA), which was created to promote the interests of the major college football powers in the NCAA.

The decision opened the door for college football as we know it. The CFA is long gone, but it was a stepping stone to the current television landscape. By the mid-1990s, individual conferences realized they no longer needed the collective power of the CFA and began to negotiate their own deals. Now even individual schools are negotiating their own broadcast rights and television networks.

It’s hard to imagine college football had this decision gone the other way. If you think there’s too much money in college sports, this decision is probably bittersweet because it opened the door. There would still be plenty of money; just look at the broadcast rights for the NCAA-controlled basketball tournament. But the freedom recognized in 1984 led to a wide-open market where conferences are able to act in their own interest and out-do each other with each subsequent network deal. It’s also led to national exposure for mid-majors and other small programs who are able to find their own niches between the huge deals of the power conferences.

We’ve gone from being lucky to have three televised Georgia games a year to it making news when a game won’t be televised. We’ve gone from a precious few national broadcasts to countless national and regional options on all days of the week. College football is now a much more national game. Outside of seeing teams on their own schedule, fans would only see a select few national powers, and you can probably guess from which part of the country. Now fans are exposed to teams across the country, and we can all be a little more intelligent about the relative merits of our teams (to a point – SEC! SEC! ESSEECCEEEE!).

This explosion of national exposure is also behind a few other trends in college sports. Conference re-alignment is one. Since you can get the broadcast of almost any football game anywhere in the nation now, having geography for the basis of a conference matters less. Those who follow their teams on the road will disagree, but otherwise why not TCU in the Big East or Colorado to the Pac 10? Fans will still be able to watch. Conference ties can be made on the basis of business sense rather than geographic convenience or regional identity.

There’s also the talk behind a playoff. Winning a major conference was fine when that’s all you saw plus a handful of other games on TV. If you wanted, you could play your bowl and maybe even claim a share of some national title. Now, with broadcasts blurring the regional boundaries of conferences, the discussion is a national one. Fans want to make more sense out of where their team fits in outside of their conference and region with the teams they’re able to see in dozens of other games each week.

There is of course a bit of irony: the game and discussion is more national, but the power and money is still concentrated at the conference level thanks to the 1984 decision. The conferences aren’t going to reverse course just to satisfy the desire for some sort of improved resolution at a national level. But remember that the identities of conferences are changing all the time. We’re seeing fault lines not only at the BCA/non-BCS split but even higher up where the ability to turn a profit from college athletics lies with only about 20 schools. Would a playoff matter at all if all of the biggest and best programs are all in a handful of conferences in a league of their own?

There’s a great read this morning – a roundtable with several Bulldog bloggers looking at the 2011 season. We didn’t participate, but I’ll take a crack at the questions anyway. You’re probably thinking about a lot of these same questions, and it’s a good way to start getting the pump primed for the preseason.

1- Which game is more critical for Georgia to win: Boise State or South Carolina?

Clearly South Carolina. There will be the national spotlight and the whole tone-setting angle on the Boise game. Fine, I buy that. But it’s still not a conference game against one of the likely contenders for the divisional title. Put it this way – a loss to Boise still leaves the conference crown and a BCS bowl on the table (just look at Boise’s first victim last season). A loss to South Carolina after beating Boise not only takes away much of the momentum from a big season-opening win; it also puts the Dawgs in a big hole in the SEC East race just two weeks into the season.

2- Other than Isaiah Crowell, which incoming freshman do you think will have the biggest impact in 2011?

While I’m looking forward to the Bulldog Nation getting to know Ray Drew, he’s not my answer. Jenkins isn’t a freshman, so he doesn’t count. When you talk about freshman impact, you have to consider both talent and opportunity. There are a lot of talented guys in this class, take Jay Rome for example, whose impact might not be needed right away thanks to decent depth at certain positions. I’m going to give three answers at two positions where Georgia might have no choice but to play freshmen. Malcolm Mitchell at receiver is one, especially if no one steps up among Georgia’s thin receiver corps. There are also depth and injury issues at safety, meaning one or both of Corey Moore and Nick Marshall could see a lot more than typical reserve duty. With Ogletree moving to linebacker, the Dawgs lack a standout safety, and there is real opportunity for a significant impact from a true freshman.

3- Who are some under-the-radar guys that you think will step up for Georgia this year?

I’d really like to see Abry Jones at defensive end take a step forward. Jones has been a contributor since his freshman year, so it’s not as if he’s been a non-factor. The defensive front could initially be a little crowded, especially if the massive line of Jenkins-Geathers-Tyson takes shape. But Jones is right there and should be able to provide a credible counterpart to Tyson when only one of Geathers or Jenkins is in the game. DE in a 3-4 scheme isn’t much of a high-profile position, but you can’t have effective linebackers without them. Jones won’t have double-digit sacks or anything, but if he improves this year you’ll see it when linebackers start having a lot more room to make plays.

Marlon Brown isn’t exactly under-the-radar among Georgia fans, but Georgia desperately needs at least one guy to increase his production at receiver. Brown, as a junior, is moving squarely into the now-or-never time of his college career.

I’m also interested to see something from the underclassmen offensive linemen. The departure of Boling (and now Sturdivant and Harmon) has started the transition between one wave of linemen and the next. After this year’s senior class, there are plenty of questions about the next group. Guys like Long, Burnette, Lee, and Benedict all have at least a year in the program now; for some it’s their third season. Injuries have been a problem, and fans have to be a little nervous whether some of that group will contribute. When the call came last year, it was Kenarious Gates who stepped up as a true freshman. With the relative lack of depth on the line this year, it’s likely that the Dawgs might need someone else from the underclassmen to step up. Who will it be?

4- What makes you most excited about seeing Georgia play this year?

The individual opportunities. There’s foremost a big opportunity for redemption across the board. It’s a pivotal season for Mark Richt who has a serious downturn to correct. A defense justifiably labeled as soft has an offseason of improved conditioning and another year of familiarity with the scheme. A sophomore quarterback returns from a freshman season in which he did almost everything except win big conference games.

There are plenty of team opportunities too. The conference schedule is as favorable as it gets. That of course doesn’t necessarily mean wins, but Georgia’s record could easily flatter the Bulldogs if they bring an improved team into 2011. The SEC East also appears up for grabs with no clear-cut favorite among as many as four teams. The prospect of getting back to the Dome for the first time in six seasons has to make any Georgia fan excited.

5- What makes you the most nervous about seeing Georgia play this year?

Not only did Georgia go 6-7 a year ago, they lost a good bit of talent to graduation and the NFL Draft. A couple of sub-par recruiting classes are coming home to roost, and so the Dawgs will be thin at several positions.

You can’t look at the Georgia offense and not wonder how they’ll score. The quarterback is fine, but he’ll be protected by a line that’s been thinned out by injury and attrition. The next wave of linemen have also been slowed by injury. The tailbacks will feature a senior still waiting for his signature season and a true freshman on whom so many hopes have been placed. Can Crowell be durable enough to have an impact the entire season? The returning wide receivers – all of them – had a combined 48 catches a year ago. Georgia is strong at tight end, but how many passing games are carried by the tight end position?

There are reasons why Georgia went 6-7 a year ago, and it’s putting a lot on a very good recruiting class to lead the turnaround. If Georgia is much better this year, it will be because several veterans have improved. That means fewer missed tackles and blocks, more catches, and a stronger 4th quarter from players who struggled at times in those areas last year. On top of it all, you have the coaching staff last seen laying up on an early 4th and 1. There have been plenty of signs of their displeasure with last season, but are things too far gone?

6- Athlon Sports has rated the Dawgs at #14 and Phil Steele has them at #9 in their pre-season polls. Both have Georgia winning the SEC East and playing in the Capital One Bowl. What needs to happen for Georgia to live up to these lofty expectations.

It starts at home. Georgia’s home slate features two of the biggest swing games of the year. Beat South Carolina and Auburn, and you figure the Dawgs should be the quality of team that can come away with the division title and a high ranking even if they falter in the Dome or continue to roll over in Jacksonville. But the Dawgs haven’t had an unblemished home record since 2003.

While Georgia’s biggest stars (Murray, Charles, and – yes – even Crowell) are on offense, the key to Georgia recapturing some of its glory will lie with the defense. Big improvements are expected in the second year of Todd Grantham’s 3-4 scheme, especially with the presence of a proper nose tackle. Georgia scored at least 27 points in their final eight regular season games of 2010, yet they lost three of them. With a questionable passing game and the running game in the hands of a true freshman, there’s even more pressure for the defense to have the kind of dramatic improvement that can carry the team to meet those expectations.

We’ve suspected that Title IX would have something to say about even a small stipend for student-athletes. Kristi Dosh over at The Business of College Sports fills in those details and explains why, as she puts it, “Title IX provides an enormous road block to paying college athletes.”

Her explanation of how Title IX applies to this discussion is interesting enough, but she brings up another point that doesn’t get mentioned often enough.

The simplest fault line currently in college sports is the divide between the AQ BCS schools and everyone else. It’s where the money is, where the TV contracts are, where access to football’s biggest payoffs is. But as Dosh explains, that divide isn’t as sharp as being on one side or the other of the AQ velvet rope. “There are plenty of programs in AQ conferences who rely on assistance,” she writes. Often that support comes from student fees or directly from the school. In either case, students or taxpayers are often subsidizing the athletic department.

That’s the case even at Georgia. In 2009-2010, student fees contributed over $3 million of the athletic department’s $86.7 million in revenue. What makes Georgia and a handful of schools unique is that they don’t need that money to break even. While student activity fees might be icing on the cake at Georgia and a few other AQ schools, that’s not the case for schools like Iowa State. The Cyclones budget in FY11 calls for a meager surplus of just over $8,000. That’s on the back of student fees and “university support” totaling more than $2.7 million.

In an earlier post, Dosh looked at the AQ schools who rely most on student activity fees. Six programs from major conferences including the ACC,Big East, and – yes, even the SEC rely on student activity fees for at least 10% of their athletics revenue. The list is dominated by the ACC and Big East, demonstrating that even the monolith that is the AQ conference has its own internal fault lines. As schools like Texas are able to negotiate their own TV and marketing rights, the gulf even within conferences and divisions will grow between a few certain schools and the rest, even if the rest are fellow AQ schools sharing their own bowl and TV money.

The hard number is 14. Only “14 of the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money from campus athletics in the 2009 fiscal year,” according to an NCAA report. That’s after you exclude student and institutional support. Proposals for stipends and even COA scholarships will work at Ohio State, Texas, Georgia, and a handful of other schools. That’s where the money is in college sports. They can afford it, even if you consider the Title IX requirements. Those proposals won’t just price out the bottom half of Divison I though. The fracture won’t be at the AQ/non-AQ line.

Of course it’s not a requirement that an athletic department make money. Many schools are glad to subsidize the bottom line in order to remain competitive and market the school through its athletics. That institutional support has to come from somewhere. For public schools, would taxpayers mind extra public money going to the state school’s athletes? For public and private schools, would students approve higher activities fees so that the football team can have a little more walking around money? Those answers aren’t necessarily “no,” but they are questions that will have to be asked if schools are asked to increase the money they give student-athletes.

Are there alternatives? The so-called “Olympic model” that would allow student-athletes to trade on their names for endorsements while remaining eligible removes the school from the picture. That model isn’t without its own problems, but it would at least address some of the legal hurdles that arise from Title IX while enabling student-athletes to realize some of the value they create.

There’s always a twinge of disappointment when a team gets knocked out of an NCAA Tournament, but the Diamond Dawgs should leave Corvallis knowing that they salvaged the 2011 season. Less than two weeks ago this team was in very serious danger of finishing with a losing record. In Hoover they demonstrated that they deserved consideration for postseason play. Once they reached the postseason they went on to validate their invitation. Georgia ended up as one of the 32 teams reaching a regional final.

Georgia just couldn’t get out in front of a rested and talented Oregon State team. Late-inning heroics that saw them through in the first game couldn’t be repeated in the nightcap. You couldn’t ask for more than Farmer and Cone at bat with a chance to win the game, but OSU’s closer shook off an injury and a delay to clinch the regional for his team.

It’s somewhat fitting that a player wearing the #2 jersey was the subject of the final entry in this season’s scorebook. The story of this season will always be about Taylor, his resilience, and his impact on his teammates. Those teammates made sure over the past two weeks that the story isn’t told as one of coming up just short but one of accomplishment.

There’s a sentiment today that Mark Richt is backtracking on his stance against oversigning. (h/t Blutarsky)

Richt became a champion of the anti-oversigning crowd a few weeks ago when he used the occasion of a meeting of fans in South Carolina to speak out against the “winning at all costs” approach “some coaches” use in managing their rosters. Let’s look at what he said though.

Not that we haven’t grayshirted, or talked to guys about grayshirting…If you tell them on the front end and they know that, everyone understands that, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. And that’s how we go about it if we’re going to talk to a guy about grayshirting.

These other coaches have been over-signing, trying to grayshirt, trying to make sure they never come up short of that 85 (scholarship limit) number. But in doing so have they done it in an ethical way, which is what you’re asking. And I’d say not. That’s why the NCAA is trying to change its rules.

Here’s what he said yesterday:

Well, if five of those guys know that there’s no room at the end that they are willing to grayshirt, they’re willing to come in January. The kid knows, the high school coach knows, everybody involved in recruiting if they know that there’s a chance that there’s no space for you. If everybody knows that on the front end, then I don’t see anything wrong with it ethically.

Richt’s stance has never been much about a specific rule or number. As you might expect, he’s more concerned about the treatment of the student-athlete. In both quotes, he mentioned the ethics involved. He’s consistent that he can live with and operate under the existing rules if they’re followed ethically. Creating a set of rules which would handcuff only the SEC has nothing to do with how Richt would prefer coaches deal with prospects and current players. Unethical coaches can still be so whether the limit is 25 or 28.

That’s hardly “talking out of both sides of his mouth”, but it might just be a case of people putting words into his mouth in order to move their cause forward.

Now that his football career at Georgia is over, A.J. Harmon will probably best be remembered for the day he signed with Georgia. Harmon, at least to me, will always be linked with Clemson TE Dwayne Allen. The two pulled off what amounted to a Signing Day “trade” in 2008 when Harmon defected from Clemson to Georgia and Allen went from a Georgia commitment to a Clemson signee. At the time, it was a pretty big switcharoo for a pair of touted 4-star prospects.

Clemson got the better end of that deal. Allen is still playing and has become a nice college tight end. That’s not necessarily a blow to Georgia; the Bulldogs aren’t really lacking at the tight end position. Georgia is hurt more by the fact that the player they got in the deal is known more for the recruiting proces than anything he did on the field. Harmon’s departure is a loss of another upperclassman, and – along with Sturdivant and Strickland – makes three upperclass offensive linemen removed from the depth chart.

If the NCAA came around next week and announced that Georgia would be limited to 80 scholarships for the next two years, we’d consider that a pretty major penalty. Yet that’s where we are. The loss of Harmon, Ealey, Strickland, et al. drops Georgia down to no more than 80 scholarship players for the second straight year. That’s certainly going to be good news for some deserving walk-ons, and it makes late 2011 offers like this one ($) possible. It’s still not a good place to be.

We’ve talked before about the risks you run playing the numbers a little too close. It’s one thing to approach the oversigning issue with integrity, but coming into the season several players under the limit due to unanticipated attrition isn’t necessarily virtuous.

Attrition is nothing new and certainly not a unique problem for Georgia. It’s part of the calculus in the scholarship numbers game. In Richt’s defense, attrition is one of the toughest parts of the formula to anticipate. You knew that Harmon was on academic thin ice and that Ealey was becoming a problem, but you can’t really offer their scholarship slots until they’re gone. Or can you? When discussing grayshirting over the weekend, Richt seemed comfortable with the practice as long as everyone involved knows up front.

“If you tell five of those guys ‘Hey we’ve got 20 spaces. I can sign 25. There’s a good chance that by school starts there’ll be room for you, because of the attrition that happens every year everywhere you go. If there’s space for you, you come in with your class. If there’s not space for you, are you willing to come in in January?”

Mark Richt has taken his peers to task over recruiting tactics a couple of times this year. It’s a principled stand, and it’s how Georgia has operated since Richt has been here. That makes it a little harder to dismiss his statements as sour grapes or excuse-making after some disappointing seasons. But even in hoping that “the tide turns in the other direction,” Richt is realistic enough to know that it will take an NCAA rules change rather than a reformation among his peers before things change.

So what to do until those rules change? As Richt has acknowledged, there’s plenty of wiggle room even within the rules. There are some fairly obvious trips across the line that even the most crass “win at all costs” fans would have a hard time defending. In less obvious instances, one man’s medical disqualification or transfer is another’s path to oversigning. There’s no call for Richt to abandon the principles that have carried him through his career. There is a need though for Richt and the program to examine why Georgia is again coming up so short against the scholarship limit.

Crowell not the biggest key to Georgia’s turnaround

Matt Hinton has a nice reminder that it’s defense, and not necessarily the impact of Crowell, that could mean the most for Georgia this fall. It’s hard to argue with, and we all remember the 2003 East champs that did well despite a tailback rotation that included Ronnie Powell and Tony Milton (not to mention David Greene getting destroyed behind a rebuilt offensive line). It’s also a point we made concerning the 4-loss Florida team of 2007 and their national champs a year later.

That’s not to say that Crowell’s impact is unimportant. Georgia’s receiving corps is looking thin to begin with, and the lack of a credible running game won’t help them or Murray much. The offense has to at least be able to do something to help the improved defense.

Is it a bad sign that there are Boise State tickets remaining?

Kyle’s concern is one that I’m sure a lot of fans share. Georgia’s ability to sell out the Dome could be seen as a vote of confidence in Mark Richt and the 2011 season. Is this really a case of lagging demand, or is it simply a factor of the sheer size of Georgia’s allotment of tickets?

Georgia sells approximately 53,000 season tickets. You can read the approximate breakdown here…the allocation might have shifted slightly since, but we’ll use that total. Only those people have, to date, been offered the right to buy tickets for this game. The Georgia Dome seats over 71,000. Boise State’s allotment is 7,500. Even allowing for tickets set aside for sponsors and suite holders, Georgia could likely have over 55-60,000 tickets to distribute. Even if every single season-ticket holder requested a Boise State ticket, Georgia’s likely to have a few tickets left over from that initial offering. That the school is releasing these limited upper-level surplus tickets only to Hartman Fund donors and not the general public leads me to believe that the gap isn’t all that wide.

If we get into August and are running ads to the general public to unload thousands of tickets, I’ll share Kyle’s dismay. Until then I expect that we’ll hear soon that these limited tickets and Georgia’s allotment are gone.

UGA announced this morning that everyone who requested tickets for the 2011 season opener against Boise State on their season ticket application will get tickets. Boise’s allotment is only around 7,500 tickets, so Georgia should have somewhere around 50-60,000 tickets to distribute once sponsors and comps are taken care of.

Some of that allotment remains: Georgia also announced that limited additional upper-level tickets for that Chick-fil-A Kick Off Game are now available for Hartman Fund donors contributing over $100. Those tickets can be requested at this link.

The NFL draft went about as expected for the Bulldogs. Houston might have slipped a bit, and Chapas snuck in there at the end, but the six players drafted shouldn’t surprise anyone.

With the relative predictability of the draft itself, I thought about the path each player took during his years in Athens. Of course Green was a superstar from the start, and few had any doubts about his future after that national debut in Tempe. Houston wasn’t as obvious of a prospect according to the recruiting services, but his breakout sophomore spring and season in 2009 set the stage for him to have one last year as a marquee SEC player and pro prospect. It’s tough to project a fullback’s pro potential, but Chapas was rated one of the nation’s top ten fullbacks coming out of the Bolles School.

Akeem Dent’s road to the NFL draft wasn’t as linear as Houston’s. It started with promise: Dent contributed right away as a redshirt freshman in 2007 and started in five games. That continued into his sophomore campaign where he earned ten starts. But a hamstring injury early in the 2009 season sidelined Dent and derailed his progress. He ended up starting only four of the eight games in which he played, and of course he posted the lowest number of tackles in his career. Dent found a home as an inside linebacker in the new 3-4 scheme for his senior season, and he really came on. The ILBs do a lot of cleanup in the 3-4, and that’s reflected in Dent’s 126 tackles in 2010, eclipsing the combined total of his first three seasons. He had at least ten tackles in seven games and saved the best for last: 16 tackles against Georgia Tech’s option.

If one of Georgia’s draftees had a quick and unexpected impact, it’s Boling. He had a solid prep resume and was a three-star prospect with appropriate honors, but linemen like that usually take a few years before they become solid contributors. He wasn’t even mentioned on the 2007 preseason depth chart of the patchwork offensive line. That changed quickly: as some of the other newcomers to the line faltered, Boling stepped up and ended up starting 11 games as a true freshman. His trademark versatility was on display even in that first season as he started at right guard and right tackle. As a junior, he’d start at three positions. Boling earned All-SEC mention as early as his sophomore season, and it wasn’t much longer until he started getting mentioned as a pro prospect.

That brings us to Durham. As a recruit, Durham was a respectable prospect. He was rated one of the top 50 receivers in the nation by Rivals.com, and his 6’5″ frame gave an idea of what kind of a target he could be. Observers raved about his hands from the outset, and an amazing catch in the bowl game against Virginia Tech as a freshman backed up the hype. Durham struggled to add bulk to that tall frame though, and his production through three seasons was limited. He established himself as a dependable possession receiver, but chances were hard to come by with targets like Massaquoi and Green available. Injuries don’t often have a happy ending, but shoulder surgery in 2009 gave Durham the opportunity to redshirt. He spent the year developing size and strength and returned a different player as a 5th-year senior. Durham caught a combined 32 passes over his first three seasons. He matched that with 32 catches as a senior. He likewise had more receiving yards and touchdowns in 2010 than he had from 2006-08.

Durham had to keep proving himself after his senior season. He wasn’t invited to the NFL Combine but impressed scouts with a standout performance at Georgia’s pro day. According to his agent, that led to visits with 14 different NFL teams and ultimately a 4th-round selection by Seattle. As Marc Weiszer notes, that’s earlier than Bulldog receiving greats Terrence Edwards, Fred Gibson, and Brice Hunter. Mid-career redshirts are much less frequent than first-year redshirts, and they usually occur because of injuries (Richard Samuel notwithstanding). Durham probably could have done without that torn shoulder, but it and the additional year of development that came with it might be a big reason why he’s looking at a pro contract now instead of looking for a teaching gig.