HeismanPundit has noted (and didn’t pull many punches) that FSU isn’t doing what it used to do with quality recruiting classes. Specifically, the ‘Noles haven’t produced a single consensus All-American since 2000 after producing 18 during its incredible run in the 1990s. As HP shows, that’s one hell of a clean break, and it’s not because the talent pipeline coming into Tallahassee has dried up.

When you get into the whys, there are several things you can point to. The ACC has become more competitive, and the addition of three good programs has made it difficult for FSU to even land someone on the all-ACC first team, let alone the All-American team.

But the year 2000 as a delineating point is just too specific to be a coincidence after that kind of run. Let’s look at two key events:

• Post-1999 season: LB coach Chuck Amato leaves to become the head coach of his alma mater NC State
• Post-2000 season: OC Mark Richt leaves to become the head coach at Georgia. Richt brings FSU strength coach Dave Van Halanger to Athens as well as Barry Every who plays a very important administrative role in evaluating talent and coordinating recruiting efforts.

So while defensive mastermind Mickey Andrews remains, FSU lost in the span of two years both the source of its nasty disposition on defense and the offensive mastermind who trained two Heisman-winning quarterbacks in under ten years. They also lose Van Halanger who is as much spiritual guru and mentor as he is master of the weight room. How many strength coaches are among those leading his team onto the field?

Does it begin to make sense? Under Andrews, FSU maintains a defensive edge against most teams but loses much of the intimidation factor (now in the form of countless unnecessary personal foul penalties in Raleigh). The toll on offense has been far greater as the ‘Noles are still able to out-athlete many teams but have struggled in the post-Richt era to find a capable quarterback who is at once stable physically, mentally, and I suppose in some cases even spiritually.

This isn’t to gloat over the relative “misfortunes” of FSU, but it’s common sense that recruiting and reloading on the coaching staff is as important as – if not more important than – the quality of the kids on the field. Jeff Bowden could coach for many schools, but he’s the three-star redshirting project following the All-American offensive coordinator. Georgia fans are still undecided about the impact of losing DC Brian VanGorder. The ability for Bowden to keep Andrews (not to mention recruiting coordinator John Lilly) on staff has been a big reason for their long-term success.

Programs lose coaches all the time, and there’s usually an impact. Of course the impact should be expected to be much greater if several coaches are lost in a short time. Southern Cal will be an interesting experiment to watch. We’ll see if the departures of Chow and Orgeron have long-term effects as they continue to rope in top talent. Will they fade? Will the abundance of talent overshadow any drop off in coaching? Or will the replacements prove to be personnel decisions every bit as impressive as their ability to reload at key positions on the field?

PS…it says something about where FSU has been and the level of success to which they were accustomed that we are talking this way about a program which has played in three BCS bowls since the 2001 season. All but about five programs would give anything to “fade” that badly!

Far too much recruiting coverage out there to add anything specific about the solid class.

Even three or four years ago, the month of January was controlled chaos in the Georgia recruiting process. There would be a parade of 10 or so prospects into town each weekend, and fans studied the basketball schedule not because they cared about basketball but because it provided a chance to scrutinize the prospects in town, note who was sitting with whom, and interpret every facial expression as a hint as to how the weekend was going. January was critical. Less than half the class had committed, and it was necessary that each weekend go well and produce commitments.

We still saw some of this circus in 2005 during the weekend of Bryan Evans’ visit and commitment. But in 2006, the interest in the January visits of high-profile prospects Rashad Jones and Stafon Johnson barely rose above casual concern. Why? Two reasons. First, and probably most importantly, Jones and Johnson had pretty solid home-state favorites. Georgia felt solid about Jones despite the best efforts of LSU, and even the most optimistic recruitnik saw the long odds in winning a recruiting battle with Southern Cal for a California prospect. Second, Jones and Johnson were icing on what was already a very nice recruiting class. Each is an outstanding prospect and looks likely to help any program they considered, but neither would make or break the Georgia class. So the sense of urgency which usually comes with January visits was noticably missing.

There is a definite tradeoff when much of your signing class commits early. There could be injuries. Still-developing juniors and young seniors might not improve during their senior season and fizzle. They might begin looking around and require hand-holding as the recruiting process drags on. Then there’s the case of Texas. You might not be able to cash in on a likely recruiting shot in the arm from a national title if many of your scholarships are already promised (nice problem to have).

When you’re talking about early commitments like Matthew Stafford or Brandon Wood, you’re not taking huge risks. Georgia’s pre-January commitments were good enough to quickly move Georgia among the Top 10 recruiting classes, and they maintained and even improved that position with late commitments from Jones and Moreno. Meanwhile, instead of pouring a ton of energy into January recruiting, the Georgia staff went all-out on the few specific remaining targets and was able to begin using the momentum from another SEC title to target the Class of 2007. The number of known offers to this next class is already well into double-digits and climbing.

Someone on Signing Day said to me, almost with a bit of wistfulness, that there was just no last-minute recruiting drama this year. The late decisions of Moreno and Jones were stories worth watching, but most felt confident that they’d end up in Athens. Calm years like this are surely the exception even for top programs. Calling it “easy” or “dull” insults the effort put in by the staff and ignores the amount of work necessary to have this kind of class fall into place with plenty of time to spare. Still, while noting some of the drama and disappointment among some of Georgia’s regional rivals, we’ll take this kind of “boring” every year. Great job, coaches.

Ray Melick of the Birmingham News wonders why graduation rates are dropping across women’s basketball. It’s not a huge decrease. Among the reasons offered are 1) more pro opportunities and 2) an increase in transfers looking for a chance to play.

My guess? As womens basketball becomes a bigger and bigger economic engine and more national attention is paid to the sport, the pressures to win are increasing. The sport is no longer dominated by the same group of ten programs, and a good group of players can make a big impact quickly (see Baylor). As a result, teams are willing to take bigger risks on marginal students in order to land players who might help their program make a splash. This isn’t the case of course at the major programs where schools still cherry pick from among the best, but for a mid-major or a lower-tier member of a big conference desperate for that breakthrough player, taking a risk on a poor student might be a risk-reward tradeoff more schools are willing to try now.

Following last week’s lackluster loss to Kentucky, a lot of people were justifiably down on the frontcourt. No points, no rebounds, not much of anything but fouls and turnovers.

As poor as the frontcourt was in that game, the guards were worse last night at LSU. Worse? Yep. Oh, they scored – eventually. I say their performance last night was worse than the frontcourt’s 0-fer last week because the guards are supposed to be the strength of this team. Georgia’s forwards and centers are either projects or injured. We know that, and most sane observers have accepted that reality with the hope that in a year or so 1) the projects will get better, 2) the wounded will heal, and 3) help is on the way from recruits. Production from the frontcourt is supposed to be better than it was last season, but it’s still more or less gravy this season.

So we know that as the guards go, so goes the team. And last night, they went nowhere. Georgia went 36 minutes of the game without a three-pointer. Levi Stukes didn’t score in the first half and has been slumping since his game-winner in Columbia. Mike Mercer led the team in shot attempts again and missed all but one. Billy Humphrey showed early in the season that he can be a sharpshooter, but he can’t seem to get open and find a shot in 2006.

Five assists. For many point guards, that’s a decent night. That was Georgia’s team total on Wednesday night. You have to make the shot in order for someone to get credit for an assist, and Georgia shooting 30% for the game didn’t help the assist column. Still, a grand total of five assists indicates a complete offensive logjam and an unholy union of poor shooting, turnovers, and forced shots.

The problems followed to the defensive end of the court. LSU shot over 50% overall and over 60% from beyond the arc. Georgia had no answers for LSU’s hot hand of Darrel Mitchell. The strong frontcourt led by Davis had some success as expected, but LSU’s success on the perimeter made their job much easier.

Usually you prefer to forget about blowout losses. Things aren’t that bad, these things happen, and so on. Georgia should not be so quick to get over this loss though. We saw just how dependent this team is on guard play. On most nights, someone is on (lately it’s been Mercer), and you adjust to find that player. When the frontcourt as a unit has a bad night, the team struggles but can sometimes overcome it against lesser teams. When the backcourt has a bad night, Georgia will beat no one and will usually lose pretty ugly.

The relative inexperience of the guards is understood, but the unit does need to step up its level of play if the postseason – even NIT – remains a goal. Georgia’s greatest concentration of scoring power and athleticism is at the guard position, and the team’s success going forward will depend on this unit to find some consistency.

As an aside, kudos to Dave Bliss for his second-straight game scoring in double-figures. I don’t know if the back is getting better or he’s doing anything differently after being shut out by Kentucky, but that’s a very good contribution from a role player who should be able to find some success inside if the guards can draw some defensive attention.

News outlets are buzzing that Mark Richt will soon sign a contract extension that includes a nice raise for winning the SEC title this year. Now please understand that I don’t begrudge him his raise or recognition for a job well done. I also like Mark Richt, respect him as a man and a football coach, and hope he continues at Georgia for as long as he likes. I’m in his corner. It’s a great sign on the eve of Signing Day that Mark Richt isn’t going anywhere.

This mini-rant has less to do with Richt and more to do with the notion in sports that you deserve a new contract and significant raise for actually doing your job. Coaches get paid to win, professional athletes get paid to perform. Richt won the SEC in 2002 and his contract value doubled. The other side of the coin is that had he been another average 7-4 coach, he’d be looking for a job now. There just seems to be no medium and no end in sight.

At least Richt’s compensation isn’t tied to some ridiculous index that requires him to be the highest-paid coach in the SEC or the NCAA. Pay him well – he does a good job in a stressful perform-or-else position, but it would be insane to peg his compensation to the whims of some free-spending AD in Tuscaloosa or Baton Rouge. Notre Dame’s Charlie Weis was rewarded with an unheard-of ten year contract this season worth about $4-$5 million per year. How long until that salary is viewed as sub-par and the contract renegotiated? I give it three years.

A heady senior point guard, one of the most consistent and experienced performers the Lady Dogs have ever had, ignored the called play and instead launched a 25-foot prayer in the closing seconds of yesterday’s loss to LSU. This is up there with Leonard Pope deciding to freelance on the last play in 2004’s loss to Tennessee.

Down one point needing a basket to win, LSU found a way to get the ball to its All-American, Seimone Augustus. Augustus got a good look over Sherill Baker and nailed the go-ahead shot. Georgia’s All-American, Tasha Humphrey, had another monster game against LSU with 31 points, but she never got a chance to attempt the game-winning shot.

It was a classic battle, and there are many more what-ifs and plays that could be talked about than the final few seconds. Georgia missed several chances to extend a 60-55 lead and soon found themselves down 61-60 to begin the see-saw exchange of points in the final 90 seconds. Slow shooting at the beginning of each half put the Lady Dogs in holes from which they had to fight back. Overall, the feeling is one of a big missed opportunity to earn a signature SEC win.

The recent games with Tennessee and LSU show without question that Georgia, even after its devastating frontcourt losses, can play with anyone. Coach Landers had a brilliant defensive scheme to limit LSU, and it worked much as it did in last year’s SEC Tournament. Still, it would have been nice to steal one of these games. With Tennessee and LSU both on the schedule twice during the regular season, the losses put pressure on Georgia to play at a high level and win most of its other SEC games, including an upcoming road swing to South Carolina and Florida, if it hopes to finish among the top three teams in the league.

What a relief to finally see the Georgia basketball teams rediscover their defense over the weekend.

The men had been giving up around 90 PPG in their SEC games to date, but they held South Carolina to 61 points to earn a rare win for the program in Columbia. It was Georgia’s first road SEC win since the 2004 season. South Carolina is a mediocre team this year. Most teams will beat them in and away from Columbia. Last year, Georgia was the team that couldn’t beat most teams regardless of the effort they gave.

Most impressive and important was that the defense made plays when it had to. I made a big deal out of this in my “go-to guy” post below. Good stats are nice, but good stats at the right times win games. At the end of regulation and the end of overtime, Georgia used a defensive play to create a turnover to set up one possession to win the game. The final shot didn’t fall in regulation; it did in overtime.

You rarely hear Dennis Felton gush. There’s always something to work on, and the guys could always give more effort. He’s hungry for improvement. But his comments on Saturday showed how much this win meant not only to the current season but also to Felton’s turnaround of the program. “I would have felt good even if we would have came up a possession short in this game, because we got back to really playing with passion on defense and it was our best performance of the year so far in terms of staying tough and composed in a game where nothing was easy,” he said postgame.

You make years of investment in effort and faith, and eventually you hope to see some results. At this stage of the program, the results won’t always be consistent. Even on Saturday, Georgia did enough things poorly on offense to be in a position to lose. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who found myself constantly yelling, “TWO FREAKING HANDS ON THE BALL!!!”. The signs of progress are unmistakable though. Georgia has already beaten three teams they lost to last year (WKU, Clemson, and South Carolina). Who’s next?

The women didn’t use defense to survive a close game. They used defense to put a stranglehold on a dangerous opponent and pull away. Miami isn’t a great team, but they are athletic and quick enough to cause problems for lesser teams. With early foul trouble on Tasha Humphrey, the Lady Dogs weren’t able to build much of a comfortable lead. During the first ten minutes of the second half, Georgia held Miami to eight points and one field goal. The lead grew to over 20 points, and Georgia was able to close out the game with an easy win despite a rash of turnovers and sloppy play.

“We realize after the Tennessee game that we’re not real effective defensively,” said Coach Landers. I hope that realization came before the Tennessee game; the defense hasn’t been effective for most of the year. We’re not going to beat that nor the reasons for it into the ground. But what has been effective this year is the pressure and the ability of guards, Sherill Baker in particular, to steal the ball. That’s what Georgia turned to in the second half. They had the speed to keep up with and frustrate Miami, and the result was a lid on the basket for the Hurricanes. After a draining game at Tennessee on Thursday, Georgia survived a potential let-down game with relative ease, though it wasn’t pretty.

I don’t mean to overlook (yet another) great performance by Chambers and Baker, but Sunday’s game was perhaps the best of the season for Hardrick and Bostice. Bostice had to step up after Humphrey’s foul trouble, and she did. Good positioning led to good rebounds and scoring chances, and she was effective defensively. Hardrick might have had better games on offense, but she hasn’t shown that kind of fire and effort on defense in a while. She made a living on the floor and was a key to Georgia’s decisive second half run.

Welcome Georgia Sports Blog visitors!

The next big capital project for the Athletic Association will be a multi-purpose facility for mens and womens hoops as well as the gymnastics program.

The first thing to notice is the size relative to Stegeman itself. It looks just about as long and tall as the Steg. That’s a lot of volume. All three programs should have ample room to spread out.

Another thing to note is that the building just won’t be a practice facility. It will be the public face and showpiece of these three programs. The main entranceway will be a museum-like area to greet and impress visitors (ever been on the main floor of the Butts-Mehre building?) and make a very nice first impression on recruits.

It’s built-to-order. All three coaches were very involved in specifying what will go into the facility. Basketball offices will overlook the practice courts – a small detail that meant a lot to a coach. As with many of Georgia’s capital projects over the past decade (Ramsey Center, Rankin Smith Center, Gate Six, Milledge Ave. Complex, and so on), we should expect a first-rate facility as a result.

Of course once this gem is completed, it will be contrasted immediately with the dinosaur of a coliseum adjacent to it. What’s the future of the Stegoseum? Clearly it isn’t Bud Walton or the new John Paul Jones arena at Virginia. It’s not a pit either after the improvements that have taken place in steps since 1994.

The discussion over the future of Stegeman Coliseum won’t be confined to the context of basketball or gymnastics. There will be consideration of the debt load of the entire Athletic Association. Spending for a new or refurbished arena will draw vocal criticism from an academic community facing tough cuts. It will be a discussion that involves much of the University and likely local and state governments, and it will be a big leadership challenge for Damon Evans in about twelve months.

Georgia’s basketball team was very close to knocking off a Top 20 team three time zones away last night. Repeat that a few times and let it sink in.

I’m so happy, and it’s such progress, to be talking about nuances instead of just hoping we find a way to break 40. I could dwell on foul shots or freshmen mistakes, but they all add up to something bigger.

Georgia lacks a go-to guy, and it’s going to continue to hurt them in close games.

Marginal players get points every now and then. Good players get their points more consistently and don’t talk halves off. But the real difference-makers get their points when their team needs them most – on those half-dozen possessions or so in each game where you either must answer a score on the other end or take advantage of a mistake and go for the jugular.

I’ve thought about Georgia football’s running game in this context for most of the season. It’s nice if you can run for 200 yards a game, but what does that really mean if you can’t be counted on to convert the 3rd and 2 to sustain the key drive?

Last night, there wasn’t a single person you’d want to have the ball at the end. Stukes and Toney were non-factors all night. Mercer was erratic. Gaines isn’t a consistent enough shooter. Humphrey had cooled down considerably. The posts were worn down and ineffective. Idrissi was the closest thing Georgia had to a go-to guy, and he’s not ready for that role yet. And none of them could hit a free throw.

Contrast that with Nevada’s Nick Fazekas. Fazekas finished with a double-double, but it’s four critical points that made the difference in the game. With the game still very much in question and around four minutes to play, Fazekas twice got separation inside and got two significant consecutive baskets. It had been eons since either team had a two-possession lead, but Nevada’s go-to guy gave them just enough separation to get the upper-hand in the game and force Georgia to make plays on the offensive end, and Georgia wasn’t up to it. “He had two big-time plays that deflated us,” said Coach Felton, and that’s exactly what this kind of player brings to the table: the huge basket or defensive play that takes a mental toll on the opponent.

The good news is that Georgia has too much talent for a more dependable option not to emerge. It’s just a matter of who and when. In the shorter term, it could be a guard such as Humphrey. He’s not there yet. It’s great to get a slew of three-pointers in the first half, but that shot needs to be there with two minutes left and down a possession or two. Improvement on his game inside the arc can help prevent him from becoming a streaky one-trick pony like so many long-range specialists. He is big and quick enough, and his outside shot is enough of a threat, that he should be able to penetrate to the elbow and either knock down the midrange jumper or pass. I think that’s what we had hoped to see from Levi Stukes at this point in his career, but he continues to play hot and cold from game to game.

Jarvis Hayes of course was the consummate go-to guy at Georgia, and players like him haven’t come along too often in Athens. Some guys like Rashad Wright develop in that role as their careers progress. Given this much talent getting this much playing time and doing relatively well already with solid coaching, I have to believe that Georgia will find their Robert Horry who is clutch and money and often unstoppable during the crucial final four minutes of a game.

We know now that Georgia is good enough to expect to play in a lot of close and competitive games as this season wears on. The difference between winning and losing those close games will be just this kind of player. Nevada had one…at least one. Most postseason-quality SEC teams will have one. Georgia doesn’t have that guy yet, and that might make for a very frustrating season as a team that shows a lot of promise comes up just short in several games. But if someone – or a small group of regulars – can become that consistent second-half option, look out.

Temple had lost two straight to Florida and Stony Brook. The only way I’m familiar with Stony Brook is that it’s on the Long Island RailRoad right after the Port Jeff station, so we’d go by it all the time on our way into NYC.

Anyway, Temple got it together after some time off and beat Georgia in Philly on a buzzer-beating three-pointer in overtime.

Usually talk turns to Georgia’s frontcourt, but this was an all-around loss. On offense, the guards were ineffective, especially from outside. On the boards, Georgia was outrebounded. We know that teams are going to pack in on Humphrey. Despite that, Tasha had another incredible game. But that strategy also creates chances outside for the guards, and they did a poor job Monday shooting in the 20s from outside.

On defense, Georgia’s 2-3 zone was supposed to force the game outside, where Temple is weak. The result was a game to Temple’s liking – low-scoring and played in the halfcourt. Georgia was deadly when they could force turnovers (points off turnovers was about 10-0 in favor of Georgia), but the passive nature of the zone kept those transition chances down. Besides that, Temple’s top two scorers were post players, so the zone wasn’t as effective as hoped. Temple had decent success penetrating the zone and passing.

Where to begin? It was certainly not the best night for the guards. It’s said that Humphrey’s play controls the fortunes of the team, but it remains more accurate that the team will play as its senior guards do. The Lady Dogs have survived slow nights from Humphrey, but they have not overcome outages from the guards. Kendrick, battling an ankle injury, was ineffective and did not score from the floor. Baker, with a sprained knuckle, was 6-18 from the floor. The two combined for four assists and seven turnovers, and they were a non-factor from the perimeter.

Georgia’s last offensive series was telling. Georgia had the ball in a tie game with about 4 seconds separating the shot and game clock. Humphrey had been dominant in the second half, and Temple’s top two post players had fouled out. So of course Humphrey doesn’t touch the ball. Instead, Kendrick, who had not made a field goal from the floor all night, tries to drive the baseline and is denied with well over ten seconds remaining for Temple to set up the winning shot.

I like that Kendrick wants the ball. Against Santa Clara earlier in the season, she had another rough night but sunk a dead-on runner at the buzzer for her only field goal of the night to win the game. You want your senior point guard to have that confidence. But you also expect the senior to recognize the situation and, given time and a chance to set up an offensive play, find the hot hand instead of freelancing and rushing the shot. You also expect her coach to emphasize that point.

Cori Chambers and Megan Darrah are in tough spots. Both were planning on doing damage from the wing this year, and they find themselves defacto post players. Darrah especially is challenged. She has been placed in the power forward position, and she is having a tough time getting rebounds and defending the post. But there are no other options – Bostice can only give a few minutes, and the light hasn’t come on for freshman Danielle Taylor yet.

With all that was deficient last night, we were still in overtime with a Top 25 team on their court. That tiny moral consolation isn’t much, especially when contrasted with the hopes for this season. Still, we know this team can do some nice things. It reminds me of the 2004 men’s team – there was a solid starting lineup good enough to beat a Final Four Tech team and UK twice but which also lost several games it should have won because the margin of error was so slight. The Lady Dogs have more relative talent in the lineup than that men’s team, so they should win more games and make the tournament, but there are going to be some more nights like the Temple loss ahead, especially with the tough SEC this season.

I’ve been doing some reading from the Book of Scheme lately. There are some good points of course – scheme matters -, but all religions (beginnnig with SEC football) have their fanatics. This post over at HP shines a little light on how warped the discussion has become.

If a scheme is so inflexible that a better chance of success might lie with someone who is taking his first college snaps instead of someone who can get Heisman pub with a straight face, there’s a problem. We’re not talking about Noah Brindise here. The semi-legit Heisman candidate is the one catching heat for not maybe not being the best fit for the Almighty Spread Option. The Creator coach gets a pass, more or less, for not adjusting his offense to maximize a guy who should be checking travel deals to New York. Bassackwards.

More on scheme later. This is interesting stuff.

The Spurrier issue is overshadowing everything about this game. While it’s huge for the fans, it’s not for Richt or the team.

Revenge for 1995 is paramount to the fans. That blowout loss in Athens was the lowest of the lows in a decade of dispair against Spurrier’s Florida teams. Just the mention of the name is enough to send many Georgia fans into a fetal position, and they would be nervous if Spurrier brought a Pop Warner team into Sanford Stadium.

A friend of mine said that we’d struggle with Florida until we “beat the Spurrier out of them”. That was a great way to sum up the situation – the players on the Florida sideline knew they were in Georgia’s head, and Georgia’s players knew they were owned. Georgia fans still live with that damage when Steve Spurrier’s name comes up.

Fortunately, none of that is an issue for the current Georgia team. The currently players were 12 years old or younger in 1995. Richt and his staff (except for Bobo and Smart of course) were scattered across the nation. Only the 5th year seniors have gone to battle against a Spurrier team. While the Spurrier name surely brings recognition and respect, the current team does not have the Battered Fan Syndrome that comes from years and years of beatdowns.

That’s a very good thing. While they might not have the hatred and the zeal to run it up, they are able to approach this game with a much more level head than the fans. We want them to be fired up and motivated against a decent opening SEC test, but we don’t want the out of control emotions that come with rabid revenge on the mind. More importantly, they won’t get into a funk if they find themselves behind. Georgia overcame a 16-0 deficit in Columbia last year. Hopefully they won’t find themselves in that position again, but they’re much less likely to pack it in than a team that had lost years in a row to South Carolina.

Another storyline making the rounds is the myth that South Carolina always plays Georgia close. That might be the case in Columbia, but it’s not in Athens. In the past ten years, only the 2001 South Carolina win has been a close game in Athens. 1995, 1997, 1999, 2003 – all big Georgia wins.

In a big game that people figure to be a close battle, the intangibles that might give one team a slight advantage get analyzed to death. My favorite is the weather – how will Boise St. come off the polar icecap and react to a summer afternoon in Saharan Africa Georgia?

But one thing I think is being overlooked is the big game factor. Some in the Bronco camp, even the athletic director, are pointing to this game as the biggest in the history of the Boise State program. That program, looking for further legitimacy against an SEC power, is staking a lot on this game. It could be a huge boost towards a BCS at-large bid and all the spoils that come with it. Boise is no lightweight. They won’t be intimidated by Georgia; they’ve played teams from major conferences recently and won some. They played an outstanding Louisville team very close last season. They’ve beaten Oregon State. They’ve faced and dispatched respectable mid-major programs and are ready to move beyond that point.

So if Boise isn’t going to be rattled by facing the #13 team in the nation, how does the intangible of the big game come into play?

Building this game up to the biggest in program history could be a big emotional motivator for the Broncos, but it also comes at a risk. Following the season-ending loss to Louisville last season, a loss to Georgia to begin this season would go a long way to chop down Boise’s claims for legitimacy and attention despite many, many wins. This is a huge opportunity on a national stage, and it’s not one they’ve seen before. Even a somewhat major bowl matchup against Louisville did not have the focus and significance placed on it that this game does. Boise’s attempt to come into an SEC stadium in front of 92,000 fans against an opponent with the tradition, history, and recent success of Georgia and claim equal footing is a huge story.

Big games are becoming routine for Georgia, and they’ve started winning more than a few lately. Veterans still with the team have played for conference titles, played in some of the most difficult settings in college football, and have faced the situations of coming back and defending leads against some very good teams. While it’s shaky to predict the emotional state of a bunch of college students, what is a huge game for a team like Boise is something Georgia faces at least five times a season. As recent SEC champions and a Top 10 program, Georgia is used to wearing the bulls-eye and getting the best effort from opponents looking to knock off a top team.

There has been a not-so-subtle shift in the stakes for Boise St. Instead of taking the typical role of the upstart underdog with nothing to lose, they now have a great deal invested in this game. With that comes a different kind and different level of pressure. With some very good years behind them and a decent preseason ranking for 2005, Boise is expected not just to push Georgia but to play an extremely competitive game with the possibility of earning the win.

It’s a credit to Boise State that they’re in this situation. They are not the usual early season cupcake. Much like Gonzaga on the basketball side, they’ve moved well beyond being Cinderella and just hoping to compete with good teams. They now approach these games against major conference programs, few as they might be for a WAC program, with every intention and expectation of winning them. But with those expectations come consequences when you don’t win. No one is going to give you credit anymore for a valiant effort or hanging close.

In sports, you most often see this intangible come up when talking about the postseason. Teams that have players with playoff experience are generally considered to have the upper hand over a team making its first trip, talent being equal. The spotlight, the distractions, and the pressure when certain situations arise can derail a good team not used to one game meaning so much. At the top of college football, a single loss can dash the hopes and goals of an entire season, and Boise certainly has those lofty aspirations this season. Having that – what it means to fail in the big game – in the back of your mind only adds to the pressure of the situation.

The stakes for Georgia are well-known. Everyone knows the wrath and scorn that awaits a ranked SEC team that dares to lose a game.

Putting such a label as the biggest in program history on this game sets Boise State up for quite a breakthrough if they can pull the upset in Athens. Everyone is talking about what a win would mean for the Broncos. “It’ll kind of set the tone for the way our season’s going to go. If we can run the table like we did last year, unless you get an Oklahoma and Southern Cal undefeated like last year, I don’t see how you could keep us out of the national championship,” dreamed quarterback Jared Zabransky.

But the same label also means something else. If everything – five 10+ win seasons since 1999 – has been building towards this moment and this game in Athens, what does it mean if you come up short?

For some reason, I find myself really scrutinizing the running game. UGASports.com named them the top unit in the SEC. Some are already looking for a nickname for the unit. It’s pretty much a given that Georgia’s backfield is loaded. It’s not that I doubt the talent of anyone involved, but the running game is held up as something we can lean on this season, and that deserves a closer look.

Taking into account the four Richt years, the running game has been hit or miss. The 2001 season saw an injured Musa Smith and an ineffective Jasper Sanks eventually give way to an amazing finish by Verron Haynes. Haynes’ performances against Ole Miss, Tech, and Boston College not only earned him a shot at the NFL, but they also eased concerns that Richt wouldn’t run the ball or feed a hot tailback. The end of 2001 set the table for 2002. A healthy Musa Smith and a veteran offensive line produced Georgia’s first 1,000+ yard season for a tailback since 1992, and Musa eclipsed that mark easily.

In 2003, the running game slipped somewhat. A new offensive line and the lack of a feature back put much more of the offense onto the capable shoulders of David Greene. The Dawgs started 2003 with Tony Milton and Michael Cooper as the backs. Tyson Browning also saw some time but was much more of a situational back. 2003 also saw the emergence of freshman Kregg Lumpkin. Lump turned a lot of heads in Knoxville and had a strong performance in the bowl game, but the legacy of the 2003 running game was defined by the lack of a single 100+ yard game from a tailback. But Lumpkin’s forward momentum was stopped cold on the first day of fall practice in 2004 by a season-ending ACL injury.

Danny Ware made sure in the very first game that the 100-yard mark wouldn’t be the unreachable upper limit for tailbacks in 2004. A Georgia back ran for over 100 yards in seven games in 2004. The freshman duo of Thomas Brown and Ware were up to the job, and a maturing line helped matters. Though the performance of the freshmen backs was far and away the story of the running game in 2004, two negatives helped to shape how the story would end. First was the injuries. Both Ware and Brown missed playing time with a variety of injuries. Ware had to leave both the South Carolina and Kentucky games after great starts. Brown’s hamstring delayed his debut. Then came the fumbles. Georgia’s 14 fumbles lost in 2004 were second-worst in the SEC, and two games with multiple fumbles by Ware gave Brown the opportunity to finish out the season as the starter. Brown had a decent game at Auburn, but he (and much of the Georgia offense) was shut down against Georgia Tech. Brown finished the season on a high note in the Outback Bowl with a touchdown run and a critical late-game conversion which enabled Georgia to run out the clock for the win.

So now we come to 2005. For the first time in a while, the offensive line has a couple of seniors. Lumpkin has finally been cleared for full-speed practice. Ware has changed how he holds the ball to address the fumbles, and he too is healthy. Brown is still one of the strongest guys on the team pound-for-pound and looks to be the starter.

Even with all of these pieces coming into place, the accolades for the running game comes mostly from its future potential. All of the three backs have had very, very good moments. But Dawg fans are still waiting for someone other than Musa Smith to break the “Jasper Line” – the 900 yards earned by Jasper Sanks in 1999 which still stands as the second-highest season rushing total for a Bulldog running back since 1992. Thomas Brown came close last year. For he and any of the others to distinguish themselves and challenge the totals of Hearst and Musa Smith, there are a few things that have to happen:

• Can the three-headed monster stay healthy? All missed some games as freshmen.
• Can the line lead the way consistently? The OL showed us something against a very good Wisconsin defensive line, but the Georgia Tech performance was rough. “Veteran” and “experienced” doesn’t in and of itself mean “good”.
• Can the passing game keep defenses honest? Coach Richt has been candid about the need to find a playmaker at receiver so that the Dawgs can go over the top when defenses focus on the run. Shockley to Bailey was pretty effective at times in limited action last season. Leonard Pope is another proven weapon. However they manage it, the Dawgs must find a way to keep safeties and linebackers thinking about the pass and get these tailbacks into the open field. It’s funny to suggest that the prospects of the running game rest on a receiver, but that’s the way it is – a weakness or imbalance would help keep the Georgia running game in low gear.
• Can the backs be an effective weapon in the passing game? Auburn’s unit last year is the obvious model. With the exception of Tyson Browning’s nice touchdown on a screen pass against South Carolina last year, screens and other passes to the backs were generally recipes for disaster right up to the end of the Outback Bowl.

I’m as excited as anyone about seeing what this running game can do. As Coach Richt has noted, Georgia has been led in rushing by a freshman for two seasons. Finally the backs getting the bulk of the carries will have a bit of experience and age under their belts with some quality results to show for it. Georgia fans have been teased for nearly five seasons – as soon as Haynes and Smith got going, their eligibility ran out. Cooper fought injuries during the season. Lumpkin got hopes up with a good bowl game and then an injury put his career on hold. Ware and Brown had no problems getting to 100 yards – sometimes. The Bulldog Nation is salivating over the prospects of a 1,400-yard back or a thunder-and-lightning duo…the thought of a dominating trio seems too good to be true. Will it turn out that way? Georgia’s success on the ground is not a given – several of the things listed above need to happen first, and those questions have implications across the entire offense.

No, I’m not talking about the ridiculous ruling about Native American mascots and nicknames. Go Noles.

Our story started this week with the news that a gentleman would be paying his own way from his contractor’s position in Iraq to see his son, who plays football for Boise State, play against UGA in Athens. A few enterprising DawgVenters with their intentions in the right place set the wheels in motion to subsidize or even cover the cost of the trip.

Enter the big, bad NCAA. They decree that DawgVenters picking up the tab would be an improper benefit to the family member of a student-athlete, even if that student-athlete is on the other team.

This is a situation where you have to look past the emotionalism of the moment and let the rules work. This basic rule – no benefits to student-athletes or their families – cannot be guided by exceptions. Even though his kid plays for the other team, the father would be receiving a (quite substantial) benefit because of his son’s status as a student-athlete. What if he has another son considering where to play college ball? What if a real Boise State booster or two snuck a check into the DawgVent’s effort? Those hypotheticals aren’t true this time, but they’re other reasons for the rule – it’s impossible to control each and every exceptional case, and so the common sense baseline is to allow none of it. Abstracted out a little bit, it speaks directly to the amateur (nonprofessional) status of his son.

An emotional case could be made to provide benefits to families of many players and prospects. Handicaps…exceptional service to the community and nation…single parents sacrificing…abject poverty – these circumstances if made public would stir many of us to action. And under the rules and the spirit of amateurism that the NCAA struggles to maintain, it would be wrong to do so. Allowing those benefits on a case-by-case basis makes the application of a cornerstone rule even more arbitrary than it already seems to be and would make this rule and principle basically worthless.

The fact that the gentleman is working in Iraq and is making this one trip just to see his son play ball in the greatest setting in college football makes for a very touching and inspirational story. The NCAA, which ususally desrves the criticism it gets, must say “no” and of course is set up to look like the jerk. For the trashing they justly receive in many cases, they deserve some recognition this time for sticking by a difficult, unpopular, and – in the end – correct decision.