Go(ing) to Big Blue (plus a touch of signing day) ...

I never got that champions of the west thing, maybe a comely young Michigan coed could explain, if they exist.

Well the idea of a UGA-Michigan matchup has been kicking around our little corner of the blogosphere for a couple of weeks now, and after a personal entreatie from the Mayor himself, the originator of the this grass roots campaign, I could no longer feel like an upright and contributing member of the UGA blogger community without weighing in with my opinion/support.

First, it should known that, as always, Kyle has approached this idea with the vim and vigor we've come to expect and has compiled enough anecdotes, stats, team by team comparisons, and historical models to keep you busy for an hour. Likewise, Paul has devoted some space to the idea and Brian has broached the subject from the Michigan perspective. There's also been varying opinions of support and dissent from the likes of Realist and LD. Anyway, methinks the chances that you're a frequenter of my little corner, yet not an avid reader of one or all of those guys are pretty slim, but on the off chance of that being the case, if you are that lone individual, find your way to Kyle and he will link you far and near to all the opinions and latest updates on his quest.

Now, if you know me, you know that minus a couple of pre game previews that I go overboard for, most of what you're gonna get it conjecture, speculation, and inane rambling. So far be it from me to throw a curveball on this one.

Do I think our out of conference scheduling is due for an upgrade? Yeah, of course I do, us and everyone else in the SEC. I largely believe that most years, the argument that playing 8 SEC games is punishment enough and proof enough of a team's worth will continue to be true. But, I also believe that true or not, that argument will not hold water if other BCS conferences continue to schedule out of conference, intersectional series (i.e. Auburn and USC, Oklahoma and Alabama, Oklahoma and UCLA, Texas and tOSU to name a few). We can tell people all we want that Marshall or UAB or Boise State are serious mid major teams, providing challenging games, and capable of upsets, but when Alabama and Florida State are playing in 2007 and our current out of conference games for that year are Troy and Western Carolina, well let's just say that if it comes to a head to head street cred battle with one of them, I won't be expecting to win unless we pull off a serious upgrade in one of the two open dates still out there.

Of course, with the addition of teams like Louisville, Arizona State, and Colorado in the next 6 or 7 seasons, the issue is already being addressed on some level. With the addition of these sort of games, you're adding a game against another BCS conference team that on any given year is bound to be bowl eligible. If you call the Directional Louisianas a Level 3 game and call the UAB, Boise State type game a Level 2 game, then I'd probably tag a Lousville or a Colorado as a Level 1B game. And quite frankly, I think an 8 game SEC schedule (plus possible conference title game), a season closing out of conference rivalry game against Tech, and one of these Level 1B games (along with 2 functional bye weeks) is really enough for a team to prove itself.

So what's a Level 1A game? Well it's exactly the kind that's being bandied about with a Michigan matchup. It's going out and getting a Texas or an Oklahoma or a Michigan or an Ohio State or a Miami or a Virginia Tech. The knee jerk, 5 year ago reaction to proposing a game like that went something like, "Damnation dude, biting off a bit more than we can chew aren't we, we begging for a loss?" But that's not really the case any more, UGA can compete with and beat those teams in any given year. And if we want national perception to match up with our own perception of what UGA's program has become, then that has to be the case. But the question still remains, do you really need to prove that twice a year, during the season and in a bowl game? Just because you can win games like that, do you, on average, improve your season by trying to do it?

Well, the upsides include enormous boost in national credibility for going out and winning games like that, measurable boosts in national credibility for just attempting them, and (as evidenced by tOSU and ND this year) boosts in national credibility of varying levels if you can even put up a competitive, "quality" loss. In the purest sense, it's simply a great test for your team. The downsides include the possibility of a season derailing loss (Auburn to USC in '03) on national TV and the possibility of having only 6 or at most 7 home games, even with 2 functional byes in a 12 game season.

Pragmatically speaking, if your goal is to put out a team that wins the most games possible and rakes in the dollars for home dates, it's not a good move. Idealistically speaking, if your goal is to prove the mettle of your team and contribute to the overall improvement of college football as a whole, then it makes good sense. So, while I don't really think games of this caliber are a necessity in proving the mettle of your team, as a football fan, I can't disagree with trying to at least periodically schedule games like this.

And speaking in the abstract, video game realm, I'm 100% behind games like this. When I'm playing NCAA I replace every functional bye with a game like this, culminating in NCAA '04 where I put tOSU on my schedule every year after they beat me for my only national title loss ever in my 2nd season. From then on out, I had to hand them a regular season loss to make sure they couldn't cheat me out of another win in the title game via some ridiculous, Cruisin USA style computer cheating that involved 80 yard bombs into triple coverage with 30 seconds left and me being stopped on 3rd and 4th and 1 on the unstoppable fullback dive. Cheatypants McSweatervest, a bastard in real life and in the game. Anyway.

-Recruiting

It's been covered ad infinitum at places with much deeper resources than me. I covered some of it in my defensive recap and I'll obviously cover more whenever I get around to putting up the one on offense. If you want my day or reaction, read Paul, it basically covers what I feel with a remarkable degree of similaritude. All I'm going to say is, at least we sign guys with style.


With helmet, teh nu hottness. (Thank you ajc.com)