Georgia dismisses another projected starter

[TUSKtimes]

While I would love to agree with Never_again's take, I guess I don't understand the SHOULD REALLY BE part. I think the team that should be a dynasty is the one that builds it as such

That's a fair take. Recruiting doesn't entitle you to much when it comes to dynasties.

 

[05_never_again]

While I would love to agree with Never_again's take, I guess I don't understand the SHOULD REALLY BE part. I think the team that should be a dynasty is the one that builds it as such

I say that because Georgia has built-in advantages that other schools do not, or they have those advantages to a much greater extent than other schools do (primarily proximity to recruiting areas and Georgia's "brand" in said areas). Georgia has only themselves to blame for not taking waaaaay more advantage of their situation over the years. It's the most underachieving athletic department in the country over the last few decades, and nobody else really comes close.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Was Alabama a hotbed of recruiting in Bryant's day? Relative to Alabama, Georgia has been the more populated and economically developed state for a long time. Demographic shifts have helped all the southern schools, not just Georgia, over the last 30-40 years.

Particularly since 1980, Georgia really should be unquestionably the most successful football program and should also have extremely successful basketball and baseball programs. Their basketball program has stunk for a long time (just 12 tourney appearances since 1980), their baseball program has had fleeting periods of success but nowhere near as much as you'd believe (they should be vying for a national title every year), and their football program, while very good, has repeatedly fallen short of the ultimate prize.

You're leaving out great coaching and player development as part of the dynasty equation. You know, the hard part. There's a reason it was said about coach Bryant, "he could take his and beat yours, and he could take yours and beat his.

 

[05_never_again]

That's a fair take. Recruiting doesn't entitle you to much when it comes to dynasties.

I'm not saying recruiting should have entitled Georgia to more wins. You still have to go out and win them. This is a knock on Georgia, not a knock on Alabama, because it should be easier for Georgia to have better players. Georgia has advantages that even Alabama does not have, yet it is Alabama that has won 6 national titles since 1980, not Georgia. Alabama deserves everything they've achieved.

I'm simply making the point that if you only had demographic information/location, and somebody told you that one of these SEC schools has won 6 national titles and 9 SEC titles since 1980, my guess would absolutely be that Georgia has won them, not Alabama.

 

[05_never_again]

You're leaving out great coaching and player development as part of the dynasty equation. You know, the hard part. There's a reason it was said about coach Bryant, "he could take his and beat yours, and he could take yours and beat his.

...but why has Georgia not been able to attract that type of coaching, particularly given their advantages? Georgia's greatest coach is Vince Dooley, who won one title. Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, etc. have all had "greatest coaches" better than that. Why is that? Given their resources, they underachieve. That's all I'm saying. They should have much more success to point to in their history.

You're turning what I'm saying into a bashing or a diminishing of what Alabama has done, which it is not. If anything, it makes what Alabama has done more impressive since they don't have the same advantages. I'm highlighting Georgia's underachievement.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Was Alabama a hotbed of recruiting in Bryant's day? Relative to Alabama, Georgia has been the more populated and economically developed state for a long time. Demographic shifts have helped all the southern schools, not just Georgia, over the last 30-40 years.

Particularly since 1980, Georgia really should be unquestionably the most successful football program and should also have extremely successful basketball and baseball programs. Their basketball program has stunk for a long time (just 12 tourney appearances since 1980), their baseball program has had fleeting periods of success but nowhere near as much as you'd believe (they should be vying for a national title every year), and their football program, while very good, has repeatedly fallen short of the ultimate prize.

Why is that? Florida has roughly twice as many people. Also, I think you're over-simplifying what goes into having a great major college program. It takes more than just a great recruiting base. Georgia was on the threshold of becoming a consistent powerhouse in the Herschel Walker years, but then took a major hit with the Jan Kemp revelations in 1982. That isn't mentioned enough when their struggles from 1984-2000 are discussed. Their administration wanted to de-emphasize football after her lawsuit and the very embarrassing scandal that tarnished the reputation of their entire institution. They didn't keep up with other SEC schools in the facilities arms race in the 90's because they didn't want to... and they didn't want to pay big money for a coach when Vince Dooley retired either. Again, de-emphasizing football after the Jan Kemp scandal was by design. Obviously, that began to all change about 20 years ago...

 

[05_never_again]

Why is that? Florida has roughly twice as many people. Also, I think you're over-simplifying what goes into having a great major college program. It takes more than just a great recruiting base. Georgia was on the threshold of becoming a consistent powerhouse in the Herschel Walker years, but then took a major hit with the Jan Kemp revelations in 1982. That isn't mentioned enough when their struggles from 1984-2000 are discussed. Their administration wanted to de-emphasize football after her lawsuit and the very embarrassing scandal that tarnished the reputation of their entire institution. They didn't keep up with other SEC schools in the facilities arms race in the 90's because they didn't want to... and they didn't want to pay big money for a coach when Vince Dooley retired either. Again, de-emphasizing football after the Jan Kemp scandal was by design. Obviously, that began to all change about 20 years ago...

Florida also has 3 football programs with traditions of success - Florida, FSU, and Miami. Cannibalization. Georgia has no such worry (Tech has not been a true rival to them in decades). Florida also didn't pay big money for facilities either when Spurrier was there.

IMO, the Jan Kemp deal explains some underachievement later in Dooley's tenure and during Goff's because the Goff hire was kind of recognized at the time as a "settle." I don't think it explains their performance since Jim Donnan got there though.

 

[BowlBrother85]

That's a fair take. Recruiting doesn't entitle you to much when it comes to dynasties.

And if winning championships just boiled down to having a great recruiting base, wouldn't Texas have won more than just one National Championship since 1972?

 

[05_never_again]

And if winning championships just boiled down to having a great recruiting base, wouldn't Texas have won more than just one National Championship since 1972?

No, and because of the same point I made about Florida. Cannibalization. Texas has a ton of in-state institutions competing for that talent.

UGA is located 90 minutes from the best recruiting territory in the country (metro Atlanta), has a great "brand" in said area, and has no in-state competition for it. They have it made as far as recruiting is concerned.

Georgia should be at least as successful as LSU has been in recent decades - have a couple of titles and more SEC titles. LSU has the same advantageous recruiting set up that Georgia has.

 

[TUSKtimes]

I'm not saying recruiting should have entitled Georgia to more wins. You still have to go out and win them. This is a knock on Georgia, not a knock on Alabama, because it should be easier for Georgia to have better players. Georgia has advantages that even Alabama does not have, yet it is Alabama that has won 6 national titles since 1980, not Georgia. Alabama deserves everything they've achieved.

I'm simply making the point that if you only had demographic information/location, and somebody told you that one of these SEC schools has won 6 national titles and 9 SEC titles since 1980, my guess would absolutely be that Georgia has won them, not Alabama.

No one would disagree that the dawgs have built-in advantages. Just never really thought one was automatically the extension of the other. But when I was growing up no one kept up with recruiting like we do today. Today, it's a sport in itself.

Coach Bryant always felt that Florida was the sleeping giant in the SEC. He never saw Spurrier do his thing but he knew it was coming sooner or later. I guess Georgia is hoping Kirby is their Spurrier. As sacrilegious as that sounds.

 

[BowlBrother85]

No, and because of the same point I made about Florida. Cannibalization. Texas has a ton of in-state institutions competing for that talent.

UGA is located 90 minutes from the best recruiting territory in the country (metro Atlanta), has a great "brand" in said area, and has no in-state competition for it. They have it made as far as recruiting is concerned.

Georgia should be at least as successful as LSU has been in recent decades - have a couple of titles and more SEC titles. LSU has the same advantageous recruiting set up that Georgia has.

No, there isn't a ton of in-state competition for the top talent in Texas. That is bs. There is just A&M. Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston and TCU don't pull top-tier talent away from the University of Texas. And you are looking at metro-Atlanta strictly through the lens of present day. Not how it has always been.

 

[05_never_again]

No one would disagree that the dawgs have built-in advantages. Just never really thought one was automatically the extension of the other. But when I was growing up no one kept up with recruiting like we do today. Today, it's a sport in itself.

Coach Bryant always felt that Florida was the sleeping giant in the SEC. He never saw Spurrier do his thing but he knew it was coming sooner or later. I guess Georgia is hoping Kirby is their Spurrier. As sacrilegious as that sounds.

But they are to a pretty strong extent, right? I mean, look at the top football programs in the country. There isn't an exact 1:1 correlation (i.e., best recruiting environment = best program, 2nd best recruiting environment = 2nd best program), and of course there are outliers/exceptions to the rule (like Nebraska in the Osborne days, or Wisconsin today), but there absolutely is a strong correlation.

It isn't a coincidence that the SEC is probably the deepest conference, Ohio St/Michigan are the best Big Ten programs, Texas/Oklahoma are good, USC is historically the most dominant Pac 12 program, and that also happens to be where the talent is concentrated. When you look at demographics + locations of these schools, most schools that you'd think "should" have a good program do have a good program (to varying extents), and schools that you think wouldn't have a good program don't (to varying extents).

There are exceptions as I said, but oftentimes an extenuating circumstance helps explain it - for example I've thought for a long time that North Carolina "should" have a better football program that what they do but basketball is so deeply embedded in the culture of the school, I doubt it'll never be a point of emphasis.

 

[TUSKtimes]

No, and because of the same point I made about Florida. Cannibalization. Texas has a ton of in-state institutions competing for that talent.

Yeah, but historically it was Texas and Oklahoma dividing up the elite recruits in that state. There are a ton of football teams in California but historically, USC took their pick and the wannabees would harvest the rest.

Kirby wants the elite guys in Georgia and he is doing a better job than Richt in bringing those to his campus. Where he's making more headway than Richt again are the elite guys he's bringing in nationally. Which probably explains his recruiting budget being at #1.

 

[05_never_again]

No, there isn't a ton of in-state competition for the top talent in Texas. That is bs. There is just A&M. Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston and TCU don't pull top-tier talent away from the University of Texas. And you are looking at metro-Atlanta strictly through the lens of present day. Not how it has always been.

There's more competition than you think. SMU and A&M gave Texas competition in the 80s. In more recent times, Baylor, TCU, and A&M have absolutely taken kids away from Texas. Look at these QBs that have come out of Texas in recent years - RGIII, Baker Mayfield, Tannehill, Keenum, Foles, Andy Dalton, Johnny Football...I could go on - zilch of them went to the University of Texas, and many of those guys went to an in-state institution. And of course there's always Oklahoma, which is close by, but they aren't in-state.

Also, metro Atlanta has been oozing with talent since the 80s.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Yeah, but historically it was Texas and Oklahoma dividing up the elite recruits in that state. There are a ton of football teams in California but historically, USC took their pick and the wannabees would harvest the rest.

Kirby wants the elite guys in Georgia and he is doing a better job than Richt in bringing those to his campus. Where he's making more headway than Richt again are the elite guys he's bringing in nationally. Which probably explains his recruiting budget being at #1.

Richt was making headway at the end as well. Jacob Eason was his...

 

[BowlBrother85]

There's more competition than you think. SMU and A&M gave Texas competition in the 80s. In more recent times, Baylor, TCU, and A&M have absolutely taken kids away from Texas. Look at these QBs that have come out of Texas in recent years - RGIII, Baker Mayfield, Tannehill, Keenum, Foles, Andy Dalton, Johnny Football...I could go on - zilch of them went to the University of Texas, and many of those guys went to an in-state institution. And of course there's always Oklahoma, which is close by, but they aren't in-state.

Also, metro Atlanta has been oozing with talent since the 80s.

For a brief time, while they were buying players. The best players in Texas, either go to Texas or A&M or they go to Oklahoma, LSU or one of the other "hot" programs at the time. Oregon did well there under Bellotti and Kelly. You can always talk about a player here or there... I'm talking about large numbers over time.

 

[05_never_again]

For a brief time, while they were buying players. The best players in Texas, either go to Texas or A&M or they go to Oklahoma, LSU or one of the other "hot" programs at the time. Oregon did well there under Bellotti and Kelly. You can always talk about a player here or there... I'm talking about large numbers over time.

Yeah, I mean Texas was too. They all were.

Texas "should" be the best program in that state, and it is, but honestly it's easier to recruit at Georgia or LSU. It's confined in a smaller area (Atlanta metro/New Orleans), no in-state competition.

 

[TUSKtimes]

But they are to a pretty strong extent, right? I mean, look at the top football programs in the country. There isn't an exact 1:1 correlation (i.e., best recruiting environment = best program, 2nd best recruiting environment = 2nd best program), and of course there are outliers/exceptions to the rule (like Nebraska in the Osborne days, or Wisconsin today), but there absolutely is a strong correlation.

It's a strong part of the equation. The greatest college football anomaly for me that I can think of in my generation is Miami's dynasty. They were flooding the NFL with #1 picks and it didn't seem to matter who they had driving the bus. Most would say that Jimmy Johnson was the cream of the crop and you could make sense of his accomplishments there, but Coker, or Dennis Erickson, wow. That was a dynasty made up of many head coaches. Can't think of another situation like it. Otherwise, it took a great coach to rip off a number of NCs and no one does it without football players.

There are exceptions as I said, but oftentimes an extenuating circumstance helps explain it - for example I've thought for a long time that North Carolina "should" have a better football program that what they do but basketball is so deeply embedded in the culture of the school, I doubt it'll never be a point of emphasis.

I like that you mentioned the culture of the program having to hit the high mark too. That's such a big deal even who these universities are willing to go out and pay. You do see it in basketball and you see it in football. There are so many football people behind the culture that is spending money, building facilities, spending on recruiting and just overall cooperating in unison with one result. Winning football titles. That mindset has never been Georgia that I know of until lately at best. I believe Richt complained he didn't always have what he wanted to be successful. Maybe why Jimbo Fisher got out of Tallahassee. It was hard for him to pay his coaches and keep the best there and he knew FSU was getting behind with their football facilities. A great football culture that crap doesn't happen.

 

[Jaws]

Ron Zook never won the East (let alone the SEC), and Mark Richt never played for a national title.

This is different.

Muschamp may be a better comparison. He was a gnat’s ass from playing for a national title in 2012 and also put together a couple ridiculously good recruiting classes, #3 and #4 on Rivals with a bunch of 5 stars committing. As you know, the wheels soon fell off.

I don’t see the wheels falling off like that for Kirby, but I do see seasons where they have a few losses.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Do you prefer a story?

No. 11 Gators endure another painful homecoming loss to Missouri

You’re really bad at this.

We lost to Missouri...you lost to Missouri.

You lost to us by 26 at home.

 

[05_never_again]

I like that you mentioned the culture of the program having to hit the high mark too. That's such a big deal even who these universities are willing to go out and pay. You do see it in basketball and you see it in football. There are so many football people behind the culture that is spending money, building facilities, spending on recruiting and just overall cooperating in unison with one result. Winning football titles. That mindset has never been Georgia that I know of until lately at best. I believe Richt complained he didn't always have what he wanted to be successful. Maybe why Jimbo Fisher got out of Tallahassee. It was hard for him to pay his coaches and keep the best there and he knew FSU was getting behind with their football facilities. A great football culture that crap doesn't happen.

If that's true, I just totally don't understand why. Jan Kemp, I get it, but that was 30 years ago. Same deal with FSU. Bobby Bowden laid the foundation, then took the program to national prominence and firmly established it - their administration shouldn't view investing in football as a chore or something that they have to be dragged into kicking and screaming. Both schools are set up well to have good football programs, and if the investments in the program work out the ROI is extremely high. It isn't like it is some terribly risky proposition. Jimbo won a national title at FSU, recruited well, and had a Heisman winner. Why wouldn't they give him whatever resources he asked for? It isn't like they are taking a flyer on some random dude who came in the door.

Georgia football is a high-octane supercar primed to fly down the track, but if they don't want to mash the throttle down the whole way, I don't get it. I get why you don't want to blatantly cheat. However, that isn't the same thing as not wanting to pony up money to pay coaches or have great facilities when you have the financial and fan support to have those things. At Georgia, boosters will line up to give money. I get why Vanderbilt or Boston College doesn't prioritize football. I don't understand why Georgia wouldn't.

 

[GroverCleveland]

They averaged 8 under Richt, 3 under Kirby. As we’ve said, they’ve always recruited well.

And it should be noted, that #1 2018 class for Kirby has been decimated. They’ve lost 6 of the top 15 players from that class. If you could recalibrate that, it would be well outside the top 10.

You're right. They are down to only five five-star recruits from that class. How in the heck they even field a team this year is the real question.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Florida also has 3 football programs with traditions of success - Florida, FSU, and Miami. Cannibalization. Georgia has no such worry (Tech has not been a true rival to them in decades). Florida also didn't pay big money for facilities either when Spurrier was there.

IMO, the Jan Kemp deal explains some underachievement later in Dooley's tenure and during Goff's because the Goff hire was kind of recognized at the time as a "settle." I don't think it explains their performance since Jim Donnan got there though.

Regardless of what has been said publicly by both sides, I have always thought that Vince Dooley was asked to retire following the Jan Kemp trial of 1986 and the $1.2 million verdict in her favor. He was only 56 in 1988 and Georgia wasn't terrible by any means. Nobody wanted it to look like it wasn't on his terms, so they allowed him to stay on two more years and then serve as the Athletic Director (...but that was largely as just a figure-head. The Glen Mason situation made that clear.). Their administration wanted to turn the page on that whole era. I recommend the book "Take Down: Inside the Jan Kemp Affair" by Hue Henry (Kemp's attorney during that trial). It really gets into what a cesspool Georgia athletics had become... athletes were staying in remedial classes throughout the duration of their eligibility (in basketball as well)... Dominique Wilkins and Gerald Crosby are also mentioned, in addition to the endless numbers of football players - All-Americans Terry Hoague and Clarence Kay included.

 

[05_never_again]

Regardless of what has been said publicly by both sides, I have always thought that Vince Dooley was asked to retire following the Jan Kemp trial of 1986 and the $1.2 million verdict in her favor. He was only 56 in 1988 and Georgia wasn't terrible by any means. Nobody wanted it to look like it wasn't on his terms, so they allowed him to stay on two more years and then serve as the Athletic Director (...but that was largely as just a figure-head. The Glen Mason situation made that clear.). Their administration wanted to turn the page on that whole era. I recommend the book "Take Down: Inside the Jan Kemp Affair" by Hue Henry (Kemp's attorney during that trial). It really gets into what a cesspool Georgia athletics had become... athletes were staying in remedial classes throughout the duration of their eligibility (in basketball as well)... Dominique Wilkins and Gerald Crosby are also mentioned, in addition to the endless numbers of football players - All-Americans Terry Hoague and Clarence Kay included.

Mason turned down the job because he figured out Dooley was just a figurehead?

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Muschamp may be a better comparison. He was a gnat’s ass from playing for a national title in 2012 and also put together a couple ridiculously good recruiting classes, #3 and #4 on Rivals with a bunch of 5 stars committing. As you know, the wheels soon fell off.

I don’t see the wheels falling off like that for Kirby, but I do see seasons where they have a few losses.

Muschamp’s best team at UF lost to Mark Richt’s best team at UGA.

I’m of the opinion that Smart is a better coach than Richt, and it’s been proven that Smart is a better recruiter than Richt...and Richt was a very good recruiter.

This is different.