Georgia Sports Blog FanShop


Columbia Georgia Bulldogs Red Perfect Cast Performance Polo

Columbia Georgia Bulldogs Red-Black Plaid Super Bonehead Button-Up Performance Fishing Shirt

Columbia Georgia Bulldogs PFG Bonehead Shirt - Red

Columbia Georgia Bulldogs Gamechanger Hoodie - Red

Columbia Georgia Bulldogs Half Court Performance T-Shirt - Red

August 2, 2007

Dawgs looking at adding another Big Time Opponent to Schedule


Pitt wins national title at our expense (Image: SI)

On Tuesday, Chip Towers reported that the Bulldogs are looking for another "major" opponent for the 2011 and 2012 seasons. That's very interesting in light of the fact that we already have Louisville booked home and home for those two years.

So you might be asking yourself, why 2011 and 2012 to play three teams from power conferences (GT, Lville and the team to be named later).

If the SEC West Rotation doesn't change, we get two of the West's historically weaker teams in 2010, 2011, 2015 and 2016 (some combo of Ark, Ole Miss and MSU). In 2008, 2013 and 2018, we get LSU and Alabama in the same years. The other years -- like 2012 -- we get one tough SEC team and one weaker team.

In those weaker SEC West years, the home schedule needs a bit of glamor. So I imagine we're looking to add another "Ben Hur" game (to quote Donnan) for two reasons:

1. History suggests that Louisville will no longer be a Top 10-15 program in 2011. Petrino is the only coach to achieve greatness, and he's gone. Thus, that series may lack the gusto we might have originally hoped.

2. In 2011, our home schedule marquee games will be SC, AU and Louisville. In 2012, our marquee games are UT and GT. Damon & Co. probably want another high quality opponent at home that year.

So who do we book?
My guess is that we're looking for:
    1. A name team
    2. Who probably wants a home game in 2011 and a road game in 2012
    3. Ain't skeered of us. And we ain't skeered of them.
    4. Has an opening on the same two weeks that we have openings in those years (which ain't many folks)
    5. A team that hasn't already booked one or two quality non-conference games that year
As Mike Floyd pointed out to me via email, it's #5 that probably causes the most problems for us. Shockingly, it's getting late to book a big time team for 2011.

A quick review of NationalChamps.net's future schedules (which isn't exactly update to date, but it's closer than most sites), shows many are booked. (Unofficial)

Possibly have openings. Although who knows if the dates match or whatever:
    Boston College
    Cal
    Maryland
    Minnesota
    NC State
    Pitt - Clemson just canceled a series with them, and we owe them.
    Purdue
    Southern Cal
    Texas A&M
    Texas Tech
    Washington State
Unlikely, but not impossible due to conflicts:
    Texas
    Virginia
    Wisconsin
Highly unlikely based on their existing schedules:
    Clemson
    Florida State
    Iowa
    Miami
    Michigan - no SEC road games since 1922. And the away years are probably wrong.
    Michigan State
    Nebraska
    UNC
    Notre Dame
    Ohio State
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Penn State
    Rutgers
    UCLA
    Virginia Tech
    Washington
    West Virginia
Now before you get excited about any of those possibilities consider...how many of those teams have played any SEC team on the road in your lifetime?

Of the rest of the list that seems quasi-possible...I'd want 1. Texas 2. Southern Cal 3. Texas A*M. We all know who Kyle King wants. ;)

pwd

14 comments:

RC said...

Come on S.C.!!! Make it Happen, Damon. Shoot for the moon.

Groo said...

I believe Harrick Scheduling applies well in college football too. Avoid the 1-AAs, avoid the top 10. Losses in such games are penalized far more than wins are rewarded.

Teams like Pitt, Maryland, etc. fall in the sweet spot.

MaconDawg said...

Agreed Groo. I was saying on Dawg Sports just yesterday that Maryland, Boston College and Virginia would give us nice winnable games against respectable opponents in markets where we're trying to improve our recruiting (D.C., the Virginia tidewater,etc.). Plus we owe BC one as well.

PWD, thanks for the list. Lots to ponder . . .

Anonymous said...

How about one neutral site game against a HUGE opponent? Forget this Maryland, Uva, "winnable game against a mid-level BCS team" garbage...we already play 2 middling teams this year (GT and Okla State).

For a program as good as we currently are, we shouldn't be looking for "winnable" games. It should be anyone, anywhere, anytime. Let's not be Auburn. The culture of being scared has got to stop.

Dante said...

Has there ever been a bad Texas vs. UGA game (granted, there have only been 2 or 3 that I can recall)? Win or lose, that should be some quality football just about any year. If we are going to pick a middle team from the likely list, I'd take Texas Tech just because I like watching SEC defenses shut down teams that think they are offensive powerhouses. Please don't let it be Wisconsin or Virginia. The odds of playing a Big 10 or ACC team are high enough in the bowl season as it is.

I'd also like to see us play Notre Dame but their recent canceling of Michigan leads me to believe that they're not interested in playing good opponents if they can help it. They'd rather get hyped up to a bowl game they have no business and get blown out (again). Why play Georgia when you can play McHale's Navy, the Coast Guard, and the local Ski School and still get ranked just as high?

Paul Westerdawg said...

dante - ND and UM just renewed for 20+ years. They'll play til 2031. They also signed a deal with OU.

But I'd love to play them.

Dante said...

Excellent. Last I heard, they wanted to worm their way out of that one.

Anonymous said...

dante. there are alot of schools that duck tough opponents. Notre Dame is not one of them. Yeah they play army navy and air force, but EVERY team in the league plays at least 2-3 cupcakes a year. Why rip on them for playing the armed services when half the SEC schedules d2 schools, and directional La. Your right they are over hyped and out of their league in bowl games. But i have no problems with their scheduling. Look at this year. There first 8 games are tough.

Dante said...

"but EVERY team in the league plays at least 2-3 cupcakes a year."

And I give ever single one of them heck for it, even Georgia. Notre Dame has complete and total control over who they play. Not only are they not in a conference, but their fan base is large enough and spread out enough that no school would be so foolish as to turn down an invitation to play them. They could easily pull off playing 12 real teams every single season yet they still fall to the same cupcakeitis that's rampant in all of college football today.

Dante said...

I'd still love to play them.

Anonymous said...

I'd love to see a re-match with Pitt and beat the absolute sh*t out of them. Payback for 1976 and 1981 baby.

Same goes for Penn State. Bastards.

Hobnail_Boot said...

Bring on the Buckeyes.

That is all.

JasonC said...

I tend to agree with Macondawg and groo, BC and Md aren't cupcakes and I think we owe UVa from the mid-90s.
On Kyle's site, I voted for UNC, a winnable game and a team that is likely on the rise. Like PWD stated, teams that are good/bad now, may be a different team in 4-5 years. However, I like good games that we should win.

Anonymous said...

Can't we make a deal with UNC that gets us both basketball and football games?

 
Copyright 2009 Georgia Sports Blog. Powered by Blogger Blogger Templates create by Deluxe Templates. WP by Masterplan