First, third-stringer Ashton Glaser was arrested back in March for failure to appear, and he got a punch in the face for his trouble. No suspension has been issued yet, but we’d be surprised if the hammer came down for some unpaid traffic tickets.

Soon after Glaser was arrested, the program announced that starter James Franklin would miss the rest of spring and much of the summer after undergoing surgery on his right (throwing) shoulder. The Tigers don’t expect that Franklin will miss any games in 2012, but any change to the recovery timetable could affect his readiness for the first game, if not the Georgia game.

And today we learn that backup quarterback Corbin Berkstresser was arrested on charges of leaving the scene of an accident. As the Kansas City Star reports, “Berkstresser, a redshirt freshman, spent most of the spring as the team’s No. 1 quarterback” in relief of the injured Franklin. No disciplinary actions have been announced yet.

We’re looking forward to a game in which one team has no defensive backs and the other has no quarterbacks.

Johnson is joined by former University of Alabama assistant Robert Mosley. Mosley has only been a college assistant for two seasons, but he built one of Alabama’s most successful high school programs with four state titles in seven seasons.

The Lady Dogs’ staff took a hit during the offseason with the departure of Cameron Newbauer (Louisville) and Travis Mays (Texas). The hires announced this week do a lot to fill those voids and bring new strengths and experience to the Georgia bench. They should be well-received by Georgia fans, and they’re right in line with what Georgia needs to capitalize on a strong and veteran roster in the upcoming season.

Robinson has started a blog to chronicle the experience. It should be an entertaining journal – give it a follow.

There seem to be two diverging vectors. You have the additional money pouring into a sport that’s as popular as ever, and that money gets turned into bigger and better facilities. On the other hand, attendence nationwide is stagnant at best. Games are ubiquitous on television, and that generates much of the massive windfalls associated with the sport, but that same widepsread coverage provides a pretty powerful incentive to stay at home – especially when it’s not a hyped game. Add crystal-clear HDTV, climate control, restrooms, a grill, a stocked fridge, and a few friends, and watching the game in Media Room Stadium can be very appealing. Attendence, especially at a major program, can’t be described as anything but a hassle. Climbing ticket prices, donation requirements, parking fees, and traffic all combine to make it an expensive and trying hobby. Even the experience of tailgating comes with a price tag at some schools (and soon ours?)

So why do we go? There’s still nothing like being there. You’re willing to put up with a lot for that moment when the team runs on the field or to be a part of the explosion of noise when Rambo turned Sanford upside down against Auburn last year. You’re less likely to put up with it for an early kickoff against Buffalo.

I don’t really think kickoff time matters. A weak schedule isn’t going to generate much more excitement at 1:00 than it is 7:00. Fans who struggle to arrive at such games on time will be the first ones to get on the road for a night game when the Dawgs have a 30-point halftime lead. And, as much as we put this on Adams and anti-tailgate people, I don’t really blame the school. Georgia’s campus has seen a construction boom (with more to come), and that means fewer places to park people for one of the nation’s largest stadiums. There aren’t many good solutions, and some of the better ones might involve a fee.

Maybe Ole Miss and other SEC schools putting money into bigger stadiums haven’t hit this critical mass yet. Alabama’s unprecedented demand seems like it could go on forever, but all it takes is the wrong coach to turn the expanded Bryant-Denny into what’s happening at Neyland.

That’s right – it’s a guy who couldn’t break through the muddled LSU quarterback picture last year and finished the season with 92 yards passing against Northwestern State. He now rates as a first or second round prospect according to CBS.

I understand all the usual caveats. It’s based on potential and not production. Potential has been the watchword with Mettenberger since high school. He has the stature and the arm that scouts drool over. The production has yet to catch up. Oconee transitioned from an option offense to feature Mettenberger, but he only put up 29 touchdowns over his two seasons as starter. (By contrast, Murray, LeMay, and Mason all had at least 28 touchdown passes as high school juniors alone.) He failed to make a splash last season, but, OK, we’ll grant that Lee and Jefferson were pretty entrenched (but not good enough to hold off a worthy challenge).

He’ll get another chance this year with LSU to show why he remains a favorite of those who stress measurables. His 2012 spring scrimmage was a mixed bag, but Mettenberger did show the ability to bring a vertical passing game to the LSU offense. If he does have the kind of a year that makes him a legitimate first or second round pick next April, the Tigers should have a much smoother experience with their quarterback this year. It will take a heck of a transformation though.

The “anybody else” that South Carolina didn’t have is now the starting quarterback for a team with top 20 and perhaps even SEC East title hopes and expectations. Connor Shaw did well last year once Spurrier finally parted ways with Garcia. South Carolina lost only once, at Arkansas, after Shaw took over. He performed especially well in the Gamecocks’ final two games against good Clemson and Nebraska teams – 5 passing TDs, 2 rushing TDs, and zero interceptions.

Still, this is a guy who spent the first half of last seasons with as many DNPs as he had appearences. Now he enters his first season as the established starter. Of course it’s not unheard of for seldom-used reserves to become effective starters when given an opportunity. Shaw’s chances for success will be bolstered by a stout defense and one of the nation’s best tailbacks. Is the comfort level with Shaw at South Carolina more or less settled science after the way he finished 2011, or does he still have something to prove?

A college president’s outlook on college athletics is, in the grand scheme of things, pretty far down the list of priorities when you’re looking to fill the office. Still, Georgia’s next president will share governance of the nation’s most powerful conference with just thirteen peers, and his or her influence could reasonably be expected to be greater than a 1/14th share. Michael Adams used his time as chairman of the NCAA executive committee to beat the drum for changes to the college football postseason over four years ago. His ideas were panned as sour grapes following the 2007 season, but, well, here we are.

Adams, for better or worse, has been very involved in Georgia’s athletics during his 16 years. That involvement has included everything from policy and personnel decisions to putting his tail in a seat and being as much of a fan as any of us. As enrollment and stadium capactity has grown, Adams has also had to be active in areas where the interests of the University collide with the fan experience. Adams has been especially visible in combating Georgia’s party school reputation both on campus and on game day. Those clashes have made Adams a very polarizing figure, and that’s even before we look at the purely academic side of things (which we won’t).

I know there are those doing cartwheels over the announcement this morning, but this is very much a wait-and-see moment. The process to select a replacement will be, as always, as much a political one as anything. The focus will be on the governor and the Board of Regents, and if you trust those parties to approach this decision without considering their own interests, you also likely think that a college football playoff is all about the fans. A polarizing president is one thing, but behind-the-scenes power plays by relatively anonymous and unaccountable regents isn’t a better condition.

I’m not sure a lot of people know what they want the next president to be – other than “not Adams.” At this level of academic leadership, there’s a rather narrow spectrum of possibilities. Certain personalities stand out – think Gee or Machen – but it’s rarely for the better. “Ego” comes with the job. Shrinking violets don’t rise through the ranks to become department chairs and deans and seek out the leadership of a major research university. The next president will have to be a political animal. With budgets constantly under scrutiny and many constituencies inside and outside of campus, he or she has to be ambitious, savvy, and – at times – ruthless.

Maybe folks just want someone who will leave the football program alone, but we know how unrealistic that is considering how many points of contact there are between the highly-visible program and the University. The president will speak for Georgia’s interests in the SEC and the NCAA. The policies he or she supports and implements will affect the student-athlete experience and the future of coaches like Mark Richt. Adams was outspoken and controversial at times, but his departure leaves a very large vacuum. It’s not a given that this vacuum will be filled by some ideal benevolent football-friendly president who instructs the campus police to chauffeur football players home from downtown and who lets you park an RV on the North Campus quad on Wednesday afternoon.

I expected that might be a point of contention, but I didn’t expect it to be a show-stopper. That’s the way it’s looking, though. The Chicago Tribune explains why the idea of hosting games on-campus might be “on life support.”

Jason Kirk at SBNation explains why one of the bigger concerns is misplaced. The schools most likely to host these games have capacity far beyond most bowl and NFL stadiums. If money is at the heart of the discussion (of course it is), you’re looking at another 10-20,000 tickets to be sold.

Most fans love going to bowl games, but attendence and lack of sellouts at even the BCS bowls indicate that they’d probably much rather stay home and sell out the local stadium if it gives their team an advantage in advancing. And far be it from me to wax poetic in this context, but wouldn’t the scene of Oregon hosting a major playoff game in its smaller stadium be a great and memorable moment for college football?

One thing that’s caught my attention in this discussion is the claim that “the conference commissioners…are eager to take back New Year’s Day.” We know why the bowls have drifted away from New Year’s: with so much money being paid out, the sponsors and networks want their own prime time slot without competition from other bowls. So we get the Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl with their own nights on television but unable to break 70,000 tickets sold as fans choose to stay home after the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. If the commissioners are able to consolidate the semifinals on New Year’s, the other traditional New Year’s Day bowls will either have to move their own dates or risk being drown out by hours of analysis and pomp for the big games.

I appreciate the credit given to some of Georgia’s scheduling initiatives, but the departure of Damon Evans might have signaled the end of a more aggressive scheduling approach. (Not that I disagree.) Georgia would prefer seven home games much more often than not, and Mark Richt was not thrilled by some of those treks across the Mississippi.

Year2 touches on the bottom line: Florida has used this scheduling philosophy en route to building some of the nation’s most successful and profitable football and athletics programs of the past two decades. If that’s not the purpose of a schedule, what is? There isn’t, as we heard our former director say of Georgia, a “branding” issue as the result of a hyper-regional football schedule; football and basketball national titles along with some dynamic players and coaches have more than taken care of that. A different approach to scheduling at Florida would be a fix for a problem that doesn’t exist.

As Seth Emerson reports,

Pinkel said the excitement about joining the SEC and the league opener against Georgia was “mammoth,” and people were already talking about it in Missouri. Which is rare, he added.

If you’re wondering why Parker would choose a school on the opposite coast, even one with the tradition of UCLA, the answer more or less comes down to one man: Bruin assistant Korey McCray. McCray was previously involved with the Atlanta Celtics AAU program before UCLA hired him a year ago, and he leveraged that relationship to land not only Parker but fellow Georgia prospect Jordan Adams. As UCLA coach Ben Howland admitted, “Were (McCray) not on staff we wouldn’t have gotten either one of those kids.”

That’s not to imply any wrongdoing or dirty recruiting. It’s simply a logical outcome from a strong pre-existing relationship with a youth coach. Georgia got on well with Parker’s family, and Parker made several trips to Athens. There was a good relationship there, and the Bulldogs were a serious contender for one of the spring’s top unsigned prospects.

Unfortunately for Georgia, coming in a close second doesn’t get you any more than the schools that were dropped months ago. Georgia is left with a nice recruiting class, but that class is still heavy on backcourt players. That’s good since Georgia will be replacing senior guards Ware and Robinson, but it also means that the team missed out on a chance for a big impact on the frontcourt. Without any surprise late signings, Georgia’s frontcourt will look much as it did this past year. They’ll have the improvement from an offseason of work, sure, but the personnel will largely be the same.

UCLA will be an interesting team to watch next season. They’ll have to meld a strong incoming class with an unusual mix of returning players that will include three disgruntled former North Carolina players. Coach Ben Howland is under scrutiny not only for a string of poor seasons but also a culture that took a pretty strong hit in a Sports Illustrated piece earlier this year. Howland and his staff have responded with a great effort in recruiting, but they’ll have immediate expectations to turn this talent into the wins and titles that have eluded the program since last decade’s Final Four trips.

If you have an hour, you can watch the farce that was Parker’s announcement ceremony. The school has a link to the video up here, or you can wait until the commemorative 6-DVD set comes out in time for Christmas.

What a brilliant Saturday afternoon to be in Athens. The campus can shine in its autumn colors or even a blanket of snow, a spring afternoon like Saturday is about as good as it gets in the Classic City. The track athletes we saw from as far away as Minnesota had to

Things did get off to a disappointing start. Those hoping to see a little tennis were met with the unusual news that a lack of healthy players forced Tennessee to forfeit. The Diamond Dawgs squandered an early bases-loaded situation with three consecutive strikeouts, and things only got worse at Foley Field.

After an unproductive fourth inning at Foley, a mass exodus carried fans north to Sanford Stadium just in time for the start of G-Day. The crowd was as impressive as you’d hope for on such a perfect day with much of the South stands full, a solid group on the North side, and even some sections occupied in the endzones.

On to the bullets…

• The game started slowly as the defenses set the tone, but it turned into one of the more entertaining spring games in recent memory. When you fake an extra point against no defense or have Michael Bennett attempt a pass off of a reverse, you know that things loosened up after a more business-like first quarter. The back-and-forth final ten minutes of the game were worth hanging around for. We were hoping Rome would dunk over the crossbar.
• Tight end should be relatively far down on the list of concerns. Replacing White and Charles is a big job, but Rome and Lynch both looked up to the task. Neither will be the smooth hybrid receiver that Charles was, but if you think in terms of the role of a typical tight end, Georgia has two good ones.
• Unfortunately we didn’t get to see much in another area of concern. Georgia will be replacing both its placekicker and punter, and the format of G-Day doesn’t lend itself to much evaluation of special teams. Actually, the placekicking wasn’t all that bad. I don’t recall a missed kick, and a few were from over 40 yards out. Punting was rough, and it’s safe to say that the job is Collin Barber’s to lose when he arrives on campus.
• The format also put the brakes on what otherwise would have been a dominant showing by the starting front seven on defense. No one was looking to fly full-speed into a quarterback, but the pressure was there a lot more often than it wasn’t. Washington’s midseason contributions last year keep us from calling this a breakout season for him, but offenses will have a lot to think about when they see #29 and #83 on the field at the same time – if they can handle the guys up front first.
• You look at John Jenkins and Abry Jones and you understand why there was some worry they’d they’d be preparing for an NFL minicamp this spring. Georgia’s starting defensive line should have a fun year. It also looks as if Ray Drew has found a home with his hand on the ground. Drew might have outgrown the OLB position, but his speed from the defensive end spot caused some problems. If the secondary is a concern, if only because of depth, a strong line can make things easier.
• In the running game you saw a very solid group of returning players but also why it would have been nice to get a look at Marshall. Crowell looked comfortable and confident – a big deal after spending the last half of 2011 unable to trust his legs. As good as Crowell ran the ball, his protection stood out as well. On one first half drive that resulted in a score, Crowell picked up the pass rush on three straight plays. Malcome also looked to benefit from a year’s experience and maturity. Neither broke especially long runs, and that’s hopefully where someone like Marshall can come in. Credit the defense though for preventing the big gains on the ground.
• Richard Samuel had fans searching their programs in the second half when he put on the #19 jersey and moved from fullback to tailback. He ran with the same straight-ahead style we’ve come to expect from him, and he was delivering some punishment. I do think Samuel will find more playing time at fullback though Ogletree can’t be forgotten. Samuel does give the team one of its best running options at fullback in a long time, and a quick punch from the fullback doesn’t only have to be a short-yardage play – see Ogletree’s long gain at Tech last year.
• We saw why Hutson Mason can afford a redshirt season. That’s no knock on Mason who had a very solid game (9-12, 133 yards, 1 TD) playing for both sides. LeMay looked like a capable backup to Murray, showing nice touch and running ability. As with most freshmen, LeMay will have to work on his feel for the game – when to get rid of the ball, when to protect the ball and take a sack, and how to secure the ball when he tucks and runs. For that reason I think the redshirt might come off of Mason if something long-term kept Murray out, but LeMay will be just fine in a short-term #2 role.
• As expected, the offensive line was a mixed bag. Holes were there for some nice runs, and at times the defensive pressure was overwhelming.
• Receivers likewise had a lukewarm day. There were a few nice catches – King’s score was impressive, and Wooten adjusted well to snag an early floater from LeMay. Justin Scott-Wesley made his case for some playing time, and there was an instant where his track speed threatened to show itself. Brown probably hoped for a better day aside from one devastating block, and his production didn’t do much for the breakout season talk. Whether it was the personnel or the playcalling or the effect of the defense, neither offense looked downfield much at all. Branden Smith got in a couple of times on offense, but there wasn’t much to talk about: he was a decoy on a pass play, and a play that looked like an option with he and LeMay was botched.
• Finally, it was a well-received and smart gesture to make a legend like Charley Trippi a central part of the weekend. The ovation recognizing him before the second quarter was one of the game’s loudest moments.

MORE: G-Day 2012 Stats

The answer goes back to early 2006, and it has to do with what was going on around the UGA campus. University President Michael Adams, as early as his 2005 State of the Univeristy address, showed concern over the school’s reputation as a party school and its impact on “academic rigor.” Two high-profile events within the next year helped to turn that concern into momentum for campus-wide action: 1) the drug and alcohol-related death of student Lewis Fish and 2) the trashing of campus following the 2005 Auburn game.

By that point, the issue had moved from airy speeches to the editorial pages. The reaction was swift. New policies were put in place across campus that affected everyone from the underage freshman to the football tailgater. The actions and policies ranged from the prudent to the puzzling to the reactionary. See if any of these ring a bell:

• University police began arresting students for underage possession rather than citing them.
• Georgia announced new tailgating restrictions for the 2006 season including some controversial “family-friendly” tailgating zones.
• President Adams and Florida’s Bernie Machen launched a campaign against the “World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party” moniker for the football game in Jacksonville.
• Georgia introduced “a comprehensive set of new penalties for students who violate UGA’s drug and alcohol policy” which included everything from a parental notification to automatic suspension from the University.

It’s no coincidence that policies meant to take aim at student drinking and drug use were accompanied by changes to the football game day experience. There is perhaps no more visible symbol of Georgia’s “party school” reputation than a football weekend – especially the football weekend in Jacksonville. The tug-of-war between the football fan and the University continues today with tweaks taking place on almost an annual basis.

In such a climate, it’s easy to see how the athletic department’s internal policies came under review. With the University cracking down on the general student population and teaming up with the Athletic Assosciation to clean up tailgating, Georgia’s guidelines for acceptable student-athlete behavior had to face scrutiny.

So in July of 2006, we ended up with this. It’s the current athletic department policy for Georgia student-athletes. It’s not a football-only policy, and, while Damon Evans and other athletics administrators might have had input, it is very much in the spirit of the more general campus-wide policies put into place around the same time.

Elkon asks “whether the current stance taken by the Georgia athletic department is the result of media attention paid to off-field issues.” The answer is, indirectly, “yes.” It’s no defense of the policy, but its existence and content makes more sense when you understand that it was much more the fruit of a top-down initiative from the University than it was any kind of organic pet project of Mark Richt or his direct higher-ups. In fact, some of the first student-athletes facing serious discipline for drug or alcohol-related incidents ran afoul not of any football team policy but mandatory University policies (see: Akeem Hebron).

With the origins of the policy understood, the next question is what can or should be done about Georgia’s very real disadvantage relative to its competition.

Should anything be done? Georgia has certainly left itself little wiggle room with its policy, but as Elkon concedes there are several areas where schools chart a course that might be considered detrimental in the context of building a competitive football program – oversigning and academics are two good examples.

It’s difficult to guess how a walk-back of the policy would be taken. Critics would certainly pounce on the timing – do you have standards only until the point that they begin to adversely affect the football program? We’re also talking about sanctioning drug use. That might not seem like such a big deal to many people, and it’s a reality of life on campus, but it’s possibly unacceptable to others who face zero-tolerance policies in their own daily lives.

It’s also not a sure thing that the University would sign off on just any revision. The motivations for a crackdown present in 2006 are for the most part still a fact of life in Athens, and the administration would certainly be aware of the mixed message it would be sending to the rest of the University community by allowing the athletic department to soften its policies without cause.

That’s not to say that the current policy is set in stone. The UGA policy itself has been modified since 2006. In 2010, the policy was amended to remove an automatic suspension after a second drug or alcohol-related arrest. That didn’t mean that the second arrest carried no consequences; it just “was designed to differentiate between a student caught with a beer in a dorm refrigerator and a DUI-related offense,” as the administration explained. The current campus-wide policy was revised in October of 2011.

Should this be an area where the SEC steps in and normalizes policies across the league? I’m not so sure. It would certainly give schools like Georgia an out by removing any competitive disadvantage, though I don’t see why schools wouldn’t be able to put in place policies that go beyond a minimum standard. I also don’t know if it’s a good idea for schools to cede more authority to the conference instead of making – and living with – their own policies that reflect their own priorities and standards.