If you didn’t already know that Georgia had one of the SEC’s tougher drug and alcohol policies, the past week or so should have taken care of that. To a lot of people, Georgia’s position on testing probably seems to be, as Michael Elkon put it, “unilateral disarmament.” He’s left scratching his head and wondering why Georgia (or any program) would willfully do this to themselves.

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.

The first week of July is often a tense time for a subset of Georgia football fans looking to purchase season parking in one of the campus parking decks. Between nonresponsive websites, the mad rush of a first-come, first-served system, and speculators grabbing up as many permits as they can, it’s been an easy system to criticize.

Parking Services sent around an e-mail this morning describing this year’s new lottery system to those who have purchased parking in the past. I’ve reprinted the bulk of that e-mail below. The good news is that the new system takes care of some of the more critical issues that plagued the old system.

First, the announcement (emphasis mine). Some comments follow.

For the 2012 football season, parking passes will be sold through UGA Parking Services by lottery. All customers will need to register (late May) on our new registration web site, which we will launch in a few weeks. All customers will have until June 22 at 5 PM to register for the lottery. There is no advantage to registering early as the date you register will have no impact on your chances for selection in the lottery. This year, the North Deck, South Deck, Carlton St Deck, and Performing Arts Center Deck will have season parking passes available for $140 ($20 per game) plus shipping and handling. Orders will be restricted to 1 permit per customer.

Parking Services will award the option to purchase a season parking pass at random based on customer deck choices and space availability. Contributors to the 2012 William C. Hartman Jr. Fund will have priority within the lottery. A contributor’s annual gift or cumulative priority points will not be considered within the lottery as all Hartman Fund contributors will have equal chance of selection. Contributors to the Hartman Fund must provide their UGA Athletic Association account number when registering for 2012 football season parking. Account numbers may be found by logging on to your online account on www.georgiadogs.com.

Customers who are awarded an assignment (early July) in the lottery will then be notified and be able to purchase their parking pass online. Purchases will need to be made prior to the July 16 deadline. After July 16, any remaining permit inventory will be made available for sale on a first-come-first-served basis.

Now a few thoughts…

• Kudos to the University for addressing the biggest problem: any person could snatch up an almost unlimited number of permits. Often these surplus permits found their way to the secondary market. Now at least permits will be offered first to Hartman Fund donors, and quantities will be limited to one per donor.
• They could have restricted the applicant pool even further. Hartman Fund donors over a certain donation level already qualify for parking controlled by the Athletic Association as part of their donation. According to the guidelines in the announcement, they would be able to enter the lottery to obtain a permit for friends or resale. They should be excluded or at least given lower priority than those who don’t meet the threshold for other permitted parking options.
• I’m still a bit nervous about the lottery aspect. The problem with the system wasn’t necessarily the first-come, first-served part of it. Bigger problems were 1) technology limitations unable to handle the instant rush of applications on Permit Day and 2) the aforementioned opening of the system to anyone at all who could then buy any number of permits.
• Note that the Hull Street lot won’t even be an option anymore. I expect that will be completely controlled by the Athletic Association.

We’ll still have to see the mechanics of the lottery in operation, but it does seem like a better system on the whole. Yes, I’ll still grumble if I don’t get a permit in the deck of my choice.

By now most know that two more defensive starters are facing multiple-game suspensions for failed drug tests. Rather than rehash (npi) the details, a few random thoughts:

The story is a bit unique in that the news wasn’t broken by an announcement from the program. Of course news sites break stories all the time before there’s confirmation, but there’s usually something concrete like a police report on which to base the story. This is a purely internal issue that was brought to light before the program had anything to say about it.

I don’t mean to say that Georgia was caught unprepared, but it’s clear that they weren’t ready to comment on the situation yet. That might tell us that the story was broken during a process that’s not yet complete. It’s worth remembering that no suspensions have been announced by the program yet. It’s also worth remembering that the news report everyone is referencing might also not be comprehensive.

Along those lines, we’re learning additional details – at least from Rambo’s side. (If Rambo’s accounts of both of his infractions are accurate, that has to be some of the worst luck I’ve ever heard.) If all that has him facing a four-game suspension, I wouldn’t blame him for at least considering the NFL Supplemental Draft. He did consider leaving after his junior year, but there were very specific reasons and goals for which he came back.

Rambo was humble and contrite after his one-game suspension a year ago.

“I broke a team rule,” he said. “It was a selfish mistake. I will not allow it to happen anymore. It was a big mistake that I did. It messed up the team goal by me sitting out that one game. I’m not saying we could have won, but I know I could have helped the team out as much as I can and the results of the game could have been different.”

That doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have a moment of weakness on Spring Break or behave like many other college students at any given moment, but that’s also the sign of a guy who understands what’s at stake.

Yes, there’s the usual hand-wringing about the discipline on the Georgia team, and that’s been the case just about every year since “Ring-gate” and the suspensions of a number of players leading up to the 2003 season. If this annual ritual is a sign of a program out of control or if “fire the coach” or “kick them off the team” is your first response, it might be time to follow another sport.

Yes, Georgia plays by different rules than most everyone else in the SEC. That’s comforting, but it’s irrelevant. There’s no lack of education or any misunderstanding within the program as to Georgia’s policies on these things. Work towards unification of the rules if you like – I’d be all for it – but don’t let that be an excuse for failure to comply with the policies in place now.

Granting for a moment the worst case and the absense of these starters from the SEC opener, it is significant. Georgia’s thin secondary could be down at least two, if not three, starters for the game at Missouri against an offense that can be explosive. There is at least the depth at ILB to deal with Ogletree’s absence, though of course the team is better with him in there.

A silver lining? Since no one was arrested, there at least won’t be any Fulmer Cup points from all of this.

We’ll continue the playoff theme for another post. Graham Watson at Dr. Saturday asks if conference commissioners are on the right track with postseason reform. Whether we need to change the postseason at all has been beaten around enough, but we can focus in on a few key questions.

Would we play some games on campus or all games on neutral sites?
If some games are on campus, is that too much of a competitive advantage?

An advantage? Yes, and that’s a good thing. Too much? No. With a schedule of only 12 games, we can still salvage a very large role for the regular season. Complete a successful regular season, and you host. Stumble a time or two, and you’re off to Tuscaloosa for the opening round. There should be consequences – both positive and negative – to performance during the regular season, and earning the right to host should be one of them. 1-AA gets this correct.

I’m also sympathetic to the complaints of northern and midwestern schools. These neutral sites, especially if they involve the bowl and BCS sites, would tilt heavily in favor of southern schools. If you’re a Big 10 team that’s earned a top seed (work with me here), you shouldn’t be sent to New Orleans to face an at-large SEC school. Make the lower seed play a December game above 40 degrees latitude.

If all games are at neutral sites, would fans be able to travel to two games in a row?

Some would, most wouldn’t. But these things aren’t done for the fans, right? Just look at the first few rounds of the NCAA basketball tournament. Great TV, but unless you have UNC playing in Greensboro, crowds are sparse. Smaller schools would struggle to bring numbers in most any situation, and fans of schools with the top seeds would likely budget for the subsequent rounds. It’s not just fans – the logistics of moving an 85-person team, the support staff, and things like marching bands also need to be considered. Play the first rounds on campus, and those logistical issues and expenses are halved.

Apart from the fans, we have to think about another big logistical concern to hosting games on campus. Turning around a basketball arena is one thing. Finding out you’re going to host a national college football playoff game a week from now would be a huge project to undertake. Would schools handle tickets and parking? When a campus hosts an NCAA Tournament game, the arena is more or less taken over by the NCAA – forget your season ticket seat, your parking pass, the look of the court, and many of the comforts of home. Everything is done from a blank slate. Would a football playoff game work the same way? A lot of advance work would have to be done by athletic departments for games they might not even host.

How would teams be selected? By a committee, by the current ranking formula, or by a different formula?

I’d prefer a committee. I think the basketball tournament took a large step this year with a more transparent selection process. Though the process remains an obscure stew of criteria, they emerged with a top-to-bottom ranking and were forced to answer some pointed questions about their reasoning. It wasn’t necessarily mistake-free, but it’s still a more transparent process by a group that should follow the sport much more closely than your average pollster or coach.

When exactly would games be scheduled, considering finals, holidays and our desire to avoid mid-January games?

It seems trite to say “every other fall sport manages,” but…yeah. And what’s wrong with mid-January games? We’ve blown through the January 1st barrier like Chuck Yeager. If we’re playing in Mobile a week after New Year’s, I think we’re well past the point of having a sacred end of the season. But this seems like a question more suited for a 16/24/32-team playoff. Scheduling won’t be an issue with most of the +1/4/8-team proposals being kicked around.

On polls starting in October…

Watson seems to prefer that the polls decide the playoff participants with the demand that the relevant polls “start in October to give all teams a fair shake at those top spots.” We’ve explained before why preseason polls aren’t going anywhere. So long as there’s Phil Steele and a hundred other blogs and publications feeding a fan’s desire to talk about the next season as soon as the previous one ends, whether there’s an official poll before October is moot. The narrative will have already been set, there will already have been a pecking order and favorites established, and a poll that starts nominally in October can’t help but be influenced by all of the conversation that’s happened to that point.

In 1974, Maryland and N.C. State played an epic basketball game in the ACC Tournament final. State was ranked #1; Maryland was #5. The game lived up to its billing – the Wolfpack narrowly won 103-100 in overtime. It remains the standard for ACC hoops, and it’s tough to beat in a discussion of the greatest college basketball games.

Few games in any sport can be credited with causing a specific change that will affect the course of the sport. The 2009 NFC Championship Game led the NFL to reconsider its overtime format. Another ACC Championship game in 1982 is often pointed to as the impetus for a shot clock in the college game. That 1974 N.C. State – Maryland game is generally considered the final straw that brought about a decision that would change the nature of the NCAA Tournament and the college basketball postseason.

Prior to 1974, college basketball’s NCAA Tournament was an exclusive affair limited to only conference champions. It’s hard to think of the NCAA Tournament as anything but the monolithic end-all of college hoops, but it wasn’t always so. The NIT, today’s parting gift for bubble teams, was actually a viable competitor to the NCAA Tournament back in the day. You can see why: a tournament that only included conference champions excluded some pretty good teams. (If you look at this season’s Final Four, only two of the four won their conference tournaments.) As recently as 1974, teams that finished ranked among the top 10 were part of the NIT field.

Though other great teams (including #2 Southern Cal in 1971) had been excluded from the NCAA Tournament in the past, college hoops lived with this arrangement as a fact of life. The loss by Maryland was the tipping point that forced the guardians of the sport to question whether it was just that a top 5 team, far better than most conference champs, would be excluded from the national championship process because they lost in overtime to the #1 team. The NCAA Tournament was expanded to 32 teams in 1975, and the era of the at-large bid began.

College football is now working through some of the same questions college basketball faced nearly 40 years ago. As football begins to consider a fundamental change to its postseason, the areas of contention are familiar to anyone who has followed the BCS/playoff discussion. How many teams? On campus or neutral sites? Should participation require a conference championship?

Just because this is well-worn ground doesn’t mean that it’s not worth having these discussions again. Did basketball get it right when it reacted to the 1974 ACC Championship with a larger national bracket? It did start the NCAA Tournament down the path of becoming one of the nation’s most popular sporting events. Teams across the nation have something to play for towards the end of the year even if they’re not the cream of their conference. Allowing at-large teams gave greater meaning to the regular season rather than have a single weekend of conference tournaments determine the participants of the national tournament.

There are downsides to the direction college basketball has taken. Critics claim that the magnitude of the NCAA Tournament has distilled the season down to a few weeks.* We’ve just about neutered the major conference tournament. These tournaments made waves that would change the game in the ’70s and ’80s. Now coaches of national contenders wonder what the point of a conference tournament is. The decision to expand the tournament also opened the door to bracket creep. The size of the field has been increased eight times since 1975. There is support from some of the game’s more respected figures to go even further to 96 teams and beyond – teams much more interested in a participation trophy than a realistic shot at a national title.

Turning back to the issue of at-large teams in a football playoff (of any size), it seems like only a matter of time. If the BCS Championship is, in practice, a playoff of two, we’ve already answered the at-large question this past January. Whether Alabama’s loss to LSU in November has the same lasting impact on its sport that the 1974 ACC final had will be evident in the playoff format that eventually emerges. Regardless, it’s tough to find a playoff that hasn’t eventually faced and answered this question with a larger field and the inclusion of at-large teams. College football, with the Alabama-LSU example fresh in its collective consciousness, should go ahead and allow for at-large teams from the outset no matter the format.

* The point that the NCAA Tournament frenzy makes the first 3+ months of the hoops season meaningless less-interesting is repeated often enough that even playoff proponents don’t bother quibbling with it anymore. I wonder though how much it has to do with the general popularity of the sport and the sheer length of the regular season. The NBA regular season is a numbing 82-game trudge towards the playoffs. The NFL season is much more compelling on a week-to-week basis. Given a relatively scarce inventory of 11 or 12 regular season games in college football, each week still has weight.

One of Georgia’s favorite sons has played his last professional football game. I don’t have much to say about Hines Ward the professional. Sure, I watched the Super Bowls. But I’m not surprised at the pro he became. What he was in Pittsburgh he was at Georgia. He was a fan favorite in Athens and would have been wherever he played at the next level. Ward will always be associated with the Falcons’ decision to draft Jammi German, but I’m glad that Ward was able to play someplace where he could realize the individual and team accomplishments that he deserved but never got in college.

Hines Ward of course became one of the most celebrated and beloved Bulldogs by the time he finished his four years in Athens. There are many reasons for that status. Simple production was good enough for most; he was a great player and athlete. Versatility was another. We can point to memorable games in which he featured as a tailback, a quarterback, and certainly as a receiver. Put it all together with the trademark smile, and it was impossible to dislike him.

The death spiral of the 1995 season was tough on a lot of people, especially those on whom it took a physical toll, but it put Ward in one of the least enviable positions you could imagine. The season was in enough trouble with the injury to Robert Edwards. It got worse when Mike Bobo’s broken leg led to a loss at Ole Miss.

Ward had started 1995 at receiver due to the emergence of Robert Edwards. When Edwards was injured, Ward moved back to tailback. Bobo’s injury meant another position change. Georgia’s next opponent after Ole Miss was Alabama. The Tide had dropped a little from their 1992 national championship level, but they were still ranked and featured one of the best defensive lines in the nation. Ward was given less than a week to prepare for his first career start under center, and he never had a chance. He was pulled from the game, and a lot of us considered that experiment done and over with.

Georgia found a way to squeeze out ugly low-scoring wins against Clemson, Vanderbilt, and Kentucky, but Ward was once again put in a tough spot when championship game-bound Florida came to Athens. Though the Dawgs had no prayer against the Florida offense, Ward showed some signs of life with 226 yards passing and another 65 more on the ground while running for his life.

By the end of the 1995 season Ward led the Dawgs to a comeback win over Georgia Tech, and that was enough to get Georgia into the Peach Bowl. Most of us know what happened there.

In 1996, Ward was able to move on a more permanent basis to receiver. I wish there were video of the flip he did to secure the win over Texas Tech. By 1997 he was no longer an athlete in search of a position; he was a receiver known for this:

Typical of his versatility was the win over Florida in 1997 when Ward had seven receptions for 85 yards, ran five times for 21 yards, completed two passes for 27 yards and returned two kickoffs for 70 yards.

That didn’t even mention the block to spring Edwards. Robert Edwards’ touchdown to break open the 1997 Florida game was possible because Ward had sealed off the lane down the sideline. Ward’s blocking and love for contact is the stuff of hyperbole, but he brought the same approach and fearlessness running, throwing, and as a receiver.

Though he spent all that time running or throwing the ball over his first two seasons, he still left Georgia sixth in career receptions. There was no doubt that he was a receiver, and that’s where he would make his mark at the next level. He’ll be remembered here as one of Georgia’s greatest all-around offensive skill players, and I wish the staff could have done more to get him to 1,000 career passing yards. His professional success gives him the freedom to do anything he wishes with the rest of his life, but I hope he and the University find some way for him to have as much of a presence around the Georgia program as he wants.

The season came to a crashing halt for the Lady Dogs on Sunday with a 76-70 loss to Marist in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. Georgia entered the tournament as a 4-seed, its highest seed in five seasons. Marist, though a 13-seed, were tournament veterans and had won 20 of 21 games before facing Georgia. The Red Foxes weren’t intimidated by the setting or the opponent, and their confidence showed on the court.

It was an omen of a long day to come when Anne Marie Armstrong took a knee to the back during a scramble on the floor for a loose ball in the game’s opening minutes. Armstrong sucked it up and returned to action, but it was clear that she was limited and rattled. She finished with just six points, zero defensive rebounds, and a team-high five turnovers. Miller and Mitchell were able to pick up some of the scoring load, but Georgia’s inability to get much going inside hurt them, particularly down the stretch when Mitchell was unavailable.

The game story going around paints a picture of a no-win decision for Andy Landers: do you try to stop the Marist offense with an experienced senior struggling with foul trouble or do you go with a freshman who’s a less-effective defender? That was certainly the situation Georgia faced midway through the second half.

The problem is that the defense wasn’t all that hot *with* Meredith Mitchell in the game. What was happening is pretty simple: Marist spread the court well and encouraged Georgia’s aggressive man defense to extend. The spacing left lanes for those with the ball to drive to the basket or those without the ball to cut to the basket behind the extended defense. It was startling how often Marist was able to beat Georgia in these one-on-one situations off the dribble.

Georgia’s defense strategy wasn’t without merit. The Lady Dogs came up with 13 steals in large part by pressuring the ball, and it helped to fuel the second half comeback. But too often Georgia’s extended defense left a player on an island and without help as a Marist player went in for the easy basket. At times even Georgia center Jasmine Hassell was left isolated in on-ball defense 20+ feet away from the basket. She had no chance.

The decision to play a foul-laden Mitchell was a by-product of Georgia’s game plan. As Landers admitted, “Our defense wasn’t very good and they were very good with executing their drive options, which led to layups and fouls.” Even with foul trouble, Georgia didn’t adjust its defense. Often teams trying to protect a key player in foul trouble will switch to a zone defense. A zone might have also choked off the lanes Marist found to attack the basket. The downside of a zone is that Marist might have had more open looks around the perimeter, and they were shooting the ball well. We’ll never know: Georgia never tried anything else.

The loss ends a season that had shown moments of promise but ended with early exits in both the SEC and NCAA Tournaments. The improved fitness level of the team at the end of the year led to hope for a third-straight Sweet 16 appearance. It’s disappointing, but this isn’t the year to make dire proclamations about the state of the program. There’s nothing like a loss to bring out discussion about Andy Landers and his program, but despite the results in the postseason the program is on solid ground.

First, let’s cut through the nonsense. Georgia doesn’t have a legacy of underachieving in the NCAA Tournament. This is the first time Georgia has been truly upset in the tournament since the 2-seed Lady Dogs lost to 10-seed Missouri in Athens in 2001. It’s the first time they’ve even lost to a lower seed since the 2004 tournament in which 3-seed Georgia lost to 4-seed LSU in the Elite 8. Their final game of the tournament has been against a 1 or a 2 seed in seven of the last nine seasons. Georgia has been more likely to beat higher-seeded teams and did so in each of the past two seasons to reach the Sweet 16.

Georgia’s tournament performance relative to its seed has been fine, but it’s that initial seed that tells a more important story. Georgia’s #4 seed this year was its best since 2007, and its average seed over the last ten years has been between a 5 and a 6. That’s certainly not awful, and the Lady Dogs have managed to have enough consistency to make the tournament each year. Still, the further you get away from the top seeds the tougher it becomes to advance to the Elite Eight and beyond. You’re put in the position of having to beat a #1 or #2 to move past the Sweet 16, and Georgia has gone 0-6 in those games against top seeds since beating #2 Purdue in 2004. The only way to improve to your initial seed is to perform better during the regular season.

Can Georgia improve on its regular season in 2012-2013? Next season is shaping up to be a watershed moment for the program. The program will have lost only two key contributors over the past two seasons. Four starters will return, and all will be upperclassmen. Three other returning players will have significant experience. This seven-player core will be bolstered by a solid and deep signing class of at least five players. There’s significant turnover in the SEC: at least three programs will be looking for new coaches. Tennessee loses five seniors. Though there will be several programs in contention – there always are in the SEC – Georgia should have the experience, depth, and talent to be one of those teams fighting for a conference title that has eluded the program for over a decade. Expectations will and should be high.

Georgia’s women’s basketball team earned a #4 seed in the 2012 NCAA Tournament. The seed is Georgia’s highest starting position since receiving a #3 seed in 2006 and 2007. With Georgia’s legacy and tradition, it’s not quite right to say that a #4 is evidence of a program on its way back, but it is recognition of one of Georgia’s strongest teams in several seasons.

Georgia will be aiming for its third consecutive Sweet 16 appearence. Despite earning a #5 and #6 seed over the past two seasons, Georgia has managed to pull some mild second-round upsets and advance. Now it’s Georgia turn to play the role of the favorite for the first time in five seasons. The Lady Dogs are coming off a disappointing quarterfinal exit in the SEC Tournament, but they’ve had two weeks to continue to get healthy and work on some persistent problems.

The Lady Dogs will begin the tournament in Tallahassee on Sunday at noon against Marist. Marist, a small school from my old stomping grounds in Poughkeepsie, NY, has been a mid-major success story in women’s hoops under coach Brian Giorgis. The Red Foxes have dominated the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (MAAC), and with seven consecutive league titles they’ve become a mainstay in the NCAA Tournament. They blew through the league again this year with a 17-1 conference record.

So while Marist will be a heavy underdog, they’ll be as comfortable and familiar with the pressures of the tournament as Georgia. The two programs met a couple of times during the middle of last decade – Georgia pulled away to win a close game on Marist’s court, and they had a little easier time when the teams met in the NCAA Tournament a season later.

Joining Marist and Georgia in Tallahassee are #12 seed Florida Gulf Coast and #5 seed St. Bonaventure. The winners of Sunday’s games will meet on Tuesday evening.

For ticket information, visit subregional host FSU’s website.

The SEC Women’s Basketball Tournament returns to Nashville’s Bridgestone Arena on Thursday, and it’s a tradition around here to do a preview of one of our favorite non-football SEC events.

There’s one dominant theme this year: farewell. Two of the league’s more veteran coaches have already announced that they won’t be returning. Hanging over the event will be the possibility that it could also be the last SEC Tournament for the conference’s and sport’s greatest coach. There will be a little added energy around the crowd given the potential magnitude of the event.

There’s a lot to watch for on the court. The SEC continues to be outside the national title discussion, but there are several strong teams each with a fighting chance to cut down the nets on Sunday. That there’s no clear-cut favorite this year should make for some interesting games. Even the bottom teams in the conference have made some noise this season. For Georgia, it’s an opportunity to return to the top of the conference for the first time in a decade. They’re as healthy as they’ve been in months, and roles and identity are well understood now. The Lady Dogs wrapped up a bye and the third seed with Sunday’s win over LSU, but all that earns them is an extra day of rest. They’ll dive right in on Friday with a likely rematch against a very good South Carolina team that took them to the buzzer just a few weeks ago.

Georgia’s Path Through the Tournament:

• Thursday / First Round: Bye
• Friday / Quarterfinals: vs. South Carolina-Alabama winner, ~10:00 p.m. ET. FSN
• Saturday / Semifinals: ~6:00 p.m. ET. ESPNU
• Sunday / Finals: 6:00 p.m. ET. ESPN2

Complete Bracket Here

The favorites

1. Kentucky (24-5, 13-3): The Wildcats are your regular season champion, and they’ve been the frontrunner since a January 12th win over Tennessee. The ‘Cats started SEC play a perfect 10-0, but they stumbled in early February. A three-game losing streak featured a blowout loss against an inspired Tennessee team, and it also included a bad showing against 11th-place Alabama. UK has since recovered to win their final three games, and that was enough to secure the regular season crown.

Kentucky starts with relentless pressure defense. They’ll press full-court, and they lead the league in steals and turnover margin. Of course that creates a lot of transition buckets, but what makes Kentucky a champion is that they can score in the halfcourt too. They lead the SEC in three-point shooting, and they’re the best at getting offensive rebounds. Put together, it’s no surprise that they also lead the conference in scoring.

Kentucky is led by their guards, notably junior A’dia Mathies. It should say plenty about Mathies that not only does she lead the team in scoring and assists – this 5’9″ guard also has the most rebounds on the team. 77 of those rebounds were on the offensive glass. While Mathies is the player that gets things going for the ‘Cats, they get consistent shooting from Bria Goss and Keyla Snowden. Though those three guards lead UK in scoring, I think a big difference in this Kentucky team is the midseason addition of UConn transfer Samarie Walker. Walker gives UK a legitimate presence inside, and that creates tremendous opportunities for the capable guards.

Can Kentucky take the tournament title to go along with its regular season championship? They were a perfect 18-0 in Lexington this year, but they – like most any team – are more vulnerable away from home. The ‘Cats had dropped three straight road games before righting the ship with their final two home games. Kentucky thrives on its defense, and teams that can solve the press and make it a halfcourt game can give the Wildcats trouble.

2. Tennessee (21-8, 12-4): Any discussion of SEC women’s basketball comes down to Tennessee, and this is no exception. There are so many possible storylines with this team, and of course they all start with the future of Pat Summitt. Summitt has been increasingly hands-off with this team, at least on the court, and there is speculation that this might be her last SEC Tournament at the helm of the program she built. While any formal announcment on her behalf would understandably overshadow anything else that happens in Nashville, just the possibility of the end will dominate the conversation.

That brings us to the team. Tennessee’s season has been rocky, especially by their standards. They’ve lost eight games against a typically tough schedule, but it’s the home losses to good-but-not-great teams like South Carolina and Arkansas that get your attention. This is a vulnerable Tennessee team, and it doesn’t all have to do with talent. When Tennessee is at their best, as they were against Kentucky just a few weeks ago, no one in the conference compares. But that intensity has let them down several times this year.

Tennessee fans remember the 1997 team that lost 10 games but still got it together for the second of three straight national titles. But that team had what this one lacks: a consistent superstar. There is no Chamique Holdsclaw on this Tennessee team. There are great pieces. Johnson might be the best post player in the conference. Stricklen is a threat to score on anyone. Massengale has made a huge impact. I could continue down the roster, but the rest of the SEC knows it well. There is talent, but there isn’t that consistent star to set the standard.

We wouldn’t be surprised to see them win the tournament, especially given the emotions involved. The team will be laser-focused, and Tennessee fans will likely be even more of a presence than usual in order to be a part of what could be Summitt’s swan song. On the other hand, a possible quarterfinal matchup against Vanderbilt could be veeeerrrrry interesting.

Georgia

3. Georgia (22-7, 11-5): Georgia is a bit of a buffer between the top of the league and the large pack of teams in the middle. Georgia’s done enough to separate themselves from the pack, but an 0-3 record against the top two teams doesn’t merit inclusion with the favorites. It’s been tough to get a read on Georgia. They have a win over a good Georgia Tech team, but they dropped winnable games against ranked opponents Georgetown and Gonzaga. The story was similar in conference. They generally played well, but losses at Vanderbilt and Florida kept the Lady Dogs from the top of the SEC. Both in and out of conference the Lady Dogs have been just-barely-almost there on the outside of doing some really big things.

Injuries have held Georgia back at times, and those midseason knocks were especially dire for a team that doesn’t go more than 8 or 9 deep to begin with. Inconsistent offense has also plagued Georgia. They aren’t incredibly big inside, rebounds can be hard to come by, and they can get stuck passing the ball around the perimeter if the entry pass isn’t available. The Lady Dogs lean on good defense, usually with favorable results. Four players have posted at least 50 steals. When the defense isn’t just tough but truly disruptive, this is a dangerous team.

It’s a nice lineup. Armstrong has emerged as one of the league’s most well-rounded players. Hassell uses position and agility to overcome size disadvantages inside. Miller can turn a game from outside. James can create offense. Mitchell can be a shut-down defender who does the little things on offense. The bench goes 3 to 4 deep, and the top reserves have all contributed at key moments.

The Pack

4. LSU (20-9, 10-6): Things looked shaky for LSU midway through the SEC schedule. They were mired in the lower half of the division with a 4-5 SEC record. An upset of Kentucky that handed the SEC champs their first conference loss of the season turned things around for first-year head coach Nikki Caldwell, and the Tigers ran off six straight wins. They entered the last game of the season with a chance to finish as high as third. Still, fourth place isn’t bad for where LSU found themselves several weeks ago.

LSU’s physical style lends itself to games in the 40s and 50s, and they like it that way. Their defense could keep them in a game against anyone in the league, and they’ve already beaten their likely quarterfinal and semifinal opponents. At the same time, their relative lack of firepower on offense makes it unlikely that they’ll keep up in a higher-scoring contest.

5. Arkansas (21-7, 10-6): If there’s a surprise in the SEC this year, it’s been Arkansas. They’ve done a good job of flying under the radar and managed to spend the season just on the outside of the rankings despite entering the final day of the regular season tied for third place. They were all but written off when they started conference play with four straight losses, but coach Tom Cullen turned things around. The Hogs went on a streak of 10 wins in 11 games, highlighted by wins over Tennessee, Vanderbilt, LSU, and South Carolina. A loss at South Carolina on the last day of the season knocked them out of a first-round bye, but Arkansas has developed into a dangerous team and will play in the NCAA Tournament.

The Hogs feature a true inside-outside combination. Sarah Watkins is one of the more underrated post players in the SEC. Guard C’eira Ricketts isn’t much of an outside threat, but she’s a slasher that can get to the basket. The Arkansas perimeter offense comes from sharpshooter Lyndsay Harris. Harris can be streaky and isn’t shy about putting it up, but when she’s on she can hit from anywhere.

6. South Carolina (21-8, 10-6): Dawn Staley finally broke through. The Gamecocks have risen from the bottom of the conference to a .500 finish and now to double-digit conference wins. They served notice with an historic win in Knoxville that snapped Tennessee’s run of homecourt SEC success and ended years of Gamecock futility against the Lady Vols. They’re less than 10 points away from a 13-3 SEC record, and they’ve only lost one conference game by more than 10 points.

The Gamecocks are another strong defensive team and play with an intensity that befits their coach. They lead the league in scoring defense, giving up under 50 points per game. Like LSU, South Carolina would prefer a low-scoring grind of a game, and they usually get it. On offense SC leans heavily on guard play. Markeshia Grant and La’Keisha Sutton are threats to go off at any time. If they have a weakness, it’s on the interior.

7. Vanderbilt (21-8, 9-7): It says a lot that a team that has impressive wins over Tennessee and Georgia and spent most of the season in the Top 25 winds up with the #7 seed. Vandy was just on the outside of a group of five teams that finished with between 5 and 7 SEC losses, and they weren’t far from coming out on top of that group. Just a single three-point loss at LSU last week could have meant the difference between a top four finish and their #7 seed.

Unfortunately that fate sets them up with a difficult bracket. Vandy will enjoy the hometown crowd and should handle Mississippi State. Tennessee awaits in the quarterfinals, and we’ve already been over their motivation. I don’t know that the tournament has ever had a more anticipated #2 vs. #7 matchup. Vandy won’t be scared; they’ve already knocked off Tennessee, and that was no fluke.

Vanderbilt has the makings of a very potent offense. Their halfcourt execution is solid – they lead the league in shooting percentage and assists. They feature the SEC’s leading scorer, sophomore guard Christina Foggie. They can score outside or work inside to forward Tiffany Clarke. Clarke and frontcourt teammate Stephanie Holzer are two of the top seven rebounders in the SEC.

Vandy isn’t terribly deep this year; only eight players have seen most of the action. That depth might’ve caught up with them down the stretch. They’ve lost three of their last five games, and only a circus shot at the buzzer prevented a fourth. They have the firepower to play with and beat anyone in the league, but defense can be spotty – a big problem when the scorers are having an off night.

8. Florida (18-11, 8-8): If there’s a team in the tournament playing for its postseason life, it’s Florida. A much-needed win over Georgia put them in a position to finish with a .500 conference mark, but they’ll likely have to advance to Saturday and upset Kentucky in order to feel comfortable about making the NCAA Tournament. Florida has played in a lot of close games and lost more than their share. They came within 5 of Kentucky, and they took both Arkansas and Vanderbilt to overtime on the road. They probably won’t be an easy out.

On paper Florida has a fairly complete team. They have Jennifer George as a dynamic forward. Azania Stewart gives additional size, rebounds, and defense but doesn’t score a ton. Jordan Jones shoots better than 35% from outside, and freshman Andrea Vilaró Aragonés has come along as another sharpshooter. As you’d expect with a bubble team, Florida does a lot of things well but few things great. They’re around the middle of the pack in most statistical categories with slightly above average rebounding, slightly below average defense.

Auf Wiedersehen

9. Auburn (13-16, 5-11): Auburn is one of at least two programs for which this SEC Tournament will be the last for their coach. Nell Fortner is stepping down after eight up and down seasons with the Tigers. She came to Auburn with impressive crednetials: she had coached in the WNBA, coached the 2000 U.S. Olympic team to a gold medal, and was a respected broadcaster. That background created some big expectations, and Fortner wasn’t quite able to live up to those expectations. Her Auburn program had a high-water mark in 2008-2009 wehn DeWanna Bonner led them to a 30-4 record and the SEC regular season title, but the rest of the story has been somewhat disappointing. Fortner’s overall SEC mark is more than 10 games below .500, and she wasn’t able to build on that great 2009 team.

This year’s Auburn team hasn’t made much noise. They swept four games against the bottom two teams in the league, and an upset of South Carolina was enough to separate them from the bottom of the conference. They could put together an inspired effort for Fortner and spoil Florida’s season, but there’s a definite gulf in class even between the #8 and #9 seeds.

10. Mississippi State (14-15, 4-12): The Bulldogs will also say farewell to their coach after this tournament. Sharon Fanning-Otis is one of the veterans of SEC coaching with more experience than anyone outside of Summitt and Landers. She’s built a moderately successful program in Starkville whose fortunes have waxed and waned as several high-profile players like LaToya Thomas and Tan White worked their way through. As recently as 2010, MSU finished third in the league and advanced to the NCAA Sweet 16, but the past two seasons have been much less successful. They can get scoring from Diamber Johnson, but she doesn’t have much help.

The Longshots

11. Alabama (12-18, 2-14): The Tide have been near the bottom of the conference for several seasons, but they showed life towards the end of the season. They knocked off conference champ Kentucky thanks to a 50-point explosion in the first half, and they led LSU until the last minute. It’s been a tough year with injuries, high(low?)lighted by the loss of senior guard Ericka Russell. Jasmine Robinson has emerged as the top scorer and led the Tide over Kentucky. They’ll find it tough to score against South Carolina’s defense but could find themselves within a few baskets in a low-scoring opening game.

12. Ole Miss (12-17, 2-14): The Rebels enter the tournament on a long slide. They upset Arkansas and beat Alabama in mid-January to improve to 2-3 in SEC play, but they haven’t won since. 11 straight losses can kill a team’s heart, but that hasn’t happened to Ole Miss. To their credit, they continue to challenge teams. In their last four games they took rival Mississippi State to overtime, only lost by 10 to Tennessee, trailed Georgia by just two at halftime, and played Auburn to within three points. 5’4″ guard Valencia McFarland is one of the conference’s most entertaining scorers. They’ve already posted a win over first-round opponent Arkansas this year and could do it again if the Hogs aren’t wide awake.

A year ago, the Lady Dogs needed just one win over their final three games to secure a second place finish in the SEC, their best result in several years. Consecutive losses to Tennessee, Auburn, and Florida dropped Georgia from second to fourth and took a bit of the shine off of a promising season.

A somewhat similar situation faced this year’s team. Entering the final week of the regular season half the conference was within two games of each other. Though a loss at Florida knocked them out of contention for first or second place, they had the most direct path of any team to a nice third place finish. That path, though, required a sweep of the final two games. The first was, at least on paper, easy enough. Ole Miss was in last place. After a tight first half, Georgia pulled away to win easily on Thursday.

Sunday’s challenge against LSU was a different story. LSU were winners of six straight including a win over SEC champ Kentucky. They used that six-game run to break out of the lower half of the conference standings and rise to a tie with Georgia (and Arkansas) heading into Sunday’s season finale. Under first-year coach Nikki Caldwell, the Tigers had found their identity – a physical style that played off of their significant height advantage. Their size and length lends itself to a smothering matchup zone defense, and they led the league in field goal defense.

The first half was in a style that was to LSU’s liking. Georgia led 26-23 at the break, but the game was on a pace to be right in LSU’s comfort zone. Their zone frustrated Georgia and frequently forced the Lady Dogs to chew up a lot of shot clock. Fortunately Khaalidah Miller was able to drain four three-pointers over the zone, and her 12 first-half points helped carry the team past the difficulties it was having in the rest of the halfcourt offense.

While the LSU defense might have set the tone in the first half, the second half was all about Georgia’s defense. A more active zone created turnovers and transition opportunities, and those breaks helped to open up the logjam that was the LSU defense. A Jasmine Hassell layup with just over 14 minutes remaining started a 25-4 run of Georgia dominance through the final media timeout. The Lady Dogs ended up with 16 steals and caused 23 LSU turnovers. They were as smart as they were aggressive; LSU is one of the SEC’s better teams from the free throw line and looks to draw contact and fouls. Georgia limited LSU to only 10 free throw attempts – around half of their typical number. The result was a comfortable 62-46 win over a confident and streaking LSU team – a very satisfying and deserved Senior Day win.

Georgia heads into the postseason as winners of six of their last seven games. They’re as healthy as they’ve been in months. The loss eight days ago at Florida has to be a reminder that not much separates Georgia from the rest of the conference, but the Lady Dogs have shown with increasing frequency down the stretch that they have what it takes to make some noise in the postseason.

The Max Garcia story continues to evolve. The messy resolution to the Danny O’Brien saga at Maryland also affects Garcia, a sophomore offensive lineman we discussed last week.

The lifting of transfer restrictions means that Garcia’s two other finalists, Vanderbilt and Clemson, are now back in the picture. It was a virtual coin toss for him between Clemson and Maryland, so the Tigers could be a player if there is still mutual interest. Georgia was Garcia’s intitial favorite as far back as 2008, but Garcia never made it to a Georgia camp, and the Dawgs didn’t extend an offer. According to Rusty Mansell, as told to Seth Emerson, Georgia (and other interested major programs) were a little concerned about Garcia’s ability to bulk up enough to contribute at a high level. With a full season behind him as a Division I starter, those concerns are long gone.

Georgia is definitely interested in Garcia, but he’s also heard from South Carolina and Florida – not to mention Vanderbilt. Georgia has the advantage of being the closest to home which is important to Garcia. It was also his favorite out of the gate during the recruiting process. Georgia’s line coach has changed in the meantime, but there’s no question that the current Georgia staff is interested.

Garcia, after sitting out the 2012 season, would have two years of eligibility remaining. It would be the equivalent of a junior college signing with one big difference: JUCO players are often shots in the dark given the difficulty of rating a player relative to junior college competition. With over a year on the field for Maryland, there’s plenty of film against Division I opponents for schools like Georgia to evaluate.

One other 2012 recruiting note: Georgia Military College defensive back Mario Alford is expected to visit Athens this weekend. If Georgia offers, Alford has told recruiting services that he’d commit on the spot. Alford would be eligible to join the program immediately and play in 2012, and he still has three years’ eligibility remaining. Given Georgia’s immediate need in the defensive backfield, I’d be surprised if Alford isn’t a Bulldog by Monday.

Georgia should soon have a new assistant strength coach, and reaction seems to be universally positive. We know two things about Sherman Armstrong:

• What’s on his bio.
• He’s worked with Aaron Murray and over 100 other pro and college athletes.

Needless to say, this is the news I was hoping to hear. The work begun by Tereshinski last year remains important and must be sustained as a foundation of Georgia’s strength and conditioning, but there are areas of specialization used by the nation’s top programs that should be available to Georgia’s players. This is the kind of training that Murray and other players have been seeking out on their own even before they are ready to turn pro. Some of that, sad to say, is because that level of expertise wasn’t available in Athens. That’s starting to change.

Georgia has plenty of raw speed. Increases in raw speed are likely to be marginal. As PWD put it, Armstrong “can improve their change of direction, flexibility and endurance.” It’s about harnessing speed for football. That’s a focus that could help Georgia, and it’s what someone like Armstrong brings.

NOTE: Several of the stories reporting Armstrong’s hire have updated saying that the gun might have been jumped and that Sherman isn’t officially on staff (yet). It’s possible that the program didn’t want to announce anything yet; there might be some sort of required wait since the job was posted. Hopefully that’s all that’s going on – Armstrong seems ready to get going on March 1st, and there won’t be much time before conditioning is put on the back burner during spring practice.

Via Holly Anderson at SI, some information from Chick-fil-A Bowl CEO Gary Stokan:

According to…Stokan, three of the top five highest-drawing annual conventions in Atlanta are the SEC Championship Game, the Chick-fil-A Bowl and the Chick-fil-A kickoff game. Stokan credits poultry-sponsored football with bringing in $6 million in state sales tax.

I appreciate Michael Elkon’s effort to think outside the (penalty) box by suggesting the SEC take its championship games on campus to larger stadiums. He has a point – it seems incongruous that around 18,000 more tickets were sold for Georgia’s Coastal Carolina game than for either of its two appearances in the Georgia Dome.

Stokan’s statement illustrates why Atlanta (and the state of Georgia) will fight tooth and nail to maintain, if not expand, their presence in the college football market. It’s a year-round enterprise that involves everything from a golf tournament to fundraising to a now-defunct women’s basketball doubleheader. Oh, and football games. There would be a lot of money at stake if Atlanta’s role in the college football scene were diminished, and the effects would ripple down through the many service and hospitality industries that facilitate the influx of college football fans.

Of course that same economic impact makes those games attractive plums for Atlanta’s competition. For college football, the only comparable facility in the SEC footprint has been the Superdome in New Orleans. With the conference’s expansion into Texas and Missouri, the number of domed facilities in SEC territory triples. The Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis, Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, the Alamodome in San Antonio, and Reliant Stadium in Houston have all hosted the Big 12 Championship game and would love to get their hands on some lucrative SEC neutral-site games.

We’ve already seen a shift of sorts towards Dallas. The Chick-fil-A preseason event has been strong for the past couple of seasons thanks to appearances by LSU and Alabama. But the Georgia-Boise State game in 2011, while still a major interconference matchup, drew second billing to the LSU-Oregon game played simultaneously in Dallas. The Atlanta folks have doubled down in 2012 with a pair of ACC/SEC games on opening weekend, but when you’re talking about “JV status” in regards to one of those Atlanta games, it’s hardly the narrative-setting event we’ve seen in recent years. Certainly not when Dallas will offer up Alabama vs. Michigan.

The SEC Championship is committed to the Georgia Dome through 2017. After that, it’s open season. A lot can change in the next five years – we might have a bigger SEC with even more venues entering the bidding. One big factor we’ve discussed before will be the future of the Georgia Dome and the future of professional football in Atlanta. An open-air stadium would just about kill Atlanta’s chances of hosting late-season or post-season games, and a Georgia Dome left to decay without an NFL tenant probably won’t be in the condition to compete with several other alternatives within the SEC footprint.

Stokan’s correct about the impact of college football on his city and state, but he’s under attack from several sides. Comparable facilities in SEC territory will be lining up to host the games. Local interests are lining up to replace or supplant the Georgia Dome with an open-air facility offering little utility outside of the NFL. College football is currently very, very good to the city of Atlanta, but it might not always be so. It would be embarrassing, not to mention costly, for the city to diminish its competitive position in the market for college football games just as the sport’s Hall of Fame opens in town.

Over the past couple of weeks, three members of Georgia’s strength and conditioning program have left the program. This wasn’t a mutiny or a housecleaning. John Kasay came out of retirement in a part-time role to help establish Joe Tereshinski’s program a year ago. With that mission accomplished, Kasay is returning to retirement. Longtime strength assistant Keith Gray took an opportunity to work with an NFL program. And Thomas Brown has been offered a chance to start his coaching career.

That leaves the Dawgs with three men working on the conditioning program: Tereshinski, Tony Gilbert, and Rex Bradberry. New NCAA legislation limits the size of the strength and conditioning staff to five, so the Dawgs currently have two vacancies.

It’s an important time of the year for conditioning, and not just because mat drills are back in the news. This is one of the few times during the academic year when the team can focus primarily on conditioning. It’ll be spring practice time soon, and in just over two months the team will split for summer break. Of course most, if not all, will be in Athens a good portion of the summer, but the focus then will increasingly turn to preparation for the season. This is the time when a lot of the offseason strength devlopment occurs.

With two vacancies on the staff, Tereshinski has some options for the direction of the strength program. There were obvious results from the changes he put into place last year, but the job isn’t complete. Georgia still faded at the end of several games. That’s not a knock against Tereshinski; no one was expecting Georgia to be among the best-conditioned programs in the nations within a year. It’s a reminder that the job isn’t done.

It’s also an opportunity to expand the scope of the program. It’s one thing to bring the team up to a certain level of strength and maintain that. Tereshinski and Kasay were the right men to bring back that attitude of toughness that led to so many of last year’s offseason gains. Michigan State’s defensive line showed us that the team can always stand to be stronger. But there are also other areas – endurance, speed, and agility – where strength and toughness alone are only part of the story.

With respect to former players Gilbert and Bradberry, Tereshinski’s staff could use an injection of professional talent. Tereshinski has done much to get up to speed with modern techniques and methods, but there’s another world of professionals who are teaching those methods daily. You only have to look around at some of the groups and trainers players seek out during the offseason and prior to NFL workouts to learn who some of the more respected names are in the industry.

We wish the three members of the staff that are leaving well, but their departure opens up a chance for Tereshinski to add skills and experience that were missing from his program. The athletic admininstration has pledged that they’ll give the program the resources it needs, and this is a big area of need to continue and to build on the gains made in the past year.

The exodus from the Maryland football program has been something to watch. One of the Terps seeking a new home is offensive lineman Max Garcia, a 6’4″, 290 lb. guard/tackle from right here in Norcross. Garcia was a 3* prospect in 2010 according to Rivals.com. He’s done well up at Maryland and became a 12-game starter as a true sophomore in 2011.

Garcia tells the AJC that he’d like to transfer to some place closer to home, and there is mutual interest between Garcia and Georgia.

It’s useful (to me anyway) to go back and look at the recruiting process and what led Garcia to leave the state in the first place. The Dawgs were Garcia’s favorite at the outset, but to use Garcia’s words, “It just never really worked out the first time around.”

(All links below are to Rivals.com recruiting articles that may or may not be behind the paywall.)

Garcia first appears on the radar as a junior in 2008 when he attended the disastrous Georgia-Alabama game. The outcome of the game didn’t turn him off; he was impressed by the atmosphere and the response of the crowd and team. Garcia noted that “Coach Searels said he likes my feet and that I am one of the top prospects on his list.” He added, “I would have to say Georgia is my leader right now.”

A few months later, in February of 2009, he claimed, “Georgia is No. 1.” He was still without a Georgia offer after attending Junior Day. Searels wanted to see him at camp first. That’s not an unusual request; summer camp is a great chance for coaches to get in-person evaluations of players who might not merit sight-unseen offers.

By April, Georgia had been replaced. “Vanderbilt would definitely be number one, then Georgia number two, but I think they are only going to bring in two offensive linemen this year and they already have one (Kolton Houston).” He was having doubts about Georgia’s numbers, and an offer didn’t seem to be in the cards.

By July, Georgia was out of the picture: “Garcia is down to three schools – Vanderbilt, Clemson and Maryland – and favors them in that order.”

Garcia continued to pick up offers during his senior season, including one from Florida State, but his top three remained the same. “Maryland, Vanderbilt, and Clemson are the main schools I am looking at,” he said. By mid-December when Garcia was ready to make his decision, he was “torn right now with Clemson and Maryland.”

Garcia chose Maryland of course. It seems pretty clear that Georgia, or at least Searels, backed off at some point early in the process. Garcia wasn’t able to make it to camp, and so a Georgia offer never came. By the summer Garcia had already moved on to consider schools like Vanderbilt.

His concerns about limited room at Georgia were legitimate: Georgia’s 2010 haul of offensive linemen was small. Kolton Houston was rated slightly higher, and Brent Benedict was a top-drawer signing out of Florida. The Dawgs added Ken Gates at the last minute (and good thing!)

Gates is the only lineman to contribute from that small class. Benedict transferred, and Houston sat out the 2011 season with an unspecified eligibility issue. Would it make sense to seek Garcia’s transfer? After sitting out a year, he’d have two years remaining – the equivalent of a junior college signing. By the time he’s eligible to play in 2013, Georgia will have nine upperclassmen on the line.

At the same time, Garcia would be more experienced as a starter for a FBS program than anyone but perhaps Burnette, Lee, and Gates. The Dawgs might be set at tackle with Theus and Beard and any one of Long/Dantzler/Ward, but experienced depth couldn’t hurt. Garcia’s 6’4″ size might even make him more valuable as a guard. If Burnette moves to center, there could be opportunities for playing time behind or alongside Lee and Gates.

If you go back to the recruiting process, it would seem that Clemson would get Garcia’s first call. Clemson was his second choice, and it would meet his criteria for being closer to home. One key factor in the story is Maryland coach Randy Edsall placing restrictions on the possible destinations for the outgoing transfers. Players like Garcia cannot transfer to another ACC school or Vanderbilt. (Yes…Edsall is being petulant enough to target Vandy.) Those restrictions would of course preclude Clemson, and so Garcia would have to choose a school not among his final three choices back in 2010.

Georgia has the advantage of being Garcia’s initial favorite, and there doesn’t seem to be any animosity about the way things worked out. The 3* rating and recruiting evaluations are irrelevant now; Garcia has already contributed a lot more to a BCS conference program than a lot of guys with higher ratings. That’s even better than having to dip into the JUCO ranks where it’s still tough to say how well someone might make the jump to the next level. If he can help shore up the depth on what should be a veteran offensive line in 2013 and 2014, he’d make a welcome addition to the Georgia program.