Some interesting stats I compiled...

...from our friends over at Rivals.com. Don't ask me how I did it. This is a ranking of the top states by Top 100 recruits. Essentially, it ranks each state by the number of Rivals Top 100 recruits it has produced over the past 5 years (classes of 2007 through 2011). Interesting results:

1. Florida - 84
2. Texas - 68
3. California - 58
4. Georgia - 34
5. Ohio - 22
5. Alabama - 22
5. S. Carolina - 22
8. Louisiana - 20
9. N. Carolina - 15
10. Pennsylvania - 14
10. Michigan - 14
12. Virginia - 13
13. Mississippi- 8
...
Tennessee - 5

Trends over the past 5 years: Trending up - Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Louisiana. Trending down - Pennsylvania, Virginia, Alabama. Steady as she goes - Texas, California, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, and Tennessee (with exactly one in each of the 5 years).

Fratlock's 2010 Movie List: Kid Movie Edition

Over the Thanksgiving week, I saw three kids movies.  Here you go:

1. Prince of Persia - This is another Disney franchise in the vein of Pirates of the Carribbean. It has a similarly murky and hole-filled plot with lots and lots of deus ex machina elements. But, outside of the weak story, there is some pretty good action and fantastic imagery. It reminded me a little of the Mummy. Gyllenhaal was better than I envisioned, and Gemma Arterton is fantastic. She steals the movie, in my opinion. It isn't a good movie, but the leads were entertaining. I'd probably see anything with Gemma Arterton involved. Better than Clash of the Titans, but the plot just can't hold up. 6/10.

2. Harry Potter 7, Part I - I enjoyed this movie, but that is probably because I read the books and have enjoyed the franchise. I think you have to be more invested in these characters to dig this one. The reason is because this is merely a set-up movie to the conclusion. I honestly was a little surprised at how little we got in this movie. The last one is gonna have to be huge. It was slow, but this part of the book moved slow as well. There is more character development in this part of Book 7, less exposition. But it was dark, and it was very well made. They have made this a more mature movie, with more mature characters (and acting, for that matter). 8/10.

3. Toy Story 3 - Pixar does a fantastic job of upping the ante year after year. I haven't seen either of the previous Toy Story movies in years, maybe since they came out. But I didn't feel like I needed to. And I was right. This one stands alone. It was phenomenal. It was funny, but it also packed an emotional punch, especially with the ending. This is right there with WALL-E, Up, and Monsters Inc. on my list of greatest Pixar movies. Highly recommended, even if you think Pixar movies are for kids. 8.5/10.

My updated list:

1. Inception - 9.75/10
2. The Town - 9/10
3. The Social Network - 9/10
4. Toy Story 3 - 8.5/10
5. Shutter Island - 8.5/10
6. HP7, Part I - 8/10
7. Robin Hood - 8/10
8. Kick Ass - 7.75/10
9. Winter's Bone - 7.75/10
10. Iron Man 2 - 7.5/10
...
Hot Tub Time Machine - 7/10
Prince of Persia - 6/10
Clash of the Titans - 5/10
Alice in Wonderland - 3.5/10

Mark Richt's past four seasons at UGA...

...were almost identical to Tommy Tuberville's. My new post at ChuckOliver.net has all the stats and comparisons. So, I ask you, if Auburn dismissed Tubs, should UGA dismiss Richt?

I old-fashioned hated that game...

...last night. But a win is a win, I guess. Now, our prize is that we get fifteen extra days of practice to prepare for next year. Unfortunately, with that prize comes the obligation to dress out and scrimmage either SMU or Central Florida on December 31 in freezing cold Memphis. If it were 95 degrees and a noon-kickoff, McGarity'd be creaming himself over that game. But, oh well... Here are a few points from last night's game:

1) Defense - When are things going to turn around for the defense? Miami, who - by the way - fired their head coach last night, held this Tech offense to 10 points. And, yes, we've seen this defense just as much as Miami has. Sure, Grantham is in his first year, but does it take a good shellacking before a defensive coordinator figues out how to stop it? "Ohhhh... I didn't really GET IT when watching it on tape last off-season or in the TWO WEEKS prior to this game, but now that they've stomped all over my face with it, I understand what we need to do next year to stop it... I got it..." This is the twelfth game for Grantham with this group of guys and this defense. How much patience are we supposed to have? Tech was playing with their back-up quarterback on the road, and their first quarterback wasn't even all that good (tough - yes, solid runner - yes, but "good" QB? not really). And yet they still put up 512 yards of total offense. Schlabach says that it is not the x's and o's, but rather the Jimmies and Joes. But can we really lay the failure of this defense at the feet of one out-of-position DT? Really? The 3rd highest paid defensive coordinator in the country can't find a way to work around that? After an entire off-season and 11 games? And does that mean we are going to have to rely on a true freshman DT to carry our defense next year? Whether it is the coaching/scheme or personnel within the scheme, Grantham gets a "D" for what we've seen this year. And an "F" for last night's debacle. Our cherished, sound-byte lovin, choke-sign givin "head coach" of the defense goes only so far as Richt does. If Richt is gone in a couple of weeks or a month, then so should Grantham, for any of those who actually thought we could/should try to keep our DC when finding a new coach (which would have never worked anyway).

2) Running game - Ealey looked okay last night. King still looks slow. I will give him credit for being shifty around at the line of scrimmage and able to slide off people, but the kid has no breakaway speed or open field play-making ability. He really looks like his wheels are spinning when he runs. He is just not an explosive or threatening back. Oh, and he fumbled. Ealey had a good night and some good runs (though his stats are a bit misleading thanks to the run he had when Tech let us score, which was brilliant, BTW, and something Richt would have NEVER, EVER done - unfortunately). But we simply do not have an explosive, dependable running back. High school RB Isaiah Crowell was on the UGA sideline last night wearing UGA gear. The 5-star recruit is said to be deciding between Georgia and Alabama. I've had someone who knows someone with an "inside source" tell me that he's going to commit to UGA, but wants to play the recruiting/attention/decision hat game first. That's fine. But we need him. And we need Richt to play him as a freshman in place of King.

3) Offensive line - If your offensive line can't hold up against a 1st year, 3-4 Georgia Tech defense, then it can't hold up against anyone. The OL failed, and couldn't help UGA on some 3rd & inches and 4th & inches situations. Not only that, but Murray was getting pressure especially late in the game. Again, I'm not sure if this is coaching or personnel. I'm not sure of anything with this UGA team anymore.

4) They're gone, by the way - Green and Houston had big nights for their last game in Athens. Houston had a touchdown and the game-winning interception. Green had 8 catches for 97 yards. Good luck, boys. Have fun sitting out the first half of your first NFL season due to a lockout.

5) Oh... So THAT'S why Logan Gray returns punts...

6) Superman - If you had known Murray was going to be this good, this soon, would you have thought we'd finish this season 6-6? Nope. He's a superstar. 15-19, 271 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTS... Holy passing efficiency, Batman! He won us the game single-handedly, as he's done before. He's sure gonna miss AJ next year.

7) State of the Program Address - Overall, that was an embarassing near loss to Tech. I got into a little bit of a twitter discussion with @CollinsDrew last night about the state of the Georgia program. Schlabach made an interesting point: "UGA/GT series so much better than UGA/UF. Actually competitive and compelling." I piggy-backed on that and pointed out that, as a program, Georgia is currently more on the same playing field as Tech as opposed to Florida. Over the past several years, we are just more comparable to Georgia Tech. Our results, our actual play on the field, and where we stack up in the national picture is more similar to Tech than Florida. With Tech, the game is always close and rarely is there a blowout. With Florida, they almost always blow us out, and rarely there is a close game. We are just closer to Tech. Sure, Florida has had an awful year... so bad that some UGA fans content themselves by saying, "Their program is at a place similar to UGA's..." Florida has had the worst season they've had in nearly three decades. And yet, they still beat Georgia. Ouch. This is a blip on Florida's radar. They lost their great OC, DC and starting QB all within the 18 months prior to this season. That's big. What excuses have we at UGA? What can Richt point to? Nothing. At least Meyer has excuses. Not only that, but in the 4 years prior to this season, Florida won 2 national titles. And we want to say the state of the Georgia program is similar to Florida's? Rrriiiigggghhhtttt... Truth is, Georgia is more like a Tech right now, in the national picture. Sure, we can give Richt one more year. But in my heart of hearts, the only thing that will accomplish is losing out on a shot to hire Dan Mullen. Sorry, but me saying Richt may deserve another season at UGA is not the same as saying that I believe he will turn it around. We're polishing the brass on the titanic, and wasting a hell of a talent at QB in the process. At least Tech can say they aren't squandering talent. They don't really have any. And yet they still almost beat us every year. Oy.

UPDATE

8. One more that I forgot: According to the ESPN timeout count, we used our final timeout of the 2nd half in the final minutes of the 3rd quarter. Par for the course. We've been doing that all year.

Okay, so Boise State lost...

...and as much as fans of the BCS and opponents to the mid-major movement are cheering after that game (which included many UGA fans), I have mixed feelings about it. As a fan of a BCS-conference team, I guess there's some contentment to come from seeing an upstart mid-major lose after playing a slate of unimpressive conference opponents and rising to #3 in the nation while arguing they get no respect. But here are my two problems:

1) Though I am not a fan of a large, wide-format playoff in FBS college football, I am a fan of the plus-one format of BCS bowls. In other words, I like the idea of seeing the top 4 teams play in major bowls at the end of the season and then seeing a championship game a week later from the two winners. I know it is problematic. One problem will be how to get fans to the semi-final game across the country knowing that they have to spend a ton of money and time to get there and knowing that they could be missing out on "the big game" in favor of (what will end up being) a more forgettable consolation game. In turn, the "consolation" bowls won't like this set-up as it reduces the significance of the game and may mean they don't get many fans out to the game. Second, to the extent there is now controversy about a 3rd or 4th team deserving to be in the national title game, but being left out unfairly, there will also be controversy about a 5th or 6th team who get left out of the "Final Four" unfairly. That is a given. But that is an argument for another day. The truth is that, more often than not, there is a controversy over who deserves to be in the final game, and whether or not the final combatants are truly the best teams in the country. And I think a plus-one format will give us a "truer" national champion without having to overhaul the BCS or bowl formats and without diminishing the importance of the regular season.

However, with Boise eliminated, there seem to only really be two, maybe three, teams that have an argument that they deserve to be in the national title game. Thus, it lends more credence to the argument that no playoff, in any shape or form, is necessary and that the system works. With two undefeated and impressive mid-majors loudly protesting their cause, a plus-one system gets more attention and actually looks like a perfect fit. But TCU (as a twin of Boise in almost every shape and form - except perhaps in the x's and o's) loses just as Boise loses. It hurts their credibility when a similarly-situated mid-major takes such a severe blow. And now, who would get the 4th spot? The 5th (now 4th) team is LSU (assuming they beat Arkansas, and if they don't - it throws an ever bigger wrench into things), but they won't even win their conference and they already lost to one of the other 3 teams in the regular season (Auburn). Is that right? Same with Stanford, who already lost to Oregon. Then you've got Wisconsin, who - again - may not even win their conference unless they get the right votes.

In the end, Boise's loss hurts the plus-one movement. So, in my opinion, that is one negative.

2) The other negative is unique to Georgia fans. Boise NOT going undefeated brings the big Chik-fil-A Kickoff Classic down a notch. Though Boise is truly a better team than they were when Georgia beat them in 2005, they will now, fairly or not, be called "pretenders" on the national stage. So, instead of Georgia facing the mid-major juggernaut that, despite going undefeated, was unfairly trampled on by "the man" at the end of the 2010 season, they will be facing the "pretender" that was exposed as being simply another, cute, upstart lower-tier team that clearly has no place among the big dogs. Fair or not, hyperbole or not, that will be the general feeling in the offseason. In other words, no matter what, I don't think a Georgia win will be considered an upset. I don't even think a win over a #9 Boise State (just guessing at their preseason ranking) would be as impressive to most pundits as a win over a #22 Mississippi State or a #18 Florida. If Boise had gone undefeated and started the year in the Top 5 again, I think it does. At the least, it would be considered far more impressive.

It is still a big game to start the season for Georgia. But it won't have the same feel and anticipation as it would if Boise had been undefeated this season. If Nevada can beat them, what's the big deal, right? So, that's a little bit of a bummer. But I will still be fighting for tickets and will love getting a chance to go to that game!

Iron Bowl thoughts...

Having sat and watched the entire UGA-Auburn game, I should have learned my lesson about Auburn. No lead is comfortable in the first half against that offense. A 21 or 17 point deficit for Auburn in the first half - against anyone - is more like a tie. And after Auburn came out in the second half down 24-7 with the prospect of getting the ball first, I was very nervous.

You see, I was pulling for Alabama to win the game because I am an emotional, vindictive UGA fan who was still fuming from the perceived Auburn "antics" at the end of the UGA/Auburn game. And for the first time ever, I was more dedicated to seeing Auburn lose than I was to seeing an SEC team in the national title game. So, though I made the mistake of getting comfortable and excited after seeing Alabama completely destroy Auburn for the first 1.8 quarters of play in Tuscaloosa, I pulled a 180 and was convinced early in the third quarter that this second-half star of a football team in Auburn would find a way to win. Alabama seemed to take the same form as UGA in the second half of the game (granted, UGA took this "form" sooner in the game): Playing not to lose, cruising with a seemingly comfortable lead, not capitalizing on mistakes, and trying to force a possession/field goal battle in what would certainly turn into a touchdown-for-touchdown battle.

And can you really blame UGA or Alabama? Convential coaching wisdom says that you don't risk points when they present themselves in certain situations. But after seeing how Auburn was playing - and how they had played all season - in the second half, I knew when Alabama kicked that FG at 1:25 in the 3rd that Auburn would win the game.

One thing I can credit the Auburn coaches for, besides taking advantage of the Cam Newton "purchase," is having a very well conditioned team. Just like in the Georgia game, Auburn was beating Alabama on both sides of the line easily in the second half, after getting beat early in the game. Auburn kept a solid pace and wore Alabama down. Alabama was able to get into Auburn's offensive backfield easily early in the game, tackling Newton and Dyer for loss play after play. That changed in the second half, as Newton & Co. were seemingly able to lean forward behind that line for at least 5 yards each play. On the flip side, McElroy was able to stand back and pick apart the Auburn secondary behind solid line play in the first half. Meanwhile, in the second half, Auburn's defensive line was able to mash the Bama OL and McElroy. And for the second time in two games, they knocked their opponent's top-flight QB out of the game.

It was deja vu. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Auburn games against UGA and Bama were exactly the same. Alabama is clearly better than Georgia and put up way more of a fight. And they achieved and kept a bigger lead and stayed in the game until the end, unlike UGA. But the pattern was the same. Auburn played flawless in the second half and every little mistake by Alabama turned out to be huge. The team that plays Auburn has to remember that Auburn will play perfectly and score a touchdown at every opportunity in the second half. It is a given. Their defense will be stronger, and the entire team will play mistake-free in the second half. To the extent a team scores or goes up against Auburn in the first half, they have to keep doing it and at the same pace in the second half. No first-half lead is insurmountable when it is pitted against the Auburn offense. This is something South Carolina and Oregon will have to remember.

I predict Auburn will easily beat South Carolina. The Oregon game will be touted as a prime match-up between similar teams: explosive offenses who tend to start slow and finish strong. But if I were Oregon, I'd want to change that first half culture that exists on my team, because Auburn is a second-half juggernaut like no one has seen before. Should be interesting...

This sort-of stuns me...

I was expecting to hear at least a few more "no, I'm definitely coming back's" than this. Nearly every single junior on the Georgia football team is weighing their options and considering turning pro at the end of the season. Even Blair Walsh and Drew Butler. Says Walsh, "I think I've had a pretty good career.... Been there, done that." Ummm. How about an SEC championship? Have you done that? Even a division title? A BCS game?

Who else? Cordy Glenn, Ben Jones, Brandon Boykin, Justin Houston and AJ Green. Boykin has had a dismal year. Glenn and Jones are interior linemen that won't get picked high anyway.

If these guys are sort-of non-committal about sticking around and putting it together for a great run next year, then I can't imagine why AJ would have any desire to stick around. I'm sure that I am exaggerating all this a little, but it isn't exactly what you want to hear when you're already playing and preparing for the 2011 season.

The latest UGA scheduling rumor... (UPDATED)

...is very juicy, to say the least. But color me skeptical.

The rumor is that Georgia will play Boise St. in the Chik-fil-A Kickoff Classic at the dome to start the 2011 football season. I like it. What better way to boldly enter a "new era" for UGA football after two sub-par seasons than to challenge the upstart national Top 5 ranked giant slayer? The game would garner UBER national attention. For instance, the VA Tech/Boise St. kickoff game was the most talked about game to start the season. Imagine the attention the game would get if it involved an SEC team? Especially if Boise St. finishes this season undefeated and misses out on the BCS title game. Especially if an SEC slides into the national title game instead. Especially since UGA is the only SEC team that has played them in recent memory, and we beat them a few years ago when they had just been put on the map. It would be huge. And it would be good visibility for a UGA program in terms of recruiting. Moreover, as The Senator points out, taking on the Boise State game in 2011 could allow UGA to drop the now unattractive home/home series against Louisville, which begins in 2011. This would free up a later opening in the schedule to fit in another home game that comports with McGarity's new philosophy.

Why am I skeptical? Let's face it, a win over Boise St. - even in Atlanta - is no sure thing. And after what happened against Oklahoma State in 2009, does Richt really want this sort of pressure to start what will already be a high pressure 2011 season for him? Moreover, this sort of game would almost directly contradict McGarity's recently, highly publicized philosophy regarding out-of-conference games, ie, getting "easy wins" against lesser teams and playing the games AT HOME so as to maximize financial and fan support. As with Oklahoma State, a loss in that game to start the 2011 season could severely deflate the hopes of a fan base with high expectations and could put the distracting hot seat talk back to the fore front.

Given the more conservative philosophy of both Richt and McGarity, I wouldn't bet on UGA moving their schedule around for the 2011 season in order to schedule a high-risk game like Boise State to start the season - unless they really, really want to get rid of the Louisville home/home and this is the best and most financially beneficial way of doing it.

UPDATE:

Well... My skepticism was misplaced. Glad I was wrong. Georgia will indeed play Boise State at the dome next season to start the season. Looks like McGarity is going all-in next season, and putting Richt on notice. I think this sends a message that big things will be expected from the team next season. I like it. Finally... some guts. Let's see if Richt can match it.

HBO's Game of Thrones...

This is the first time I've discussed this topic on this blog. To seemingly switch gears from talking Georgia football to talking dungeons and dragons sounds like the typical conversation pattern of a Georgia Tech student. But hear me out...

Though I like to read, and I enjoy fiction, I've never really been a fan of the science fiction (except some Michael Crichton here or there) or fantasy genres. I have enjoyed the classics (Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc.) and some more modern day writers like John Grisham and Cormac McCarthy. I had never read stuff like Lord of the Rings and was never a huge fan of movies in that genre either. As a kid, I tinkered with Arthurian legend a bit, but it didn't lead me to explore the fantasy genre.

Jaime Lannister, HBO's Game of Thrones, HT: Entertainment Weekly

One day, a friend of told me that he had just finished re-reading the best series of books he had ever picked up. This friend was well-read and very smart, and I generally trusted his decisions, so I asked him about the books he read. He described the series to me as being the best character development he has ever encountered. Several dozens of characters that fit into this vast and brutal "kingdom" and participate in a struggle for political power. He said if you liked HBO shows The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, and Rome, that you'd like the books. He said there were strong elements from all those shows in the series. He also said that it had intrigue like Kapur's 1998 Elizabeth or Ridley Scott's Gladiator. However, it also had the chivalry and sense of fealty that went along with the Arthurian legend. But he said what stood about about the series was that the character development, the political intrigue, the complex and ever-changing factions and alliances, and the constant plot twists all transcended the genre. In other words, you could have put this "story" in any historic or contemporary setting and it would still be amazing. Oh, and there just so happens to be a lot of sex and violence as well. AND, most importantly for genre skeptics, it has little to no magic. The very small supernatural elements are in the background, and aren't game changers. It very realistic and gritty, and grounded in a sense of realism.

(NOTE: To see more photos like the one above, go to this Entertainment Weekly exclusive, which also features photos of Sean Bean as Ned Stark and Mark Addy and Robert Baratheon.)

So, because my brother was more into the genre than I was, I bought him the first book of the series. And then he started raving madly about the books as well. Then, I encountered some other guys who weren't really "dungeons and dragons" types, and they raved about the series as well. So, I finally picked it up about three years ago and I concur - it is the best piece of fiction I've read.

As of now, there are 4 completed novels in the series. The author, George R. R. Martin, has said there will be 7 or 8 total books in the series. The first book is entitled 'Game of Thrones.'



Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister, HT: Entertainment Weekly



Now, a couple of years ago, as I was reading the series, I caught wind of a rumor that they would make a movie about the series. But I laughed that off, because there's no way they could do a movie, or even a trilogy or something, that could encompass all the characters and complex story-telling contained in these books. Then, the rumor shifted to a mini-series, and I essentially said the same thing. Not only that, but this story couldn't be put anywhere other than premium channels, given the content (which is important to the story).

Finally, I caught wind that HBO was developing the series for an actual drama serial, in which a season worth of 1-hour shows would encompass approximately one novel. Perfect. Both content-wise and length-wise, this would work. And now, as is obvious, HBO is filming the show and it is getting ready for a Spring 2011 release.  The show stars Sean Bean (LOTR, Troy) as Ned Stark (the main character) and also features Lena Headey (300), Peter Dinklage (The Station Agent, Elf), Mark Addy (A Knight's Tale), and Aiden Gillen (The Wire, Shanghai Knights). 

Fans of the series have been monitoring and following the production very closely, and many of the industry experts and writers have commented on this being the most highly-anticipated series ever brought to television, based on the internet buzz following production of the show.

Anyway, I'd highly recommend reading the books. No matter what your genre or literary preference, it is something all adults - IMO - can get into. But, if you decide not to read the books, you should at least check out the TV show.

Here's a trailer from the series...

"Raven" Preview

And here's a clip of some "behind the scenes" footage and interviews...

In Production

Some more photos and production stills after the jump...

Sounds like McGarity is pissed...

...over the fact that the SEC decided against any punishment of Fairley. The Georgia AD had this to say when asked about the SEC's inaction:

“I probably better not comment on that... I need to stay away from that. I don’t want to get into any type of trouble or conflict with the conference office.”

That is to say, if I do say what I am thinking and feeling about this whole situation, the SEC won't like it and I will get in trouble. I like the spirit.

Many neutral parties, like Mr. SEC, are laughing at the inference many Georgia bloggers/fans are putting out there about whether the SEC is withholding any punishment of Fairley because it would diminish the chance of Auburn beating Alabama, thereby reducing the chance that an SEC team goes to the national title game. And, I must admit, it does sound like a "homer" position to take.

But this isn't the first time the inference has been put out there. For instance, I remember many "fans" taking a similar position last season when it appeared that the "big dogs" in the conference were getting preferential treatment from SEC officials during games (I can think of the Florida-Mississippi State game off the top of my head). Further, I heard Slive speak at a club meeting last year and left there thinking, of all things, "this guy would stop at nothing to keep an SEC team from getting to the title game." This mainly came from his reaction to questions about a playoff ("why would I support one when an SEC team has gone to the title game three years in a row without one?" - paraphrased) and his frankness regarding television deals and bowl appearances. I felt good about that conclusion at the time, but now it keeps creeping back into my mind as I see the Newton and Fairley situations play out.

At that meeting, when I heard Slive speak about the BCS and the ESPN deals, the other conclusion I made was "this guy is all about the bottomline... dolla, dolla billz".... ("Billz" actually had a "z" at the end - as I was thinking it... because I'm cool and in touch with pop culture). Which, again, I assume is his job and what his priority should be. Slive is a lawyer, and he knows how to artfully answer questions in the media, how to refrain from commenting on about anything, and how to word his answers to carefully keep himself from getting trapped later. That's probably in the best interest of the conference. But, make no mistake about it, Mike Slive is slick.

Therefore, having said all that and knowing what Slive's priorities are, I frankly cannot just assume that "the best interest of the conference," which - for his purposes - is the financial and power positions of the conference, was not at the forefront of his thought process as he and his staff considered the Fairley hits - because there was more than one, folks.

After all, if Slive and the SEC "recommended" or "suggested" that UGA suspend Ben Jones earlier this season for a chop block, I cannot imagine that the same recommendation was NOT made involving Nick Fairley, unless there were other motives involved. And, to be fair, maybe Slive DID make that recommendation to Auburn - that they suspend Fairley like Georgia did Jones. But if he did, and Auburn chose to do nothing about it (or at least chose not to suspend the player but handle it some other way, like "don't do that again, big guy"), then what does that say about Auburn? Moreover, what does it say about Slive? Either Slive will let coaches and athletic directors defy him in the face of his recommendations, or he simply allows such defiance if it is "in the best interests of the conference," right? I don't know which is worse...

Maybe it isn't a conspiracy after all. Maybe the SEC just doesn't think Fairley's type of play is reprehensible. But given the actions we've seen regarding this type of play recently from the NFL, which would arguably be in a better position to allow rough play in light of the fact that the players are getting PAID to endure such hits (enter Cam Newton joke here), isn't there a duty for a COLLEGE conference to protect defenseless "student athletes" from the egregious assaults from other players that could cause serious injury? After all, due to Fairley's play, Murray is laid up healing from blindside, defenseless shots and may not get to play in his next game. And yet Ben Jones's contact with a larger, defensive player is what the SEC has chosen to "crack down" on?

Conspiracy theory or no, it all stinks. And the SEC and Slive are the ones who could have prevented it from stinking. So I don't think McGarity and Georgia fans are overreacting at all to the non-action by the SEC. And I don't think they are out-of-place in trying to put a reason behind the SEC's decision, regardless of how outlandish it may seem to some.