I’ve been hearing a range of predictions from UGA fans on how Mark Richt’s 2009 team is going to do. (I’m holding off on my own trip out on the limb until next week.)
I’ve heard a few more folks predict an 8-4 season, but more commonly I’m hearing 9-3 regular season or 10-2. No one seems to be picking this year’s Dogs to do any better than that (though admittedly I haven’t asked my brother Jon, who never picks against Georgia).
What I’m wondering, though, is what sort of record would constitute a disappointing season, from a fan’s view.
Obviously, 7-5 would be a big letdown and probably would renew the calls for someone’s head (most likely Willie Martinez’s).
But what about 9-3? Or even 10-2 if it doesn’t include a trip to the SEC championship? I’ve actually heard fans refer to 2004 as an off year for the Dogs for that very reason.
And even the 2007 team, which finished No. 2 in the country, disappointed some folks because those losses to South Carolina and Tennessee kept the Dogs out of the SEC title game and, thus, out of the BCS championship. It was such a screwy year that had that totally unnecessary, self-inflicted loss to the Gamecocks not happened, Georgia most likely would have played for the crystal football even with the loss to the Vols. (The disaster in Knoxville was such a complete collapse that I’ve just written that one off to fate, bad karma or a Phil Fulmer pact with the devil.)
So what’s the minimum the Dogs have to do in 2009 to keep from being labeled a disappointment?
Does anyone really have a right to expect a team that lost so much of its offensive production from the previous year to make it to the Georgia Dome, barring a complete implosion on Florida’s part? Is a 10-win season good enough, even if that has to include the bowl game? Or, under the circumstances, would 8-4 and a bowl win live up to your expectations?
Feel free to comment, vote in the poll or do both.