If UGA's NIL Budget Fell to 10th in the SEC...

[TheRoo]

....And stayed like that for the next 10 years. However, they retain their entire "dynamic" coaching staff (Kirby & Co) for the duration ---

What do you think would happen to them in terms of yearly success after season 3 or 4 and beyond?

 

[I4CtheFuture]

I think they'd still average about 8 wins per season. Depends on the fire in the belly of the coaches to coach. Can't measure that.

 

[Dabo's Weenie]

Fell to 10th? The latest guesstimate I saw on NIL budgets for SEC football had UGA at 10th and USC at 8th.

Does anyone truly know what the schools are spending?

 

[TheRoo]

I think they'd still average about 8 wins per season. Depends on the fire in the belly of the coaches to coach. Can't measure that.

So you believe they would take a roster of mostly 3 & 4 star players and regularly beat 5-star loaded teams?

Will Muschamp is terrific with a 5-star stable of players but was generally awful with our talent pool.

 

[TheRoo]

Fell to 10th? The latest guesstimate I saw on NIL budgets for SEC football had UGA at 10th and USC at 8th.

Does anyone truly know what the schools are spending?

No. UGA is right there with OSU for top budgets.

 

[Dabo's Weenie]

No. UGA is right there with OSU for top budgets.

This is from a September 16th article from The Athletic. Like I said, does anyone really know the budgets since there seems to be so much variation in the "guesstimates"?

 

[I4CtheFuture]

So you believe they would take a roster of mostly 3 & 4 star players and regularly beat 5-star loaded teams?

Will Muschamp is terrific with a 5-star stable of players but was generally awful with our talent pool.

I think it might have been the word "still" in my post that caused confusion.

Right now they average, what? - 10-11-12 wins per season + in the hunt for the title?

Under dropping to #10 in NIL $$ but with same coaching staff, I think they'd drop to around 7 or 8 wins per season + bowl game. The difference in coaching staffs goes a long way sometimes. That's why I said it depends on how much fire the coaches have to continue to want to be successful. Even Saban walked away after a while. Burn out is real. But assuming just a tiny drop off in "fire" from the coaches, I believe UGA's staff is good for 7-8 wins per season with halfway decent talent. I could be wrong.

 

[Uscg1984]

So you believe they would take a roster of mostly 3 & 4 star players and regularly beat 5-star loaded teams?

That's not at all what he said. He said they would average about 4 losses per year. How many teams do they play that are loaded with 5-stars?

In other words, they'd have a significant drop-off from their recent production - but they'd still be a pretty good team.

 

[Go Gamecocks]

Does anyone truly know what the schools are spending?

I don't think anyone knows. The "haves and have nots" is alive and well in CFB.

 

[Rob Hawk]

....And stayed like that for the next 10 years. However, they retain their entire "dynamic" coaching staff (Kirby & Co) for the duration ---

What do you think would happen to them in terms of yearly success after season 3 or 4 and beyond?

I think it largely depends on the players. Do they want success on the field, top tier coaching for the next level and less money in the bank or less success and possibly more money in the bank. Georgia under Smart is a proven long term winner. Also with transfers and recruit arriving yearly, the NIL they get today may not be the NIL they get tomorrow. Georgia is Georgia. I think they maintain their competitive edge.

 

[TheRoo]

That's not at all what he said. He said they would average about 4 losses per year. How many teams do they play that are loaded with 5-stars?

In other words, they'd have a significant drop-off from their recent production - but they'd still be a pretty good team.

Maybe. That's what he believes. Care to answer the Muschamp riddle?

 

[Uscg1984]

Maybe. That's what he believes. Care to answer the Muschamp riddle?

Nah, you lost me at "Muschamp is terrific . . ."

Seriously, when did Muschamp demonstrate he was a terrific HC when he had 5-star talent?

 

[TheRoo]

Nah, you lost me at "Muschamp is terrific . . ."

Seriously, when did Muschamp demonstrate he was a terrific HC when he had 5-star talent?

Muschamp was basically running our defense trying to save his job. He openly stated this.

He's been a terrific DC with 5-star players at several schools.

 

[Uscg1984]

Muschamp was basically running our defense trying to save his job. He openly stated this.

He's been a terrific DC with 5-star players at several schools.

My bad . . . I guess I lost track of the thread. I thought we were discussing in the context of head coaches.

No argument from me that Muschamp is a terrific DC with 5-star talent. He was certainly less than terrific as a head coach with 5-star talent.

 

[TheRoo]

My bad . . . I guess I lost track of the thread. I thought we were discussing in the context of head coaches.

No argument from me that Muschamp is a terrific DC with 5-star talent. He was certainly less than terrific as a head coach with 5-star talent.

He was fine the first year with Urban's talent pool and the UF began to drop in recruting.

The default setting that UGA would still average 8 wins a year is because you remember them being good before the NIL. That was largely because they had a rabid donation base from alumni for coaches and facilities.

 

[Uscg1984]

He was fine the first year with Urban's talent pool and the UF began to drop in recruting.

Well, his last year was a top 10 class and the two years prior to that were top 5 classes, so there weren't many teams in America with better raw talent than UF when Muschamp was there. Other than his 2nd year when UF somehow made it to the Sugar Bowl, he was 17-19 in his other three seasons. He was not a good HC, whether with good talent or bad.

But Tanner thought he saw a diamond in the rough, I guess.

 

[muscleknight]

We are getting scammed this year on NIL