Then and now

Gainesville Sun scribe Robbie Andreu compares the 2006 Championship team to this year's squad in the article above. While I agree with most of his analysis, I think he missed the mark on some of the differences.
For example:
Tailbacks--Andreu says DeShawn Wynn was solid. I agree Wynn had a tremendous upside, but never became the star he should have been. He says we have speedier guys this year, but we were awesome at tailback in 2006 when Harvin was used, so the potential for home runs was the same. We have more depth this year.
Fullbacks--Andreu doesn't go into a lot of depth here. But with the true spread in place, we don't use a traditional fullback. But with Aaron Hernandez at tight end it replaces that extra blocker we had with the fullback, plus it gives us another home run threat, this time in a non-traditional role.
Overall defensively, this team seems as good as the 2006 variety, but I think the 2006 was a little better. I don't base it on statistics, but I the fact I think they faced better offenses overall and their mettle was constantly tested because they were relied on to win games. I think the one thing better about this defense than the 2006 defense is depth. The 2006 defensive line were all stars whereas the defensive line this year is a mix of very talented and interchangeable players. In 2006, the linebackers were led by two guys, Siler and Earl Everett. This year we have Spikes and a lot of other really talented guys, which I feel makes this year's linebacking crew better than 2006. And finally, we don't have a Reggie Nelson kind of player in this year's secondary, but overall I think we are better with a lot of guys--Haden, Jenkins, Wright, Black, Hill--all on the verge of becoming that kind of player.

Football Is Smart

"In contrast, football, born during the industrial revolution, is a game precisely divided in time and space, played on a regulation grid and according to a strict official clock. Each player has an assigned role, like workers in a factory. It is thoroughly modern.

Yet that is where football's poetry begins: its apparent rigidity is misleading."

This is something like the arguments made in genre theory when dealing with films, etc.

Gators Lead All Teams in "Opponents' Wins"

Why It's More About How The Money is Distributed Than It Is About How Much Is Distributed When It Comes To The Bowls

"Overall, the Sugar Bowl spent $11.1 million in 2006 alone. The SEC operated its 2007 Championship Game (in effect a bowl game) for just $2.1 million. The ACC managed to pull off its 2006 title game for $1.2 million.

It’s not easy making a single, three-and-a-half-hour football game cost over $11 million; which might explain why the Sugar Bowl has an actual 'committee on golf'."

These are some of the more remarkable facts revealed in the article linked above. Kaufman sums it up at Salon, pointing out that the NCAA has no power over the postseason, and this seems to be the reason that the bowl committees want things to continue as is--their profit margin is actually much lower than a postseason under an NCAA guided playoff structure would be, so the money-interests argument gets a little more complicated at this point. Defending this bowl system is starting to sound similar to defending health insurance companies. The deal that ESPN has with the bowls could help explain why the defenders of playoffs at ESPN is a lower proportion to defenders of playoffs not working for ESPN--but these kinds of (ideological) arguments are tricky since, consciously, and spontaneously, they really believe in the bowls.

From Rocky Top to Swamp music

The Tennessee Gatorade Player of the Year, a 3-star QB/DB, has changed his commitment from UT to UF. He'll probably play corner for us.
Here is a list of who we've recruited so far according to Rivals.com. They have us 15th, but that could change once the recruits coming in around the BCS game get a chance to visit.
Scout.com basically has us in the same spot at 14th.