I'll give in.  I was going to avoid the down-talk, but somebody has to.

The fact is, the most deserving team to win the East is Georgia.  They've played the strongest season and had the fewest hiccups.  It just turns out that those one hiccup was a close one against a Spurrier that showed up, and the other hiccup was failing to arrive in Knoxville for the game against UT.  We merely have the grace of having one of our three (as in, more than two) hiccups against a nonconference foe, thereby minimizing our losses in the conference and making the SEC look bad in a national setting, all in one motion.

Now, calling Georgia when we hold the tiebreak sounds odd on the face of things, but the first tiebreak is simply head-to-head, not "most respectable season".  Another sense of the matter would be this: if UT had beaten Cal and Florida, but lost to UGA, but UGA lost to Florida, and everything else remains the same, would UT's season look more successful right now, even though we wouldn't hold the tiebreaker?  The answer is "yes" because of the undefeated nonconference record, including a road win against a healthy Cal team and because of having fewer blowout losses staring back at us like zits on a teenager's face before prom.

Further, if UT does happen to win the East, BCS or not, they'll probably end up in a bowl game against an opponent of at least equal talent who shows up and kills us.  It'd be like Penn State last year, only with a real QB instead of Morelli.  If we're lucky enough to get the BCS nod, it'd most likely pit us against West Virginia or Boston College.  WVU's run game against our run defense is embarrassing to think about, and BC's pass game(Ryan will be healthy by the time a BCS bowl rolls around) would be nearly as distressing.

So, the best face-saving scenario would be to lose a really close on to Kentucky to let Georgia take the East, and take our rightful place in whatever they call the ciTrUs bowl nowadays.  At least we'd have a shot of winning.  Then Georgia could go and dishumiliarass somebody with their at-large bid (Hawaii?!?), or even justify the East by beating LSU in Atlanta.

So, assuming they don't overlook Vandy and blow the undefeated home record out of the water for this year, it's not like we have been given much to hold out hope for.  They haven't had more than 2 solid games in a row (Arkansas State took longer to lock down than it should have).  Why can be hope that they can not only sustain that for the rest of the season, plus Atlanta, plus the bowl game?

Sheesh!

Where's that bottle of whiskey and those pills?

Might as well get out my pistol while I'm at it just in case, like our late game tendencies, those don't finish me off.

That was actually a pretty accurate assessment but dang, now I'm too depressed to...well...do anything.

OW, my brain hurts.

There goes our season.

Boo, creepy foot doctor!

Hooray, possibility of hope for next year!

It's a little trick I learned whenever I need to put a negative (or positive) spin on things - put in as much truth as possible without mentioning anything that works against your point.  For example, it should be noted that the losses were in the first half of the season (sort of - Alabama was game 7).  Since then, the team has steadily looked better and better.  Also, under the alternate universe scenario I proposed, UT would have lost a home game, which is a point of pride at the moment.  Lastly, tiebreakers are not intended to award the division to the "most deserving" - that's a subjective valuation.  Tiebreakers award the division to somebody who wins out on a numerical scale - no subjectivity, no disputes.  Our win over Georgia is a "1" to their "0", so we win that tiebreaker.  If Florida wanted a piece of the action, they might have tried stopping LSU on 4th down for once.

ONUV:
I had thought that by "the future", Joel meant the future of this season.  In that sense, he's right.  The team is playing better now than earlier in the season.  (See McFadden!  See McFadden sit!)  We are past the worst of the schedule, even though Vandy isn't exactly La-Lafayette, and UK isn't going to be easy.  Atlanta is a neutral field, which eliminates both Neyland and Death Valley from any UT-LSU equation, and I'm willing to take that.

As far as the future years, I'll take your word on that, as I only got here a year ago.  UT is still a huge upgrade from what I'm used to, so I'll accept a better-calibrated opinion on the matter.  I think the team will be much better out of the gate next year as opposed to this year, no matter who's coaching, but I think the real difficulty is that Florida, Georgia, and Alabama all project to be better next year as well.  (I personally hesitate to agree with the projection about Alabama because they're losing a lot more in their senior class than people are willing to admit, but it's all projection either way.)  We'll trade Cal for UCLA, which is good for us, and the other nonconference teams are an upgrade (though not a dangerous upgrade), which is good for strength-of-schedule.  The away games are Spurrier, Auburn, Georgia, and Vandy, which is about typical for SEC play.  We also have a bye before Florida, which should help us tremendously.  That Cal-trap-Florida sandwich we had for two years was a terrible scheduling idea, particularly when the trap was USAFA.  The Air Force offense is too unique to adequately practice for unless you play them regularly.

I guess I see good things and bad things.  We don't have the Ole Miss / MSU rotation, which hurts us, but Kentucky won't have Woodson, which will be a huge relief.  All in all, I'm a little more optimistic about next year's schedule than I was about this year.  The Georgia game worries me the most.  I like what I see in recruiting so far, particularly Aaron Douglas - TE from Maryville.  The guy's a great pass-catcher and has excellent blocking technique - a little strength training and he should be a first-year starter in a modest Antonio Gates type role.  That would help Crompton out tremendously, particularly with seasoned receivers.

I'd be kinda careful before writing off next season already there ONUV.

Like Hoop said, the schedule is much better. No Cal, two weeks to prepare for Tebow (I'm still trying to come up with an appropriatly derogatory nickname for this, my newest nemesis), pick up UAB and N Illinois and Wyoming. The only games I see that we might want to really worry about are Spurrier, Auburn, and Georgia (remember no Woodson at 'Tucky).

And more good news. We're only losing about a handful of real contributors. Ainge, Chris Brown (big loss), Heffney (but I say good riddance), Ryan Karl, J.T. Mapu (sort of), Xavier Mitchell (ouch), Antonio Reynolds (ouch,ouch), Casey Woods (it's not just Daniel Lincoln who makes field goals), and Eric Young (who'll anchor the o-line now?). 8 guys. 2 of which (Heffney and Mapu) I don't think we're gonna miss too much. Everybody else is coming back.

That means a seasoned Eric Berry, Dennis Rogan, Ben Martin, Kenny O'Neal, Lennon Creer, Gerald Jones, plus a host of others AND we finaly get to see Brandon Warren, hopefully, and see Crompton run the offense full time. I left a bunch of guys out but the way I see it, we can't not be better next season. It seems statistically impossible.

Enter the X-factor. The coaches. Let me say this as clearly as possible: I HAVE FAITH IN PHILLIP FULMER. I also have faith in Cut and Chief and in Trooper. Faith begins to get a little shaky from there. I think it goes without saying that there'll be some changes in the coaching staff after the season. I can't remember the last time there wasn't. Maybe that's the problem. Anyway, These guys aren't stupid. They know something MUST change. Let's just hope they figure out what that is. I have faith. You should too. Because like it or not, these are the coaches we have and will have for at least the next year.

With the talent we have, the schedule we have, and the correct changes I beleive in my heart the coaches will make (I have to or I'd go insane) I see good things...at least for next year. Beyond that, who the heck knows?