I'm thinking UGA stumbled with Mizzou, in part not taking them as serious as they should have, and other parts mizzou being a lot better than suspected/expected. I can't hold that against them. the UT game is a different thing, and one where i'm thinking they played extremely vanilla while maintaining a balanced game- too many times UT was in the precise D they needed to be in, and not because they are so good at reading O's, but because the O was playing extremely vanilla... they were almost like playing against the computer in a video game predictable.
UGA had everything to lose and zero to gain by taking it to UT- injuries or other wear and tear on important commodities, turn overs or statistical degradation which plays into minds of voters, and eye test by those that actually watch... casual observers will think UGA was 'off', but watching closer, it's pretty simple to spot that UGA was playing soft and safe- on purpose and strategically.
that.... and, standing by for fire: UT wasn't the same team that was taken to school by UF last week... they were better prepared and far less confused. of course they 'looked' better when Oogah didn't have the interest in blitzing or with some sort of axe to grind as UF did (seeking to be taken more seriously at that point this season) ..... i'm not thinking the last game was much of a measure of UGA, though the mizzou win MAY be some indication of the team being legitimately flat at times.
