Animosity between SMQ and Bruins Nation?

by Laughing Stock on Jun 15, 2008 9:36 PM PDT Comment 33 comments

Maybe I'm the only one, but it seems that a little bit of enmity has come up between SMQ and our friends over at BN. On June 12, SMQ posted this story:

Mandate For Change: UCLA

Discussing UCLA's upcoming football season and what is expected of Rick Neuheisel err... COACH Rick Neuheisel. Just one day later, BN'er Menelaus posted this little blurb in the Fan Post section:

Hating on Neuheisel

In all fairness no one knows the whole truth behind Neuheisal's coaching past, but Menelaus does little to add credence to his argument against SMQ as three of five sources he cites refer back to pro-Bruins blogs (with two of those three linking to BN itself). Anyways this article on Bruin hypocrisy went up today on SMQ:

Whatever Happened to Great Expectations?

Obviously, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that UCLA's Athletic Department and Fans are a bunch of Bigots and Racists for holding Dorrell to higher standards than Neuheisel... Just Kidding.

What can be drawn from this is that SMQ has shown in the past that his blog is purely for entertainment and analysis (ie he has no agenda or school affiliation weirdness), whereas BN is obviously staunchly pro UCLA. I don't see what Menelaus, Nestor, et al has to gain from responding to what SMQ writes, as they're basically preaching to the choir of UCLA fans. Maybe if we're lucky we will get an entertaining retort from BN in the coming days, followed by more cutting articles from SMQ.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Conquest Chronicles' writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Conquest Chronicles' writers or editors.

0 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Been kinda monitoring that myself LaughingStock

Interesting developments, no? Next couple of days are sure gonna be. . . . ahem. . . fun.

by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 15, 2008 10:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Grab some popcorn...

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Jun 16, 2008 4:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Ooooops! (hold the popcorn)

Backtracking.
Re-assessments.
No more fun.

According to the “new 7 win” correction, I don’t think they’ll be partaking in taking on SMQ anymore. Someone got muzzled and someone else bought a new perspective.

by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 16, 2008 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just as expected....

We have another counter-article from BN:

Bring Out the Tin Foil Hats

by Laughing Stock on Jun 17, 2008 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not surprising...

and not worth reading

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Jun 17, 2008 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

Read it, and then the comments. One word, perspective. (Paragon said it best in his repy to Men from SMQ’s “Mandate For Change” post)

It’s just that their insular and “pack-mentality” won’t allow others a perspective, no! They HAVE TO tell you what to think (frame) so that you will appreciate their perspective (narrative) and if you don’t drink the kool-aid from the powder-blue passion bucket- than you’re not being “fair or balanced”. (what’s that saying I used last year here on CC?: “Pot, meet kettle”)

Wow! I’m actually impressed with how moronic they are.

by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 17, 2008 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

(meant to write. . .)

”. . . their insular and pack-mentality way-of-thinking won’t allow others to have their own perspective” .

by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 17, 2008 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is the problem with the blogosphere

Skipping to SMQ’s main point:

It’s not that these projections are destined to be wrong … What this is, really, is an admission that the “expectations” for Dorrell were ridiculous –– intentionally constructed to be beyond not only any independent projections but beyond the realistic grasp of anyone in his position.

In other words, BN’s past expectations/predictions were intentionally set too high in an effort to make Dorrell look worse than he really was.

In 2007, BN’s expectations were an 11-1 record. Throwing out the game against USC, which is always set as a win, UCLA was expected to go 7-1 in conference. Ridiculous, of course.

SMQ, on the other hand, prediced this:

Using their scale (5 and up = win; 4 and below = loss), SMQ predicted UCLA to go 7-2 in the Pac-10. If you throw out the USC game again, they predicted a 7-1 record in conference. If you add in the OOC games, against 3 middle of the road teams, that type of team would surely go 3-0, for an overall record of 10-2.

The biggest problem with SMQ’s response is that is inconsistent. The entire midsection of the post argues that this year’s expectations are too low and aim for regression. He then concludes by conceding that this year’s expectations could very well be correct (guaranteeing 7 wins would be going out on a bit of a limb, afterall) and points out last year’s expectations as the real issue. It’s a very compelling argument – if you ignore his past predictions.

by SuperBruinMan on Jun 17, 2008 6:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Forgot to get to "the problem with the blogosphere"

1. SMQ posts a preview of UCLA’s season, including an analysis of Neuheisel’s past record.

2. Menelaus posts a response focusing on SMQ’s use of the word “charlatan” and the reference to Al Capone. The post is connected with an earlier post about a similar point made on the Wizard of Odds.

3. SMQ is clearly offended by the response. He then writes a long post addressing BN’s supposed hypocrisy wrt expectations, a topic that is at best tangentially related to the original disagreement.

4. Menelaus’s inevitable response addresses SMQ’s main points and characterizes it as a conspiracy theory.

The problem is that one small disagreement escalated into a huge petty argument. One comment after Post 3 praised it for not being a personal attack, saying it “steered clear of attacking the singer rather than the song.” Unfortunately, that really wasn’t true. SMQ’s post criticizes BN for the way it conducted its case against Dorrell and characterizes it as a “single-issue blog.” This in effect is an attack on the blog’s core purpose and the motives of its contributors. I don’t see how you can get any more personal than that.

In the comments sections on both blogs, posters have attacked the other side as irrational or other worse things. The truth is that both blogs are generally great reads with logically supported points. Squabbling like this is just dumb, and when it comes to the blogosphere, all too common.

by SuperBruinMan on Jun 17, 2008 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I’m not seeing a problem here…

If it’s OK for Nestor and his crew to call Pete Carroll "Cheety Petey" when there isn’t a thing to back that up then I don’t see a problem with SMQ calling Neuheisel a charlatan, especially with his record. It’s SMQ’s opinion and he’s entitled to it even if you think he’s wrong. Just like you are.

I have my own thoughts on it but I will comment on it in due time…there is an interesting line to follow if you look carefully.

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Jun 17, 2008 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that part is justified

SMQ is free to call Neuheisel a charlatan (though the Capone reference doesn’t really make any sense). BN is free to argue with that and point out the flaws in that line of reasoning. At the same time, UCLA fans can call Carroll whatever they want, and USC fans can argue the flaws there.

The problem is when one side refuses to let things go and makes a huge deal out of some small little thing, or, even worse, when they use it as an excuse to make a big fuss about something completely unrelated.

by SuperBruinMan on Jun 17, 2008 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who didn't let it go?

Hmmm…let me guess…

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Jun 17, 2008 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know I'm biased but...

You understand that my criticism had little, or nothing, to do with your overall perspective re UCLA performance this year. Much of your post, including the detailed history of Dorrell’s underperformance, is quite accurate. That said, your treatment of Neuheisel, as I explained, is one sided. It’s just that simple. So, take whatever issue you’d like in your overall distaste for BN, but please, try to stay on topic.
by Menelaus on Jun 15, 2008 12:22 AM PDT

At that point SMQ could’ve shut up and continued expressing his opinion about Neuheisel when the chance presented itself, or he could have written a long piece detailing his problems with BN’s expectations about Dorrell. He chose the latter.

by SuperBruinMan on Jun 17, 2008 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right ...

Gotcha!

and no one ever let an argument go over there…

whatever

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Jun 17, 2008 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're sure about "the intent"?

What makes you certain that “Mandate For Change” and “Whatever Happend To Great Expectation” are related to Menalaus’s ire? There is, is there not, the possibility of those two topics being mutually exclusive from one another.

You see SuperBruinMan, you’re bringing in the “charlatan” polemic with the “expectation” polemic, so in essence, you’re trying to fight two fronts of an argument. Dirty pool. Let’s settle one of these at a time. And while we’re at it, let’s take a reasonable account of the chronology of fault. Agree?

by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 17, 2008 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am sure

What’s really bizarre Nestor himself just wrote he’d be ecstatic if the team went 6-6 this year, and admitted the very real possibility of going 3-9/4-8. He writes off BYU as a loss – not a toss-up, but an expected loss – even though LA beat BYU last year in the regular season and should have beat them again in the bowl game. And the reaction was, "Hmmm, sobering."
Say what? I mean, really, WTF? It’s a rational prediction, but it’s been a rational prediction for the last two years, and BN consistently wailed about how underachieving the team was – it’s the exact result that made that site explode with contempt on a daily basis. I thought they expected progress. Dorrell never had a regular season worse than 6-6 and they berated him and ran him off like a leper. But when Head Coach Richard Neuheisel The Best CEO In America™ fails to take a single step forward (that’s Nestor’s expectation, not mine), it’s cool – just give him time.

by SMQ on Jun 14, 2008 9:36 PM PDT

That’s where he made the jump – in the “Mandate for Change” comment thread after the response from Menelaus was brought up.

by SuperBruinMan on Jun 17, 2008 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again...(sigh)

Not really sure what the point is here.

Shouldn’t you have conversation with SMQ about this? or maybe some of the bomb throwers on BN. for the most part I have stayed out of this except for the occasional comment in the thread.

I really don’t care, if my readers do thats fine and they can post as they see fit but for the most part I am out of it.

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Jun 17, 2008 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm out too

Watching the Lakers get blown out in the NBA Finals is a rare beauty. I shouldn’t miss it.

by SuperBruinMan on Jun 17, 2008 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've already said my opinion on the other issues

Non-UCLA fans can say whatever they want about Neuheisel’s past transgressions, and UCLA fans can defend him until he does something wrong at UCLA.

SMQ’s other point is just wrong. BN’s expectations were tough but fair. His own prediction of a 7-2 Pac-10 record is good evidence of that.

by SuperBruinMan on Jun 17, 2008 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

SMQ

Still, how do you or I know what was in his queu? He could have had that waiting, but I’ll admit, he showed his hand in his comments on “Mandate For Change” then we saw his “Expectation”. But it still defies logic that BN and/or Menalaus and/or you, for that matter could be deluded into thinking THIS IS ALL ABOUT HATING ON UCLA? Because. . . . . .it’s not.

So, in FINALLY getting this far- what’s your impression of how this has transpired? (really, I’m not joking)

1. SMQ should have had better editing in “Mandate”?
2. Menalaus should kept his mouth shut and let a respected blogger be entitled to his opinion- because afterall, we ALL AGREE- he didn’t lie? (even you say, his supposed “hypocrisy” comes in “Expectation)?

I’m sure there’s more options, but these- I feel- are the crucial two.

by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 17, 2008 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think SMQ should have been offended by Menelaus's response

I just don’t think it was about him.

by SuperBruinMan on Jun 17, 2008 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's still debatable

Perspective. Key word here.

Oh, and . . . . .my balls! You’re killing me SBMan. (it’s okay, don’t answer a direct question. it must be fun?)

Anyhow, I’m through. We’ve gone far enough here. Stupefying.

by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 17, 2008 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is.. . .

. . . arguing your points on a problem that ISN’T REALLY A PROBLEM AT ALL!

If you agree that people are free to have an opinion, why “call them” on the opinion at all? I don’t get it? What are we missing here?

Read Menalaus’ response in his latest “Tin Foil Hat” comment, he says, ”. . .it’s a matter of perspective”. Read the original post from Paragon on SMQ’s “Mandate For Change” (he says to Menalaus), ”. . .it’s all a matter of perspective”. ???

This is really about someone getting their panties all tied up in a wad and venting. The fact is, no one really cared. Their responses to him were done out of sheer stupefaction!

by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 17, 2008 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is personal attacks

It’s certainly not a new problem, and it’s certainly not something anyone is innocent of. It simply has nothing to do with the issues that should be discussed. The first post was a great analysis of Neuheisel’s past record and potential impact. The second was about how Neuheisel was being unfairly attacked in the media and by bloggers (not just SMQ). The third post was about how BN’s supposed expectations about UCLA football are unfair and hypocritical. That post wasn’t about sports; it was about a blog.

by SuperBruinMan on Jun 17, 2008 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do we really wanna discuss personal attacks?

Because involving the characters from BN, YOU WILL LOSE. (and I truly like you SBMan, I do)

by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 17, 2008 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I said nobody's innocent

But if you really want to see personal attacks you should read the Bruinzone Forums.

by SuperBruinMan on Jun 17, 2008 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No thanks

I choose civility. (what gets me SuperBruinMan, is when I do peruse BN- and I’m being honest here- I RESPECT what they’ve got over there. I do. It’s just when I see one of your (Bruin) own, getting SHOT THE F_CK DOWN for having sentient- if disagreeable, points by ONE AND ALL. Even for a Trojan, that’s hard to read)

by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 17, 2008 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There was none whatsoever from SMQ

In his “Mandate For Change”. SMQ used charlatan? And tell me, why he isn’t allowed that latitude? Coach Neuheisel has been called WAY WAY worse, but in reading and re-reading SMQ’s post- he was nothing short of a gentleman.

Is it that SMQ (and others) must have their lexicon vetted through the myopic lens of BN? What IS IT MAN? I feel like I’m getting blue-balled here. You’re giving it to us, but YOU’RE NOT GIVING IT TO US!

by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 17, 2008 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree with Bix...

you don’t really want to have that conversation here do you?

I mean we’re pretty easy going compared to elsewhere. You’re going to have a hard time pinning that on us. We’re not innocent but compared to elsewhere we’re pretty timid.

Anyway, better get used to it as more bloggers become emboldened it will continue and it will only get worse.

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Jun 17, 2008 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree about CC

This blog is better than most when it comes to civil discussion.

by SuperBruinMan on Jun 17, 2008 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The whole point of this fanpost was to point out how pointless it is for those at BN to feel like they have to defend themselves. Obviously UCLA fans will likely not agree with SMQ when he writes negatively about the current coaching staff across town. On the flip side, readers of SMQ are not likely to be swayed by any articles posted on a website with a clear bias. To me, this whole thing is not an indictment of either BN or SMQ, its just something funny that I thought others might get a kick out of.

note: don’t take my use of the term bias the wrong way, I would also say CC is biased towards USC, and BON is biased towards Texas, etc…

by Laughing Stock on Jun 18, 2008 7:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

There are degrees of bias

by frak on Jun 18, 2008 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pot meet kettle

The best part is the b*tching over there about posts critical of UCLA being unfair because they are based on rumor or bias (or both), and they don’t contain “facts” or stand up to reasonable scrutiny. Haha. That’s rich.

by Defender90 on Jun 19, 2008 5:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs