Experts predict USC win in Cross-town Showdown...

by DC Trojan on Oct 28, 2007 6:18 PM PDT

Paragon drew my attention to a post on BN about how USC is having a bad season (true) and that Pete Carroll doesn't seem to have many ideas of how to stop the slide (a lot of people on this board are wondering about that, esp. on the offensive coordinator side of things).

Because they're BN, the next logical leap is that SC is about to enter a period of terminal suck and NCAA sanctions, and the sleeping giant is going to dominate us all over again, forever and ever, time without end.

Unless the BN crew has some kind of heretofore unknown method of knowing the future, I'm tempted to chalk that up to spite and wishful thinking. I mean, on Friday morning BN practically guaranteed a win over Washington State, so you've got to wonder about the reliability of their prognostication... they might be as bad at it as the rest of us.

Maybe I'm being too quick to dismiss their analysis, though. They did predict that ucla would beat USC last year, after all. Maybe SC really does suck this season, maybe we will see several more losses. That's good news in one respect, because the record shows how well ucla does against their powerhouse opposition.

Yes, you're right, BN, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

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.

Tweet Comment 28 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

clearly delusional

they need to worry about their own program.
DG will NOT spend the money it takes to get a credible coach.

they also lose a fair amount of players next season and there is no guarantee that ucla will hang on to those recruits if dorrell and his "enforcer" eric scott get the boot.

by Paragon SC on Oct 28, 2007 6:36 PM PDT reply actions

Not delusional

But certainly optimistic.

IMO, UCLA loses more recruits if he stays than if he goes.

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 28, 2007 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes delusional...

Lets break it down shall we...

IF Pete Carroll were to leave after this season (that could happen and it would really screw SC) and when Dorrell is fired it is not inconceivable that SC and ucla could be in the running for the same coaches though I would agree with the comment below that that is highly unlikely. But for arguments sake lets say they do. ucla has opened the purse strings as they're starting to show they'll spend some money, but UCLA's athletic budget isn't all that great. They're going to lose a bunch of money when they buy Dorrell out, it costs money to conduct a coaching search, their ticket revenues are flat (outside of this season, probably because of ND), and basketball cannot produce enough revenue to pay for football.

UCLA has a notoriously fickle fan base (see: BN), which is why they can't commit to a pricey coach and that is a huge part of the problem, they don't step up enough with cash and reasonable behavior to provide the solution. The biggest names command five years, pricey buyouts, etc. and UCLA can only commit to such a person if they're 100% positive he'll make them a top 10 team that makes enough money to pay for him and hopefully break even. They love all their other sports too much (see all the hype over the 100 NCAA titles etc.) to risk losing money and under funding those other sports if revenues sink. They've never had enough butts in the seats even in good years.

I heard on the bruin show podcast that one of the hosts got a call or spoke to the representatives of a coach out east saying that it wouldn't take much (I believe it was 1.2 -1.5 million) to be interested in ucla. I can say with a high degree of certainty that it could not have been Spurrier I mean come on... Southern Boy who likes golfing and has access to Augusta National and already has millions in the bank, is in his 60's and probably hates big city life having spent the majority of his life in places like Gainesville and now Columbia, is not coming to UCLA, "reality based?" hardly.

I have said it before and I will say it again, ucla was a regional power in USC's down years and they didn't dominate then. Sure they had some good Rose Bowls but they were never in the hunt year in and year out for a MNC. Now that the MNC is a culmination of top records and such, ucla is even farther away from that goal. Nestor is nuts if he thinks ucla will ever dominate SC, sure they will get some wins as they did have an 8 game streak but until you win titles year in and year out, or at least be in the hunt while beat SC, it is still nothing more that a regional rivalry.

I think UCLA has a top 15-20 place in the game, but they shouldn't delude themselves into thinking they're a powerhouse. It's not coincidence that their best or second-best era (1980-1998) was paired with USC's worst era as USC adjusted terribly to the departure of Robinson and the scholarship limit era. The fact that in an open era when Notre Dame, Alabama, USC, Oklahoma etc. failed to dominate the game and they still couldn't ascend to a place where USC's been plenty of times ... to me says it all.

Greatness only belongs to those with multiple championships, Heismans and top 10 finishes who are paired with an era.

UCLA's best era since the 50's have been the '80's, and even then people think of Penn State, Miami, Oklahoma, Notre Dame (late in the decade, at least), Georgia (early in the decade), teams like that, and THEN they mention UCLA and USC etc. after that. Even in USC's second or third worst decade (50's/80's/90's) we were about on par with UCLA.

As for recruits until they actually sign who knows. You just lost on kid to ASU, it's been discussed there grade issues and that wouldn't surprise me if that were the issue, but why kill yourself to get better grades to into ucla that has a football program in disarray when you could go to ASU not worry as much about the grades and play in a program that is obviously on the rise...easy decision there. Sorry ucla, in football, just isn't a big name nationally.

by Paragon SC on Oct 29, 2007 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't think that's the goal though

UCLA fans know that becoming a national power is unrealistic unless major changes are made. However, being a consistent contender for the conference championship is possible. As long as UCLA is good enough to beat USC, it will be able to recruit in Southern California (especially if USC is recruiting nationwide). There is enough talent in SoCal to field teams that can compete for the Pac 10 Championship.

In the 50 years before Dorrell's tenure, UCLA's record against USC was 24-23-3. While that might not make UCLA a national power, the return of that kind of evenness, along with a good coach, should make UCLA a regional power.

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 29, 2007 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions

which is what I said.....

Regional at best and not dominant over SC. that may be fine for some but not for the more rabid fans. 24-23-3 is hardly dominant.

Recruiting in So Cal is important but until ucla recruits nationally they will have a tough time competing, oh they will get their players but with the Oregon schools and Arizona schools getting a lot of players in So Cal ucal needs to reach out to other parts of the country if they want to get to the next level.

by Paragon SC on Oct 29, 2007 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions

I love stat manipulation

You can always find the point in time where your team looks better than it did overall. Why not just show what the series record is.

by frak on Oct 29, 2007 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Because the two programs aren't the same age

USC's first football team was in 1888. UCLA wasn't founded until 1919. How is a school in its first year going to be able to compete with a program that has been running for 30 years? It takes time to build a program, and the first few years are not representative of how good that program is.

UCLA's record pre-Sanders is about as relevant to its history as the basketball team's record is pre-Wooden.

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 30, 2007 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Rationalize it any way you want

Its about as lame as all those people quoting Carroll's football record after he went 1-5 in his first six games.

I'm guessing you found the spot where the record started looking even. According to your logic it took 31 years for ucla to catch up to USC. I bet it also excludes a long winning streak by the Trojans that took place just prior to the 50's. FYI the record you're leaving for USC is 13-3-4 against ucla 1929-1950.

by frak on Oct 30, 2007 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions

I will say this

USC has hardly been dominant over ucla in the era of modern football. 70's were all SC, 80's was pretty much a tie, 90's was all ucla, 00's all USC again. What separates the programs is USC's ability to put together an entire season. National titles, conference titles, Rose Bowl appearances, and Rose Bowl victories is so far in favor of the Trojans that ucla will never catch up. The bruins have about as much chance in overtaking the Trojans in football as USC does in overtaking them in basketball. ucla will always be 2nd to the Trojans in Los Angeles in football. Maybe even 3rd if Long Beach Poly is having a good year.

by frak on Oct 30, 2007 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions

I posted it somewhere else a few weeks ago

I counted 15 years back, then 30, then 50, then took the 50 years before Dorrell.

The reality is the last 50 years (USC 26, UCLA 21, 3 ties) are a much more accurate depiction of the rivalry than the decades before that. And yes, 1950 is where the record starts to even out. If the rivalry (game itself) has been even for the most part over the last 50 years, how exactly are those previous 20 meetings relevant?

Again, this is very similar to basketball.

Before Wooden: 59-19 USC
During Wooden: 61-20 UCLA
After Wooden: 44-20 UCLA

The former two are irrelevant to the rivalry in its current state. UCLA will never return to the program it was before Wooden, nor will it ever again reach the heights it reached while he was coach. The record the last 30 years is about where the two programs will hover in relation to each other unless there are substantial changes.

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 30, 2007 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions

I guess the 20 previous meetings are relevant

because SC won 75% of them. Why did you stop at 50. Why not go to 75?

The series is what it is. You can talk about a decade here and there, but both schools have faced off every year since 1929. Just because ucla stunk up the 30's and 40's doesn't mean those from both of those teams should be left out of a discussion.

I would love to forget the 90's, but they happened. Although I try to block it out as much as I can. Rationalize away. USC owns ucla in football. ucla will never be part of any discussion about legendary football schools. You guys have basketball. You own that nationally. No one compares with ucla in that sport. USC is one of 5-10 teams that matter in college football. Any amount of stat manipulation isn't going to change that fact.

by frak on Oct 31, 2007 1:43 AM PDT up reply actions

Yes and no

Do they count? Yes. Are they relevant? Not really. I agree with your earlier statement that USC is so far ahead in NC's, RB wins, etc. that UCLA is going to be perennially the 2nd place team in LA for likely all time. But in terms of head-to-head play, I do not agree with your point.

Many USC fans like to cite the all-time record of the USC-UCLA basketball series in some kind of effort to show that the gap just really isn't that overwhelming in favor of UCLA. Of course, USC totally owned UCLA in basketball until Wooden arrived in 1948 and citing to the all-time numbers minimizes the dominance of UCLA since that year. Obviously, those games count, and I appreciate the historical accuracy, but I think SBM's basic point is valid. A better evaluation of the competiveness of the rivalry should start at a time after the school becomes "established." Now what that year should be is debatable, but I don't see how including results against a team that lost to Manual Arts High School, the Coast Guard and other noted powerhouses of the 1920's and 1930's as UCLA did when it fielded its first teams somehow supports the argument that USC owns UCLA in football. I like the 1950 cutoff myself, for the simple reason that it is a convenient year to use.

Good argument, however.

by ucladj89 on Oct 31, 2007 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions

Relevency is a whole other issue...

that i don't want to even look at. Talk about a can of worms, it is just too subjective.

by Paragon SC on Oct 31, 2007 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions

I would say the rivalry was established

before 1950, USC is in your alma mater after all, what's the line when ever a bruin sees a trojan man yada yada yada.

Only the silliest USC fan would make any argument over the greatness of USC basketball, the fact is most Trojans are happy to see the BBall team do well but honestly don't really care. I acknowledge that UCLA has and has had a better team.

I don't think anyone would say that USC "owns" UCLA in football, but its not fair to take away all games played before a certain point, where the guys who played not really Bruins or Trojans? Some of USC's best Teams were in the early years, we are proud of them. UCLA should be too -- didn't Jackie Robinson play one those early 40's teams? He's a UCLA all time great. The rivalry has been very competitive, but USC does have a lead, that's just a fact. Notre Dame leads the USC ND series all time, but its a competitive series.

by ilium55 on Oct 31, 2007 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions

Personally

I believe that everytime my team has lost a game, that loss isn't relevant.

by frak on Oct 31, 2007 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions

And

I don't think it's crazy to think this might be Pete Carroll's last year at USC. If he does leave, you'll need a new coach, and you can never completely ensure that you get the right coach.

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 28, 2007 9:53 PM PDT reply actions

Now stop that...

I know it's nearly Hallowe'en, but you can just put away your "KD resume for SC" costume. Put it away, along with the Hackett mask and the Larry Smith "run run pass punt" play card t-shirt.

Not that I'm opposed to costumes though - this terrifies Paragon, but if PC leaves I want SC to hire Mike Leach, so that I actually have an excuse to wear an eyepatch and let a parrot ride on my shoulder. As it is, the neighbors just think I'm odd.

by DC Trojan on Oct 28, 2007 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Yar

ye be a scary one, DC...and keep yer mitts of Leach, I want the Pirate King for UCLA when we can Dorrell.

by ucladj89 on Oct 29, 2007 7:44 AM PDT up reply actions

Could ucla beat us

Anything is possible. Just ask Stanford. If they can beat us, anyone can. In order for us to lose, we will have to make a lot of mistakes, which seems to be our style this year. Too many turnovers and penalties have been the cause of our downfall over the last 2 seasons. As for BN's prediction, I can't blame them for trying to remain optimistic. I do think they spend a little too much time concerning themselves with us then they do with their own program. Also I really don't like the complete lack of respect that they show coach Carroll and Floyd.

by frak on Oct 28, 2007 10:40 PM PDT reply actions

being serious for a minute

Of course ucla could win that game. They won last year after all, and not much has changed in terms of SC's tendencies that they could take advantage of.

However, given the Bruins' track record of choking against "lesser" opponents, if I were a Bruin I'd be careful about hoping that SC truly sucks by season's end. Just saying (as they say.)

by DC Trojan on Oct 29, 2007 5:32 AM PDT up reply actions

That's what aggrivates me most about BN

I dislike the way they treat Coaches both thier oen and others, its rude and hateful. The shrill tone is not good for the rivalry, its more "raider fan" than College Football fan.
They could win this years game, when two teams meet on the field, one will lose. The question is what about this bruins team makes you think they should be favored? 3 blow out losses, 2 to teams which USC blew out?
Honestly, if Carroll were to go to the NFL (I sure hope he stays) who thinks that USC and UCLA would even be competing for the same canidates? USC will pay its coaches, Carroll is very well paid. If Mike Leach, or any other canidate likes to make money (while living in one of the US's most expensive areas) they would choose the 2.5 mil USC will pay over the 1 mil UCLA will groan and hem and haw over paying. USC also has a great deal of talent to devolop and a very high national profile. UCLA has a bare cupboard and no national profile (or about the same as Texas Tech, without the flair). If UCLA fires Dorrell, they will be in the same place USC was after Hackett.
I Checked John McKay did not win every game either, nor did he have a great team every year. Some years he did not even go to the Rose Bowl. He is still the Best Coach in USC or Pac 10 history. Pete Carroll can be that good.

by ilium55 on Oct 29, 2007 9:12 AM PDT reply actions

Respectfully disagree

Dorrell is terrible (as was Lavin), and most of his original opposition (on any site) treat him in this way. Disrespect or contempt for Carroll is noticeable on most UCLA blogs or messageboards. I would actually say that BN has greater respect for what he has accomplished on the field than most people at a place like BRO. Jeff Tedford too is much more respected there than on BRO.
I don't think anyone thinks UCLA should be favored. However, the increasingly Lavin-like performances of the team do make one more win against a good team seem likely. Strange as it might have seemed at the beginning of the year, USC is the worst of our last three opponents. Also, as the game gets closer and closer it gets harder to admit that UCLA might not win.
While a coach who both UCLA and USC wanted would probably choose USC, that doesn't mean UCLA will be unable to get a good coach. And just because USC has money doesn't mean it can guarantee getting a good coach. Mike Garrett blundered into Carroll and Floyd. Neither was his top choice. Texas Tech is not on par with UCLA. It is the 4th best school in Texas (in terms of football). UCLA is the 3rd best school in California, in spite of the major handicap that is its coach. UCLA has had great success in the recent past. Texas Tech has not.

When UCLA fires Dorrell, I don't think many UCLA fans would complain about having the kind of success USC has had post-Hackett.

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 29, 2007 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions

I have to disagree

I would say that Fresno St. is probably the third best team in California.

by frak on Oct 29, 2007 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions

I haven't been paying too much attention...

...but I was under the impression they have done very badly since losing that shootout in 2005.

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 29, 2007 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions

4-1 Conference, 5-3 Overall

Sound familiar. Pat Hill is actually a pretty good coach considering what he has to work with.

by frak on Oct 29, 2007 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions

I will own up to not reading Bruin Boards

except for BN, so I'll take your word for it. I still think the shrill tone is not positive for the rivalry.

I Think UCLA could win, I think I said that in my original post, I hope USC wins, but anything could happen with these two teams.
I just mean that UCLA might find it difficult to poach a coach from another BCS program, even Texas Tech. Texas is a Football mad state, and Tech is probobly the 2nd best team in the state, even if A&M has more fans. The big question is what package they will offer, if they pony up big money you will get the kind of coach you want, a proven winner, if not you will have to find talent in creativly.

I know that Garrett lucked into Carroll (I don't know much about the Flyod hire as I don't follow College Basketball). Frankly there is a good chance that post Carroll USC will make a terrible hire, we have made many of them.

by ilium55 on Oct 29, 2007 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions

ucla's bell is out for the season

This is going to make ucla's chances of beating us a little bit more difficult. There's only been a couple of players on ucla's team that have consistantly made plays in every game, and he was one of them. Hope he has a speedy recovery.

by frak on Oct 29, 2007 7:32 PM PDT reply actions