The criteria most people seem to be using to judge our UCLA football program are some combination of the following: our final overall record for this season, the overall performance level for this season in terms of how we have looked in all of our games, and our overall record over the last four years.  These are all reasonable measures but in my opinion are not the best measure.  Let me relate how I have arrived at the perspective I now have.

After the Arizona game I was completely deflated.  That was a completely unacceptable, inexcusable, and embarrassing performance in every way.  As someone here aptly put it, it wasn't fair to the term embarrassing to refer to it as that.  As a season ticket holder I was even ambivalent about whether I should attend the remaining games, since the season seemed all but lost.  I decided to go to the Cal game which to me felt almost like going to a funeral.  I fully expected Cal to beat us as they have the last three years, and that would be the final nail in the coffin for the season.  However much to my surprise our team played very well on both sides of the ball.  I had already given up on our defense which hadn't played well in even one game this season, but much to my surprise they held a decent Cal team to 14 points which came only from two turnovers that gave them the ball deep in our territory.  And the offense looked really good with the new dimension of Kevin Prince making beautiful fakes and rushing for 163 yards (and not getting injured).  After Cal held Utah to 13 yards rushing the week before I feared that Cal would stuff our offense.  But we played by far our best game of the year and not only won the game but beat them by 17 points and had 263 yards rushing.  I was very surprised and at least cautiously optimistic, but I feared what would happen next against a much better Arizona St. team.  Some people I know were saying that they thought we would be competitive against them, but people said the same thing before the Texas game, and we all know how that turned out.  And we have performed particularly badly against really good passing teams this year, and my worst fear was that this might be a repeat of the Arizona game.

However again to my surprise we played a really good overall game against a significantly better opponent than last week.  The offense moved the ball consistently with a consistent rushing attack and a couple of huge passing plays that were the difference in the game.  The defense played well overall holding an explosive Arizona St. offense to 28 pt. which was good enough to win.  And we overcame two terrible fumbles as well as penalties that nullified 3 or 4 of our biggest offensive plays of the game.  And the team played with real heart throughout the game and especially in that last game winning drive.

Continue reading this post »

My take on the Stanford game is very different from what seems to be the near consensus opinion on Bruins Nation (although it isn't that different form VeniceBruin's fanpost), and I expect it will get a good deal of negative reaction.  What I see as missing in much of the commentary here is any sense of context. This includes two things: looking at our team from the perspective of where we are coming from and then what I call the classic sports fallacy which is that athletic performance is a function of what your team does while missing the key role that your opponent plays.  The first of these points applies mostly to the offense and the second to the defense.

 When CRN came here our offense was in a very sorry state.  We had a terrible offensive line and a third string quarterback, and we could neither run nor pass effectively.  The next year we had a freshman quarterback and an offensive line that was terrible in pass protection.  Then last year we finally got a pretty decent running game going, but we still couldn't pass and were one dimensional.  The biggest problem all along has been our offense.  We play in a conference against teams that put up a lot of points, and we were handicapped by an offense that could not match this.  Our offense looked much improved this year after the Houston game, but some here at Bruins Nation said that it was premature to conclude too much from this, since Houston was not a good defensive team.  They said the same thing after the Oregon St. game, and in both cases they were absolutely right.  We wouldn't really know until we played against a really good defensive team if the offenses's improvement was for real. 

Well now we know.  Last night we played one of the best defensive teams in the country, and we were able to move the ball on them.  We had three really nice scoring drives and a long drive to open the game that we didn't score on.  And we did this with a nice balanced attack which featured more yards passing than running.  In addition our offense was able to move the ball on Texas too.  At one point starting late in the first half of that game and going into the second half we had four scoring drives in a row resulting in two touchdowns and two field goals.  If anyone has noticed Texas is now ranked #10 in the coach's poll.  So those urging caution about the apparent improvement of our offense against weak opponents were absolutely correct to do so, but the verdict is now in.  Our offense which has been our greatest liability is clearly capable of moving the ball against top 5 and top 10 teams, while it now features a credible passing component that had been missing up until now. 

Continue reading this post »

First of all let me say that I’m just as frustrated as everyone else. As a season ticket holder I was at the game today and was really hopeful that we would play well and have a reasonable chance to win.  What a disaster.  First the three interceptions killed us early in the game. But the biggest thing that stood out to me was how bad our defense is. This is the third game, and it’s the third game that the defense has played poorly, and this after they were supposed to be the strength of our team this year.  Joe Tresey has shown us nothing so far, and I actually even found myself feeling a little nostalgic for Chuck Bullough.  At least under him last year our defense had some bright moments specifically when they totally dominated Houston and when they shut down Texas in Austin.  They look much worse this year.  I’ve remained hopeful about CRN and up to now have defended him, but now I too have lost confidence in him and unless there is a near miraculous turn around over the rest of the season I think he’s gone.

But while I understand the disappointment and the frustration I don’t see the logic in all the blame being put on Dan Guerrero and the supposed “culture of mediocrity” that some people are talking about. Some people talk almost as if Guerrero knowingly settled on hiring a mediocre coach when better ones were clearly available, or that the administration knew of clearly better choices to CRN but didn’t want to put out the money.  But this was clearly not the case.  I remember that after Karl Dorrell the consensus opinion of UCLA fans was that the key requirement for our new coach was for someone who had already been successful as a head coach.  And CRN fit that requirement better than anyone having taken Washington to a Pac 10 championship and a Rose Bowl victory and Colorado to a Cotton Bowl victory.  And given that this was his dream job it was a good assumption that he would never leave the head coaching position at UCLA if successful.

Many people knowledgeable about football were confident that CRN would be a very successful coach here.  One was Bob Stiles (who made likely the greatest play in UCLA football history).  I remember him saying that he thought CRN would have us even with USC within a couple years. Unfortunately he was wrong, but an optimistic outlook certainly seemed warranted at that time.  The main misgivings at the time were about the alleged ethical issues with his past coaching positions and not about his ability to coach and recruit.

Now people are looking with hindsight based on a very disappointing outcome as if this was obvious when CRN was hired.  Let me ask a question.  Shortly after CRN was named head coach he hired Norm Chow as offensive coordinator. How many of you at that time predicted that over the next four years our football team would have a mediocre unproductive offense?  And how many of you predicted at that time that what would be most lacking would be an effective passing game?  And how many of you predicted then that with Norm Chow and CRN as coaches that the biggest weakness would be the quarterback play?

Continue reading this post »

Looking at our football team so far this season I see some real positives, although there are obviously areas of concern.  However there is one overriding positive which I think outweighs the negatives.  Our greatest problem over the past few years has been our mostly anemic offense.  And even more specifically it has been our lack of any kind of consistent passing game.  Even when our offense played well last year it was mostly running the ball, and as the season went on teams were able to focus their defense on stopping our running game because of the lack of a passing threat.  So until now we have not had a balanced offense with a passing game to go along with the running game. What has been the reason for this?  I think there have been three obvious problems which I would rank in this order:  An offensive line not able to offer adequate pass protection for our quarterbacks, the lack of an experienced quarterback with a  consistently effective passing game, and receivers who were not getting open and not holding on to the ball.

But it looks like this year the offense may have finally arrived.  What we saw in the team scrimmage and especially in the Houston game was a balanced and productive offense that can pass as well as run the ball.  We now have two quarterbacks who are more experienced and who have shown they can both lead the team and throw the ball effectively (especially Richard Brehaut whom we have seen more of).  We have receivers who look like they can really catch the ball and who have exceptional talent.  As for the offensive line there is obvious improvement especially in pass protection.  I still have some concern in this area.  They pass protected well against Houston, but Houston does not have a particularly good defense, and we don't know how they will do against better defensive teams that we will be playing.  Also while our running game was good overall I don't think we dominated the line of scrimmage like we did against them last year.  So while the offensive line does appear improved we will have to see how they do as the season goes on.

Another cause for optimism comes from other games played on Saturday which seem to indicate that our schedule may be significantly more favorable than last year.  Oregon St. was beaten at home by Sacramento St., USC barely beat a very mediocre Minnesota team playing at home, Utah certainly didn't win impressively over Montana St. at home, Colorado got drilled by Hawaii, and Texas was less than overwhelming.  The Arizona schools will be tough, but we have a decent chance against them with Arizona St. coming to the Rose Bowl. Cal had a pretty impressive first game, but fortunately we get to play them in the Rose Bowl this year. I now think we have a real chance to win every time we take the field this year with the probable exception of Stanford (I don't mean we will win every game, but that we have a good chance in each individual game.)

Continue reading this post »

 If you want to hear an encouraging perspective on UCLA basketball listen to Billy Donovan's post game interview.  He was extremely impressed with our team. He began by saying (bold mine):  

"I'm going to say, I know people get maybe carried away, UCLA was as good as any team we've played all year long." 

That's really saying something given that Florida played Ohio St the #1 team in the nation this year as well as Kentucky in addition to two other ranked teams Kansas St. and Xavier.  And in the way he prefaced his remarks he was making clear that he really meant what he said. These were not your usual gracious platitudes, and if you listen to the interview you can see that he was genuinely very impressed with our team.  He added that no team this year had been able to out rebound his team like UCLA did in the first half.

He then went on to say (bold mine again),

"I think when you lose really good players to the draft as UCLA has, I think Ben has done an unbelievable job.  I mean he's got a terrific team and they are going to be really really good going forward.  They're all young, they're all coming back, they're physical, they're strong, they shoot 3's, they're athletic, they can do a lot of different things and certainly we were as tested by them as any team we played all year."  

He was obviously very impressed with the quality of our players. (He might not have been correct in saying that they are all coming back.)

Continue reading this post »

Last night I went to the Poinsettia Bowl between San Diego St. and Navy in San Diego which San Diego St. won 35-14.  I always go to the Holiday Bowl (I've been to every one since it started in 1978) and thought that this year I'd go to the Poinsettia Bowl too, because I've always liked San Diego St., since my brother went there in their heyday when Don Coryell was head coach.  (Incidentally in the mid 60's they might have had the greatest coaching staff in the history of college football with head coach Don Coryell and top assistant coaches John Madden and Joe Gibbs).  

Boy, that San Diego St. offense looked terrific and has everything we seem to lack.  Their quarterback Ryan Lindley was very accurate and has a great arm.  He was 18 of 23 for the game with no interceptions.  The only bad pass he threw in the first half was one that he intentionally threw away.  They started the game on their own 8 yard line, because of a penalty on the kick off return, and Lindley threw three straight passes for first downs to start the game bringing them to midfield.  

The San Diego St. receivers got great separation and were often wide open over the middle.  They also had great hands and didn't drop catchable balls. Vincent Brown had 165 yards receiving and is said to be a likely NFL second round pick.

Continue reading this post »

My take on the game and the cause of our poor record is somewhat different than what most people on Bruins Nation are saying. Of course I fully understand and share in the frustration we are all feeling. I was at the game, and it was a particularly bad experience for me.  Having to deal with the game was bad enough, but on top of that I had to stomach two mindless teenage girls sitting right behind me shrieking for USC the whole game.  I am a season ticket holder and don't know how they got into what I thought was a UCLA section, but it made a bad game even worse.  All in all I'd say it was overall the most miserable experience I have ever had at a football game.  And I had high expectations going into the game.

I don't agree with what has been a frequent theme on this website which is that the reason we lost is because the coaches were too conservative in their play calling as if all we have to do is be more aggressive in our play calling and everything would be fine.  In addition I also don't agree that the problem is that the team played uninspired or were unmotivated.  That just doesn't make sense to me. These are college players in their biggest game of the year against their hated rival, and I'm sure that they wanted to win at least as much as we did and were giving it their all.  Why would they be listless and uninspired in a game like this? So I don't think the problem is one of motivation or attitude. 

What then is my take on this loss?  The biggest factor I saw was that USC's defensive line was stronger than our offensive line.  We still don't have an offensive line that can effectively pass block. That plus lack of consistency and experience at quarterback is I think what has been our downfall.  The idea that we should just open up the offense would make sense if our quarterback had adequate time to throw, but that isn't the case which means a much higher chance of a sack or interception.  If there's one consistent thing over the last three years it's that our quarterback looks rushed and often has to scramble and throw on the run.  Of course inconsistent play by our receivers has added to this problem.

Continue reading this post »

The Pac 10 has been really strong and balanced this year without any weak competition to provide sure wins.  Just ask Arizona.  They were undefeated and looked great in their out of conference games and were riding high with a top 10 ranking after beating Iowa.   Then they started Pac 10 play and lost at home to Oregon St. putting them at around #14.  They managed to beat Cal by 1 pt. and after handily beating Washington & Washington St. they almost didn't get past us. And then the bottom fell out with consecutive losses to Stanford, USC, Oregon, and now Arizona St. 

Sure Arizona had a better season than we did, but there is a similar quality to their season and ours.  After beating Houston and especially Texas we were looking really good, and people were starting to feel like we might have a 9 win season. Then conference play began, and the reality was that our conference competition was much stronger than anything we saw out of conference.  The same thing has happened to Arizona undoubtedly a talented and very good team who now finishes with five losses and a losing conference record.  But if the whole conference being competitive weren't bad enough, this year every team could automatically factor in two sure losses to Oregon and Stanford in effect starting two losses in the hole.  Cal couldn't get 6 wins, Oregon St. likely won't get 6 wins, Washington is struggling to get 6 wins. And formerly #9 Arizona now has 5 conference losses, a losing record in conference, and ends the season with a four game conference losing streak.  

How does this all relate to UCLA football?

Continue reading this post »

- Bumped. BN

While I can understand everyone's frustration, and I'm frustrated too, there is to me one overriding positive that I take from the Arizona St. game which I think may be most significant in the overall scheme of things. Some will think there's nothing positive when you lose, but in terms of what I think has been the most fundamental problem with this football team I see something very positive.

I believe that the most fundamental problem with our team the last three years has been the lack of a proficient offense. Last year we actually had a pretty respectable defense, but it wasn't enough with an anemic offense especially in this conference of high powered offenses where you're just not going to be able to compete without a capable offense.  There seemed to be an overall improvement in the offense this year, but it was overridden by the disastrous lack of any passing offense.  

The one thing that seemed almost certain when Rick Neuheisel and Norm Chow came to UCLA was that we would have a high powered offense which was balanced but favored a wide open passing game.  Norm Chow coached teams at USC and Brigham Young and RN coached teams at Colorado and Washington were very proficient on offense, and the logical conclusion was that this is what we would see at UCLA.  The defense we couldn't be sure about but with these coaches a proficient offense seemed a foregone conclusion.

So what went wrong?  I think the combination of a very weak offensive line that offered inadequate pass protection along with inexperienced young quarterbacks made a proficient passing offense all but impossible.  The first year we had to go with our third string quarterback after our first two quarterbacks were lost for the season.  The second year we had to go with a true freshman quarterback, and this year we started with an injured quarterback and then had to go with our second string backup who had very little actual game experience.  So we wound up emphasizing the running game, but while somewhat effective this proved to be too one dimensional and too inconsistent.  

In the Arizona and Oregon St. games Richard Brehaut played well and for the first time I could see signs of an emerging passing game.  Unfortunately this did not materialize in the Washington game which I found disappointing.  However what I saw in the Arizona St. game is something I would have never expected at this point.  

Continue reading this post »

It certainly is an odd time to be saying that there is anything that happened this week that could be said to be positive regarding UCLA football. But while it doesn't begin to outweigh the negatives we saw this week I do believe that there are two realistic positives. So what are the positives to take from our game in Seattle? The answer is that there is nothing positive to take from that game. It would be a stretch to even begin to look for anything positive.

But there are I believe two positives to take from this weekend, and they didn't happen in Seattle. They happened in Corvallis. What we saw there shows two things:

1. We did in fact beat a quality team in Oregon St.

2. USC is definitely beatable and vulnerable when we play in the Rose Bowl. 

Continue reading this post »

I think it's clear that over the last three years the biggest problem with this team is the offense (or lack thereof). What I find really frustrating is that every time I get my hopes up about the offense as just recently with Richard Breuhaut looking pretty good the last two games and the apparent emergence of a balanced offense it turns out to be a mirage.  So here we are again back at square one with poor quarterback play, poor play from the receivers, and still inadequate pass blocking.

 I don't agree with the notion that the problem is too conservative play calling.  What would less conservative play calling consist of?  It would have to consist of more passing or more passing when it's not expected.  But this game makes clear that this simply would not work for one simple reason.  This team simply does not execute the passing game well enough to generate any passing offense.  Breuhaut looked way off tonight, and the backup quarterbacks were even worse.  When we pass it's usually an incomplete along with a too high risk of interception.  The receivers looked bad, and the offensive line still is not giving the quarterbacks enough time to throw.  It's not the play calling.  It's the utter lack of competence in the passing game.  You can't play a more wide open less conservative offense unless you have the players who can execute the passing game, and it's quite apparent that at this point we don't.  The only way this team has consistently moved the ball has been with the run, but the run game can be keyed on when there is no passing threat, and that's what happened tonight. 

 So the question then becomes why is it that this team cannot develop a competent passing offense and what can be done about it?  Is it coaching, or is it personnel, or is it lack of execution?  I'm not sure.  My guess is that it has a lot to do with personnel specifically with the offensive line and quarterback.  The offensive line just hasn't gotten it done when it comes to pass blocking, and I think we need better players there, and next year should hopefully bring some significant improvement.  And we have yet to see a quarterback who can pass the ball with any consistency.  That is a huge factor which is confounded by the mediocre pass blocking.  Look at Texas who went from Colt McCoy and national championship contender to Greg Gilbert and a losing record.  There are probably other factors involved there, but that's likely the biggest.  Maybe Breuhaut or Prince will develop into the quarterback we need given more experience and an offensive line that provides better pass protection.  That is probably our best hope.

(One big drawback that concerns me about the Pistol is that for it to be effective the quarterback has to run the ball and the risk of injury goes up.  We lost Kevin Prince for the season and Richard Breuhaut for the game because they were injured running the ball.  This is really a concern given how thin we are at quarterback to begin with. )

Bumped. Always room for reasonable disagreement in our community. GO BRUINS. -N

Last week I wrote a post after the Arizona game saying that I was optimistic because of the significant improvement I saw with our offense.  I also said that I thought that our offense has been our main weakness over the last three years and that I wasn't concerned about our defense. 

I was at the game today, and that had to be one of the best and most enjoyable and satisfying games I have ever seen.  The positives I thought I saw last week were confirmed in my mind with one qualification which is that the pass protection which seemed much improved last week still isn't there.  The offensive line still isn't giving Brehaut enough time to throw, and consequently our passing game still has quite a ways to go.  On the positive side Brehaut looked very good overall and showed that he can really run the ball as well as showing the intangibles of being able to improvise, poise under pressure, and team leadership.  He's the big difference in this team now. Many of you saw that potential, but I have to admit that I didn't see this coming.  What a pleasant surprise!

And the other big positive was the defense which I thought played great.  Frankly I just don't understand all this talk about getting a new defensive coordinator.  I think this is missing the big picture, and by that I'm not just talking about the future, although that's part of it.  Just what is the main purpose of a defense?  It's to keep the other team from scoring. Therefore it would seem logical to conclude that the most important defensive stat would be scoring defense.  And how have we done this year in scoring defense?  Let's take a closer look after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

First let me say that I don't have the technical football knowledge of some of the people on this site.  And then there's also the possibility that I'm going too much on emotion, or that I'm seeing things too much in a one dimensional way, or maybe that I'm just a victim of wishful thinking.  Nonetheless I left the game at the Rose Bowl today feeling very encouraged. 

I've been to all the home games in the last two years in addition to the game in Austin, and I saw something that I haven't seen up to this point in the Rick Neuheisel era and that is the makings of a competent balanced offense that can pass as well as run.  Yes, the offense has looked good at times such as the second half at Texas and against Washington St., but it was almost all on the ground and one dimensional.  But today there was a qualitative difference, 228 yards passing against a very good defense not to mention that beautiful 68 yard touchdown pass.   Yes there needs to be improvement in the short passing game, but I think it's all going to come together.  And the pass protection was much improved with no sack allowed until late in the fourth quarter.  I think the passing game is going to continue to improve and with our capable running backs I think we are going to be a good offensive football team.  It might take until next year to fully come to fruition, but it's going to happen. 

 Also I think some people are overlooking whom we were playing. Arizona is a top 15 team only 2 points short of being undefeated, and they are up there with Oregon and Stanford as one of the three best teams in our conference.  They rank 7th in the nation in scoring defense, and the most points they have given up in a game this year is 29 to Oregon St.  Iowa a very good offensive team got 27.  That was one of the better defensive teams in the country we were playing against today, and our offense was competitive.

 Why do I see this as so significant?  Because I think our key problem the last three years has been our lack of offense.   Last year we had one of the best defenses in the Pac 10, but it wasn't enough, because we couldn't put points up on the board.  Frankly I'm not really too concerned about our defense.  I know, some of you may think I'm crazy, but when was the defense so bad? It was outstanding against Houston and against Texas; It gave up 35 to Stanford but really only 28, since one touchdown was from a take away from Kevin Prince. The least Stanford has scored in a game this year is 31 against Oregon. And what about Oregon?  We gave them two fumbles inside the 10, but it doesn't really matter, because Oregon scores 50 some points on just about everyone, like 53 tonight at the Coliseum.  They will likely go down as one of the best offensive teams in the history of college football. Yes, the defense wasn't too hot against Cal, but Cal is a weird team who often plays like a top 10 team at home.  And at Cal our biggest problem again was the lack of offense. And today?  Well Arizona is a very good offensive team, and yes we gave up too much yardage, but our defense is depleted by injuries, and they played today with a lot of heart, and with a little more offense, we could have won the game.  And I think Scott may have been tougher for us than Foles.  He's an excellent running quarterback and is very elusive and I think creates more problems for the defense.  I was very impressed with him.

 When we are a consistently good offensive football team I think our defense will be good enough to win.  And the defense is young and is going to improve. Also with the offense I don't see it so much as a matter of to what degree we are or are not conservative but rather more as a matter of capability and execution.  If you have a quarterback who can throw the long bomb, receivers that can get open and catch it, and an offensive line that gives adequate protection then you can go with that.  if you have an offense that has the capability of giving you a reasonable change to make fourth and five then you can go for it in certain game situations.  If you don't have those capabilities then you are going to be worse off taking those chances.  The more capability your offense has the more you can open things up and take more chances, because the probabilities then work out in your favor.

 But to conclude up till this year we couldn't run the ball with any consistency.  Then we showed real improvement in the running game but had no passing game.  Now we finally see the beginning of a productive passing game to go with the running game, and I think we are seeing the evolution towards being a good offensive football team.  And with the young talent we have on defense continuing to improve I can see all of the parts of the puzzle coming together, and I'm really confident it's going to happen.

If this proposal to create a division with UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona St., Utah, and Colorado holds it will really ruin our whole tradition of playing in the Pac 10 and before that the Pac 8 conference.  I began to write this as a comment, but I found myself so upset by it that I decided to go ahead and write a fanpost instead.  I've always loved the Pac 10 conference and UCLA's place in it.  What this proposed division does is puts us in a division with two schools who have never had anything to do with the Pac 10 and the two Arizona schools who were not traditional members of the Pac 10.  

I like playing the Oregon schools, the Washington schools, and Stanford and Cal every year.  But instead I have to go see the Bruins play Colorado?  The proposed northern division would be the real Pac 10 minus UCLA and USC.  Why should one division have almost all the traditional Pac 10 members while the other has only two?  Maybe it's because I go back a long way being a UCLA student from 1966-1971.  Back then the Pac 8 did not include the Arizona schools which didn't join the conference until 1978.  The Pac 10 has great traditions which go back to the 1920's and now we are to essentially abandon that to play in a division with only one team, who just happens to be our hated rival, with whom we share that tradition?  And I don't mean to say that I have any problem at all with the Arizona schools being in the conference, but playing them still isn't quite the same as playing Cal, Stanford, Oregon, etc.  And when they joined the conference there was no downside, because we still played all the other conference teams every year.  But now in order to accommodate Colorado and Utah we have to give up way too much in my opinion.  

I don't know what they're thinking whether it's geography, money, or whatever, but they are obviously not taking UCLA's conference tradition into account.  Put Utah and Colorado in the northern division or do that proposed Pac 12 Cooler idea which I thought was a pretty good idea.  Anything but this.  I wonder if there are others who feel as I do?

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

After the debacle at Cal my fear is that this year will be similar to last year when we started out with 3 wins including an impressive and unexpected road win at Tennessee only to lose 5 straight conference games to teams with far superior offenses to ours.  And this year riding a 3 game winning streak and an impressive and unexpected road win at Texas we lose badly to Cal which when combined with the loss to Stanford gives us a scoring deficit of 70-7 against the two good conference teams we have played.  And the road ahead looks perilous with a road game against the #2 team in the country and then home games against a very capable Arizona team and a hot Oregon St. team.  As for today's game my worst fear came true which is that the Cal offense that put up over 50 points on Colorado and the Cal defense that limited Arizona to 10 pts. on the road (3 pts until the final minute) would show up and prove far superior to any team we have faced this year other than Stanford.  Even so we should have performed much better.

First we have to acknowledge that our conference is truly outstanding this year.  It may be the deepest and best that the conference has ever been.  This year going from out of conference to in conference is a big step up (yes, including Texas).   However the one thing the other conference teams all have that we lack is a good passing game, and this makes it very hard for us to compete unless we significantly improve our passing game.  

Just look around the league.  First year starter Ryan Katz throws for 393 yards today while Nick Foles throws for 440 yards.  Steven Threet for Arizona St. throws for 288 yards at Washington including over 200 yards in the first half in the rain.  Matt Barkley throws for 390 yards while Andrew Luck throws for 285 yards.  Oregon has a very capable quarterback and an excellent backup in Nick Costa who was 13 for 15 passing today, and Kevin Riley is a very capable quarterback, while Jake Locker is outstanding.  Even Washington St. has an excellent quarterback in Jeff Tuel who threw for 245 yards today against Oregon and shredded our secondary for 311 yards last week.  We are the only team in the conference without a credible passing game where we consistently fall short of 100 yards a game. Why?  I don't have the answer, but I think it puts us at a big disadvantage.  

Continue reading this post »

I am a UCLA fan, and I was at the game on Saturday.  First I want to say that my experience with the Texas fans was overwhelmingly positive.  I checked out the tailgating, and I was invited to join in and treated with exceptional hospitality.  Texas fans are great!  And what an impressive stadium you have! And of course all the tradition of Texas football including your great marching band.  That's also the coolest stadium scoreboard I've ever seen.  The one in the Rose Bowl is pedestrian by comparison.  I wish we were in the same league so that I could come to Austin every two years.

Now there are a couple of points I wanted to make about the game.  Of course it's true that Texas made a lot of very costly unforced errors.  Fielding that punt on the 4 yard line was a disastrous blunder giving UCLA almost a free touchdown.  That was a decisive moment in the game.  Also the 12 men on the field penalty giving UCLA a free first down leading to running another 6 minutes off the clock as well as the receiver running a 3 yd. pattern on fourth and 4 were costly mental errors.  Then there was the meaningless but still egregious fumbling of the last kick off with around a minute to play.  None of these mistakes were caused by UCLA.  However there is a natural tendency in sports to attribute your own team's play solely to them without seeing the other team as a contributing factor.

In my opinion UCLA was a factor in Texas's play in two important ways                                              1.  Ucla is a very good defensive football team:  I was at the Houston game and against one of the best offensive teams in college football the UCLA defense was absolutely lights out showing both great speed and athleticism and absolutely dominating the game.  An offense that regularly scores over 50 pts a game had 3 pt. at the beginning of the fourth quarter.  And it wasn't because their Heisman candidate quarterback was knocked out.  He went out late in the second quarter with the score 21-3. UCLA's defense really reached its potential starting with the Houston game.   I thought UCLA's defense would compete favorably with Texas (although I doubted that the UCLA offense would).  Akeem Ayers will be a first team All-American, Rahim Moore who led the nation in interceptions last year is an All American.  Patrick Larimore was chosen as the national defensive player of the week after the Houston game, and Sean Westgate who made 11 tackles on Saturday and forced the fumble on the punt was picked as the Pac 10 defensive player for this week.  The secondary is outstanding and is comparable to that of Texas.  I can't even remembering seeing any missed tackles by UCLA in the game on Saturday.  It wasn't just Texas's offense but UCLA's defense that was a big factor in this game just like it was against a very good Houston offense.  (The only caveat I might add is that historically Texas's offenses should be able to move effectively on any defense in the country. But you don't have a Major Applewhite, Vince Young, or Colt McCoy at quarterback this year).  

2. The Pistol Offense: I don't agree with the notion that Texas's defense just got worn down by being on the field too long.  The key series was UCLA's first series in the second half when Texas's defense had just rested for the whole half time.    My guess is that Norm Chow and Rick Neuheisel made some important halftime adjustments to the offense.  UCLA on offense didn't even look like the same team in the second half.  Or maybe they had planned in advance to do some different things in the second half.  Remember Norm Chow is the greatest offensive coordinator in the history of college football.  

My guess is that Texas ultimately had trouble defending the Pistol offense which they were not familiar with.  What really reinforces that assumption to me is what happened to Cal.  A Cal team with a defense leading the nation in scoring defense after two games and which last Saturday on the road limited an explosive Arizona offense to only 3 pt with one minute left in the game was absolutely overrun by Nevada's pistol offense which put up 52 pt. on them.  I watched some of that game and Cal just had no answer to the pistol.  There's a lot of deception in that offense and different blocking schemes and if you haven't played much against it I think even a really good defense can get overrun.  Also UCLA's offensive line played an outstanding game as did our running backs.  The good news in this for Texas is that you still have an outstanding defense which will assert itself against all the more traditional offenses of your future opponents this year.

Anyway I wish you luck in your future games this season and look forward to a great match up next year in the Rose Bowl!

I'm a UCLA fan but ever since we played you last year I continued to check out your website from time to time, because I really liked it.  While I can understand the self-criticism after the Oregon game I think you guys are being way too hard on your team.  What you don't seem to fully realize is that what happened to you is very typical for Oregon opponents.  I've seen Oregon play in person twice over the last two years and what happened in those games is almost exactly what happened to you.

 Last year when Oregon played UCLA at the Rose Bowl we were ahead 3-0 at the half, and the game looked very winnable.  Then guess what happened?  Kenyon Barner (who is from my home town of Riverside) took the opening second half kick off 102 yards for a touchdown (the same guy that ran back the 80 yard punt against you).  Then Oregon kicked off to UCLA and on the second play Oregon intercepted a Kevin Prince pass for a 70 yard pick 6 (sound familiar?).  Those 14 points were scored in less than 1 minute elapsed time in the second half and there was no coming back for UCLA after that.  It was eerily similar to the 72 yard run and the pick 6 against Tennessee in the 3rd quarter which turned the game around in exactly the same way.  

Two seasons ago I saw Oregon play Oklahoma St. in the Holiday Bowl.  Oklahoma St. was a highly ranked team who had lost to Texas by only 2 pts. in Austin.  They were favored by 3 1/2.  Oklahoma St. definitely looked like the better team in the first half which ended with a 17-7 Oklahoma St. lead.  Oklahoma St. got their 17 pts. in the first quarter which they dominated (sound familiar).  Other than one 76 yard touchdown run Oregon couldn't do much on offense.  But in the second half Oregon just exploded  scoring 21 pts in the 3rd quarter and 14 in the 4th.  They won 42-31 scoring 35 pts. in the second half and essentially blowing a good Oklahoma St. team off the field.  That's what Oregon does in games.  It's just a matter of time.

Of course against most teams Oregon explodes offensively for the whole game like they did against USC last year or the way they demolished Michigan in Ann Arbor 39-7 in 2007.   And this year's Oregon team looks like it might be their best ever.  You lost to the most explosive, the fastest, and the best offensive team in college football this year and the absolute most dangerous on special teams.  And they execute the spread offense to perfection.  And don't forget that this is a team that played in a BCS bowl last year and has 18 returning starters.  And you actually played quite well.  Oregon got you mostly on big plays rather than on long sustained drives.  It wasn't like the Oklahoma St. Holiday Bowl game when Oregon was averaging about 8 yards a play in the second half.  Your defense was pretty tough, and your offense showed that it has a lot of potential by the way it moved the ball on the ground in the first half.

 After the UCLA- Oregon game last year UCLA fans were saying exactly the same thing.  How did we have such a mental collapse in that first minute of the second half?  Give us those two plays  back, and we could have won the game.  But Oregon is so talented and explosive that it's almost inevitable that they are going to make big plays like that.  And they do it even more in the second half.  Here at UCLA so far we don't look too good this year, but I think we have a lot of talent and are going to be a good team when we get our offense going.  But even so I fully expect that we'll get blown out when we go to Eugene to play the Ducks.  I'd love to see them play Alabama for the national championship.  it would be a hell of a game, but I'd give a slight edge to Oregon, because they have a better offense and more team speed.  Don't put your team down and don't get discouraged. Oregon is a national championship calibre team this year, and there are very few teams in the country that have a chance to be competitive with them for a whole game. It's part of the psychology of sports that when a team loses to a superior team they attribute too much of the responsibility to themselves and not enough to the quality of the opponent.

Tennessee is my favorite team in the SEC.  Your fans seem really classy and unlike some SEC teams who avoid playing anyone good out of conference so as to protect their BCS standings (think Florida) you have played a Pac 10 team in home and away series for the last 5 years.  And I remember when you beat UCLA in the Rose Bowl with Peyton Manning when we had Cade McNown back in 1997.  You beat a great UCLA team that year.  We won 20 straight games after that loss, and we demolished Texas in Austin 66-3 the very next week. 

I think you have a good team and should do well this year, and I wish you a very successful season.  And I hope you beat Florida on Saturday, and I wouldn't be that shocked if you did.

Best wishes,

Roger

Understandably everyone's disappointed to get so very close and yet fall just short at the end.  But only one team wins, and all the others are disappointed at least initially but then after a little time passes realize how well they did.  We know how difficult it is to get to a final four in the NCAA basketball tournament and what an achievement that is.  Well our baseball team did better than that getting to the championship series as one of the two final teams out of the original 64.  With our great basketball tradition we have some basis for expecting this, but our baseball program has no such history or tradition, so this was a real first.  We beat Cal St. Fullerton a very difficult feat and then handily beat SEC champ Florida and then won 2 out of 3 against a very good TCU team ( With their annoying hyping by the media I would have hated to lose to them).  And it's also worth noting that the two other seeded teams there Florida and #1 Arizona St. fell flat on their faces eliminated in two games, while the other five seeded teams never even made it to Omaha.  UCLA was the only national seed with an impressive showing all the way through the tournament to the end.

There is always a tendency to attribute a loss to your own team's poor performance without acknowledging the performance of the other team.  South Carolina's pitching was really good against us as it was throughout the series. They held batters through the World Series to a 191 batting average and also led all teams in the series in hitting and fielding. And remember this is a team that demolished Arizona St. knocking out one of their two ace pitchers in the second inning with 8 runs scored.  And you have to give them a lot of credit for coming back from an opening game loss to Oklahoma to win four straight elimination games just to get to the championship series.  They did it the hard way, and I wonder if any team has ever done that before.  Our pitching was outstanding today with only one run given up on an error in 9 innings.  You can't ask anything more of our pitchers.  A few weeks ago who would have thought  that we not only would make it to Omaha but would win our tough 4 team group there and make it to the championship series?   While very disappointing right now this was in fact a really great baseball season for the Bruins, easily the best in the history of the school.  And it is likely that this team has now begun a tradition of UCLA being a baseball power.  And here's a quote from South Carolina's coach Ray Tanner that should put things in perspective: "UCLA was the greatest team we played the entire year and is a class act."

And as a fan who had completely lost interest in baseball decades ago this team had me on the edge of my seat both at the two great games I saw live (the last two against Cal St. Fullerton) and at home watching on TV.  It was a great ride, and I definitely plan to go to more games next year.  They have definitely made me a big fan of UCLA baseball.  (And my thanks to Bruins Nation for making me aware of UCLA playing in the regional playoffs without which I would have missed all of this).

I had a personal experience with Coach Wooden that I would like to share with Bruins Nation, because it shows what kind of a person Coach Wooden was. It stemmed from a rather unfortunate experience I had, but because of Coach Wooden it had for me a very happy ending.

First as a little bit of background. I was fortunate enough to have been a student at UCLA from 1966-1971 right in the middle of Coach Wooden's great run.  Because of him I am one of only a handful of people who can say they attended a school that won the national championship in basketball every one of their undergraduate years. Also I was lucky to remain close to UCLA basketball even after I graduated.  While I was attending graduate school (not at UCLA) I lived at 515 Gayley Ave. in what was then the defunct ATO house where they rented out rooms.  My next door neighbor was Bill Walton and Pete Tirgovich a starter on the 1975 national championship team lived upstairs.  I even played on our summer intramural team in Pauley in 1974, and we were coached by Andre McCarter who was the starting point guard on the 1975 team.  (I once got to shoot baskets with Pete Tirgovich at Dykstra Hall.  You don't realize how good these guys are, because they are playing against players of their calibre.  Just shooting around I don't even remember him missing a shot).  

In 2005 a friend asked me if I wanted to attend a UCLA basketball game something I had not done in years.  He got the seats from a friend, and I couldn't believe how good they were right behind the UCLA bench about three rows up.  Just before the game I saw Lute Olsen (they were playing Arizona) walking right towards our seats.  I looked, and he had his arm around Coach Wooden who was sitting just one row in front of us and to the right.  I resolved that I would get Coach's autograph and at the next time out I asked him if he would sign the back of one of my business cards.  He signed it "John Wooden, UCLA" and shook my hand.

Continue reading this post »

I came across a post here (DCBruins ) making a good point about how John Wooden's different championship teams were built differently around changing personnel.  But then I was frankly dismayed to see him describe the Wicks-Rowe-Patterson teams (1970,1971) as "had a stiff at Center and was led by Sidney Wicks , a Power Forward".  

So the late Steve Patterson was a "stiff"?  The same Steve Patterson who averaged 12.9 points and 10 rebounds a game and was known as an outstanding defender?  The same Steve Patterson who in a very close national championship game against Villanova and Howard Porter in 1971 scored a game high 29 points on 13 of 18 shooting (that's 72%) including 20 in the first half and was picked to the all tournament team?  And many of those were on long baseline jumpers that would have been 3's today. With today's 3 pt. shot he would have scored more like 35.  He also had 8 rebounds and 4 assists in that game his last as a UCLA Bruin. It was one of the greatest clutch performances ever by a UCLA player in a national championship game.

I was in the same UCLA class as Steve Patterson, so I saw him play throughout my time at UCLA.  He was the star of the freshman team and later was a key component on the Wicks-Rowe teams.  After Lew Alcindor graduated nobody expected UCLA to win the national championship again, but they did for the next two years.  And Steve Patterson was one of the key reasons why.  He had a great outside shot for a big man and probably along with Kevin Love was the best outside shooting center to ever play at UCLA.  I was at the game in 1971 at Pauley against SC (who had Paul Westphal)  which was a game between the two top teams in the nation for the conference championship and to determine the sole conference representative to the NCAA tournament. And Steve Patterson helped tear up SC with his outside shooting and rebounding as the Bruins blew the Trojans out of the gym with a 20-6 run to open the game.

One thing I know for sure is that without Steve Patterson's great 29 point performance in a very close national championship game against Villanova there would be one less championship banner hanging today in Pauley.  And almost for sure there would be two less banners, because both years those teams were built around the great front line of Wicks, Rowe, and Patterson, and UCLA almost undoubtedly would not have won any NCAA championships without all three of them.  In those two years with that great front line the Bruins were 57-3 with two national championships. I thank my lucky stars that I was fortunate enough to have been there.  And whoever referred to Steve Patterson in this way doesn't know their UCLA basketball history, couldn't possibly have ever seen him play, and was disrespectful to the memory of a great UCLA basketball player.

 (Look at the inspiring video "Intergalactic Treasure" on Coach Wooden and at the beginning at :23 you'll see number 32 Steve Patterson along with the rest of the great UCLA national championship team of 1970: Sidney Wicks, Curtis Rowe, Henry Bibby, and John Vallely.)

While motivational factors are certainly a significant factor in athletics I think there is a tendency to overstate their importance and to attribute to player motivation what is better explained by other factors such as talent, experience, coaching, and normal variance.  In terms of explaining this so far disastrous season of UCLA basketball I think that by far the most important factor is the lack of talent or the lack of developed talent (talent and experience).  A lot of excellent posts are focusing on the recruiting, and I think this is the heart of the matter.

There are several problems with attributing poor play to motivational factors such as a lack of effort. First of all I think it's usually a faulty explanation.  If you have a team that loses badly because of a lack of talent it certainly is a mistake to attribute this to a lack of effort or a lackadaisical attitude on the part of the players.  It provides the illusion that if only the players really gave it their all they could still be winning most of their games.  Worst of all it makes the accusation against less talented players that they have some kind of character flaw as if they are here on a scholarship representing their school, but they just don't really care and lack pride.  It also just doesn't make sense to me that division I college athletes somehow would lack motivation.  Basketball is central to their life, and they probably all came here with at least some hope of playing in the NBA.  I think they all have a great deal of motivation to play well.  An exception might be a highly disgruntled player or an overall lack of team morale.  

What does motivation have to do with shooting accurately?  Are there actually basketball players who don't really care whether they make a shot or not? (Reminds me of that excellent post here on how the TV commentators were saying that Texas's receivers now had to make sure they caught the passes of Texas's backup quarterback in the national championship game as if they might not have been fully trying before).  If a team is not playing well they may look flat and like they aren't fully trying, but I don't think this is usually the case.  Sometimes the motivation factor can even be used as an excuse such as Alabama getting blown out by Utah in the 2009 Sugar Bowl, because they supposedly didn't really care even though they were playing on national television and representing their college, their conference, and themselves as individuals playing in front of NFL scouts.  The real reason they lost is because Utah had too much team speed for them and was just a better team.  Also sometimes the highest motivation in some athletes can lead to overly high anxiety and diminished performance.    

I'm not saying that there isn't such a thing as playing with heart like our football team did at Tennessee particularly on defense.  But that's not going to be enough without real developed talent, and there was an enormous amount of talent on our defense including three All Americans.  When they lost the first five conference games I don't think it was because of a lapse in motivation but because they were playing really good offensive teams and our offense was relatively weak.  And I know there are players like LMR who do play with a tremendous amount of heart, but he did have some real talent as a defensive player.  However if our past teams didn't have players beyond LMR's talent level I don't think we would have gone to any final fours. I'm also not saying there isn't such a thing as mental toughness, but that's a bit different and relates more to being able to play your best under the greatest pressure. 

In terms of our current basketball team we can already see one huge tangible difference having to do with talent/experience, and that is at point guard.  Ben Holland's previous teams have had in Jordan Farmer and Darren Collison two of the very best point guards in all of college basketball.  Both of them are very elite talents who are now playing very well in the NBA.  The drop this year at this position alone is enough to cause a major decline in the team's performance. And players like AA and RW don't just have a good work ethic but have enormous talent.  We just don't have players at that kind of talent level right now or if we do they aren't fully developed yet.  I don't think you can fault the coaching other than the recruiting, because with talented players Ben Howland is a proven success.  I agree with many of you that the core problem has to be in the recruiting.  I don't know how he recruited the right players for so many years yet has apparently missed so badly recently.  But I think it's pretty clear that is what has happened. 

This post got a little buried late last week. Bumping it up because want to make sure no one missed it. GO BRUINS. - N

Seeing Gary Beban at the game last Saturday really brought back memories from my student years at UCLA.  I was an undergrad from 1966-1971 which was really a great time to be at UCLA.  We won the national championship in basketball all five years I was there, while in football we had Gary Beban my first two years and also had very good teams my last two years led by quarterback Dennis Dummit.  (My last year at UCLA a freshman named Jimmy Connors won the NCAA tennis tournament).

At the game a few weeks ago there was on the seats a free Sports Illustrated magazine special on all the Heisman trophy winners which featured Gary Beban.  It focused on the 1967 game against Tennessee when down 16-13 with four minutes to play in the fourth quarter and with 4th and 2 at the Tennessee 27 and the game on the line Beban moved right then cut into the line and then cut left towards the sideline for a touchdown run to win the game.  I was at that game and vividly remember that play.  I frankly can't remember much else about the game but will never forget Beban's great clutch run into the west end zone of the Coliseum.  Beban was truly an all time great college quarterback.  He was an extremely accurate passer, a really good running quarterback who ran for a lot of yardage, a great team leader, and maybe the best clutch player in UCLA football history.  Of course in 1965 when I was still in high school and watching on TV he made those two great touchdown passes in the last four minutes including the game winning 50 yarder to Kurt Altenberg after trailing USC 16-6 with four minutes left in the game. That great comeback kept Mike Garrett from ever playing in the Rose Bowl.  Beban of course then led UCLA to the historic upset of #1 Michigan St. in the Rose Bowl.

Continue reading this post »

I see a lot of positives in this game and overall feel more optimistic about the rest of the season. Most importantly our offense finally showed that it can really move the ball and score some touchdowns.  Of course this didn't happen until the fourth quarter, but in that quarter our offense actually showed some explosiveness and the ability to really move the ball through the air.  It also showed the ability to use the deep ball successfully something that was lacking up to now. 

I think this was a breakout game for Kevin Prince, and it really looks like we have a quarterback now.  Also our receivers made some really nice catches and overall played well for the game.  Also for an offense that's been stalling inside the 5 yard line those two 2 points conversions look really good.

The one glaring weakness on offense was the lack of a consistent running game. The offensive line did a pretty good job on pass protection but were not as effective in the running game particularly on runs up the middle.  But maybe it's time now to go much more with the passing game which is what happened in the fourth quarter.  This team showed it can really move the ball through the air and hopefully what we saw was a glimpse of where CRN and CNC are taking the offense in the future.

Although improvements can certainly be made I'm not that concerned about the defense.  We have to keep in mind that in our conference we have been playing teams with really high powered offenses.  We gave up fewer points to Oregon St. than any team in the conference this year.  In fact in four out of our five conference games we have given up fewer points than any of their other conference opponents.  Yes we played an Oregon team without Masoli, but we only gave up 10 points to their offense.  (The only exception was the Cal game).  SC was supposed to have one of the best defenses in the country coming into the Oregon game, and they gave up 47 tonight and last week 36 to Oregon St.  Holding teams in the 20's may not sound very good, but it's actually pretty good for our conference this year. 

I also wanted to add that I thought the decision to go for the field goal on 4th and 1 was definitely the right decision.  With the way our offense has been struggling running the ball there was probably about a 40% chance they wouldn't have made the first down (and even making it wouldn't guarantee a subsequent touchdown).  The chances of Kai Forbath making a field goal from there were about 98%.  Most importantly it could have been disastrous to go for it and not make it by demoralizing the offense and maybe the whole team playing on the road.  By taking the 3 points they put something on the board and established some momentum.  And there was plenty of time left in the game. Playing to win doesn't necessarily mean going for it on fourth and short.  Playing to win means playing the percentages in the smartest way.

Last but not least the USC game should now be seen as being fully in play.  I think we probably have a better defense than they do, and our offense is finally coming into its own. We have a real chance to win that game.

I have pointed out in a couple of posts how we need to take into account the high quality of the teams we have been playing in our conference.  According to the Sagarin Computer Strength of Schedule UCLA has had up to this point the 3rd toughest schedule in the country behind only Washington (#1) and Arkansas (#2).  The reality I think is that we are playing teams with high powered explosive offenses who are where we want to be within a couple years.  I'd rate Oregon, Cal, Arizona, Stanford, and probably Oregon St. among the best offensive teams in the country right now.

(Sorry about the lack of paragraphs.  Here's my revision which should be easier to read.)

I feel uncomfortable reading these posts saying that if we don't win so many games within such and such a period of time we're going to increase the pressure and at some point start talking about getting a new coaching staff.  Something doesn't add up here.  Do you think we need a better offensive coordinator than Norm Chow?   But wait isn't he considered the best offensive coordinator in the history of college football?  But what about a new quarterbacks coach?  Oh yeah that's Norm Chow too the most successful quarterbacks coach in the history of college football with, what is it, three or four Heisman Trophy winning quarterbacks to his credit.  Are his methods obsolete or has he lost his touch?  I don't think so.  Has the game changed so much in the few years since he was at USC?  And CRN also has a proven record of success.  In addition they're both highly proven offensive coaches, and that's where the main problem lies.  

 I think the problem is twofold.  First there is a lack of experience and maybe talent on the offensive side of the ball.  The offensive line was a huge problem last year and still has a long way to go.  Is there such a thing as a good consistent rushing offense with a weak offensive line playing against tough opposition?  Is it possible to have a highly productive passing offense when the quarterback is constantly feeling pressured and rushed to throw (and also has no division I experience)?  

The other problem is our schedule given the current strength of our conference.  That's what I think a lot of people are missing.  We are playing top 25 calibre teams with high powered offenses every week in our conference.  Just look at what happened to Cal ranked #6 in the country who got annihilated two straight weeks in our conference.  Why has Kansas St. apparently improved while we haven't?  Because they are playing Colorado and Iowa St. while we are playing Oregon and Arizona.  

The same can be said for Tennessee a good defensive team playing in a conference with lackluster offenses.  Frankly I'd rather be playing Alabama next week than Oregon St.  They couldn't even score a touchdown against Tennessee playing at home.  Even we scored a touchdown on Tennessee.  Our defense could really limit Alabama's weak offense just like they did with Tennessee and with some good field position through turnovers and our excellent punter we'd have a chance to win it on Kai Forbath's leg.  Instead we have to play a team that just scored 36 points on USC's defense which means that we are going to have to have a greatly improved offensive production to have a chance to win which is difficult for us with our current team.

 I can't remember ever seeing the Pac 10 this strong from top to bottom.  Even Washington St. isn't that bad.  They were respectable against USC and gained over 400 yards yesterday against Cal. And Washington who is in the bottom tier of the conference was good enough to beat USC and almost beat LSU. Next year's schedule will be one of the most difficult in the country given our out of conference schedule.  And also the other programs in our conference are on the upswing particularly Washington, Arizona, and Stanford.  

We have to have realistic expectations which takes this into account.  And I think a lot of people on this website are not taking it into account.  If we would have entered conference play this year against the teams from last year we would have had two sure wins against the Washington schools with a very good chance to win against weaker than this year Arizona St. and Stanford teams.  We would have likely wound up with 6-8 wins.  Comparing our record to last year and demanding it be improved by so many wins fails to take into account the marked improvement in our conference.  We need to be patient.  This is a long term process.  Again I feel confident that we have the right coaching staff.  They have a record of being proven winners.  I still think that Rick Neuheisel is just the right coach for UCLA.  He'll ultimately be successful, and he'll stay at UCLA for as long as we want him to.

I was just thinking while watching Oregon St. put up 36 points against USC how good the offenses are this year in the Pac 10.  And that is on the road against what everyone says is one of the very best defenses in the country.  Meanwhile at the time of this writing Stanford has scored 24 points and gained 299 yards in the first half against what was a highly touted Arizona St. defense. 

I think we're a little too critical of our defense.  You're just not going to shut down the kind of explosive offenses we have this year in the Pac 10, and the only way you're going to be able to compete with the better teams in the Pac 10 is to have an offense yourself that can put up a lot of points.  And we just don't have that this year. 

It's a pretty good bet that next week we're going to have to put up at least 25-30 points on the board to have a chance to win at Oregon St.  And if we don't and we lose I don't think you can blame the defense.  Nobody is saying USC's defense is weak or played a bad game by giving up 36 points, and that's because their offense put up 42 and they won the game.

I don't want to be defeatist, because I still think we have a real chance of winning three more games, but maybe we just don't have the personnel yet on offense or at least the personnel with enough experience.  Our offensive line is still mediocre, and the quarterback play and receivers have performed below par. 

I think a realistic goal this year is to win three more games and improve significantly on offense.  I have a feeling we will feel better about our team after we play Arizona St. and Washington.

I was at the game today and of course was disappointed.  Overall I think we got beaten by a better team. Riley was really accurate with his passing giving them a very balanced and potent offense.  They have great skill position players and great speed and when executing as well as they did today I think they are one of the best offensive teams in the country.  I don't know what happened in their last two games, but today they looked like the team that had been ranked #6 in the country.  At this point their offense is much better than our offense, and that's ultimately the difference in the game.

I don't agree with this idea of some kind of lack of consistent effort by our players. College  players play one game a week and I think are tremendously motivated and give it their all on every play.  I think there were some bright spots for us today.  The offense was much better at moving the ball and scoring touchdowns, and the offensive line gave Kevin Prince much better protection.  The defense was much better in the second half holding Javid Best to -10 yards and not giving up any big plays.  It was big plays that killed us in the first half.  And that last interception was a killer, and we were still in the game up till that point.  

We still lack a consistent running game, and I'm not that impressed with the play of our receivers who have trouble getting open and haven't been consistent in catching balls.  We can't get too discouraged and have to keep in mind the quality of the teams we've lost to and the overall quality of our conference this year. Oregon and Cal are two of the most talented offensive teams in the country, and there are nine good teams in our conference this year.

Arizona is going to be tough too.  Other than that fluke off the foot interception at Washington their only loss was by 10 to highly ranked Iowa on the road.  I think they are playing like a top 25 calibre team, and we're going to have to play really well to beat them, but I think we definitely have a chance to do so.  There's still a lot of season left.

In terms of our expectations for UCLA it's important to keep something in mind, and that is the current strength of the Pac 10 Conference.  Other than Washington St. there are no weak teams, and I don't think that any other conference in the country can say that 90% of its teams are at least reasonably strong.  

There is a big improvement in the conference from last year where there were two very weak teams in Washington and Washington St.  This year Washington has already beaten USC and is capable of giving anyone a tough game.  Stanford is much improved, we're definitely improved, and both Arizona schools are probably stronger than last year.  The only team in the conference that is probably not as good as last year is USC, but they are still a top ten team.  This is particularly important to keep in mind when we look at our prospective won-loss record.  

If this were last year's conference we'd likely have two easy wins, but this year we probably have only one at best in Washington St.  This year's team would probably win a minimum of  3 or 4 games in last year's conference.  But it's significantly tougher this year, and outside of Washington St. (who is also improved this year) every conference game won by anyone can be seen as an achievement.  

So although our team is improving, most of the teams we are playing have also raised their level of play. It's a mistake to assume that the conference is a static constant that we can measure ourselves against, because I think it is significantly stronger now.  

Going into the season most people thought that the Tennessee game would be tough and one we would likely lose, and we'd have a better chance of winning our conference games.  The Tennessee game was tough, and beating them was a real achievement.  However I'd say that most of our conference games are going to be just as tough as the Tennessee game, because most of the teams in our conference are comparable to or better than Tennessee.