About half way through tonight's game, it hit me - we're being hypocritical. That doesn't extend to BN in it's entirety. But, as a whole (and as part of the Bruin commuinty), we've dropped the ball. I log in every day. I may be wrong. But, I haven't seen anything critical or even investigative on ND beyond basic facts. In all fairness, I'm beyond frustrated by his play. But, that aside, why is he playing? With all the scandal (alleged and otherwise) across town, we're quick to point out each incident. However, when ND has his second (fairly serious) run in with the law in two seasons why aren't we talking about it more. If we're going to claim to hold ourselves to a higher standard then we should back it up. The fact is that he pushed his girlfriend to the ground (not acceptable ever - especially as a father of three girls) and now has pending charges. I know we want / need to win in bball and have a potential landmark game tomorrow. But, if we don't self-police, how are we any better than Pom Pom's bunch? I don't want to see an asterisk after the four most sacred letters like those clowns. As much as I love CBH and Dan Gurerro(ADDG?), I think we're sending the wrong message. Yes, the charges were dropped last year...but, after the latest issue, who really believes nothing happened before. Fool me twice...

So, I know we're in the middle of evaluating our team right now. But, the team across town had their scrimmage. For those of us fortunate enough to live in L.A. (or maybe not so fortunate), CBS Sports Central covers a lot of local stuff. Although, we're subject to "robo-announcer" Jim Hill, the co-host is Steve Hartman - an admitted UCLA alumn. As they reported on the U$C* scrimmage, Hartman went into something just short of a tirade (looking for a video on YouTube). But it brought up some great points.

Hartman basically called Pom Pom's "historical decision" an arm waving exercise out of desperation...saying that if Corp were healthy, he would be starting. He even brought up Barkley's increase in interceptions in his Senior year. At one point, I thought Jim Hill wanted to jump across the desk and could imagine the producers having simultaneous heart attacks. But, the points were well thought out and valid (typical bruin). Good to know that there's some support in L.A. to counter the Trojan Times. I will attach the video if I can find it. Go Steve!

Waiting for football season to start leaves me with some extra time and I end up reading articles I otherwise wouldn't (or shouldn't). so, when Vital's top 40 came out. iI figured i'd give it a look. I honestly can't believe he still has an income, other than residuals on replays of the most irritating catch phrase (ranked just above Janice from "Friends"). in any case, I digress. I know next year is slated for rebuilding and I don't have delusions of a final four run (although iI will hope).  I figured UCLA would end up somewhere between 20 and 30.  But, not even mentioned in a top 40 list? Come on - especially with two other PAC-10 schools at 14 and 16.

I can even understand an outsider picking ucla to finish third in the conference, but to rank more than 15 spots below washington Washington? , we have good talent even if they are still fairly young.  AND, it's a Ben Howland team.  it seems like coaches like Bill Self and Tom Izzo (no offense to either) get certain bonus points from him. in any case, here's the link if you feel compelled to read the nonsense:

Really interesting to see that Pat Frode listed UCLA vs. U$C* as the 4th hottest football rivalry.  He even got into the recent "kids on the sideline" issue.  I'm not a huge fan of the overall UCLA coverage by ESPN.  But this wasn't too shabby for such a mainstream column. He even took a passing shot at Karl Dorrell "Neuheisel's popping off returned some pugnacity to a rivalry softened by the passive demeanor of former UCLA coach Karl Dorrell"   The full article is here.