The New Lavin

[Chief Rum]

I feel like it's Steve Lavin all over again.

Only this time his name is Karl Dorrell.

[SackAttack]

So what you're saying is that Dorrell's going to get you guys into a BCS bowl every year, only to blow it in the second half?

[Karlifornia]

I feel like it's Steve Lavin all over again.

Only this time his name is Karl Dorrell.

Face it..UCLA is a basketball school that has a great year in football 25% of the time, max. You're not USC. You're the USC of basketball...take solace in that.

[Chief Rum]

So what you're saying is that Dorrell's going to get you guys into a BCS bowl every year, only to blow it in the second half?

No, the true equivalent would be getting into the Holiday Bowl, a second tier bowl, every year (remember, Lavin kept getting to Sweet Sixteen, not Final Four). Plus, we would be top five in recrutiing every year.

So actually Dorrell is worse. He doesn't even do that good.

[Chief Rum]

Face it..UCLA is a basketball school that has a great year in football 25% of the time, max. You're not USC. You're the USC of basketball...take solace in that.

Nope, not going to accept that. The resources are here. It's one of the two premier programs in a major metropolitan area with no football team. It's right smack in the middle of one of the three acknowledged recruiting hotbeds in the country (with Texas and Florida). The school is consistently Top 25 academically. It has a huge booster base with plenty of resources. Great weather. Great girls. It plays its home games in the MFing Rose Bowl for crying out loud. Recruits flock to a mediocre program here--you imagine what they would do if this program got its act together? If UCLA and USC were actually on somewhat even terms (yes, I know that's a huge leap, but this is hypothetical) talent and achievement wise, you think recruits would go to the lesser academic school in the heart of South Central? They choose USC because that school IS committed to its program and has shown it. The results show. And the result is the best program in the country.

The only thing lacking for UCLA is commitment from the school to the athletic department and from the department to football. Stop buying coaches on the slim. Get a heavyweight. If you offer them the money, they'll come. Because they know the advantages they could have coming here.

Dorrell is a terrific person. I would leave my kids with him. But I don't want to go through this anymore as a football fan. He needs to go, and it's time UCLA stepped up and decided their football program should be on par with their basketball program.

[Warhammer]

Heck, its not that long ago that UCLA was a dominant football team. When they had Terry Donahue they were in the running for the Pac-10 title every year and finished in the top 10 every other year.

[spleen1015]

You're the USC of basketball...take solace in that.

HA! That's funny.

[CU Tiger]

If UCLA and USC were actually on somewhat even terms (yes, I know that's a huge leap, but this is hypothetical) talent and achievement wise, you think recruits would go to the lesser academic school in the heart of South Central?

I think you may be downplaying the influence that SC has.
#1 Despite the best efforts to tll us otherwise, the elite athletes aren't concerned about academic achievement. They want the least hassel on theeirr way to the NFL. Its unfortunant, and unappealing but true.

#2 You have an entire generation now that has grown up on "classics" that glorify compton and south central as the place to be. i really think there is a draw there that few are accepting. And face it having Snoop on the sidelines is a recruiting tactic by Carrol whether we like it or not.

[WSUCougar]

Sorry, CR, but that Utah fiasco was U-G-L-Y.

[DanGarion]

No, the true equivalent would be getting into the Holiday Bowl, a second tier bowl, every year (remember, Lavin kept getting to Sweet Sixteen, not Final Four). Plus, we would be top five in recrutiing every year.

So actually Dorrell is worse. He doesn't even do that good.
You should be happy that you make it that far... ;)

[Pumpy Tudors]

What's Linda Lavin got to do with UCLA?

[larrymcg421]

What's Linda Lavin got to do with UCLA?

Other than the fact that she could do a better job than Karl Dorrell? Not much, I guess.

[heybrad]

What's Linda Lavin got to do with UCLA?
UCLA used to be sad... used to be shy. Funnest thing, the saddest part is they never knew why.

[Chief Rum]

I think you may be downplaying the influence that SC has.
#1 Despite the best efforts to tll us otherwise, the elite athletes aren't concerned about academic achievement. They want the least hassel on theeirr way to the NFL. Its unfortunant, and unappealing but true.

#2 You have an entire generation now that has grown up on "classics" that glorify compton and south central as the place to be. i really think there is a draw there that few are accepting. And face it having Snoop on the sidelines is a recruiting tactic by Carrol whether we like it or not.

1) Actually I follow the recruiting battles pretty closely, and academics is a pretty critical element for many recruits, a higher percentange than you think. They are only not much of a concern for players who truly believe they are on their way to the NFL, then they don't care (or if they still do, kudos to them). Remember, the parents are usually heavily involved in the rdcruiting process as well, and for them, academics is almost always in the top two or three important factors, whether their kid cares or not. That said, the "NFL Factory" consideration for USC is huge, and I don't doubt it would take many years of comparable success for UCLA to grow onto a similar level with USC.

2) Hey we have Eric Scott!

It's sad that that might be true, huh? USC can even march out an alleged murderer (and alleged extortionist?!?) and give "Bush Benefits" to the parents of any elite recruit in the land? :P

Don't take too much offense, USC; you know that your school's prestige is one of the primary reasons for my disenchantment with UCLA's current play.

[Chief Rum]

Sorry, CR, but that Utah fiasco was U-G-L-Y.

Extremely, WSU. There are people around here who don't want to wait for Dorrell to get to his office on Monday to fire him.

There are some 80 men in that locker room (they're kids, but they're men) who need to look deep into their mirrors and discover who they are right now.

[Crapshoot]

Nope, not going to accept that. The resources are here. It's one of the two premier programs in a major metropolitan area with no football team. It's right smack in the middle of one of the three acknowledged recruiting hotbeds in the country (with Texas and Florida). The school is consistently Top 25 academically. It has a huge booster base with plenty of resources. Great weather. Great girls. It plays its home games in the MFing Rose Bowl for crying out loud. Recruits flock to a mediocre program here--you imagine what they would do if this program got its act together? If UCLA and USC were actually on somewhat even terms (yes, I know that's a huge leap, but this is hypothetical) talent and achievement wise, you think recruits would go to the lesser academic school in the heart of South Central? They choose USC because that school IS committed to its program and has shown it. The results show. And the result is the best program in the country.

The only thing lacking for UCLA is commitment from the school to the athletic department and from the department to football. Stop buying coaches on the slim. Get a heavyweight. If you offer them the money, they'll come. Because they know the advantages they could have coming here.

Dorrell is a terrific person. I would leave my kids with him. But I don't want to go through this anymore as a football fan. He needs to go, and it's time UCLA stepped up and decided their football program should be on par with their basketball program.

Yes, a state school should be spending more money on coaches and the weigh team, as opposed to you know, the "education" part. USC is a private school - I sure as hell don't want more of my tax dollars going to funding football.

[Eaglesfan27]

Face it..UCLA is a basketball school that has a great year in football 25% of the time, max. You're not USC. You're the USC of basketball...take solace in that.


No, they aren't. UCLA basketball hasn't been as dominant in basketball for quite a long time as USC football has been in football in the last 5 years.

[MrBug708]

No, they aren't. UCLA basketball hasn't been as dominant in basketball for quite a long time as USC football has been in football in the last 5 years.

No, in two years, UCLA will have the run that SC had/has with Carroll. Back to back Final Four appearances is the equivalent to winning back to back BCS games.

[MrBug708]

A telling sign is to just look at the Tulsa BYU game and compare that with the way they slapped UCLA around, then consider what happened yesterday in Provo, I think you have to conclude that UCLA's footbal team is really -REALLY - bad. The players played like losers, and when a gang of creampuffs like Utah's reports that the opposition was soft, you KNOW it was.

But the players are good individually, and they're talented...certainly as talented as those at udub, yet they sure don't look like it. The conclusion has to be (and I say this very reluctantly) that the coaching staff is responsible. I submit that KD did clean up a genuinely bad mess that Toledo had left in his wake..i.e. the lack of any kind of relationship with local high schools and the dissention in the athletic dept offices etc. In that, he was good and I guess, necessary. But it appears that he simply isn't head coaching material. His intentions are all fine and he honestly loves UCLA and wants them to be as good as they can be, but he's not the one to raise them to that level. His stubborn insistence to pursue his version of the WCO despite clear evidence that it's not working, and his inability to get the best from his coaches and team make it obvious that he has got to go.

I've been a solid Blue since he was hired, but this is the end. I cannot be a crank because tearing into a good man who genuinely means well is not my style, but I can no longer be a supporter.

[MrBug708]

Heck, its not that long ago that UCLA was a dominant football team. When they had Terry Donahue they were in the running for the Pac-10 title every year and finished in the top 10 every other year.

I wouldn't go that far really, but they had some great runs.

[cartman]

Yes, a state school should be spending more money on coaches and the weigh team, as opposed to you know, the "education" part. USC is a private school - I sure as hell don't want more of my tax dollars going to funding football.

Not sure how UCLA is run, but at most of the big name public schools, the football program is self-sustaining, meaning no public money is spent on them.

[MrBug708]

Not sure how UCLA is run, but at most of the big name public schools, the football program is self-sustaining, meaning no public money is spent on them.

It's self sustaining, but the University hasn't made it a priority. Under Dalis (where this mess all started from) he thought that football was no more important then any other program whether men's or woman's. Obviously it's true in a small sense and that is why UCLA is the premier athletic school in the nation, but the football program (and basketball program at times) has been almost an afterthought. As long as the team was graduating players and somewhat competitive and making positive cash flow, nothing else mattered. But that's not really the worse part. UCLA is ran with an Ivy League school mantra; Academics first no matter what. If they could get away with it, the admissions office would run UCLA athletics like they do at Stanford. Being a public school like UCLA that is nearly impossible but they still like to try.

Sad to say and it's miserable being a UCLA football fan most of the time.

[Chief Rum]

Yes, a state school should be spending more money on coaches and the weigh team, as opposed to you know, the "education" part. USC is a private school - I sure as hell don't want more of my tax dollars going to funding football.

Boosters can do it. They can bring in the money needed. Cal did it.

I don't need UCLA to get to USC level. I'm just saying it's possible they can be on somewhat equal footing because, outside of the private-public aspect, they enjoy largely the same advantages, and UCLA even has a couple that USC doesn't have.

Also, a good football program brings in tons of money and exposure. Do you really think spending more on coaches won't result in more money for the school to be spent elsewhere?

[Eaglesfan27]

No, in two years, UCLA will have the run that SC had/has with Carroll. Back to back Final Four appearances is the equivalent to winning back to back BCS games.

Let me know when they have actually won a championship. Let me know when they've actually won more than 80% of their games in the last 5 years. Yes, they've been very good the last 2 years, but 3 years ago they won just over 60% of their regular season games. The 2 years before that they didn't even win 40% of their regular season games.

[clintl]

UCLA is ran with an Ivy League school mantra; Academics first no matter what. If they could get away with it, the admissions office would run UCLA athletics like they do at Stanford. Being a public school like UCLA that is nearly impossible but they still like to try.

Sad to say and it's miserable being a UCLA football fan most of the time.

All schools should be run like that. The mission of a university (especially an elite academic and research institution like UCLA) is to educate and add to knowledge, not to win football games. It's fine to be a fan and want your team to win, but UCLA's status as a top academic university has far, far more social importance than its status as a top athletic school, and it dismays me to see it criticized for having its priorities right.

[Chief Rum]

All schools should be run like that. The mission of a university (especially an elite academic and research institution like UCLA) is to educate and add to knowledge, not to win football games. It's fine to be a fan and want your team to win, but UCLA's status as a top academic university has far, far more social importance than its status as a top athletic school, and it dismays me to see it criticized for having its priorities right.

Why even play sports in college then? Let's scrap the entire athletic department and put it all toward education.

[st.cronin]

All schools should be run like that. The mission of a university (especially an elite academic and research institution like UCLA) is to educate and add to knowledge, not to win football games. It's fine to be a fan and want your team to win, but UCLA's status as a top academic university has far, far more social importance than its status as a top athletic school, and it dismays me to see it criticized for having its priorities right.

+1

[clintl]

Why even play sports in college then? Let's scrap the entire athletic department and put it all toward education.

I'm not saying that there is no place for sports in college. What I'm saying is that it's wrong to criticize universities for not lowering their academic standards just so they can compete for a national championship in football - which is what Mr. Bug was doing. And it's not like UCLA hasn't had its share of success in many sports. In my memory at least, UCLA has had some pretty good teams. Most universities would love to have UCLA's athletic program.

[Chief Rum]

I'm not saying that there is no place for sports in college. What I'm saying is that it's wrong to criticize universities for not lowering their academic standards just so they can compete for a national championship in football - which is what Mr. Bug was doing. And it's not like UCLA hasn't had its share of success in many sports. In my memory at least, UCLA has had some pretty good teams. Most universities would love to have UCLA's athletic program.

Okay, in that respect, I agree. I love that UCLA doesn't lower its standards. It's my belief we can succeed despite that if we make better decisions in other areas of the program, decisions that are currently being poorly made.

I don't support Bug saying to lower admissions. I support that the school should make a stronger commitment to national success in its football program, as it has done in its other sports. To my knowledge, football is the only one now that seems to get short shrift and has limitations on it from the administration. Meanwhile everywhere else they administration is clearly doing enough to allow those teams to compete for championships in their respective sports.

[MrBug708]

Let me know when they have actually won a championship. Let me know when they've actually won more than 80% of their games in the last 5 years. Yes, they've been very good the last 2 years, but 3 years ago they won just over 60% of their regular season games. The 2 years before that they didn't even win 40% of their regular season games.

You make it seem like Howland any choice of it? UCLA had the talent of a bottom tier PAC-10 team. To see where UCLA is at this point is just a tribute to the hardest working man in all of college; Ben Howland

[Chief Rum]

Let me know when they have actually won a championship. Let me know when they've actually won more than 80% of their games in the last 5 years. Yes, they've been very good the last 2 years, but 3 years ago they won just over 60% of their regular season games. The 2 years before that they didn't even win 40% of their regular season games.

:rolleyes:

Don't be jealous now. Have fun half-filling your brand spanking new arena.

[Eaglesfan27]

Hey guys, this thread was all about UCLA's jealousy of USC football and their coach. ;)

I was just giving facts to denounce the ridiculous statement that UCLA Basketball is equivalent to USC Football.

[Chief Rum]

Hey guys, this thread was all about UCLA's jealousy of USC football and their coach. ;)

I was just giving facts to denounce the ridicuolous statement that UCLA Basketball is equivalent to USC Football.

Well, I'll give that. UCLA isn't on comparable level with USC in football--yet.

I would also argue this thread is about UCLA's suckiness in football, regardless of USC's success. USC's success merely puts it in further shitty context.

[dawgfan]

As an outside observer, I would agree that UCLA has a lot of inherent advantages that should lead to a consistently upper-level football program. Great location, both in terms of actual campus location as well as being centrally located for a hotbed of recruiting, great venue (how can you not appreciate playing in the Rose Bowl), great University (one of the top public schools in the nation) and a pretty good football history.

That UCLA has struggled since that latter years of Terry Donahue's tenure to field consistently outstanding teams is puzzling - they usually do quite well in recruiting according to the various "experts".

I've heard before that UCLA's athletic department is running things on the cheap, not wanting to spend a lot of money on coaches. Given their general success in athletics, I would expect that the athletic department is doing pretty well in revenue, such that they don't have to tap the general fund of the University system. If that's the case, it's surprising that their AD(s) haven't seen the value in investing in the football program by spending enough to get a top-drawer coach. I would also expect that UCLA's booster base should be pretty wealthy.

In any event, I feel like UCLA is a sleeping giant - a place with a lot of inherent advantages, but without the dedication by those in the administration to fully encourage and support a highly successful football program.

If the UW is going to return to consistent Rose Bowl contention, they'd be well-advised to do so before UCLA gets a top-notch coach in place, because it will make things that much tougher in the Pac-10.

[Chief Rum]

As an outside observer, I would agree that UCLA has a lot of inherent advantages that should lead to a consistently upper-level football program. Great location, both in terms of actual campus location as well as being centrally located for a hotbed of recruiting, great venue (how can you not appreciate playing in the Rose Bowl), great University (one of the top public schools in the nation) and a pretty good football history.

That UCLA has struggled since that latter years of Terry Donahue's tenure to field consistently outstanding teams is puzzling - they usually do quite well in recruiting according to the various "experts".

I've heard before that UCLA's athletic department is running things on the cheap, not wanting to spend a lot of money on coaches. Given their general success in athletics, I would expect that the athletic department is doing pretty well in revenue, such that they don't have to tap the general fund of the University system. If that's the case, it's surprising that their AD(s) haven't seen the value in investing in the football program by spending enough to get a top-drawer coach. I would also expect that UCLA's booster base should be pretty wealthy.

In any event, I feel like UCLA is a sleeping giant - a place with a lot of inherent advantages, but without the dedication by those in the administration to fully encourage and support a highly successful football program.

If the UW is going to return to consistent Rose Bowl contention, they'd be well-advised to do so before UCLA gets a top-notch coach in place, because it will make things that much tougher in the Pac-10.

Thanks, dawgfan. That illustrates the situation well.

I have no idea what to make of our game next week.

[JonInMiddleGA]

All schools should be run like that. The mission of a university (especially an elite academic and research institution like UCLA) is to educate and add to knowledge, not to win football games.

And there's not a single more effective marketing program for 95% of schools out there than a successful football program. Before you can "educate and add to knowledge" you've got to get someone to want to attend (and someone to kick in the donations to pay for all of that educating & adding).

It's a relatively short list of schools that have that sort of appeal absent something in their athletic department. It's an even shorter list of public schools that have it.

[dawgfan]

Thanks, dawgfan. That illustrates the situation well.

I have no idea what to make of our game next week.
I don't either. I'm not sure if that blowout makes things harder or easier for the Huskies. I would lean towards thinking the former - there's still talent on that team, and when you look at the stats for the UCLA/Utah game, it's really only the turnover column that stands out. It's not like Grady didn't miss some passes, and Utah didn't run all over UCLA. Add-in the UCLA loss last year to the Huskies, and I figure the Bruins are more likely to be frothing mad this week and give the UW a great effort rather than them falling apart mentally.

This game could really go any number of ways - the Huskies have shown they can play with tough teams, but they also lack the depth and talent to overcome missed opportunities. I have no doubt they are capable of beating UCLA, but they will have to play smart and take advantage of opportunities that are presented to them.

And regarding UCLA in general, I think the UW has virtually all the same advantages UCLA has, save being in a recruiting hotbed. That obviously favors UCLA. On the other hand, I think there's a greater commitment to winning football at the UW by the administration. Is Ty the guy to return the UW to the days of Don James? We'll see. Is this just a blip for Karl Dorrell, or is it indicative of deeper problems in his program? We'll see.

I can certainly understand the frustration after that loss yesterday given all the positive momentum that UCLA has had coming into this season and through the first 2 games. Next week should be a big gut-check for both programs.

[MrBug708]

Now that the UW job doesnt look to open for a bit, maybe Jim Mora Jr would be interested in UCLA?

[dawgfan]

Now that the UW job doesnt look to open for a bit, maybe Jim Mora Jr would be interested in UCLA?
Stay away - he's our backup plan!

;)

Actually, there's a fair amount of speculation he's the heir apparent to Holmgren for the Seahawks job once Mike decides to move on.

[cartman]

When Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds was asked about the pressure of "keeping up with the Joneses" in college athletics, he replied:

"Well, we ARE the Joneses."

[albionmoonlight]

And there's not a single more effective marketing program for 95% of schools out there than a successful football program. Before you can "educate and add to knowledge" you've got to get someone to want to attend (and someone to kick in the donations to pay for all of that educating & adding).

It's a relatively short list of schools that have that sort of appeal absent something in their athletic department. It's an even shorter list of public schools that have it.

I don't know which way this cuts, but here is the USNEWS list of the top 100 National Universities.

<table class="rankingsTable type1 recordSet double" width="582"><tbody><tr class="stripe"><td>
</td> <td class="name" colspan="19">Princeton University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2627_brief.php) (NJ) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2.</td> <td class="name" colspan="19">Harvard University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2155_brief.php) (MA) </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>3.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Yale University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1426_brief.php)(CT) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>4.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Stanford University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1305_brief.php)(CA) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>5.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Pennsylvania (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3378_brief.php) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>5.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">California Institute of Technology (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1131_brief.php) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>7.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Massachusetts Institute of Technology (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2178_brief.php) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>8.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Duke University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2920_brief.php)(NC) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>9.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Columbia University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2707_brief.php)(NY) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>9.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Chicago (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1774_brief.php) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>11.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Dartmouth College (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2573_brief.php)(NH) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>12.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Washington University in St. Louis (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2520_brief.php) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>12.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Cornell University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2711_brief.php)(NY) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>14.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Brown University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3401_brief.php)(RI) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>14.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Northwestern University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1739_brief.php)(IL) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>14.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Johns Hopkins University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2077_brief.php)(MD) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>17.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Rice University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3604_brief.php)(TX) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>17.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Emory University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1564_brief.php)(GA) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>19.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Vanderbilt University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3535_brief.php)(TN) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>19.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Notre Dame (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1840_brief.php)(IN) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>21.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of California—Berkeley (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1312_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>22.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Carnegie Mellon University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3242_brief.php)(PA) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>23.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Virginia (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_6968_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>23.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Georgetown University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1445_brief.php)(DC) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>25.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of California—Los Angeles (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1315_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>25.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Michigan—Ann Arbor (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_9092_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>27.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Southern California (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1328_brief.php) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>28.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2974_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>28.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Tufts University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2219_brief.php)(MA) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>30.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Wake Forest University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2978_brief.php)(NC) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>31.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Lehigh University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3289_brief.php)(PA) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>31.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Brandeis University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2133_brief.php)(MA) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>33.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">College of William and Mary (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3705_brief.php)(VA) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>34.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">New York University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2785_brief.php) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>35.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Rochester (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2894_brief.php)(NY) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>35.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Georgia Institute of Technology (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1569_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>35.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Boston College (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2128_brief.php) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>38.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Wisconsin—Madison (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3895_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>38.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of California—San Diego (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1317_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>38.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Illinois—Urbana - Champaign (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1775_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>41.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Case Western Reserve University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3024_brief.php)(OH) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>42.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Washington (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3798_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>42.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of California—Davis (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1313_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>44.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2803_brief.php)(NY) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>44.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Texas—Austin (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3658_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>44.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of California—Santa Barbara (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1320_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>44.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of California—Irvine (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1314_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>48.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Pennsylvania State University—University Park (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_6965_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>49.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Florida (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1535_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>50.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Syracuse University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2882_brief.php)(NY) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>50.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Tulane University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2029_brief.php)(LA) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>52.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Yeshiva University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2903_brief.php)(NY) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>52.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Miami (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1536_brief.php)(FL) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>54.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Pepperdine University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1264_brief.php)(CA) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>54.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">George Washington University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1444_brief.php)(DC) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>54.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Maryland—College Park (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2103_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>57.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Ohio State University—Columbus (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_6883_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>57.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Boston University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2130_brief.php) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>59.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey—New Brunswick (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_6964_brief.php)(NJ) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>59.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Pittsburgh (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3379_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>59.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Georgia (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1598_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>62.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Texas A&M University—College Station (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_10366_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>62.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Worcester Polytechnic Institute (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2233_brief.php)(MA) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>64.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Connecticut (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_29013_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>64.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Purdue University—West Lafayette (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1825_brief.php)(IN) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>64.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Iowa (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1892_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>67.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Fordham University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2722_brief.php)(NY) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>67.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Miami University—Oxford (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_7104_brief.php)(OH) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>67.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Clemson University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3425_brief.php)(SC) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>67.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Southern Methodist University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3613_brief.php)(TX) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>71.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Minnesota—Twin Cities (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3969_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>71.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Virginia Tech (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3754_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>71.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Delaware (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1431_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>71.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Michigan State University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2290_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>75.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Stevens Institute of Technology (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2639_brief.php)(NJ) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>75.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Baylor University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_6967_brief.php)(TX) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>75.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Colorado School of Mines (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1348_brief.php) ¹¹ *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>75.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Indiana University—Bloomington (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1809_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>79.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Brigham Young University—Provo (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3670_brief.php)(UT) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>79.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of California—Santa Cruz (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1321_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>79.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Colorado—Boulder (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1370_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>82.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">St. Louis University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2506_brief.php) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>82.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">SUNY—Binghamton (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2836_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>82.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Marquette University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3863_brief.php)(WI) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>85.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2851_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>85.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">North Carolina State University—Raleigh (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2972_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>85.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Denver (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1371_brief.php) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>85.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">American University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1434_brief.php)(DC) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>85.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Iowa State University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1869_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>85.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Kansas (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1948_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>91.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Alabama (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1051_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>91.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Missouri—Columbia (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2516_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>91.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Nebraska—Lincoln (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2565_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>91.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Tulsa (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3185_brief.php)(OK) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>91.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Clark University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2139_brief.php)(MA) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>96.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Auburn University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1009_brief.php)(AL) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>96.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">SUNY—Stony Brook (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2838_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>96.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Tennessee (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3530_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>96.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Vermont (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_3696_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>96.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Arizona (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1083_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>96.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of the Pacific (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1329_brief.php)(CA) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>96.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of California—Riverside (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1316_brief.php) *</td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>96.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Howard University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1448_brief.php)(DC) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>96.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Illinois Institute of Technology (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_1691_brief.php) </td> </tr> <tr><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr class="stripe"> <td>96.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">Northeastern University (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2199_brief.php)(MA) </td> </tr> <tr class="stripe"><td colspan="9"> </td></tr> <tr> <td>96.</td> <td class="name" colspan="8">University of Massachusetts—Amherst (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2221_brief.php) *</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Eaglesfan27]

Good list. I didn't want to look up the stats at the time I was posting in this thread, but I wanted to say that USC isn't really below UCLA academically. They are very close to each other with each school having their own strengths.

[MrBug708]

I just wish that UCLA could have the ability (lack of disclosure) that private schools have. As it is, UCLA does a marvelous job within its limits

[Chief Rum]

Good list. I didn't want to look up the stats at the time I was posting in this thread, but I wanted to say that USC isn't really below UCLA academically. They are very close to each other with each school having their own strengths.

Actually, yes, USC has improved significantly academically in recent years, so kudos for them. They're still in South Central, though. ;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't know which way this cuts, but here is the USNEWS list of the top 100 National Universities.

Probably cuts both ways a bit, but once you take the private schools out, you're left with a good bit of what I was talking about I think.

There's certainly a few specialty school types in there that would carry some weight in a specific field (Col. School of Mines for example) but on the whole, outside of the usual suspects (such as the Ivy's), you walk into a HR office and see how many of those non-football schools raise an eyebrow in a positive way. Some of them get instant recognition, others are lucky if someone doesn't blurt out "where the fuck is that?"

Remember, I'm not talking about the quality of the education at these schools, but rather about their image or how they're perceived out in the world. It's that perception that creates the buzz around them, their cachet, etc.

[Crapshoot]

Probably cuts both ways a bit, but once you take the private schools out, you're left with a good bit of what I was talking about I think.

There's certainly a few specialty school types in there that would carry some weight in a specific field (Col. School of Mines for example) but on the whole, outside of the usual suspects (such as the Ivy's), you walk into a HR office and see how many of those non-football schools raise an eyebrow in a positive way. Some of them get instant recognition, others are lucky if someone doesn't blurt out "where the fuck is that?"

Remember, I'm not talking about the quality of the education at these schools, but rather about their image or how they're perceived out in the world. It's that perception that creates the buzz around them, their cachet, etc.

We live in different worlds, Jon. I think the football factories have very little respect, in favor of institutions that are better academically. I will concede the private schools are perhaps the biggest examples.

[clintl]

And there's not a single more effective marketing program for 95% of schools out there than a successful football program. Before you can "educate and add to knowledge" you've got to get someone to want to attend (and someone to kick in the donations to pay for all of that educating & adding).

It's a relatively short list of schools that have that sort of appeal absent something in their athletic department. It's an even shorter list of public schools that have it.

That's not true at all. There are many highly regarded universities that don't even have Division 1-A football teams, yet have no problem recruiting students. Among them, most of the University of California campuses, which are consistently near the top of public university rankings.

[wade moore]

We live in different worlds, Jon. I think the football factories have very little respect, in favor of institutions that are better academically. I will concede the private schools are perhaps the biggest examples.
Since when did working towards a good athletics program automatically mean you ignore academics?

[ISiddiqui]

That's not true at all. There are many highly regarded universities that don't even have Division 1-A football teams, yet have no problem recruiting students. Among them, most of the University of California campuses, which are consistently near the top of public university rankings.

And let's not forgot about the New England liberal arts colleges, who don't have big time sports teams, but are very, very highly regarded and have no problems recruiting students.

Hell, the school I went to law school is in the South, has NO football program, and seems to be overloaded with applicants (Emory).

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's not true at all. There are many highly regarded universities that don't even have Division 1-A football teams, yet have no problem recruiting students. Among them, most of the University of California campuses, which are consistently near the top of public university rankings.

And degrees from most of them (I'm reading this as the UC-Davis, UC-Riverside, etc. schools) have nowhere near the cachet of a university that anyone more than 300 miles away has never heard of.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hell, the school I went to law school is in the South, has NO football program, and seems to be overloaded with applicants (Emory).

Gee, y'think with that high priced Emory degree you might have figured out that it was very much the type of exception I was referring to. It's not exactly the same sort of school (in any manner, way, shape, or form) as a (just to pick on one that got a huge boost from even small time football) Georgia Southern.

[wade moore]

Hell, the school I went to law school is in the South, has NO football program, and seems to be overloaded with applicants (Emory).

If you couldn't tell, I'm mostly with Jon on this one... although I would argue there are multiple ways to "advertise"... one of these is to be like emory and focus very heavily on one specific niche (law school in this case).. I believe strongly that if not for the law school, most people wouldn't know Emory - in fact I wonder how many outside of the South and Mid-Atlantic have.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If you couldn't tell, I'm mostly with Jon on this one... although I would argue there are multiple ways to "advertise"...

Obviously, there's numerous ways to peel that particular apple.

But particularly for large state universities, there's nothing that does for the awareness that major college football, and especially success in that, can do.

I'm sitting right in the middle of a town that pretty much wouldn't exist in a recognizable form if not for the state university being here. They're packed to the rafters, the SAT cut-off point for admissions has become downright astonishing, new & improved facilities pop up regularly, etc., etc.

But take that football program away & it becomes just another West Georgia, Valdosta State, Kennesaw State, etc. There would be nothing to differentiate it from the others for the average person because over time the interest would wane because the profile declined. And I dare say you'd see a lot closer eye turned toward the $5b allotment that goes to all of the university system via the state legislature. While that money is distributed to all of them, dollars to donuts Mr. Average Taxpayer will think of UGA first (and often only) when he thinks about where that money goes. And guess what the first thing that same average taxpayer thinks about first when he thinks about UGA is? And if the money is going for that, he doesn't look too closely at how much it's costing him.

It may be more circus maximus than anything, but it works pretty damned well.

[wade moore]

Obviously, there's numerous ways to peel that particular apple.

But particularly for large state universities, there's nothing that does for the awareness that major college football, and especially success in that, can do.


Totally agreed on that - the "picking a niche" strategy is clearly geared towards smaller schools. There are VERY VERY VERY few skills with say... over 15k+ students (maybe even as low as 10k+) that can pull off being known because of their outstanding academic prestige - it's just SO difficult.. I don't know the numbers of the top academic institutions, but if my perception is right this is a very small group that may stop and start with UVA (which, by the way, puts a lot of money into their athletics).

[clintl]

And degrees from most of them (I'm reading this as the UC-Davis, UC-Riverside, etc. schools) have nowhere near the cachet of a university that anyone more than 300 miles away has never heard of.

And you'd be wrong about that. Companies come from all over the country to recruit UC Davis grads, for example.

[wade moore]

And you'd be wrong about that. Companies come from all over the country to recruit UC Davis grads, for example.
You could say that about most schools in the country.

What we're talking about is cachet with national recognition to bring recruits and donors from around the country.

Sorry, UC-Davis does not have that. I'm sure it's a fine school, but you're going to tell me that it has the kind of cachet for that that UC-Berkeley, USC, or UCLA have? Don't think so.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... but you're going to tell me that it has the kind of cachet for that that UC-Berkeley, USC, or UCLA have?

Actually, I suspect that he may very well try to tell us just that (or close to it).
I'll laugh my ass off, but I doubt that'll stop him from trying.

On a side note, it'd be interesting to see how many of these oh-so-academic insitutions that really aren't a factor in football today were powers at some point in their existence.

[clintl]

You could say that about most schools in the country.

What we're talking about is cachet with national recognition to bring recruits and donors from around the country.

Sorry, UC-Davis does not have that. I'm sure it's a fine school, but you're going to tell me that it has the kind of cachet for that that UC-Berkeley, USC, or UCLA have? Don't think so.

I'm talking about the reputation of the academic programs. And in some fields of study (not most, which is why it ranks lower than Berkeley and UCLA overall), UC Davis is considered equal to or better than Berkeley and UCLA. In fact, Davis is the only UC campus that has a full set of professional schools.

I sort of wonder if this idea that having a nationally ranked football program helps recruit students is a regional thing, now that I think about it. Because it does not seem to be and never has seemed to be a significant factor in college choice out here. It wasn't with my classmates when I was in school (Berkeley and Davis were the two top choices, and Berkeley's football program was in shambles at the time), and it doesn't seem to be a factor in any of the high school students I've know in the last few years.

[wade moore]

I'm talking about the reputation of the academic programs. And in some fields of study (not most, which is why it ranks lower than Berkeley and UCLA overall), UC Davis is considered equal to or better than Berkeley and UCLA. In fact, Davis is the only UC campus that has a full set of professional schools.

I sort of wonder if this idea that having a nationally ranked football program helps recruit students is a regional thing, now that I think about it. Because it does not seem to be and never has seemed to be a significant factor in college choice out here. It wasn't with my classmates when I was in school (Berkeley and Davis were the two top choices, and Berkeley's football program was in shambles at the time), and it doesn't seem to be a factor in any of the high school students I've know in the last few years.Reputation of academic program is FAR FAR FAR different than having national recognition that helps your program to recruit students and get big donor money. You're talking about something entirely different. I don't think anyone here is saying that great football programs mean a school has one of the best academic reputations. We're saying that this is a way to increase your enrollment, have more kids wanting to go to your school, and increase the number of large donors you are able to attract.

I'm totally with Jon here - and that's with me being a HUGE HUGE supporter of my alma mater. A school that what national recognition it has because of it's academics (#33 on that national list, and like #6 of the public schools). However - again - only so many schools can do that. It only appeals to a VERY small percentage of high school students - because, with a campus of about 5,000 kids there are only so many kids in the top 5-10% of their class. The rest of the top oh... let's say 30% of the class that may go to school have to go somewhere too. And let's face it, a national powerhouse in a major sport is FAR more effective than an elite academic institution.

Something tells me, from what you're saying, that you were one of those that did very well in school and were looking for something a lot different than your average potential college student.

[wade moore]

Dola: Oh and Jon is also talking about life after college. I would agree that nationally the football schools will have more recognition - of course some of the VERY best academic schools will also, especially those specialist schools. But again, only a small portion of high school kids have these options - you have to think about the masses in this discussion.

[clintl]

Reputation of academic program is FAR FAR FAR different than having national recognition that helps your program to recruit students and get big donor money. You're talking about something entirely different. I don't think anyone here is saying that great football programs mean a school has one of the best academic reputations. We're saying that this is a way to increase your enrollment, have more kids wanting to go to your school, and increase the number of large donors you are able to attract.

I'm totally with Jon here - and that's with me being a HUGE HUGE supporter of my alma mater. A school that what national recognition it has because of it's academics (#33 on that national list, and like #6 of the public schools). However - again - only so many schools can do that. It only appeals to a VERY small percentage of high school students - because, with a campus of about 5,000 kids there are only so many kids in the top 5-10% of their class. The rest of the top oh... let's say 30% of the class that may go to school have to go somewhere too. And let's face it, a national powerhouse in a major sport is FAR more effective than an elite academic institution.

Something tells me, from what you're saying, that you were one of those that did very well in school and were looking for something a lot different than your average potential college student.

I did do very well in school, and I'm sure I could have been admitted to Berkeley if I had wanted to go there. My main reason for choosing Davis was that I grew up in a small town, and felt more comfortable with the idea of living in a relatively small college town than in an urban setting, like Berkeley or LA. And while Davis was not quite as highly regarded, it did have a stellar academic reputation that was just a notch below the two, and considered at the time the third most prestigious campus in the system.

For whatever reason, though, more members of my high school class ended up going to Davis than to Berkeley, including four of the top eight students. So I wasn't that unusual compared to my peers. I can only think of one person who went to a college because of the sports teams, and he got a basketball scholarship (to Weber State, if I remember correctly).

As for increasing enrollment - Davis doesn't need to increase its enrollment (it had 35,000 applicants last year). It's at 30,000+ students now, and its standards for admission are high. The same is true for most of the University of California campuses. Its problem is keeping enrollment from growing too fast.

Really, I think you guys have it backwards. Because of the low cost, public universities (especially very good public universities) have no problem recruiting students. It's the private universities that have to worry about recruiting.

You're right about donors, though.

[Greyroofoo]

Was anyone else thinking of creating a parody thread called "The New Levin" about how Carl Levin kicks Sandy Levin's ass?

[DanGarion]

Actually, yes, USC has improved significantly academically in recent years, so kudos for them. They're still in South Central, though. ;)

Not everyone can afford to live in Westwood...

[Chief Rum]

Not everyone can afford to live in Westwood...

You're kidding, right? A USC supporter talking about being able to "afford" to live in Westwood? A school with a tuition with board of what $50-60 thousand?

[Young Drachma]

If you couldn't tell, I'm mostly with Jon on this one... although I would argue there are multiple ways to "advertise"... one of these is to be like emory and focus very heavily on one specific niche (law school in this case).. I believe strongly that if not for the law school, most people wouldn't know Emory - in fact I wonder how many outside of the South and Mid-Atlantic have.

I only have because they routinely compete with Wash U for Jewish students and they're "rivals" in that fiercely competitive and ill concieved Division III conference known as the University Athletic Association (http://www.uaa.rochester.edu/).

Brandeis University
Carnegie Mellon University
Case Western Reserve University
Emory University
New York University
University of Chicago
University of Rochester
Washington University in St. Louis

All have the resources to compete at a higher level and would prefer not to bother. But I think schools like Colorado College (hockey) and Johns Hopkins (Lacrosse) that have teams that play D1 sports (but are D-3 in everything else) are just that much cooler for not just choosing the specialize, but for being extremely successful at what they do, without sacrificing what they believe in.

Of course, the NCAA doesn't allow that to happen anymore. Imagine that.

[OldGiants]

I think UCLA should aspire to being the Yeshiva of the West.

By the way, Chief Rum, did you graduate from UCLA? Or any other acredited school?

[Eaglesfan27]

You're kidding, right? A USC supporter talking about being able to "afford" to live in Westwood? A school with a tuition with board of what $50-60 thousand?

I couldn't have when I went there. I was on scholarship. Not everyone that goes there is rich.

[Chief Rum]

I think UCLA should aspire to being the Yeshiva of the West.

By the way, Chief Rum, did you graduate from UCLA? Or any other acredited school?

Umm, is there some reason for the last sentence? Are you trying to suggest something about my education?

I grew up a UCLA fan, but, no, didn't end up going there. I attended Cal Poly Pomona--yes, it's accredited--to attend its aerospace program. That ended up not being for me, and I migrated to communications--journalism. I didn't graduate (handful of classes) only because the LA Times offered me a job before I did.

I hope you actually have a genuine good reason for asking this, and not the one it appears to be.

[Chief Rum]

I couldn't have when I went there. I was on scholarship. Not everyone that goes there is rich.

Never said everyone who went there was rich. But you know not everyone there is on scholarship. A few are. Most are in financial aid. And the rest are sent there by rich mom and dad.

I think it's silly to even argue that the average USC student swings the tuition in any manner, and yet couldn't make ends meet in Westwood, with significantly less tuition to pay.

[Chief Rum]

Okay, the Bruins in microcosm--the Oregon State game. Just another turn on the rollercoaster, or the start of the climb up?

I'll turn to the unbiased observers to ask what you all think.

Everyone knows what happened to UCLA two weeks ago. This thread was spawned by that awful Utah game.

Flash to yesterday. We beat a solid Washington at home last week, which looks all the better after they really tested South Central yesterday. But it was almost expected. Beating a solid team like the Huskies after losing to an atrocious Utah game is exactly a Dorrell trait. I even predicted exactly that with the Washington game (I think in this thread actually).

But yesterday we were going on the road in conference to a team with a heretofore solid defense. Certainly better than Utah. We had two wins in the last eight road games, and we were primed for the next drop in the rollercoaster that is the Dorrell UCLA regime.

And the game starts exactly that way. Our tailback fumbles two times in two carries. One is returned for a touchdown. The Beavers roll down the field on our defense and scores an offensive touchdown, too. At the end of the first quarter, we are down 14-0, our quarterback looks befuddled and is throwing off-pitch floaters everywhere (when he gets a throw off before a false start penalty), we have yet to get a first down, and have 19 yards of total offense--which includes six forward recovery yards off of our running back's second fumble.

At this point, I'm like "WTF?!? Fire his ass!", because it is exactly what any observer watching the program would predict going into this game.

But they play four quarters for a reason. In the second quarter, Olson started finding more receivers. Bell wasn't fumbling anymore. Our line was actually pushing back pretty good against the second best run defense in the conference. We go on our first legit drive halfway through the second quarter. The drive includes a fourth down go for it which they convert, and on the scoring run (dive actually) by Bell, Olson even has his foot stepped on by the center, turns and falls, extending his hand in desperation hoping Bell reaches the ball (he does), and then Bell leaps into the endzone. We also get a couple field goals and we're down 14-12 at halftime. The 2006 defense showed up late in the first quarter for the first time this year and pretty much blew up the Beaver offense.

But not all was settled. We were still losing. Our habits were particularly obvious on a late second quarter drive deep into Oregon State territory where we had a 3rd and 1 inside their 10, were pushed back by two straight false starts, and then Olson throws a pick.

The penalties and general ineptitude of our QB continued throught he third quarter. The Beavers couldn't do squat on our defense, but we were tripping over ourselves avoiding a score. Then we get to the fourth quarter, forcing another punt. Some poor kid named Gerald Lawson puts a late hit on our returner after Oregon State's first good punt of the day, and that moves the ball up 15 yards--and in range of Olson's first good play. He throws to Brandon Breazell for a 69-yarder and we get our first lead.

Then we kick off to Lawson, who fumbles it. We recover and score again.

Then we kick off to Lawson, who fumbles it. We recover and score again.

Guys, that's not deja vu. That happened twice.

Then we kick off to Lawson (why is he still in?!?). OMG, he fumbles it again! They recovered this time, but we forced them to punt, and we scored again.

OSU just collapsed, and we win going away 40-14. We put 135 yards rushing on a defense allowing just 29 per game. Olson throws for 2 TDs and looks much more confident in the fourth. The 2006 defense shows up from out of nowhere. And we're 4-1, back in the coach's poll (at least), and looking forward to a home revenge game against awful Notre Dame next week.

So we reached our nadir and we started to climb again. Things are looking up.

So which is it? Was this your proverbial moment of truth/gut check and the Bruins came through? Or is this just another turn, and I will be cursing Dorrell's name as we inconceivably give Notre Dame their first win of the year?

[MrBug708]

That first quarter was swful, one of the worst first quarters in UCLA history

[Swaggs]

With all due respect, I'd hold out judgement until you can measure UCLA against a Cal, Oregon, or USC. Oregon State is an average program, having a below average season. You do not want to make a game against them your measuring stick.

I think if UCLA wins one game against those top three teams, you are having a good season. If you can win two or more against those three teams (and maybe throw ASU in there, if they can continue to be efficient), and you are having a very good game.

[MrBug708]

That's the type of team our Dorrell has created

[Chief Rum]

With all due respect, I'd hold out judgement until you can measure UCLA against a Cal, Oregon, or USC. Oregon State is an average program, having a below average season. You do not want to make a game against them your measuring stick.

I think if UCLA wins one game against those top three teams, you are having a good season. If you can win two or more against those three teams (and maybe throw ASU in there, if they can continue to be efficient), and you are having a very good game.

You misunderstand. Oregon State should not be involved in a game with UCLA. This is no more a measuring stick than USC-Western Michigan, LSU-Louisian-Lafayette. This had nothing to do with the quality of the opponent, but the sharp turnaround the Bruins made within the game. The mental fortitude it took to pull it off, with the pressures that were attached to the program going into that game and then starting off that bad.

I was talking about the situation overcome, and what might have been going on in the the players' heads. With any luck, I am hoping it helps keep them motivated and shows them they have talent when they decide to put it to use.

As for Cal, Oregon, USC--should this UCLA team be measured against them? Wouldn't you say matching those teams would be overachieving? If we do play with them and win some or all of those games, that would certainly be significant. But losing them all, but playing them very well wouldn't necessarily mean the program is in the dumps either. It's more important in how we play, honestly, then the results. With Dorrell, you can't trust the results--you have to watch the product on the field to determine if there is any hope with it.

Just like Lavin--you view from afar and you only see Sweet Sixteens. Views from close, you see how he tore UCLA's program apart. It was only until that last horrible season that rest of the nation finally saw what those closer to the program had seen coming for years.

[Galaxy]

Talk about a USC-UCLA rival. :)

[Chief Rum]

Talk about a USC-UCLA rival. :)

Heh if you're talking about the previous discussion, yeah, no love lost there.

Obviously, though, UCLA as a program has a long way to go to get close to where USC is. All that said, 13-9, baby. :)

[Chief Rum]

Oh, re-reading my earlier post, I think I do disservice to OSU in comparing them to Western Michigan or LA-Lafayette against the big boys. Just saying, considering where UCLA should be, that should be one of the more "gimme" games on their schedule. The fact that it isn't says a lot about the current state of the program.

[dawgfan]

For those dismissing Oregon State, that's a big mistake. Put a decent QB on that team and they are likely right there with Oregon, Cal, ASU and UCLA in the group of teams trying to knock USC from their Pac-10 perch. This isn't the Oregon State program of the late '70's and '80's.

As for UCLA, I suspect the Utah game was a serious aberration. You look at the stats, and you'd have no idea UCLA got slaughtered, with the obvious exception of the turnovers. I think that game was just a classic example of implosion. Now, whether that is an indictment of Dorrell as a head coach, I really can't say. It does seem like something may be missing there - the lack of consistency would be troubling if I were a Bruin fan. But it does seem like there's enough talent and coaching ability for UCLA to make a strong run at the Pac-10 this year.

[Karlifornia]

Us Stanford supporters wish we had the chance to complain about a 3-1 team.

[Blade6119]

I think much of it is due to the AD in place, if they are in fact playing cheap with the spending. ASU brought in Lisa Love to be our AD here at arizona state(from USC, suprise!), and she brought in a totally new strategy. Gone was hiring up and coming coaches, and instead she splashed the cash on proven winners in Erickson and Sendek. Both programs have seen boosts in recruiting, and so far football has had success of the field.

So if your program truly is in trouble(which i dont agree with, but i dont share the same glowing view of UCLA's recruiting potential you do), maybe you should look a little higher up then the head coach.

[MrBug708]

Guererro is most of the problem as he's supposedly guided by a few "boosters" and people who cut the checks. Guerrero wanted Riley but these people wanted Dorrell. That's sort of the "word" i've seen in a few places.

Can't fault the man for hiring Howland, but Howland wanted to coach here and took a paycut even. Sad that a coach has to take a paycut to come to UCLA?

[Karlifornia]

Guererro is most of the problem as he's supposedly guided by a few "boosters" and people who cut the checks. Guerrero wanted Riley but these people wanted Dorrell. That's sort of the "word" i've seen in a few places.

Can't fault the man for hiring Howland, but Howland wanted to coach here and took a paycut even. Sad that a coach has to take a paycut to come to UCLA?

It's only sad if a coach passes on UCLA because of a potential pay-cut.

[Pumpy Tudors]

You know, I watched most of the UCLA-Oregon State game, about three quarters or so. That led me back to this thread, and a few questions came to mind:

1) "How many points does UCLA score on OSU if that OSU kid doesn't fumble those kicks?"

2) "How many points does UCLA score if they don't get great field position every possession due to OSU not having a real punter?"

3) "Is there anything from this game at OSU that would be encouraging to UCLA fans?"

4) "Wait, UCLA is actually 3-1?"

5) "What the fuck?"

[MrBug708]

You know, I watched most of the UCLA-Oregon State game, about three quarters or so. That led me back to this thread, and a few questions came to mind:

1) "How many points does UCLA score on OSU if that OSU kid doesn't fumble those kicks?"

2) "How many points does UCLA score if they don't get great field position every possession due to OSU not having a real punter?"

3) "Is there anything from this game at OSU that would be encouraging to UCLA fans?"

4) "Wait, UCLA is actually 3-1?"

5) "What the fuck?"

1 - Not a lot but probably wins

2- Real question would be "How many points would OSU score if UCLA's RB doesn't fumble on the first two possessions

3- The fact that OSU was shutdown after the first quarter is about it

4- Sadly they should be undefeated

5-Hell ya!

[st.cronin]

Dorrell is a good coach. UCLA would be stupid to fire him.

[MrBug708]

Dorrell is a good coach. UCLA would be stupid to fire him.

lol

Thanks for the laugh :)

[Pumpy Tudors]

2- Real question would be "How many points would OSU score if UCLA's RB doesn't fumble on the first two possessions
Yeah, I hadn't thought of that, as I missed the first quarter of the game. I didn't think about how Oregon State scored their points, but I agree that UCLA shut the Beavers down after that.

[MrBug708]

Yeah, I hadn't thought of that, as I missed the first quarter of the game. I didn't think about how Oregon State scored their points, but I agree that UCLA shut the Beavers down after that.

I think I read a stat where OSU had 147 yards of offense in the first quarter and 101 yards the rest of the game

[st.cronin]

lol

Thanks for the laugh :)

I guess you'd rather have Kirk Ferentz, or Dave Wannstedt, or Greg Robinson, or Mike Stoops or ...

Dorrell has done a nice job at UCLA, they're clearly one of the top teams in the Pac 10. Some of the fans just have ludicrous expectations. They'll probably go 9-3 or 8-4 this year, against an incredibly tough schedule. Very few teams will finish with as good a record.

[Butter]

They need to re-hire Bob Toledo. Even better, how about a two-headed Toledo/Terry Donahue combo.

UCLA hasn't been the same since they lost that last hurricane-delayed game at Miami in 1998.

[Blade6119]

I guess you'd rather have Kirk Ferentz, or Dave Wannstedt, or Greg Robinson, or Mike Stoops or ...

Dorrell has done a nice job at UCLA, they're clearly one of the top teams in the Pac 10. Some of the fans just have ludicrous expectations. They'll probably go 9-3 or 8-4 this year, against an incredibly tough schedule. Very few teams will finish with as good a record.

Especially since the Pac 10 appears to be the best conference in the country right now

[Pumpy Tudors]

Dorrell has done a nice job at UCLA, they're clearly one of the top teams in the Pac 10. Some of the fans just have ludicrous expectations. They'll probably go 9-3 or 8-4 this year, against an incredibly tough schedule. Very few teams will finish with as good a record.
I accidentally read this as "Dorrell has done a nice job at UCLA, they're clearly one of the top ten teams in the Pac 10." :D

[MrBug708]

I guess you'd rather have Kirk Ferentz, or Dave Wannstedt, or Greg Robinson, or Mike Stoops or ...

Dorrell has done a nice job at UCLA, they're clearly one of the top teams in the Pac 10. Some of the fans just have ludicrous expectations. They'll probably go 9-3 or 8-4 this year, against an incredibly tough schedule. Very few teams will finish with as good a record.

Sorry, but when you return 20 starters and get blown at @Utah to a team missing 6 starters, you aren't that great.

His biggest road win?

*crickets*

The problem is consistency. You can't hold USC down and then give up 40 points to a decent FSU team

[Chief Rum]

Us Stanford supporters wish we had the chance to complain about a 3-1 team.

We're 4-1.

[dawgfan]

So, you guys still down on Dorrell with UCLA tied for the lead in the Pac-10 and coming off a big win over Cal?

[k0ruptr]

I would think so , still got blown out against Utah, who got blown out against UNLV, who got blown out against Hawaii, who just sucks period.

[SackAttack]

UCLA's got two bad losses on their record already, and they've got three top-ten teams remaining on their schedule. Beating Cal is a big win for them, but let's not plan the coronation just yet.

The top four teams in the conference still have a lot of beating up to do on one another. Oregon still has games with ASU, UCLA and USC, UCLA has to play ASU, Oregon, and USC *in succession*, and USC has games against all three of those teams, with a matchup against Cal still left for good measure.

Cal is probably out of the Pac-10 title picture, but as unusual as this season has been in general, I wouldn't care to put money on who the conference champion is going to be among the four teams either unbeaten in conference or with just one conference loss.

[k0ruptr]

I was just kidding above obviously. but I wouldnt be surprised if oregon won the conference.

[Atocep]

I have to side with CR and Bug. Dorrell is not a good football coach and Lavin is a great comparison. He can recruit his ass off, but his teams are poorly coached and he's lost on Saturdays.

I think a lot of people look at UCLA and think that since the talent level is improving at UCLA and they have a nice win or two under him then he must be doing well. However, the team isn't going be any better than 7-8 wins and a mid-tier bowl each year.

If you look at their schedule this season the only team they've played is Cal, who they did beat, but in typical Dorrell fashion they were beaten by teams like Utah and Notre Dame. They is a team that simply won't be consistent under a guy that can't gameplan and can't coach on Saturdays.

[MrBug708]

If UCLA would have beaten Utah and BYU (not exactly a big stretch considering how much better UCLA is in terms of sheer talent) they'd be sitting pretty at #2 right now.

It's just depressing because UCLA could be so much better when they are likely to lose @WSU this coming Saturday

[Chief Rum]

It's sad to see such a nice win against Cal be put aside a bit, but everything offered up so far is still true. Dorrell has to do a lot more to get out from under the onus of his losses to Notre Dame and Utah and some of his other seeming qualities. Cal really only muddles the situation more. It's one of those awful situations where you have to decide whether to root for your team (which is of course your natural inclination) or root against them in the hopes the coach will get fired.

Bug hit it on the head. Wazzu is exactly the type of game Dorrell loses. He should win. They have no running game or defense. But combine his extreme inconsistency with the fact that it's a trip to Pullman (never an easy trip to make) and this is a particularly obvious "Dorrell loss". And if that's not bad enough, let's just say every UCLA observer and their mother sees this and calls it, such to the point that Coach Karl actually pays attention and gets his boys ready to play and they pull it out, they will then get pummeled by Arizona on the road the week after that, which had a similarly poor team pound Dorrell's 10-2, with Mo Jones-Drew, team by some 30 points at Arizona.

ASU, Oregon and USC? lol...if we get there!

[Warhammer]

I think there is something that needs to be considered here though. Dorrell has increased the talent level at UCLA. At least from what I have seen, he has done so.

I have a theory that schools should follow to get a good program. To begin with, you need a stud recruiter. Regardless of how good the team/program actually is, they can get recruits in there. The team will improve just based on the fact that they have more talent in the program, but you typically won't pass the 9/10 win barrier since those last few wins depend on coaching. These coaches are the Zook, Dorrell, and Ogeron type of coaches.

Now, once you reach that level and have plenty of talent that wants to go to the school, you can bring in a real coach. These are guys that might not be able to improve the level of talent, but can maintain it and can actually coach on Saturday. These are the Ferentz, Bobby Johnson, and Richt class of coaches.

Now, if you can, you always want to bring in a Spurrier, Weis, Carroll, and Tressel class of coach. The guys that can both recruit and game plan, but these guys are so few and far between it is not even funny.

[Eaglesfan27]

I think there is something that needs to be considered here though. Dorrell has increased the talent level at UCLA. At least from what I have seen, he has done so.

I have a theory that schools should follow to get a good program. To begin with, you need a stud recruiter. Regardless of how good the team/program actually is, they can get recruits in there. The team will improve just based on the fact that they have more talent in the program, but you typically won't pass the 9/10 win barrier since those last few wins depend on coaching. These coaches are the Zook, Dorrell, and Ogeron type of coaches.

Now, once you reach that level and have plenty of talent that wants to go to the school, you can bring in a real coach. These are guys that might not be able to improve the level of talent, but can maintain it and can actually coach on Saturday. These are the Ferentz, Bobby Johnson, and Richt class of coaches.

Now, if you can, you always want to bring in a Spurrier, Weis, Carroll, and Tressel class of coach. The guys that can both recruit and game plan, but these guys are so few and far between it is not even funny.

I think the jury is still out on including Weis in that last class of coach.

[Warhammer]

I think Weis is getting hit hard by the last couple of classes that Willingham had. They've been improving as well. I think they will be much improved next year, and provided recruiting doesn't fall off a cliff, they'll be good moving forward.

[Butter]

Second EF27's point about Weis. Notre Dame has never been this bad. And most of their games haven't even been hard luck or close at some point. They are getting crushed with regularity.

[Warhammer]

Notre Dame never had the run of mediocrity they had prior to Weis getting there either (maybe under Faust, but I don't think that was even that bad).

The other issue is that the Midwest kid that went to a Catholic school does not necessarily have ND as their top choice anymore like they did in years past.

[Eaglesfan27]

Notre Dame never had the run of mediocrity they had prior to Weis getting there either (maybe under Faust, but I don't think that was even that bad).

The other issue is that the Midwest kid that went to a Catholic school does not necessarily have ND as their top choice anymore like they did in years past.

They were 10-3 last year with a good portion of the kids recruited by Ty. They were 9-3 the year before that. Charlie Weis now has a majority of his kids in there and they are having one of their worst seasons ever. Charlie Weis might end up in that category of a Carroll, Spurrier, or Tressel, but he hasn't proven anything close to that yet.

[Warhammer]

Look at what Willingham did with Davie's kids. He turned them around, but when he had mostly his own players, they sucked. Heck, Quinn attributes his success to Weis, not to Willingham, that says a lot right there.

[Eaglesfan27]

Let's not forget that Ty's record during his time there wasn't much worse at all than Charlie Weis. Ty was 21-15 at ND. Weis is 20-13.

[Warhammer]

Let's not forget that Ty's record during his time there wasn't much worse at all than Charlie Weis. Ty was 21-15 at ND. Weis is 20-13.

Not going to argue that. I was not a big fan of getting rid of Willingham originally. It was only after seeing that last team of his get worse during the season that I decided it was time for him to go. Weis' team this year has gotten better as the season went along. Still not where they should be, but there is improvement.

Now, don't take me as some unrealistic Irish fan, I'm not. I just think Weis is going to get things in the right direction. The last thing they need to do is fire another coach after one bad season. Take your lumps and move forward. If there are another two bad seasons in a row, then you get rid of him.

[Eaglesfan27]

Not going to argue that. I was not a big fan of getting rid of Willingham originally. It was only after seeing that last team of his get worse during the season that I decided it was time for him to go. Weis' team this year has gotten better as the season went along. Still not where they should be, but there is improvement.

Now, don't take me as some unrealistic Irish fan, I'm not. I just think Weis is going to get things in the right direction. The last thing they need to do is fire another coach after one bad season. Take your lumps and move forward. If there are another two bad seasons in a row, then you get rid of him.

I don't disagree with that all. My only point is that it is very premature to put him in the class of Carroll, Spurrier, or Tressel.

[bhlloy]

I think Weis is getting hit hard by the last couple of classes that Willingham had. They've been improving as well. I think they will be much improved next year, and provided recruiting doesn't fall off a cliff, they'll be good moving forward.

Ty had the 32nd and 40th ranked recruiting classes. Nobody expected ND to be world-beaters this year, but putting the blame on Ty for a 1-7 start is pathetic. Go look at the list of teams that had worse recruiting classes that year and tell me how many of them ND is better than right now. Hint - there were about 90 or so of them, and all but one has a better offense.

[st.cronin]

Ty had the 32nd and 40th ranked recruiting classes. Nobody expected ND to be world-beaters this year, but putting the blame on Ty for a 1-7 start is pathetic. Go look at the list of teams that had worse recruiting classes that year and tell me how many of them ND is better than right now. Hint - there were about 90 or so of them, and all but one has a better offense.

+1, in my eyes this season has really stained Weis' reputation. The qb situation has been handled about as incompetently as possible. Maybe What's-His-Name-That-Transferred-To-The-MAC wasn't going to be the answer, but was it really a good idea to throw him away halfway through the first game? The offensive line has been very, very bad; ok, most of those guys are pretty young, but other coaches in similar situations have been able to plug holes with JC guys.

Its one thing to have a bad season. What ND is going through is a complete disaster. Whos having a better season, ND or Nebraska? Whos having a better season, ND or Florida State? Repeat for all top programs having a down year... and ND is always the answer.

[GoDukes]

I think there is something that needs to be considered here though. Dorrell has increased the talent level at UCLA.


No, he hasn't. If anything it's gotten worse. His incoming class should be his best. Every other class has been very average.

[Warhammer]

Yeah, but under Toledo it wasn't that good at all.

[larrymcg421]

Ty had the 32nd and 40th ranked recruiting classes. Nobody expected ND to be world-beaters this year, but putting the blame on Ty for a 1-7 start is pathetic. Go look at the list of teams that had worse recruiting classes that year and tell me how many of them ND is better than right now. Hint - there were about 90 or so of them, and all but one has a better offense.

+1

South Florida's last three classes are 58th, 59th, and 50th. Even West Virginia was 23rd, 52nd, and 31st. Kentucky is 54th, 36th, and 67th. With the talent he has, Weis has done a shitty job this year.

[IMetTrentGreen]

UCLA is ran with an Ivy League school mantra

So where did you go?

[GoDukes]

Yeah, but under Toledo it wasn't that good at all.

The last season it wasn't good but it was great before that. He had like 4 top 15 classes in a row. He was getting #1 at their position guys like DeShaun Foster, Robert Thomas, Lovelle Houston, etc.

He was fired after going 7-4, then 8-5. That weas considered underachieving. Since then, Karl Dorrell has gone 6-7, 6-6, 10-2, 6-6, and this year he's 5-2 with two sickening losses. Even in the 10-2 year he had two blowout losses.

[Warhammer]

Take out Toledo's best year and he was 39-30 at UCLA, not exactly stellar, that is averaging 6.5 wins per season. Also, his best year were with Donahue's last couple of recruiting classes so keep that in mind.

Ever since Donahue has left UCLA has been mediocre with two great 10-2 seasons.

[MalcPow]

+1

South Florida's last three classes are 58th, 59th, and 50th. Even West Virginia was 23rd, 52nd, and 31st. Kentucky is 54th, 36th, and 67th. With the talent he has, Weis has done a shitty job this year.

To continue the ND threadjack (but I'll tie it back to the Bruins because I think there's a great parallel here), the schedule is too brutal. South Florida opened up against Elon for crap's sake. Weis has not done well this year, but he has earned a little leeway, just as Willingham had when he went 10-3 and then 5-7 (and then a falling apart 6-6). The bottom line though is that Weis brought some excitment to South Bend when even the magical first year with Ty was marked more by a sense of "holy crap this team is 8-0" than any real belief in the talent or the scheme. Ty seemed to know how to keep the team fighting and believing, but it became clear he did not have the X's and O's aptitude to consistently win at a program that faces the talent that Notre Dame does (that may or may not be being validated at UW as we speak). Weis has taken the team to BCS bowls in each of his first two seasons with an exciting offense (that occasionally let them down) and a suspect defense (that almost always let them down), but really energized the program with a sense that they were an elite power again (probably falsely or at least prematurely, but whatever, it's there and it's a tangible difference). I guess only an outsider would truly miss the point, not see the significance of the '05 USC game where ESPN was running greatest team ever promos and the Irish took them to the brink (and should've won if not for blah blah blah Bush Push... grrr :) ) and this was not in some trap game like Stanford (with all due respect) but with both sides hyped to take on their biggest rival. It was nice to see the team come out and put up a lot of points and look good offensively that first year under Weis after the inconsistency and groaningly inept performances the Willingham Irish could trot out on that side of the ball, but really, there was something magical about matching up with one of the best teams of the decade and watching the team hold their own, and really outplay them. The program had not had a reason to believe in itself like that in a long time, and Weis brought that. The beatdowns in the BCS games have hurt that (although the OSU game could have gone differently with a break or two), and maybe this season will demolish it entirely, but the fact remains, Weis has taken the program to another level (but he needs a signature season or at least a win or two to cement that).

With that out of the way, UCLA seems to be in a very similar state as that of ND circa Willingham. The program has the makeup and natural advantages to be elite, but it's making only incremental progress. Unfortunately in sports, especially collegiate sports, that simply does not work beyond a certain point. These programs need the culture shock and new energy that comes with change, especially at the coaching level. Players respond to it, fans respond to it, and it can absolutely change the dynamic of team. Look at Saban in Alabama, Spurrier in South Carolina, Meyer in Florida, Miles in LSU even. Look at what Stoops and Tressel were able to do, and Pete Carroll for that matter. Dorell has had his chance, now they need to go after some new blood who can get more from what they have and create that sense of excitement. I'd be sending love notes to Boise State's Chris Peterson, I'd be watching Tampa Bay Bucs games and hoping Gruden is looking for a new challenge (or a job at all), I think if they commit to opening the checkbook a bit (which you guys have noted is a problem) they could land the kind of coach that instantly makes them better by exciting and better utilizing what's already there, and then takes the program at least up to where Cal is currently (conference title challenger, occasioal national title flirtation). I think some of the expectations talked about earlier are unrealistic but look at Dorrell's tenure before this season: 6-6, 6-7, 10-2, 7-6... it's almost exactly the same as Bob Toledo's last years before him. They should bring in somebody new. In a lot of ways, if the Ravens somehow do awesome and his name regains some luster, Rick Neuheisel would not be a bad fit even. I'll be really surprised if this team doesn't lose five games, if it can totally melt down and lose seven maybe that will be enough for the administration to have to make a move like this. As you've said, it's one of the crappiest positions for a sports fan to be in, hopefully you guys can catch a break and Dorrell makes things easy.

[Atocep]

+1

South Florida's last three classes are 58th, 59th, and 50th. Even West Virginia was 23rd, 52nd, and 31st. Kentucky is 54th, 36th, and 67th. With the talent he has, Weis has done a shitty job this year.

I think this says more for recruiting rankings than anything.

The sites that rank these classes don't go out and watch these players, they go by what they're told. They usually have a good idea on the top 50 or so players, but after that its just guessing. They'll mainly look at the schools recruiting a kid and determine his ranking based off of that. If you have a kid being recruited by USC, LSU, Oklahoma, and Texas and a kid being recruited by South Florida and WVU, assming you've never seen the kid play, who do you think they're going to rank higher?

The biggest thing Weis has going against him is his first class was put together after signing day. So the guys that should be making up the majority of the starting spots were guys no one else wanted.

Weis is far from perfect, though. His biggest issue this year has been indecision. He can't seem to decide which players he wants to play and he's pissing off the guys that he keeps benching.

[Warhammer]

To continue the ND threadjack (but I'll tie it back to the Bruins because I think there's a great parallel here), the schedule is too brutal. South Florida opened up against Elon for crap's sake. Weis has not done well this year, but he has earned a little leeway, just as Willingham had when he went 10-3 and then 5-7 (and then a falling apart 6-6). The bottom line though is that Weis brought some excitment to South Bend when even the magical first year with Ty was marked more by a sense of "holy crap this team is 8-0" than any real belief in the talent or the scheme. Ty seemed to know how to keep the team fighting and believing, but it became clear he did not have the X's and O's aptitude to consistently win at a program that faces the talent that Notre Dame does (that may or may not be being validated at UW as we speak). Weis has taken the team to BCS bowls in each of his first two seasons with an exciting offense (that occasionally let them down) and a suspect defense (that almost always let them down), but really energized the program with a sense that they were an elite power again (probably falsely or at least prematurely, but whatever, it's there and it's a tangible difference). I guess only an outsider would truly miss the point, not see the significance of the '05 USC game where ESPN was running greatest team ever promos and the Irish took them to the brink (and should've won if not for blah blah blah Bush Push... grrr :) ) and this was not in some trap game like Stanford (with all due respect) but with both sides hyped to take on their biggest rival. It was nice to see the team come out and put up a lot of points and look good offensively that first year under Weis after the inconsistency and groaningly inept performances the Willingham Irish could trot out on that side of the ball, but really, there was something magical about matching up with one of the best teams of the decade and watching the team hold their own, and really outplay them. The program had not had a reason to believe in itself like that in a long time, and Weis brought that. The beatdowns in the BCS games have hurt that (although the OSU game could have gone differently with a break or two), and maybe this season will demolish it entirely, but the fact remains, Weis has taken the program to another level (but he needs a signature season or at least a win or two to cement that).

With that out of the way, UCLA seems to be in a very similar state as that of ND circa Willingham. The program has the makeup and natural advantages to be elite, but it's making only incremental progress. Unfortunately in sports, especially collegiate sports, that simply does not work beyond a certain point. These programs need the culture shock and new energy that comes with change, especially at the coaching level. Players respond to it, fans respond to it, and it can absolutely change the dynamic of team. Look at Saban in Alabama, Spurrier in South Carolina, Meyer in Florida, Miles in LSU even. Look at what Stoops and Tressel were able to do, and Pete Carroll for that matter. Dorell has had his chance, now they need to go after some new blood who can get more from what they have and create that sense of excitement. I'd be sending love notes to Boise State's Chris Peterson, I'd be watching Tampa Bay Bucs games and hoping Gruden is looking for a new challenge (or a job at all), I think if they commit to opening the checkbook a bit (which you guys have noted is a problem) they could land the kind of coach that instantly makes them better by exciting and better utilizing what's already there, and then takes the program at least up to where Cal is currently (conference title challenger, occasioal national title flirtation). I think some of the expectations talked about earlier are unrealistic but look at Dorrell's tenure before this season: 6-6, 6-7, 10-2, 7-6... it's almost exactly the same as Bob Toledo's last years before him. They should bring in somebody new. In a lot of ways, if the Ravens somehow do awesome and his name regains some luster, Rick Neuheisel would not be a bad fit even. I'll be really surprised if this team doesn't lose five games, if it can totally melt down and lose seven maybe that will be enough for the administration to have to make a move like this. As you've said, it's one of the crappiest positions for a sports fan to be in, hopefully you guys can catch a break and Dorrell makes things easy.


Hey, quit bringing logic and rational thinking into this thread! Good post BTW.

[st.cronin]

To continue the ND threadjack (but I'll tie it back to the Bruins because I think there's a great parallel here), the schedule is too brutal. South Florida opened up against Elon for crap's sake. Weis has not done well this year, but he has earned a little leeway, just as Willingham had when he went 10-3 and then 5-7 (and then a falling apart 6-6). The bottom line though is that Weis brought some excitment to South Bend when even the magical first year with Ty was marked more by a sense of "holy crap this team is 8-0" than any real belief in the talent or the scheme. Ty seemed to know how to keep the team fighting and believing, but it became clear he did not have the X's and O's aptitude to consistently win at a program that faces the talent that Notre Dame does (that may or may not be being validated at UW as we speak). Weis has taken the team to BCS bowls in each of his first two seasons with an exciting offense (that occasionally let them down) and a suspect defense (that almost always let them down), but really energized the program with a sense that they were an elite power again (probably falsely or at least prematurely, but whatever, it's there and it's a tangible difference). I guess only an outsider would truly miss the point, not see the significance of the '05 USC game where ESPN was running greatest team ever promos and the Irish took them to the brink (and should've won if not for blah blah blah Bush Push... grrr :) ) and this was not in some trap game like Stanford (with all due respect) but with both sides hyped to take on their biggest rival. It was nice to see the team come out and put up a lot of points and look good offensively that first year under Weis after the inconsistency and groaningly inept performances the Willingham Irish could trot out on that side of the ball, but really, there was something magical about matching up with one of the best teams of the decade and watching the team hold their own, and really outplay them. The program had not had a reason to believe in itself like that in a long time, and Weis brought that. The beatdowns in the BCS games have hurt that (although the OSU game could have gone differently with a break or two), and maybe this season will demolish it entirely, but the fact remains, Weis has taken the program to another level (but he needs a signature season or at least a win or two to cement that).



Do you really think that if South Florida were playing Notre Dame, even in South Bend, that Notre Dame would not be at least 10 point underdogs? As for the lack of Notre Dame's offensive prowess under Willingham, you're leaving out a key point: Willingham scrapped the option (which most of those players had been recruited to play) and installed a pro-style offense (which Weis has stuck with). So, Willingham was playing a style of offense with mostly players who weren't prepared to play it, whereas Weis is playing a style of offense with ENTIRELY players who have been recruited and trained to play it. And the Irish have been much worse offensively this year then they ever were under Willingham.

I'm not saying Weis should be fired or anything, but he's done a bad job this year. All excuses made on his behalf that I've heard just sound pathetic.

[GoDukes]

Take out Toledo's best year and he was 39-30 at UCLA, not exactly stellar, that is averaging 6.5 wins per season. Also, his best year were with Donahue's last couple of recruiting classes so keep that in mind.

Ever since Donahue has left UCLA has been mediocre with two great 10-2 seasons.

Yes, that's why he was fired :)

[MalcPow]

Do you really think that if South Florida were playing Notre Dame, even in South Bend, that Notre Dame would not be at least 10 point underdogs? As for the lack of Notre Dame's offensive prowess under Willingham, you're leaving out a key point: Willingham scrapped the option (which most of those players had been recruited to play) and installed a pro-style offense (which Weis has stuck with). So, Willingham was playing a style of offense with mostly players who weren't prepared to play it, whereas Weis is playing a style of offense with ENTIRELY players who have been recruited and trained to play it. And the Irish have been much worse offensively this year then they ever were under Willingham.

I'm not saying Weis should be fired or anything, but he's done a bad job this year. All excuses made on his behalf that I've heard just sound pathetic.

If you don't think he should be fired, then we're on the same page. It's impossible to defend their performance this season as the product of "good" coaching, but I think it's easy to defend that Weis is both a good coach and good for the program. If they go 4-8, 6-6, 6-6 (or worse) over the next few years, then I think it's time for everybody to move on with something new. Thankfully, we're not there yet, and I think Weis still has the ability to capture the imaginations of the players and fanbase enough to bring the program a winning attitude and the coaching aptitude to give the team the advantages it needs to win. He'll need to get back to the BCS in the next two years or he should be let go, he's making too much money, but there are numerous reasons to believe he's capable of doing that and building a national title contender. (And just for the record, I see those reasons as being his ability to bring Brady Quinn and the offense to an elite level over the last two seasons, the recruiting momentum he has built this year especially, and the attitude he brought back to the program. All of those reasons may be thoroughly debunked or diminished in the near term future, we shall see.)

Edit to add: Also, I think South Florida would beat the Irish handily, they're a good (but not great) football team and ND is fatally flawed on the offensive line to such an extent that they are hopelessly mediocre this year. I guess my only point is that the ND tailspin and shellshock is magnified because there's no (or very very few) easy get your feet wet or confidence building games on their schedule and everyone is fired up to be on network national television.

[Chief Rum]

It's sad to see such a nice win against Cal be put aside a bit, but everything offered up so far is still true. Dorrell has to do a lot more to get out from under the onus of his losses to Notre Dame and Utah and some of his other seeming qualities. Cal really only muddles the situation more. It's one of those awful situations where you have to decide whether to root for your team (which is of course your natural inclination) or root against them in the hopes the coach will get fired.

Bug hit it on the head. Wazzu is exactly the type of game Dorrell loses. He should win. They have no running game or defense. But combine his extreme inconsistency with the fact that it's a trip to Pullman (never an easy trip to make) and this is a particularly obvious "Dorrell loss". And if that's not bad enough, let's just say every UCLA observer and their mother sees this and calls it, such to the point that Coach Karl actually pays attention and gets his boys ready to play and they pull it out, they will then get pummeled by Arizona on the road the week after that, which had a similarly poor team pound Dorrell's 10-2, with Mo Jones-Drew, team by some 30 points at Arizona.

ASU, Oregon and USC? lol...if we get there!

See? Fucking obvious. I guess the good news is that Dorrell makes it really easy for me to make my case when people come along and insist he is a good coach. Yeah, just like Lavin was, right?

[MrBug708]

The game was so dull. WSU was on the field for 98 plays and had the ball for 38 minutes compared to UCLA's 22. The defense played well, but can only do so much.

Fucking Dorrell. The sad part is that they'll probably just hire his defensive coordinator. I think Walker will be a better HC then Dorrell but damn this administration shouldn't be cheap.

[Chief Rum]

The game was so dull. WSU was on the field for 98 plays and had the ball for 38 minutes compared to UCLA's 22. The defense played well, but can only do so much.

Fucking Dorrell. The sad part is that they'll probably just hire his defensive coordinator. I think Walker will be a better HC then Dorrell but damn this administration shouldn't be cheap.

I wasn't able to watch the game (thank God), as I was working, but I don't see how 576 yards allowed is a defense playing well. They sucked today, like they did against Utah. And the offense continues to be what it is--a bunch of poor talent kids attempting to run an NFL offense that is well beyond their grasp.

[MrBug708]

The problem with the defense is that they were on the field constantly which led to eventual breakdowns

But ya, the offense is what is going to get Dorrell fired. Good riddance

[MrBug708]

I can almost bet that UCLA will split ASU-UCLA

[Chief Rum]

I can almost bet that UCLA will split ASU-UCLA

You mean Oregon and ASU? Yup, I can see it. They will beat ASU and Oregon, screwing the Pac-10 out of a BCS championship game spot, but they will inexplicably lose next week to Arizona, and they will embarrassed on national TV by a not that good USC team. And then we will fail to show up for a game against San Jose State in the Emerald Bowl and lose there as well.

[Chief Rum]

The problem with the defense is that they were on the field constantly which led to eventual breakdowns

But ya, the offense is what is going to get Dorrell fired. Good riddance

Not sure that was it. WSU was gaining 5 yards per carry on the ground from the get-go. They just flat didn't show up. Sorry, I don't care how long you're on the field, there is no way you have the talent UCLA has on defense and give up 214 yards to a RB that had 462 yards in 7 games prior to that.

[MrBug708]

Not sure that was it. WSU was gaining 5 yards per carry on the ground from the get-go. They just flat didn't show up. Sorry, I don't care how long you're on the field, there is no way you have the talent UCLA has on defense and give up 214 yards to a RB that had 462 yards in 7 games prior to that.

It was by no means a great effort by the defense. For some reason, Walker has no clue on how to stop a spread offense. I think we'll beat Arizona this coming weekend but then again, it's a Dorrell coached team

[Chief Rum]

Choose your own caption!


http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/49/490025.jpg


It's okay, son. Want to be my WR coach next year?

[Chief Rum]

Choose your own caption!


http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/49/490025.jpg




I gotta tell ya...Some scrub intern lost our game tape on you this week. But I knew it didn't matter.

[MrBug708]

I rewatched the game this morning and the defense played worse then I thought. UCLA scores a TD on the first drive? The defense was torched on the ensuing drive by WSU. UCLA scores a FG? The defense gives up a scoring drive.

Who do you have as the next coach Chief?

[dawgfan]

You guys want Ty Willingham?

[Chief Rum]

I rewatched the game this morning and the defense played worse then I thought. UCLA scores a TD on the first drive? The defense was torched on the ensuing drive by WSU. UCLA scores a FG? The defense gives up a scoring drive.

Who do you have as the next coach Chief?

That depends. You asking who I want in there, or who UCLA will bring?

I don't really have a clue either way, though. So long as it isn't Neuheisel. Sorry, he burned his bridges with me with his Washington performance. The short term gains aren't worth the long term issues.

[MrBug708]

Maybe a Craig Bohl from SDSU? Chris Peterson? Mora Jr?

[Chief Rum]

Maybe a Craig Bohl from SDSU? Chris Peterson? Mora Jr?

I guess those are all possibiliies. Never really been too impressed with SDSU. Would Bohl be a good hire? Not sure we can lure Peteron out here. And Ty gets bumped, Mora Jr goes to the Huskies, I am sure.

As long it isn't some retread with UCLA connections willing to accept a low salary.

At this point, I would take any coach who recruits to the advantages he has, who makes decisions in-game that look like normal decisions like most coaches, who runs an offense that doesn't require four years plus a redshirt to learn, and whose teams lose to the teams they should and beats the teams they should.

[MrBug708]

By SDSU I mean South Dakota State University. He was the longtime DC for Nebraska

Pat hill seems to have lost any mystique. And I think he's going to Arizona

[Chief Rum]

By SDSU I mean South Dakota State University. He was the longtime DC for Nebraska

Pat hill seems to have lost any mystique. And I think he's going to Arizona

Well, despite the performance yesterday, I'm not down on Walker at DC. So would Peterson keep Walker? And who then coaches the offense?

If I had to pick, I would choose an offensive-minded who has proven he can run a college offense successfully, and who has a big enough name to draw recruits to UCLA, and keep Walker on D.

[BishopMVP]

I guess my only point is that the ND tailspin and shellshock is magnified because there's no (or very very few) easy get your feet wet or confidence building games on their schedule and everyone is fired up to be on network national television.
Great point. Switch the schedule and have the 4 easier games at the beginning and maybe ND can work out some kinks not playing against Top 25 defenses every week. They still wouldn't be good, but they would be better IMO.The offensive line has been very, very bad; ok, most of those guys are pretty young, but other coaches in similar situations have been able to plug holes with JC guys.As you say, the youth on the O-Line is what is completely killing this team. And what was the biggest problem with Willingham's recruiting? The lack of offensive linemen. Everyone knew when Weis was hired we were in trouble for 2008, but if the team looks the same next year I guarantee ND fans will start calling for Weis' resignation, #1 recruiting class or not (and we just got 2 more Top 50 players this week, showing recruits are still buying into ND.)

I don't know why you say other coaches would have filled the holes with JC transfers - this is Notre Dame, transfers aren't allowed.

[Blade6119]

I can almost bet that UCLA will split ASU-UCLA

Mandel called Dorrell the worst game coach in football in his 5 things blog, and said they would likely upset either ASU or Oregon just to tease their fans

[MrBug708]

And that would be something the new Lavin would do.

ASU just picked up a verbal from Kelmonte Bateman who had previously verballed to UCLA. He has academic issues and after takinga visit there, decided to end any speculation and pick ASU

[Chief Rum]

And that would be something the new Lavin would do.

ASU just picked up a verbal from Kelmonte Bateman who had previously verballed to UCLA. He has academic issues and after takinga visit there, decided to end any speculation and pick ASU

Honestly, while Bateman's academic issues are well known in recruiting circles, I am sick of hearing fellow Bruin fans offer it up as a reason why a player goes elsewhere. While I know it is a reality faced at UCLA (just as it is at Stanford or Notre Dame and some of the other schools that don't bend as much for athletes), it gets used way too often. Frankly, if I were Bateman, I would go to ASU right now, too. Better coach, better program. Still pretty close to home.

[MrBug708]

I agree, but this was an academic casualty. He's even been quoted as saying he needs to get his academic affairs in order to get into UCLA. I'm assuming he's received his SAT score back from when he took it the first weekend of October and it didn't look good.

[MalcPow]

Apologies to the UCLA guys for bumping a sore subject, but what's the feeling at this point in Bruins circles? Is he definitely gone, or is there some hope if they can scrape two wins out of a pretty brutal three game ASU-Ore-USC stretch to end the season?

[MrBug708]

Sad as this season has, if they win out they go to the Rose Bowl.

They won't but still...At the end of thegame they were down to the 4th string QB and their 5th string RB.

He's gone

[Chief Rum]

Apologies to the UCLA guys for bumping a sore subject, but what's the feeling at this point in Bruins circles? Is he definitely gone, or is there some hope if they can scrape two wins out of a pretty brutal three game ASU-Ore-USC stretch to end the season?

The hope is that despite winning two of three, he'll still be fired, giving us the best of both worlds. In actuality, we probably need him to lose at least two of the last three to nail it down. So I am rooting for the sweep to be sure.