College Football Week 6 Thread

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

LSU finished 2002 unranked.
Ohio State finished 2001 unranked.
USC finished 2001 unranked.
Texas finished 1997 unranked.
Oklahoma finished 1999 unranked.
Michigan finished 2005 unranked.

The University of Florida has been ranked every year going back to I think 1990. So, other than the Gators, there is basically no program that is perennially in the top 20. That is an insane standard. All good programs have losing seasons, and lose games they should win.

UCLA's real problem is that they compare themselves to USC, and ask "why not us." But USC's level of success is not one you can reasonably expect to attain.

Huh, you didn't actually respond to the challenge I set before you. You said Bug's list of positive qualities UCLA had going for it was "true of well more than 20 schools." Well, name them. What schools enjoy the advantages Bug lists? I doubt greatly you will come up with even ten much less more than 20.

[Blade6119]

In the Pac 10 alone id venture to say that Cal, USC, ASU, and Stanford can all boasts the advantages Bug listed. I dont think 10 would be hard to find at all...and remember, your views of what a prospect deems great in those categories is slanted to a west coast belief. Players in Texas and players in SoCal simply dont look at location the same way if you ask me.

[BishopMVP]

Texas
Texas A&M
USC
Cal
ASU
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
Notre Dame
Michigan

That's 10....

Stanford
Alabama
LSU
North Carolina
Virginia
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Clemson
Tennessee
Georgia Tech
Penn State
Ohio State
Miami

....that's over 20

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I wasn't saying it as a sense of entitlement. Location, weather, academics, athletic tradition, fertile recruiting grounds, venue, facilities and other various reasons make UCLA in a much better position then almost any school. To think otherwise would be foolish at best

Here is Bug's quote. Location, weather, academics, athletic tradition, fertile recruiting grounds, venue, facilities. He doesn't list various other reasons, but we have here is a good start.

I'll take the schools you guys named...

Texas
Texas A&M
USC
Cal
ASU
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
Notre Dame
Michigan

That's 10....

Stanford
Alabama
LSU
North Carolina
Virginia
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Clemson
Tennessee
Georgia Tech
Penn State
Ohio State
Miami

I'll leave "location" alone for now, as that is very much in the eye of the beholder. I would argue coming to Southern California and glitzy LA will have a significant draw to some, though.

Weather? Who has comparable or better weather than SoCal? I can immediately knock off the Northeast schools, so that's THE OSU, Michigan, Penn State and Notre Dame. Oklahoma and Nebraska aren't exactly mild and moderate either. I could take knocks at some of the others (the extremes of ASU, the humidity in the South, etc.), but I'll leave that alone.

Academics? Well, this takes out a whole ton. Better to say who stays on the same level as UCLA. Notre Dame, Cal and Stanford certainly. USC is up there now. Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, Georgia Tech, Texas, Penn State, Florida, Miami, Ohio State, Georgia, Clemson and Tennessee all made that top 100 academics posted in The New Lavin thread, although almost all of them are actually below UCLA. Who does that leave out? Texas A&M, ASU, Florida State, Bama, LSU, Oklahoma and Nebraska.

Athletic tradition? Okay, taken with all sports, no university in the nation stands to UCLA. 100 national championships in their athletic history. I think Stanford is close, and USC isn't too bad either. But I think after the top three, no other school has as much as, like, 45. Now if you argue more directly for success in the primary sports, obviously all of these teams are good in football, some better than UCLA, some worse. Very few compare with UCLA in basketball. North Carolina over its history. Florida recently. Maybe Ohio State. No one else is really in the conversation on that list (Kentucky, Duke and Kansas not being on the list, of course). A lot of these teams have great baseball programs, better than UCLA's has been recently. But that's also the least important of the primary college sports. If you toss in hockey, Michigan and Notre Dame would be great choices, and the South and West schools suck at hockey if they even have teams, but those northeast teams have no baseball teams to speak of. At best, it's a trade off. So UCLA's athletic tradition is hard to beat.

Fertile recruiting grounds? I would argue there are three primary recruiting hotbeds: California, Florida and Texas. Any schools in are good. Any schools out not so good. Neighboring states is okay, so LSU, Georgia, ASU, etc., at least get some of this. And it just doesn't apply to Notre Dame which has historically recruited anywhere since the dawn of time. But you can't say the Northeast teams are in recruiting hotbeds, and Nebraska and Tennessee and North Carolina are a little far off, too. UCLA is right smack in the middle of one of the three primary recruiting hot spots, with only USC there to compete really.

Venue? UCLA plays in the Grand Daddy of them all. Who can match that? Michigan's got the Big House. Notre Dame has Touchdown Jesus. LSU the Sugar Bowl. Miami the Orange Bowl. Tennessee's got one of the biggest pantheons of college stadiums. So there are comparable. But I mean, it's the freakin' Rose Bowl in always sunny Pasadena. It's not even the crappy areas of LA.

Facilities? Chances are most, if not all of these schools can match UCLA's facilities, which are good and seen an upgrade recently, but haven't historically been great. But they are solid. But no schools get discounted for this, because I'm not as familiar with everyone's facilities.

So taking all that, who makes the cut in every category, besides UCLA? Florida, Texas, maybe USC. Am I missing someone? Cal and Stanford on the fringe, but their weather is slightly worse than SoCal (if quite often more pleasant than most of the other schools), and Cal can't match UCLA's atheltic tradition, and neither can match the venue. Academics take out some Big 12 schools and Bama and ASU. Weather and recruiting takes out everyone north of the Gulf and Pacific coasts (except for Notre Dame). Athletic tradition is a hit for many schools here, particularly compared to UCLA.

I think you guys are being way too free with how you characterize these schools as being able to match UCLA's advantages. Which is one of the primary reasons us UCLA fans are extremely frustrated at the lack of success of a program that has every--every--reason to be successful.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Here is Bug's quote. Location, weather, academics, athletic tradition, fertile recruiting grounds, venue, facilities. He doesn't list various other reasons, but we have here is a good start.

I'll take the schools you guys named...

Texas
Texas A&M
USC
Cal
ASU
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
Notre Dame
Michigan

That's 10....

Stanford
Alabama
LSU
North Carolina
Virginia
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Clemson
Tennessee
Georgia Tech
Penn State
Ohio State
Miami

I'll leave "location" alone for now, as that is very much in the eye of the beholder. I would argue coming to Southern California and glitzy LA will have a significant draw to some, though.

Weather? Who has comparable or better weather than SoCal? I can immediately knock off the Northeast schools, so that's THE OSU, Michigan, Penn State and Notre Dame. Oklahoma and Nebraska aren't exactly mild and moderate either. I could take knocks at some of the others (the extremes of ASU, the humidity in the South, etc.), but I'll leave that alone.

Academics? Well, this takes out a whole ton. Better to say who stays on the same level as UCLA. Notre Dame, Cal and Stanford certainly. USC is up there now. Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, Georgia Tech, Texas, Penn State, Florida, Miami, Ohio State, Georgia, Clemson and Tennessee all made that top 100 academics posted in The New Lavin thread, although almost all of them are actually below UCLA. Who does that leave out? Texas A&M, ASU, Florida State, Bama, LSU, Oklahoma and Nebraska.

Athletic tradition? Okay, taken with all sports, no university in the nation stands to UCLA. 100 national championships in their athletic history. I think Stanford is close, and USC isn't too bad either. But I think after the top three, no other school has as much as, like, 45. Now if you argue more directly for success in the primary sports, obviously all of these teams are good in football, some better than UCLA, some worse. Very few compare with UCLA in basketball. North Carolina over its history. Florida recently. Maybe Ohio State. No one else is really in the conversation on that list (Kentucky, Duke and Kansas not being on the list, of course). A lot of these teams have great baseball programs, better than UCLA's has been recently. But that's also the least important of the primary college sports. If you toss in hockey, Michigan and Notre Dame would be great choices, and the South and West schools suck at hockey if they even have teams, but those northeast teams have no baseball teams to speak of. At best, it's a trade off. So UCLA's athletic tradition is hard to beat.

Fertile recruiting grounds? I would argue there are three primary recruiting hotbeds: California, Florida and Texas. Any schools in are good. Any schools out not so good. Neighboring states is okay, so LSU, Georgia, ASU, etc., at least get some of this. And it just doesn't apply to Notre Dame which has historically recruited anywhere since the dawn of time. But you can't say the Northeast teams are in recruiting hotbeds, and Nebraska and Tennessee and North Carolina are a little far off, too. UCLA is right smack in the middle of one of the three primary recruiting hot spots, with only USC there to compete really.

Venue? UCLA plays in the Grand Daddy of them all. Who can match that? Michigan's got the Big House. Notre Dame has Touchdown Jesus. LSU the Sugar Bowl. Miami the Orange Bowl. Tennessee's got one of the biggest pantheons of college stadiums. So there are comparable. But I mean, it's the freakin' Rose Bowl in always sunny Pasadena. It's not even the crappy areas of LA.

Facilities? Chances are most, if not all of these schools can match UCLA's facilities, which are good and seen an upgrade recently, but haven't historically been great. But they are solid. But no schools get discounted for this, because I'm not as familiar with everyone's facilities.

So taking all that, who makes the cut in every category, besides UCLA? Florida, Texas, maybe USC. Am I missing someone? Cal and Stanford on the fringe, but their weather is slightly worse than SoCal (if quite often more pleasant than most of the other schools), and Cal can't match UCLA's atheltic tradition, and neither can match the venue. Academics take out some Big 12 schools and Bama and ASU. Weather and recruiting takes out everyone north of the Gulf and Pacific coasts (except for Notre Dame). Athletic tradition is a hit for many schools here, particularly compared to UCLA.

I think you guys are being way too free with how you characterize these schools as being able to match UCLA's advantages. Which is one of the primary reasons us UCLA fans are extremely frustrated at the lack of success of a program that has every--every--reason to be successful.

I'm not gonna argue that UCLA isn't perfectly situated to be a perennial Top 25 team/contender for the NC, but the way you're responding massively overstates the case.

Academics? This is D1 football, few care. You can cite examples, and especially quotes from parents, but in the end for NFL potential recruits, it's rarely the academics that decide anything.

Athletic Tradition? Your biggest mistake. No football player cares about how many water polo championships you won, or if you think I'm being too dismissive, even how many basketball championships (how's that working out Duke?). It's about football tradition, which UCLA isn't overflowing with.

Fertile recruiting grounds? Tx/Ca/Fl are clearly the top 3 nationally, but that's partly because they're also population centers. I have a hard time seeing Georgia or Louisiana as less talented per capita (and in Lousiana LSU is the *only* school, as opposed to Cali where there are many.)

Venue? It's not merely about how many people you can seat but also the atmosphere and passion of the fans. Give me 30,000 fans of any non-Vanderbilt SEC team over a Rose Bowl full of UCLA fans. Maybe this is where the weather hurts you - people in LA have a lot of things they'd rather do than tailgate for 12 hours and sit in a stadium for 4. I can commiserate - we're lucky to get 15k, and that's only when it's an "event" and a number of students tailgate and never go into the stadium (despite FREE admission .) I know a lot of kids who have come here at least partly because of the atmosphere around lacrosse, hockey and now basketball games. No one was coming here because of how nice the Mullins Center was when it was 1/3rd full.

I like UCLA, I think they have a lot of advantages and should be competing for 9-10 wins every year, but claiming it should a Top 10 program year in year out is overstating it, especially because some of the factors you list (academics/location) don't play quite as well outside of TCY.

[BishopMVP]

dola - I also love how you include OSU and ND as "Northeast" schools West Coast bias!

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

dola - I also love how you include OSU and ND as "Northeast" schools West Coast bias!

Heh...look at a map. You guys are in the NE quarter of the country.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Tulsa at UTEP tomorrow night. Two teams without a defense. This could be a game that with more than 100 total points...

Almost, but not quite. The Miners win another come from behind victory against a very tough Tulsa team, 48-47. There was over 1200 yards of total offense for the game, however.

The Miners are now 4-2 and 2-0 in CUSA. The offense is kicking butt...very impressive considering we have a RS frosh running it. The defense is doing just enough to not lose the game...

[Butter]

Joining the Clemson discussion as someone who worked at and lived near the university for 2 years, and being married to someone who got their undergrad from there.... and as someone who tries to get back for one game a year.

Yes, I am an Ohio State fan first, but Clemson is a close second.

Clemson has had top quality talent on offense and defense for about 5 years now. They have 2 running backs who, separately, would be potential Heisman candidates if they were starting on any top 20 team in college football. CJ Spiller has incredible quickness and speed, while James Davis has that knack for finding holes and breaking tackles. I told my wife that I thought Davis would be a Heisman candidate by his senior season. After this season, I wouldn't be surprised if he transferred, as this was the second week in a row that Clemson got behind by a couple of scores and went straight to passing almost exclusively.

This is also the second season in a row where special teams have killed multiple games for Clemson. VT had 2 runbacks for TD's in Saturday's game. They also had a 3rd called back for an illegal block. The loss in the previous week to Georgia Tech can be traced to a blocked punt that led to the game's only TD, and 4 missed field goals. Last year, Clemson lost to BC early in the season thanks to a blocked XP in OT, and nearly lost to Florida State thanks to blocked FG's and XP's. A complete and utter breakdown on special teams suggests that the coach just doesn't know what he's doing. Special teams are something special when they're done really well (see VT), but in the worst case, should only be something that you can generally count on to not cost you games directly. Unless you have a crappy coach who doesn't know how to teach special teams, or even how to hire someone who knows how to teach special teams.

Tommy Bowden has proven time and again that he has absolutely no clue about how to get a team prepared to play against a specific opponent. Clemson comes out and plays the same game regardless of the opponent. The only time they may throw in a wrinkle or two is when they play South Carolina. My one abiding hope is that Clemson gets beaten 63-17 (same score that the Tigers beat USC by in Holtz's 2nd to last season) to finally get the school to wake up and show Tommy the door. Even teams they have the talent to beat, they end up losing to because they are ill-prepared for anything besides an opponent's standard gameplan (witness Duke's last win before this year... 2004 vs. Clemson).

Clemson has it all. They have the facilities, the fanbase, the commitment, the academics, the weather, the community, and more often than not, the talent to be a top 10 team on a semi-regular basis. South Carolina produces some good college football talent, and Clemson has always recruited well from Georgia, another hotbed from which Clemson is uniquely placed to steal from Tech and occasionally UGa. I am not delusional enough to think that Clemson is USC. Clemson is a team that should compete for the ACC title most seasons, and maybe for a national title every 5-10 years. They won (OK, bought) a title in 1981, but the fanbase has never forgotten what it felt like, and has never lost that support. They may not sell out every game, but they will draw 80,000 to all of 'em. All the fans want is a team that plays to a consistently high level. The occasional loss wouldn't be so bad... but it is when it gets to a level that year after year, you EXPECT disappointment, that it becomes time for a change.

Who is the answer? Personally, my choice would be to go the Jim Tressel route... someone from a successful local, lower level school who has strong local recruiting ties, and knows how to freaking gameplan. I don't know if anyone from the SoCon in I-AA would fit that bill... but hopefully this offseason we're going to find out. I have a feeling, though, that the pressure will be on to find someone who can try to out-name Steve Spurrier to try and take back recruiting at the state level. I don't know if that can be done. But it would be nice to go to Clemson games with an abiding sense of optimism, rather than sitting and wondering how they were going to blow it this year.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Seton Hill homecoming was a success as the Griffins won, 43-14, against West Virginia Wesleyan. SHU has the conference's offensive player of the week, as RB Antwarn Jones ran for 253 yards before sitting out the fourth quarter. Special teams player of the week honors were shared by some douchebag from Shepherd and SHU's DANGEROUS SAMMY TRANKS! Sammy Tranks brought back a punt for a 61-yard touchdown, which naturally sent most of the crowd of 1800+ into a loud cheer.

Strangely, if you find the YouTube clip of me winning $1000 on Playmania, you'll see the words "Sammy Tranks" in the clip's description. I'm not 100% sure why, but I am 95% sure why.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Which is one of the primary reasons us UCLA fans are extremely frustrated at the lack of success of a program that has every--every--reason to be successful.

Your program IS succesful.

I can't even imagine how completely insane you and Mr. Bug would be if UCLA lost at home to, say, Stanford.

[knolysis]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

But USC's level of success is not one you can reasonably expect to attain.

st. cronin,

I don't understand this statement. Shouldn't every program aspire to become a powerhouse? Doesn't every fan want their chosen team to reel off National Championship after National Championship?

Prior to Steve Spurrier, Florida wasn't considered anywhere near as prestigious as USC, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc. Fast forward about 20 years, they have now won a National Championship under 2 different coaches, have an impressive string of Top 25 finishes, and now have a fully self-supporting Athletic Department (as I understand it, only a few schools can claim this). I would say that UF set their sights on being among the legendary programs and are on their way (I'm not saying the program is there, I am just saying an impressive foundation has been laid).

Seems very reasonable for UCLA to compare themselves to USC to figure out where they don't measure up and then go about fixing it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by knolysis

Doesn't every fan want their chosen team to reel off National Championship after National Championship?

I think the difference might be between "want" and "expect".

[dawgfan]

UCLA has many factors in place that should make it easier for a coach to build a consistently successful football program, one that could make a run at a national championship on occasion:

- Location: In the middle of the recruiting hotbed of the West Coast, in a better location than USC, in a part of the country where there is little to complain about in terms of weather. Yeah, some people want a little more variety in their weather, and some want to get away from home; but for the most part, UCLA is in a great spot in terms of location.

- Academics: With the huge caveat that academics really don't matter all that much to most recruits, UCLA is one of the top public universities in the country. For kids (and parents) who do prioritize academics, UCLA delivers.

Now, where UCLA hurts themselves is (unfortunately for them) in two critical areas:

- Academic standards: UCLA self-imposes stricter admissions requirements than the rest of the Pac-10 and the NCAA; not as severe as Stanford, but close. This limits their recruiting pool, and puts them at risk for kids not qualifying, moreso than the vast majority of other schools out there.

- Budgets on the cheap: UCLA, for whatever reason, is choosing not to keep up with the big spenders in college football. Not only does it limit their head coaching pool, but it limits their assistant coaching pool, which is arguably more important. They also are not keeping up with the rest of the country in athletic facilities upgrades.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Here is Bug's quote. Location, weather, academics, athletic tradition, fertile recruiting grounds, venue, facilities. He doesn't list various other reasons, but we have here is a good start.

I'll take the schools you guys named...

Texas
Texas A&M
USC
Cal
ASU
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
Notre Dame
Michigan

That's 10....

Stanford
Alabama
LSU
North Carolina
Virginia
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Clemson
Tennessee
Georgia Tech
Penn State
Ohio State
Miami

I'll leave "location" alone for now, as that is very much in the eye of the beholder. I would argue coming to Southern California and glitzy LA will have a significant draw to some, though.

Weather? Who has comparable or better weather than SoCal? I can immediately knock off the Northeast schools, so that's THE OSU, Michigan, Penn State and Notre Dame. Oklahoma and Nebraska aren't exactly mild and moderate either. I could take knocks at some of the others (the extremes of ASU, the humidity in the South, etc.), but I'll leave that alone.

Academics? Well, this takes out a whole ton. Better to say who stays on the same level as UCLA. Notre Dame, Cal and Stanford certainly. USC is up there now. Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, Georgia Tech, Texas, Penn State, Florida, Miami, Ohio State, Georgia, Clemson and Tennessee all made that top 100 academics posted in The New Lavin thread, although almost all of them are actually below UCLA. Who does that leave out? Texas A&M, ASU, Florida State, Bama, LSU, Oklahoma and Nebraska.

Athletic tradition? Okay, taken with all sports, no university in the nation stands to UCLA. 100 national championships in their athletic history. I think Stanford is close, and USC isn't too bad either. But I think after the top three, no other school has as much as, like, 45. Now if you argue more directly for success in the primary sports, obviously all of these teams are good in football, some better than UCLA, some worse. Very few compare with UCLA in basketball. North Carolina over its history. Florida recently. Maybe Ohio State. No one else is really in the conversation on that list (Kentucky, Duke and Kansas not being on the list, of course). A lot of these teams have great baseball programs, better than UCLA's has been recently. But that's also the least important of the primary college sports. If you toss in hockey, Michigan and Notre Dame would be great choices, and the South and West schools suck at hockey if they even have teams, but those northeast teams have no baseball teams to speak of. At best, it's a trade off. So UCLA's athletic tradition is hard to beat.

Fertile recruiting grounds? I would argue there are three primary recruiting hotbeds: California, Florida and Texas. Any schools in are good. Any schools out not so good. Neighboring states is okay, so LSU, Georgia, ASU, etc., at least get some of this. And it just doesn't apply to Notre Dame which has historically recruited anywhere since the dawn of time. But you can't say the Northeast teams are in recruiting hotbeds, and Nebraska and Tennessee and North Carolina are a little far off, too. UCLA is right smack in the middle of one of the three primary recruiting hot spots, with only USC there to compete really.

Venue? UCLA plays in the Grand Daddy of them all. Who can match that? Michigan's got the Big House. Notre Dame has Touchdown Jesus. LSU the Sugar Bowl. Miami the Orange Bowl. Tennessee's got one of the biggest pantheons of college stadiums. So there are comparable. But I mean, it's the freakin' Rose Bowl in always sunny Pasadena. It's not even the crappy areas of LA.

Facilities? Chances are most, if not all of these schools can match UCLA's facilities, which are good and seen an upgrade recently, but haven't historically been great. But they are solid. But no schools get discounted for this, because I'm not as familiar with everyone's facilities.

So taking all that, who makes the cut in every category, besides UCLA? Florida, Texas, maybe USC. Am I missing someone? Cal and Stanford on the fringe, but their weather is slightly worse than SoCal (if quite often more pleasant than most of the other schools), and Cal can't match UCLA's atheltic tradition, and neither can match the venue. Academics take out some Big 12 schools and Bama and ASU. Weather and recruiting takes out everyone north of the Gulf and Pacific coasts (except for Notre Dame). Athletic tradition is a hit for many schools here, particularly compared to UCLA.

I think you guys are being way too free with how you characterize these schools as being able to match UCLA's advantages. Which is one of the primary reasons us UCLA fans are extremely frustrated at the lack of success of a program that has every--every--reason to be successful.

Chief,
you have a very well thought out post and make some very good arguments, however I think your bias shows pretty clearly.

As opposed to going line by line lets look at 2 key areas of OPINION, namely weather and academics.

No one will argue that SsoCal is warm and sunny and great beach bum weather, but not everyone wants warm sunny ocean breezes. Quite a few people, especially NE recruits, couldnt imagine life without snow. I for one hate the white cold shit, but to immediately discount large blocks of school for their climate is at best short sighted. Quite the contrary, I know of several players (blue chippers to boot) who left the South to go to Michigan, tOSU, ND, WVU etc. and without fail one of the reasons you hear mentioned is the disdain for 2-a-days in full gear in triple digit heat with 80% humidity. This is a personal preference and hard to favor one school or another on quite honestly.

Secondly the issue of academics is overstated. In an ideal world every kid would have dashing good looks, great athletic ability, and rival Einstein in intellect. Sadly, this is not the case and VERY FEW (note I didnt say none....keep Robert Smith out of this) players give up football for successful medical or law careers. In fact tough academic standards often drive away elite athletes as the true Pro Prospects all too often view classrooms as nothing more than road blocks on their way.

Don't misunderstand me, UCLA is positioned very nicely but so are many other schools. And what is a draw for some is a turn off for others. You never know what can win a kid, not too many years ago I knew an All State offensive lineman with no preference to school be swayed by the one school that wasn't in the middle of a huge city since he had grown up in a community of 750 people, that and the fact that there was a lake close enough to fish in. You never know what attracts some people....

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Secondly the issue of academics is overstated. In an ideal world every kid would have dashing good looks, great athletic ability, and rival Einstein in intellect. Sadly, this is not the case and VERY FEW (note I didnt say none....keep Robert Smith out of this) players give up football for successful medical or law careers. In fact tough academic standards often drive away elite athletes as the true Pro Prospects all too often view classrooms as nothing more than road blocks on their way.

Apparently, you've never played TCY!

[Tigercat]

More important than unreliable academic rankings/prestige is academic support. There are some schools out there that receive commits because they have terrific academic centers where students can get tutoring, study groups, ect.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

More important than unreliable academic rankings/prestige is academic support. There are some schools out there that receive commits because they have terrific academic centers where students can get tutoring, study groups, ect.

As well as the other traditional method of academic support:
passing the players whether they show up for class or not.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As well as the other traditional method of academic support:
passing the players whether they show up for class or not.

I doubt teams recruit saying that, although anythings possible.

Seriously though, teams with said academic centers, which are run independently of the academic programs, graduate more players with less degrees from the general studies of the world. When I was in grad school for ed. policy a classmate of mine even did his dissertation on them. (I was already aware of them because LSU has a top notch one.) I think he went into his dissertation with a negative impression of that kind of "Extra" academic support for athletes. By the time he was finished he had nothing but positive things to say about them.

Parents and students love to have them around, especially since so many big recruits don't have good study habits going into college.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Venue? UCLA plays in the Grand Daddy of them all. Who can match that? Michigan's got the Big House. Notre Dame has Touchdown Jesus. LSU the Sugar Bowl. Miami the Orange Bowl. Tennessee's got one of the biggest pantheons of college stadiums. So there are comparable. But I mean, it's the freakin' Rose Bowl in always sunny Pasadena. It's not even the crappy areas of LA.
.

Uh, not to get into the argument at hand, which I'm not sure I even understand, but LSU's venue is not the Sugar Bowl, but Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge, the best place there is to watch a college football game. LSU's winning td against Florida.

[digamma]

Venue? UCLA plays in the Grand Daddy of them all. Who can match that? Michigan's got the Big House. Notre Dame has Touchdown Jesus. LSU the Sugar Bowl. Miami the Orange Bowl. Tennessee's got one of the biggest pantheons of college stadiums. So there are comparable. But I mean, it's the freakin' Rose Bowl in always sunny Pasadena. It's not even the crappy areas of LA.

It's also:

1. Twenty miles away from campus;
2. In a big city that is not known as a football town;
3. Usually only about 2/3 full.

Sure, it's neat to play in the Rose Bowl, and it is a great tailgating scene for those who do make it to the game, but a home game in the Rose Bowl is nowhere close to a home game in an on-campus stadium in the south in terms of atmosphere.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by digamma

It's also:

1. Twenty miles away from campus;
2. In a big city that is not known as a football town;
3. Usually only about 2/3 full.

Sure, it's neat to play in the Rose Bowl, and it is a great tailgating scene for those who do make it to the game, but a home game in the Rose Bowl is nowhere close to a home game in an on-campus stadium in the south in terms of atmosphere.

Yep. It's a stadium with tremendous history, and to that extent it may hold some appeal to certain recruits. But not being an on-campus stadium and one that isn't one of the louder venues around, I don't think it carries the same kind of "our home games are a loud, crazy experience that really helps us as a team" appeal to recruits that a place like LSU's Tiger Stadium or Florida's "The Swamp", or more locally Oregon's Autzen Stadium are (and UW's Husky Stadium used to be).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think the difference might be between "want" and "expect".

Yep. Its not wrong for Mr. Bug and Chief Rum to want to win the Pac 10 every year, and play in the BCS. Where they are off base is thinking that firing Karl Dorrell will somehow make that happen. Firing Karl Dorrell would absolutely delight the rest of the teams in the Pac 10.

[knolysis]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think the difference might be between "want" and "expect".

So your saying that USC expects to win a National Championship every year? Then why has Pete Carroll not been fired? My point is that there is no rule that says UCLA (or any other program) cannot attain the same success level (however you choose to define that) as USC (or whatever benchmark program you like). I don't see anybody having put forth an argument that convinces me that UCLA can't obtain the same revered status as USC. Combine the right coach and a few lucky breaks, then you start rolling and dump trucks drop a load of cash at the AD's doorstep every Monday morning. See Cal and Florida for examples of programs that had a few good breaks early and have used that to build their success. It can and does happen.

[knolysis]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Yep. Its not wrong for Mr. Bug and Chief Rum to want to win the Pac 10 every year, and play in the BCS. Where they are off base is thinking that firing Karl Dorrell will somehow make that happen. Firing Karl Dorrell would absolutely delight the rest of the teams in the Pac 10.

OK, that is a different argument and one I simply have no idea on.

I took your original statement to say it was ludicrous for them to think they could ever match USC's success. I don't see why they can't and I hope UCLA will someday get it together.

[JW]

Just one more for you. This one is kind of funny. The moment the announcement of USC's loss was made at Tiger Stadium. Some folks say it is the loudest roar they have ever heard at Tiger Stadium, eclipsing even the touchdown over Auburn in the earthquake game. I don't know about that, but it was probably about as loud as Death Valley ever gets. One thing to note is that all the Florida fans joined in, too. Of course, to be fair, Tebow immediately drove Florida down for another td to put the Gators up 24-14.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by knolysis

So your saying that USC expects to win a National Championship every year? Then why has Pete Carroll not been fired?

Let him have a few 8-3 or 7-4 seasons and see how long he lasts.

Or more to the point, just perpetually frustrate the fan base (with particular emphasis on those who are major program contributors) by being perceived as underachieving and watch how quickly he goes from champ to chump.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Yep. Its not wrong for Mr. Bug and Chief Rum to want to win the Pac 10 every year, and play in the BCS. Where they are off base is thinking that firing Karl Dorrell will somehow make that happen. Firing Karl Dorrell would absolutely delight the rest of the teams in the Pac 10.

Wow. I can't believe you just said that. Most of the PAC-10 faithful would much rather see UCLA give Dorrell a lifetime extension then see him fired.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by knolysis

So your saying that USC expects to win a National Championship every year? Then why has Pete Carroll not been fired? My point is that there is no rule that says UCLA (or any other program) cannot attain the same success level (however you choose to define that) as USC (or whatever benchmark program you like). I don't see anybody having put forth an argument that convinces me that UCLA can't obtain the same revered status as USC. Combine the right coach and a few lucky breaks, then you start rolling and dump trucks drop a load of cash at the AD's doorstep every Monday morning. See Cal and Florida for examples of programs that had a few good breaks early and have used that to build their success. It can and does happen.

USC fans expect to win a National Title every year. They consider 10-2 a reloading year. Just because they go 11-1/10-2 in a season doesn't mean the season was awful. But I can tell you that if Pete Carroll puts together a run like Karl Dorrell has at UCLA, Pete Carroll will be back as a DC in the NFL

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Wow. I can't believe you just said that. Most of the PAC-10 faithful would much rather see UCLA give Dorrell a lifetime extension then see him fired.

Im not one of them...you sure your speaking for the Pac 10 and not just UCLA(and maybe USC) fans?

[MrBug708]

No. I mean, he's probably better then Stoops and Doba straight up, but even if USC fans are the main ones pushing it, does it matter much?

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

No. I mean, he's probably better then Stoops and Doba straight up, but even if USC fans are the main ones pushing it, does it matter much?

Yes, quite a bit...USC is happy as long as your not 12-0 or 11-1. Your not competing with them for conference title right now, no one is(this season so far aside). They are only afraid of a coach when they feel their own position is threatened. Right now, i think the Pac 10 is trying to establish the pecking order from 2 to 5(cal, oregon, ASU, and UCLA), before one of them really takes on USC in terms of conference big dog. Its my belief, and maybe you disagree, that those schools share my thoughts on the matter.

I think you will find that outside of LA a lot of people think that Dorrell, for whatever misgivings you may have, is still a great recruiter and can coach. I think that were he fired, the odds of upgrading are slim considering who i think would be available to a school in your position. I hope he is fired, but thats because i dont think you guys are going to get better by making that move...and i believe thats the belief at all the Pac 10 schools, minus UCLA and USC.

Who is UCLA going to get that is an upgrade of Dorrell...and be realistic? Peterson? Im not sure he would leave, and im not sure hes done enough as a coach to deserve that jump as those were Hawkins' players. Maybe you want Tomey, but i doubt it with his age...Patterson? I dont see him moving out west. Where do you think your going to get better by firing Dorrell?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by knolysis

See Cal and Florida for examples of programs that had a few good breaks early and have used that to build their success. It can and does happen.

Florida obviously hit a home run with Spurrier, one of the greatest coaches of all time. Cal has had some good years recently, but obviously isn't on the same level.

On the other hand, there's Minnesota, Colorado, Ole Miss, Iowa State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Miami, NC State... it sure seems like most of the time, when a school fires a coach for going 6-6, they become irrelevant in a heartbeat.

And for another example, consider Greg Schiano. Wasn't he close to losing his job several times early in his tenure?

[st.cronin]

Blade gets it.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Florida obviously hit a home run with Spurrier, one of the greatest coaches of all time. Cal has had some good years recently, but obviously isn't on the same level.

On the other hand, there's Minnesota, Colorado, Ole Miss, Iowa State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Miami, NC State... it sure seems like most of the time, when a school fires a coach for going 6-6, they become irrelevant in a heartbeat.

And for another example, consider Greg Schiano. Wasn't he close to losing his job several times early in his tenure?

Miami is a bad example here. This wasn't just one or two seasons out of the blue where they struggled. They went from 12-0 to 12-1 to 11-2 to 9-3 to 9-3 to 7-6. It was a steady drop and there wasn't much hope of it getting better. The top 10 recruiting rankings were sliding into the high teens and they couldn't keep a QB commit to save their lives. Plus, we're only one season removed from Coker so it's silly to assume Shannon has already failed.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Blade gets it.

Never thought i would hear those words from you about anything

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Florida obviously hit a home run with Spurrier, one of the greatest coaches of all time. Cal has had some good years recently, but obviously isn't on the same level.

And for another example, consider Greg Schiano. Wasn't he close to losing his job several times early in his tenure?

Gotta question these statements. Schiano has had one good year with a weak schedule where it could easily be argued he got lucky in his couple big games. The media loves Rutgers and the Cinderella story, but I've seen little to convince me Rutgers is any better than a .500 BCS Conference team with a joke of an OOC schedule.

As for Jeff Tedford and Cal, he's doing just as well as Spurrier has. Spurrier might have a longer track record with different schools, but Tedford has been amazing so far. If UCLA could get someone as good as him, they'd be in Top 10 talk every year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

I dont see him moving out west. Where do you think your going to get better by firing Dorrell?

So they should just settle for being "okay"?

And didn't we reach that point in the discussion several pages ago?

[knolysis]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let him have a few 8-3 or 7-4 seasons and see how long he lasts.

Or more to the point, just perpetually frustrate the fan base (with particular emphasis on those who are major program contributors) by being perceived as underachieving and watch how quickly he goes from champ to chump.

I did not suggest Pete Carroll would survive those types of seasons. I have no idea what USC's reaction would be in that case. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't.

You seconded st. cronin's notion that USC expects to win a National Championship every year. They have not under Carroll so I asked you why he had not been fired. I think USC expects to compete for a National Championship every year. That is a very different animal in college football.

You guys are beating up some UCLA fans for setting a high benchmark for success without giving credible arguments as to why that high benchmark is unrealistic.

[knolysis]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

On the other hand, there's Minnesota, Colorado, Ole Miss, Iowa State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Miami, NC State... it sure seems like most of the time, when a school fires a coach for going 6-6, they become irrelevant in a heartbeat.

And for another example, consider Greg Schiano. Wasn't he close to losing his job several times early in his tenure?

100% agreed. Replacing coaches is a very difficult thing to do well. Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, Oklahoma, Alabama and Ohio State have all had their struggles with replacing coaches.

That was not my argument. What I am arguing is that you shouldn't tell those schools fans and alumni that they can never hope to achieve "legendary status".

Miami won 5 National Championships under 4 different head coaches. Yes, they are down now and were down in the middle of that championship run. They may "right the ship" and win a 6th National Championship under a 5th different head coach - who's to know? I think that if they do that by 2020, you will be able to look at their history between 1980 and 2020 and see a 40 year stretch that matches up very well against the best stretches of Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, Ohio State, Oklahoma and Alabama.

Again, my argument is no benchmark is too high for a program. A program can elevate itself and reach a higher level of prestige. UCLA can do it, too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by knolysis

You seconded st. cronin's notion that USC expects to win a National Championship every year. They have not under Carroll so I asked you why he had not been fired.

He hasn't been fired yet because he hasn't underachieved consistently nor posted a large flop.

That doesn't mean that the hard core supporters aren't disappointed when they don't win a national championship. Hell, a lot of Alabama fans still believe they should be #1 at the end of each season, and we all know how far from reality that is. And I didn't say they "want to be" or "wish they were", they feel as though they "should be" or as I phrased it earlier "expect to be".

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

ESPN College Gameday is going to Norman for the MU/OU game this weekend. Woot!

Corso better stick on that Truman the Tiger mascot head.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

He hasn't been fired yet because he hasn't underachieved consistently nor posted a large flop.

That doesn't mean that the hard core supporters aren't disappointed when they don't win a national championship. Hell, a lot of Alabama fans still believe they should be #1 at the end of each season, and we all know how far from reality that is. And I didn't say they "want to be" or "wish they were", they feel as though they "should be" or as I phrased it earlier "expect to be".

Of course fans are disappointed when we don't win the national championsip, and there is a lot of grumbling on the USC message board right now, but very little (as in almost none) is directed towards Pete. We realize that he is a great recruiter, an excellent coach, and there aren't any other coaches out there that are a sure upgrade or even a likely upgrade.

[knolysis]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Of course fans are disappointed when we don't win the national championsip, and there is a lot of grumbling on the USC message board right now, but very little (as in almost none) is directed towards Pete. We realize that he is a great recruiter, an excellent coach, and there aren't any other coaches out there that are a sure upgrade or even a likely upgrade.

My apologies to JiMGA. I am not doing a very good job at making my point about expectations and I sidetracked him into defending Pete Carroll. That was not my intent. Yes, Pete is a great coach and I did not intend to make it seem as if he should be fired.

I don't follow USC very much, but my perception is that they have had some difficulty at Offensive Coordinator ever since Norm Chow left. They don't seem to be quite as "dangerous" against the better teams as they were under Norm. Any thoughts on that?

[cartman]

Texas announced last night that Limas Sweed will have surgery on his wrist and is done for the season. He injured it before the season started, and it was obvious that it has hampered him all season.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by knolysis

100% agreed. Replacing coaches is a very difficult thing to do well. Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, Oklahoma, Alabama and Ohio State have all had their struggles with replacing coaches.

That was not my argument. What I am arguing is that you shouldn't tell those schools fans and alumni that they can never hope to achieve "legendary status".

Miami won 5 National Championships under 4 different head coaches. Yes, they are down now and were down in the middle of that championship run. They may "right the ship" and win a 6th National Championship under a 5th different head coach - who's to know? I think that if they do that by 2020, you will be able to look at their history between 1980 and 2020 and see a 40 year stretch that matches up very well against the best stretches of Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, Ohio State, Oklahoma and Alabama.

Again, my argument is no benchmark is too high for a program. A program can elevate itself and reach a higher level of prestige. UCLA can do it, too.

I agree with all of this, but its not my argument. My argument is that Karl Dorrell is actually a good coach, and the fact that UCLA is not at the level of USC or LSU is not something he should be held accountable for at this point in time.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Yes, quite a bit...USC is happy as long as your not 12-0 or 11-1. Your not competing with them for conference title right now, no one is(this season so far aside). They are only afraid of a coach when they feel their own position is threatened. Right now, i think the Pac 10 is trying to establish the pecking order from 2 to 5(cal, oregon, ASU, and UCLA), before one of them really takes on USC in terms of conference big dog. Its my belief, and maybe you disagree, that those schools share my thoughts on the matter.

I think you will find that outside of LA a lot of people think that Dorrell, for whatever misgivings you may have, is still a great recruiter and can coach. I think that were he fired, the odds of upgrading are slim considering who i think would be available to a school in your position. I hope he is fired, but thats because i dont think you guys are going to get better by making that move...and i believe thats the belief at all the Pac 10 schools, minus UCLA and USC.

Who is UCLA going to get that is an upgrade of Dorrell...and be realistic? Peterson? Im not sure he would leave, and im not sure hes done enough as a coach to deserve that jump as those were Hawkins' players. Maybe you want Tomey, but i doubt it with his age...Patterson? I dont see him moving out west. Where do you think your going to get better by firing Dorrell?

You're insane. Dorrell is a great recruiter? Maybe, but how many kids on this team are surefire stars in the pro's? How many players are getting better? If it wasn't for Maurice Drew, Dorrell probably be be sitting at 2 games over .500. Dorrell has not done one thing to improve over Toledo's last two years.

As for a different coach, sure we might not score a HR like some other programs do, but I doubt he hire a Hackett, Mackovich, or Gilbertson either. The only difference between Dorrell and Toledo is that Toledo could coach an offense and Dorrell can recruit the inner city.

[knolysis]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I agree with all of this, but its not my argument. My argument is that Karl Dorrell is actually a good coach, and the fact that UCLA is not at the level of USC or LSU is not something he should be held accountable for at this point in time.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Now I understand your argument and it makes sense to me.

Dorrell could be another Zook situation - it just didn't work out at UCLA but the next school that hires him really benefits.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Corso better stick on that Truman the Tiger mascot head.

I agree!

There for a while, specifically in 2000 if I remember correctly, it was a can't miss proposition for OU. He repeatedly picked against the Sooners, and they'd win.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I agree!

There for a while, specifically in 2000 if I remember correctly, it was a can't miss proposition for OU. He repeatedly picked against the Sooners, and they'd win.

Ah, the old reverse jinx.

It's going to be a lot of fun either way. Great test for the Tigers on the road. Could end up being a preview of the B12 championship game.