To be fair, UCLA was using its third-string QB, a walk-on freshman, for this bowl game. And, in that loss to ND, they also needed to rely on this freshman, non-scholarship QB. UCLA has been hit with a ton of injuries this year, but none of them were as devasting as Oregon losing Dixon- he was the straw that stirred that drink. If Dixon hadn't been injured, Oregon probably would have been playing for a NC.
I agree but ol Purple can't see things that objectively about PAC 10 teams. For as much as many of our (SEC) fans say we "Beat up on each other"- and we do- it's amazing how many injuries other teams face too. UCLA and USC were off the charts this year and USC was plagued with them last year too. In fairness, I'm sure most are mostly familiar with injuries as they pertain to "Their" team.
And, then, there was the injury to Booty's throwing hand during the Stanford upset of USC. If Booty doesn't get injured or if Carroll takes out Booty, who later had to sit out the next few games, SC probably doesn't end up losing that game and finishes its season with only one loss. All teams are hit with injuries, but its the injury to the QB that can really derail a team. That injury to Dixon was really damaging to Oregon cause he was their MVP, and then they had suddenly had to shift gears from a spread offense to a more conventional offense. It wasn't just losing one player, but a domino affect that effected the entire team cause you had linemen who had blocking for a spread offense and now had to shift gears and so on and so on.
ESPN is reporting that UCLA has just announced that Slick Rick Neuheisel will be its new coach even though it was pretty obvious that UCLA was desperately trying to find somebody else other than Neuheisel. But, I guess he was the only option left after a number of coaches rejected them or withdrew their name from consideration. Even the Temple coach decided the Temple job was better than UCLA. But, what' wrong with UCLA that so many coaches decided to pass it up? I mean, its in a hotbed of potential recruits and it shouldn't be that difficult to get a potential recruit to go to UCLA. The campus is a relatively nice looking one, especially compared to that ghetto SC is located in.
It's a basketball school. They are not dedicated to football, period. With all that recruiting talent available they have one NC (disputed) in football.....one. Whether you like it or not, anyone taking that job has to compete with Pete Carroll. And BTW, that ghetto is what lots of people call home. USC experiences some crime but less than ucla because the school has done an incredible job at community outreach and student education. Westwood is a great and fun city but the campus is a security nightmare.
I'll give you this, UCLA doesn't pour as much $ into football as USC does. It also is a state school with less football "boosters" (especially the illegal ones) that its cross town rivals has. It also as you have pointed out spreads its $ across an entire athletic department that's pretty damn good overall. But, I think you give ole' Pete a little too much credit--I don't think coaches don't pick a school b/c of who's coaching in the vicinity. To be fair, UCLA has seen very competitive days in football in recent history. The 90's were pretty damn good overall (top 5 finishes were common place), and where USC lost to UCLA like six years in a row. The recruiting grounds of Southern cal can certainly also support more than just one school. USC can recruit nationally, and UCLA can just pick up Cali All-staters, and still be very competitive. So, to answer the question posed, why not UCLA? I guess I'd say, one money for coaching. Dorrell's salary was in the $700k range, and most "top tier" coaching jobs are $2-3M these days, so big-name coaches would actually have to take less money to go to UCLA. Two, is it really a "football school"? You've got to compete with Ben Howland, but also college football out there is not like in the SEC, where that's the end all be all on Saturday. The Rose Bowl is just hard to fill on Game day and the campus is not religious about the sport like it is about Pauley and Wooden. Three, it's like recruiting anyone to any job to Cali--if you're not a die hard Californian with a love for the state, you have to deal with L.A., smog, cost of living, etc. UCLA has the most success with folks with ties to the city, perhaps the school, and those are folks that would love to get back live in LA. That was Howland, Dorrell and it's no coincidence that Rick played QB there. Lastly, vball, I know you're partial, but calling Westwood a security nightmare, compared to Compton is flat out insane. I'd take my chances with gunfire in Bel-Aire over E.L.A. any day... :grin:
Here's what Slick Rick will make: Neuheisel’s contract is for five years at a base salary of $1.25 million per year with up to $500,000 in annual incentives plus participation in camp revenues and other ancillary items. Sounds like he's in the regular money and a pay cut is NOT the issue. The Rose Bowl is hard to fill because; it's not located anywhere near the ucla campus, it's old, parking is a beyotch, seating and facilities are a joke, ucla fans are a joke. Hell they were offering free Las Vegas Bowl tickets for anyone willing to ante up for season seats. As for recruiting, it's like whomever the next Ole Miss coach is. It's tough to compete in SEC territory against the likes of CUM and CLM, yes? ucla did have a good run in the 90's and racked up 8 consecutive wins against USC but it did not result in a NC nor any particular long term advantage in recruiting the area. Even with some great recruits, ucla is NOT a football school. I'm not surprised that Guerrero turned to an alum. Duh*rell was one too. Fact is, they interviewed plenty of folks with no ties and not even DeWayne Walker was given an offer. It's just not a desirable job, period. Unless you live here or have travelled to both campuses/areas then I'm still calling ucla's campus a security nightmare (statistically they have more crime per student). I've walked it at night and it's just not a safe place. Dark pathways, lots of bushes and hedges, poorly lit, few security phones. Plus, the students are often careless because they "think" they are safe. USC is not in Compton or E.L.A. BTW. As a student, I spent plenty of time traveling between my apartment and campus and never once felt threatened or in danger. You have to be smart, regardless of where you are. Keep in mind, USC has recruited tons of players from the areas you call "ghetto". They can ball as good as anyone else and they have local pride. Keyshawn was a water boy for the Trojans when he was a kid. And yea, I'm partial.
