OT - Los Angeles Football
With the departure of Pete Carrol it looks like UCLA has a chance to narrow the gap between the two programs. I am still confused how UCLA has been so mediocre for so long. There is more than enough talent in that part of the country to fill rosters at USC and UCLA. The Bruins play in a great stadium, the campus is in a very nice part of Los Angeles and it's a very prestigious academic institution. I know UCLA has produced many great players but not nearly a much as they should be. Coaching is always a factor but a half way decent coach should be able to do well at a place like that.
How does this affect the Wolverines? Is this a chance for us to swoop into Sunny Southern California and steal some studs that would otherwise sign with USC, or does it look like UCLA will be taking those 5 star athletes. Obviously USC will recruit well, they always have, but not like the did under Carrol.
January 12th, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
UCLA could be poised on the brink of competence now. With Fisher and Del Rio reportedly turning down the USC job, it is obvious that insiders are expecting the major banhammer to drop there. This could open it back up for UCLA to keep the players who want to stay in SoCal.
It could also placate LA fans who have watched UCLA turn from an elite program into the college version of the Clippers.
January 12th, 2010 at 12:56 PM ^
I can tell you that one of the big problems that UCLA faces is the fact that it is a public institution. Like Michigan, California is going through some major budget issues and this affects all of its state academic institutions. UCLA in many cases has to share its piece of the pie with all of the other UC schools as well as the Cal State schools. This has a significant impact on its ability to recruit as well as its coaching staff.
Rick Neuheisel has done a good job of working within that by convincing Norm Chow and Darrell Walker to join the staff but he does not have the resources that a wealthy private institution like USC does. And of course when you're going head to head with USC for all of these players you're going to lose out the vast majority of times. That being said, Rick has done a better job of late in getting talent to commit to UCLA in these head to head recruiting match ups with Carrol. The pending USC sanctions should really help UCLA attract the local kids as well.
Moreover, UCLA has been plagued with injuries to its starting QBs (if you think there is a Michigan *insert position here* hating God I can tell you that Loki himself makes a career out of smiting UCLA quarterbacks) over the last 5 years or so. When your 1st and 2nd string QBs are out for seasons on end it is hard to garner the necessary talent to pull off a victory.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
I know exactly what you mean. There are entire majors being cut or on the brink of being "limited" at UC and CSU. Also don't get me started on the people running our state.
Did they have 3 Qb's injured this year. Not to mention huge injuries to key running backs last year. They have not been very lucky lately, but somehow has managed to beat Tennessee the past two years.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^
With UCLA, they've not only lost players in the area to USC, but to the rest of the Pac 10 and other big schools including Michigan. As an athlete in California I'd probably choose even Cal and Stanford over UCLA for football.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^
Living in the middle of SC/UCLA country I too am confused why UCLA has been second rate for the past decade. I think it's a combination of hiring the wrong guys and USC ascension. For the reasons that you stated there is absolutely no reason why UCLA cannot develop into a major player. I can tell you that Neuheisel has been Kiffin Lite in terms of challenging USC's dominance around town and he may be on the verge of doing just that.
I don't think Michigan will swoop into SoCal and steal blue chippers more than the one 4/5 star guy they snipe each year (Tate, Warren, Mouton, Williams all the way back to Toomer).
go blue.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
I too am an LA guy (UM undergrad/UCLA grad), and I'll tell you why UCLA has never developed an elite program: the Rose Bowl is 20 miles from campus (> 1 hour in LA traffic). When it is 80 degrees out in November and you live on campus 3 miles from the beach, do you want to go the 3 miles down the street or 20 miles inland in traffic? The answer for me is Rose Bowl, but for most students, it is easier to be lazy and lay on the beach. USC is across the street from their stadium...much easier commute. I promise, if UCLA were to build a stadium on campus, which will never happen, things would be VERY different.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
I never really understood that myself. For non-football sports UCLA has very good facilities. I too cannot see them building a football stadium on or close to campus. I can't see where they would even put a stadium. One option is to destroy the Bel Air Country Club, but I don't see that happening.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
There is that big intramural field over by the tennis courts that is big enough, I think, to build a stadium. I think there is a parking lot underneath it now. There seems to be some room there but maybe I'm wrong.
January 12th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
From what I remember, the intramural field is just a little bigger than Marshall field right next to it. Don't think that would be large enough.
January 12th, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^
Physical space is not the issue. The issue is very rich neighbors allowing 75-100k people clog up their streets on a regular basis. It would potentially kill property values, and it will never happen.
January 12th, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^
As someone in a similar boat (UM undergrad/USC grad), I can say you are dead on about the distance thing, especially for UCLA students. Having to coordinate a carpool, leave hours ahead of time (the traffic in and around the Rose Bowl is an even bigger nightmare than just getting to Pasadena), and pay for parking is a lot different than the Ann Arbor experience of rolling out of bed and taking a ten minute walk to the stadium.
I also think LA fans are quick to abandon a team that isn't performing well, and UCLA has had a pretty rough run this decade (even aside from being seen as second fiddle to the Trojans). SC was only drawing 50-60 thousand a game during the Hackett era but fans are more willing to make that drive up from the South Bay when the team is playing for Rose Bowls and National Titles.
UCLA should have much less of a problem filling the Rose Bowl once Neuheisel gets the ball rolling, which I think he will with a few more recruiting classes, so long as he is able to find a quarterback that isn't made of glass.
January 12th, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^
I think that a NFL Team is going to move to LA and be the next big thing. It appears USC has proven that the LA market can support a paid team, so I expect the Jags or someone to relocate and eclipse both USC and UCLA.
January 12th, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^
As far as I have heard, the so called "LA" team will not really be in LA. When I think of LA, I actually think of the city of Los Angeles. The stadium they are proposing will actually be in the Chino Hills/Pomona area.
January 12th, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^
http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/
The stadium looks pretty cool in concept if they can ever get it built. They make an interesting case that it is really centrally located since it is equidistant from Newport Beach, Downtown LA, and Riverside.
Hopefully they can get the thing built (environmental loopholes have been ridiculous) and find a team to fill it.
January 12th, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^
That's a nice stadium right there. I love the bowl and the building up the dirt around it.
January 12th, 2010 at 3:03 PM ^
That does look like a cool concept. I think the environmental aspects will be very hard to overcome. IIRC in Pasadena they had to stop building an apartment building because they found some kind of fly that was known only to be in that area.
They need to stop putting "Los Angeles" on things that are not in LA. Everybody knows Anaheim is not LA. Both the Angels and the Ducks have not been the same after the whole name change.
January 12th, 2010 at 3:04 PM ^
I am just happy that Pete will no longer be stealing the best player in Michigan every other year...What are the chances that will Farell is swapping out the license plate trim for UCLA as we post?
January 12th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^
It seems like in almost every geographical area, no matter how talent-rich, there's a clear pecking order between the #1 and #2 local teams. Kids will gravitate toward the #1 school and if they can't go there, will often leave the state instead of go to the #2 school. Why that is, I don't know.