Considering all of the injured removed from the lineup, with all the seniors on this team could it be possible the Bruins are extremely thin in depth, or is it that the remaining Bruins are just that bad? Even with bad coaching the players must at the least try to perform their duties. Utah did it with six starters out.
I said coming into the season depth was an issue. I do not think UCLA has the type of depth to survive many injuries. Part of having 20 starters back is not having much experienced depth. While I believe the talent is also lacking in the depth, I always wait to see how a player performs on the field before saying they lack quality depth, but it is appearing to be that way.

Why do I have this gut feeling it's not about motivation, it's about talent and coaching? Not enough pep talks in the world can overcome a lack of talent and bad coaching.
I always say to go with your gut feeling. I do know a staff of Vince Lombardi, Bill Parcells, George Halas and Knute Rockne would not help some of the players get better.

Should we expect another throttling this week against UW.
I don’t expect a throttling. UCLA is 12-1 in its last 13 at the Rose Bowl, and Washington is yet to prove anything to me. After all, the Huskies beat a worse-than-Stanford team in Syracuse, an overrated Boise State, and gave Ohio State, of the overrated Big Ten, a fight for a half.

In an interview, the Blade made a reference to players partying during the week. Have you heard anything about this and if so, what role do you think it played in the blowout loss?
Am I supposed to know who the Blade is?
Barring a total collapse, do you get the sense that KD is in really in trouble with another mediocre 7-6, 8-5 season? (I feel as though the school will put up with mediocrity as long as KD graduates players and keeps them out of trouble - plus, they're not willing to pay what it takes to get a quality coach)

If UCLA goes 7-5 in the regular season, I think there will be serious discussion as to whether or not Dorrell will coach the bowl game, or be back the following season.
Friends tell me that if a reporter goes digging for a story about UCLA, and does not go through the UCLA Sports Information office, then that reporter likely will be blackballed, making it virtually impossible for him to cover his beat, and to compete with other newspapers.
I haven’t experienced that, but I speak ONLY for myself.

Also, do reporters who cover the Bruins feel that their hands are tied when they try to uncover the facts or hidden details? Are they afraid the SID will "burn" him in the future?
I haven’t experienced that either, but I speak ONLY for myself. The folks at UCLA are professional, and believe me, if they weren’t you would read about it.

I've heard that this and other reasons are why most reporters ask to be taken off the UCLA beat after a couple of years. I imagine your frustration level with the way you are treated as a reporter must be difficult to deal with. Since you went to Rutgers and undoubtedly covered college football there, how would you compare your UCLA experience to the manner in which you were treated in college?
Let’s see, this is my fifth season covering the beat since I asked off the Dodgers, and soon will be the longest time I have spent on a beat at any paper I worked at. Just know that every school, and I mean every school, does things differently. It doesn’t make one right and one wrong, and things have changed a lot since I was in college. And working at a student newspaper, or in a small market, does not compare to working in the second biggest media market in the country. Schools across the nation get away with stuff that would not fly at UCLA or USC.

Is it possible the Bruins can get even worst by our OCT 6 match up? Salivating, CW
First off, I want to thank Charlie for reading the blog, and being a contributor. As far as getting worse, certainly with a few more injuries UCLA can get worse. However, not bad enough to lose a home game to Notre Dame.