UNC-Duke West?

Translated:

"You need a catscan for insinuating that $C is on the level of North Carolina or Duke"

the real translation:

UCLA need not compare themselves to anybody, WE'RE UCLA!

USC on the other hand...

Great answer.

that was a great response, but comparing SC to either of those...haha need I say more

Good for Ben.

When have Puke or North Carolina been relevant in football?

UCLA - USC DOESN'T belong in the same class as their rivalry.

Ours is on a higher level.

Perfect answer.

When SC consistently suits up a decent team, it will be a rivalry. Until then, they're just another road bump prior to March Madness.

Come on guys, I'm a huge UCLA fan like all of you but let's be fair. I know USC has not been the greatest team in Basketball as we have not been in football; but there is no denying that when we play against each other there is a tremendous amount of emotion. UCLA can be playing against USC in women's soccer and there is no doubt the fans will be passionate. I believe this is what CBH was talking about. Just my opinion.

Obviously, coach Howland has been reading To Serve SC.

All aboard, Trojans. Next stop--the Bruinzone.

The UCLA/$cu*m has it's own unique flavor and shouldn't invite comparison to other schools in any sport...but to make comparisons in basketball is like making such a comparison in football(with the exception that $c only has MYTHICAL nc's).

There is nothing in bball to compare to unc/dook, and i hate the "unc/dook west" because it puts THAT rivalry on a pedestal and makes the UCLA/$c rivalry look cheap.

There quite simply is NO rivalry as unique as UCLA/$c.

END OF STORY.

SUC-UGLA brings out the emotions. 2-years ago at Galen it was the loudest basketball crowd I ever heard when SC's Young got a 4-point play at the end to take a lead, but then ucla came back to get the game winner. My friends still talk about that crowd more than the game.

And that is all there is to sports: entertainment(and apparently psuedo ego enhancement for many) derived from a mere vicarious "involvement." The players and coaches, well now that is a different story-- for them it is real.

But get real UGLA. UGLA has produced one national championship in 34 years. And, yes, the basketball team has had a nice little run the past 3-years, albeit getting blown out in their final game all 3 years. But UGLA is not on the same court with North Carolina or Duke over the past 34 years. UGLA had its day under Wooden, but 34 years is a long time to keep hanging on to past glory.

As for SUC it is content to make the tournament, which it does most years, and even had a chance at a national championship a couple of times in the 2000s. Not UGLA caliber, but not bad.

And watch out because it does not take but a few great players to make a great basketball team (unlike football). The Los Angeles basketball scene is much more likely to change than the football scene.

LJ

ONLYTHETRUTH:

"albeit getting blown out in their final game all 3 years."

Correction, we made it to the finals with Florida in 06.

Get real TRUTH - hasn't USC only produced 1 outright natinal championship in the last 30 years? Count your 2003 AP championship and you have 1* more than UCLA hoops in the same period. It's fun to bracket success arbitrarily...

The 2000s notwithstanding, the USC-UCLA football rivalry has been FAR more compelling and competitive than basketball. UCLA's football resume reads similar to Arizona's hoops resume. USC's basketball resume? Errr....not so much.

Even Floyd's shady recruiting shortcuts of hiring recruits' Dads to his staff (Hackett, Polee), trolling prep school recruits w/questionable eligibility and age (Gibson, Mayo, Jefferson), and making package deal 2-for-1 scholarship offers (Derozan and Lil' Rome) have USC hoops still short of Bibby's success. Epic.

So spare us condescending lecture #237 on USC's gap-closing and the L.A. hoops scene changing until you can crack the Sweet Sixteen and/or finish top 2 in conference.

All that said, UCLA-USC across the board is the best rivalry in college sports.

The key thing with UNC/Duke is that in their matchups there is always something at stake - a #1 seeding in the East, conference championship, etc. - that's what makes it such a great rivalry, IMO. With UCLA/USC basketball, there really isn't that same sense to me. Best case scenario means that USC could knock us out of a west seeding or potentially keep us from getting the conference championship in a given year, but rarely are THEY the ones who would benefit from the win the same way UNC or Duke would with a victory. On our side, beating USC might keep them from going to the tournament but that's about it.

Overall, I think USC/UCLA has the better rivalry across all sports for exactly the same reason - in most sports the matchup has very important ramifications nationally and in conference. Even in football there is typically a conference championship and potentially national championship implications on the SC side, but many other sports can claim both teams having a big stake in the game - you can't say that with many other sports at UNC/Duke although I believe the question to Howland wasn't about the overall rivalry, just basketball.

Landing Mayo and Love was what started national murmurs for the "potential" of a hoops rivalry out west between USC and UCLA. Then the Bruins took 2 of 3, won the conference, won the conference tourney, and marched on to another FF. Did SC make the tourney last year? I don't remember...

Love and Mayo are now gone, USC continues to underwhelm w/losses to the likes of Seton Hall, OSU, etc., and UCLA is looking solid and well-coached as usual.

I'd say "order restored" had it ever been in question. But it wasn't, so I won't.

Let's take this debate a step further:

1. Utah-- only undefeated team; had the softest schedule of the "Big-5"; had a quality win over Alabama, but the Tide was a suspect team all year long;

2. Texas-- beat Oklahoma soundly; only loss was a last-second heartbreaker; Ohio State victory was less than awesome;

3. Florida-- lost to Mississippi which turns out was a pretty good team; deserves No. 1 if it beats Oklahoma;

4. Oklahoma-- lost convincingly to Texas; will probably lose to Florida but if not then there could be a split championship;

5. USC-- lost to Oregon State which was a good team; did not have any other close calls and beat Penn State badly.

So, if Florida wins there will be no split champion;
But if Oklahoma wins there is a slight chance for Utah, Texas or USC, all of whom have a legitimate argument.

Probable outcome if Oklahoma wins: Utah, SC and Texas will each get some votes, but none will garner enough votes to oust Oklahoma out of the AP.

I hear the UNC/Duke lacrosse rivalry is bananas!!

Who cares about the ACC? We'll start thinking about UNC and Duke sometime around the end of March.

The above commentary posted by "Lawyer" John was just posted by me on the SC blog.

I have posted as LAWYER JOHN on the SC blog for a long time, and this dude copied by monikor for the ucla blog. That is one thing, although weird, but then to copy text word for word is bizarre.

I mean the dude can do whatever he wants, it's not like he is libeling me in the L.A. Times; I just don't want his stuff to be attributed to me.

LJ

Actually, most prefer his posts to yours.

Sarcasm is always preferred to self-righteous narcissism...

OTT,
You are a fraud, LJ has never used the terms SUC and UGLA in his comments, and to my knowledge he doesn't go to basketball games.
Also the word is spelled moniker not monikor. What an idiot.