Weekly Answers Redux, Pt. 2
Check after the jump for this round of Answers...
1) Do you agree that Howland should play the Frosh more to help them gain game experience for next year? I think we could have a very competetive team next year if we develop the other Frosh, don't you? - BigDBruin
Two freshman are starting, one is redshirting, one is just not ready for the college game and probably should've redshirted, and the last one, Lane, is the only one in limbo. I think Lane should get around 7-10 minutes a game in spot duty.
2) Jon - You seem to think next year's schedule is tough. I'll give you UT is a beast of a game, but are K State and Houston really expected to be that tough? Are Bruins setting the bar low next year because that's where it should be or, or has settling for another average season of CFB become the Norm in Westwood? - AnonymousWinning at Kansas State won't be easy, and Houston should be a win but won't come easy. I said 1-2 in non-conference and 5-4 in conference with another bowl and probably another bowl win.
3) Do you or others think that UCLA's athletic marketing is as bad or generic as I do? For a school as storied as UCLA in a creative media market like LA with a hotbed of talent, I think they could do much better. Why don't they shake it up with fresh creativity and talent? - AnonymousI think they're finally moving toward online marketing more and using Twitter and doing video for the first time really. It was much needed.
4) How many drinks does it take before you get drunk? - InaweDepends what I'm drinking - usually quite a few.
5) Jon, i'm hearing that Colorado, and utah are the main targets for the two new teams in the pac ten. Why not go after Byu instead of colorado? - RayWell, I think it's all very preliminary. But there's the thought that Utah already brings the SLC media market and adding both would diminish the impact. Colorado brings Denver, another huge market.
There have been a few articles I've seen regarding Texas (which I wouldn't think would be likely), but why not a couple of other teams from Texas, perhaps from Conf USA? Pulls the Pac-10 into another time zone, into a big footbal and media state and perhaps builds some pipelines into Texas for recruiting. I know there are worries about travel scheduling, but it would be pretty easy to build two divisions that minimize the travel problems...
BYU won't play on Sundays, a day every sport outside of football likes to use.
BYU will never be in the Pac 10. They are not a research institution and they have discriminatory tuition policies based on religion which violates the Pac 10 Constitution and policies of all the member institutions.
Houston is a very tough game. In fact I think we'll lose that one. Houston was in the top 10 this past year and they return their Heisman candidate QB. They run a spread offense...really I dont think our d will be able to stop them.
On the Petros & Money Show the other day, they were talking about the possible Pac-10 expansion, and Petros said that dealing with BYU is just too much of a hassle with the whole not playing on Sundays being just ONE issue. Another one of the issues is that the Pac-10 wouldn't be bringing a religious university into the conference especially when the schools in the conference are all research-oriented. Pretty much... BYU just wouldn't fit in.
I agree about all of the above for why bYu should NOT go in the Pac-10, but the main points I would say FOR their entry are: 1) maintain the paired rival tradition of the conference (Utah vs. bYu), 2) Better all-around sports: The y competes highly in many sports, including volleyball, bball, Xcountry, track, and golf. What does CU or BSU have outside Football? if the Pac-10 are going to maintain the most NCAA champions like we do, we can't expand JUST for football, and 3) the LDS factor: Just like Notre Dame, religious people watch their school's teams worldwide, which is probably more than the Denver market.
Look, I hate bYu as a UCLA AND Utah fan, but it makes sense. Plus, CU is no trophy, and BSU would be nice, but dreadful in anything else but football.
The Pac-10 better act quick, because the talk in Salt Lake is the Mountain West grabbing Boise State and asking for BCS recognition.
@ Slippery Pete -
BYU's tuition policies are not "discriminatory" by any means. Their tuition costs are split in two tiers, just like UCLA's. The difference is, UCLA is a state-run institution that splits tuition by California resident and non-resident status, whereas BYU splits tuition by LDS Church member and non-member status. The rationale in both situations is very similar: California residents pay California state taxes that subsidize their tuition, and Mormons pay an annual tithing of 10% of their income, part of which is used to fund the Church's universities, including BYU. That's not discrimination--that's giving a break to the kids and families that fund the university in the first place. Nearly every university does that to some degree. So quit criticizing a school and a system you apparently know nothing about. The real reason the Pac-10 wouldn't take BYU is because they are conservative (the research and "academic excellence" excuse is a bunch of BS--see ASU, AU, WSU), and more than anything, they won't play on Sundays.
Sorry Brock, but charging more for non LDS students is discrimination based on religion. You may rationalize the policy any way you like, but it is still in direct conflict with policies of the Pac 10 and each school that is a member of the conference.
Sc-ucla myths dispelled (Part 2)
Bruins like to say how beautiful their campus and surrounding area is as opposed to SC being in "South Central" and being in a "slum -area."
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder-- do you like blondes or brunettes?
First, for bruins to state that SC is in South Cental and mean it in a derogatory way, smacks of racism. Second, SC is not in South Central, that area being 5-miles or so south of the SC campus. Third, the surrounding area of SC is not a slum, it is bordered on the south by the largest rose gardens in the world, and the historical coliseum. Yes, the hosues surrounding SC are small, but most are well-kept and cute.
Fourth, the area to the north, a mere few miles, is the true Los Angeles-- Figueroa Street cutting through the beautiful part of downtown, along with the historical section, and the rebuilding of the area around Staples Center, not to mention one of the best city parks in America, Elysian Park. Downtown is my favorite L.A. area and in fact is where I hold down a residence.
Finally, the SC campus has a cozy, comfortable feel to it, has some beautilful open areas, and has a central location on campus that is easy to find and one in which most of the campus affairs take place.
Now, ucla is no slouch in matters of aesthetics, at least the east side of the campus off of West Boulevard (I know, I know, it changes its name at the ucla border but it still is 'Westwood Boulevard') which is marked with history, open spaces and the statue garden. And, yes, the homes north of Sunset Boulevard are to die for.
But I have criticisms-- I have held down a second residence in Westwood for over a year now, but I am abandoning the place. I love the 'woods of the westside' with the myriad varieites of trees, but the people on the Westside are overly arrogant and self-centered as opposed to the real people in downtown. (But more about bruins v Trojans' personalities tomorrow).
Also, the Westside is guilty of too much growth in too small of a place. The traffic conditions have changed incredibly, even in the past 5-years. It can take 30-minutes to move from the Santa Monica beach to the westside.
And although the Westside homes are quite nice, and even at times spectacular, they don't have a homey, welcoming feel to them. And of course they are out of reach for over 90% of Angelenos so they also have an overindulgent, elitist feel to them.
LAWYER JOHN
"the research and "academic excellence" excuse is a bunch of BS--see ASU, AU, WSU"
All three of those schools are research universities... as is Brigham Young University.
That said, I personally think that the Pac-10 is perfect as it is, and would not like to see it expanded. It ain't broke, so we shouldn't fix it.
Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95
And all the public schools discriminate based on where you live.
It is true that public schools discriminate based on districts and UCLA discriminates based on in-state and out-of-state residency. It is the specific RELIGIOUS discrimination in tuition that disqualifies BYU from the Pac 10.
good job lawyer john, dont forget about all the bike thefts that the news just reported the majority of them are at U$C.
and to call the area around SC, South Central, has nothing to do with racism, what are you thinking? Maybe it is you who is racist, and thats how you made that connection.
also i like your thinking of saying the area around $c is better because it has small homes that are "cute" instead of homes to die for.
and then you are saying UCLA people are arrogant, and $c people arent? HAHAHAHA!
i know people who went to $c and are no longer friends with others because they didnt go there.
Anonymous 5:47 PM,
Lawyer John probably isn't going to be reading your response. That's just spedjones cutting and pasting parts of something else Lawyer John put up elsewhere. Sped is just trying to instigate. You can tell because there's no typekey next to the "BE REAL said"
spedjones thinks it's fun to set his fellow Bruins up for jokes about USC and doesn't realize how much it just irritates most of them.
He's just a reverse-troll.
The difference between UCLA's price discrimination and BYU's:
To qualify for in-state at UCLA, you have to move to California a year before enrolling.
To qualify for the religious price break at BYU, you have to convert.
Which is more offensive? (Hint: You have to move to CA anyway to go to UCLA)
The REAL difference between UCLA's price "discrimination" and BYU's:
BYU: LDS tuition & fees = $4,290/year vs. non-LDS = $8,580
UCLA: CA resident tuition & fees = $8,851/year vs. non-resident = $31,568
For any private university to charge as little as BYU does, even for non-Mormons, is insane! It is a great bargain and a great university. My whole point is that it's ridiculous to call it "discrimination" when there's no offense. It's a Mormon school, run by Mormons, funded by Mormons, and attended almost entirely by Mormons. For any non-Mormon that wants to attend, they still get a great education at a low cost, and they understand the price difference in the first place. Just like I understood the price difference when I went to UCLA as a non-resident. The point is, BYU's policies aren't discriminatory just because there's a religious difference involved. It's a private school, and their model makes sense for them. So get off your high, irreligious horse.