ESPN has UCLA at Pac-10 No. 8

Sounds about right to me!

FO!

BSPN!

UCLA no. 8 -- yeah right! After 3 consecutive top ten recruiting classes. What is Ted thinkn'?!?

Good. With questions marks at so many positions there is no reason to rank us any higher than we finished last season. The offensive skill positions look good but we still aren't where we need to be on OL with XSF gone. Throw on top of that, replacing 4 All-Pac 10 players on defense and there you have it. This team is going to have to earn their rankings on the field in September. That is the way it should be and that is the way I prefer it.

While UCLA fans can be upset that they think we should be higher...I personally have NO problem being under rated.

Typical Ted Miller. He has something against CRN from when he covered UW. He left UCLA off of a Pac-10 list a couple of days ago... just shows that he wants to pretend that UCLA doesn't exist.

If he properly employed his rationales, he would have UCLA somewhere between 3-5.

Where are Charlie Bucket and Spedjones when you need them. Clearly ESPN is biased against the bruins and cannot see that crn and chow are doing great and that glory days are just around the corner.

when has anyone's predictions meant anything in life? it's a waste of time, but i guess that's what ol' ted is getting paid to do.

Wasn't SUC ranked top 10 pre-season last year? How did that work out?

#8 in a 10-team conference? Kewl...got 'em right where we wanted 'em...

Actually Miller has defended CRN quite a bit in his blog, so I don't see any bias on his part.

Bottom line, an 8th place finish next year would be unnaccepable to me. There is plenty of talent in the pipeline - 3 straight top 10 classes according to Scout. KP will have 3 years in Chow's offense - the kids know the system. If UCLA can't even muster a top 5 finish in conference then I don't know what the hell to say. Stanford losing Gerhart is the biggest loss in the conference and they're still finishing 3 spots ahead of us.

I'm not saying UCLA won't be mediocre again because frankly we have that down to a science, but I expect improvement next year over the awful 3-6 conference record. I don't care what we lose, there is enough recruited talent to replace the losses. If UCLA wants to be a big time program, 2010 is the year to step it up. The OL is experienced, there is a stable of WR's and RB's and again the QB has 3 years in the system. The defense has tons of talent still. Moore and Ayers are first team type of players. I expect a +.500 conference record or else I'm not averse to blowing out the coaching staff again.

UCLA has not had three straight top 10 recruiting classes. They have done very well, and I compliment them for that. 'Ted Miller Guesses are awful' made an awfully stupid comment. Look at the all the recruiting services, not just the one that serves your position. I like what 'ohh yea' said. A good analysis.

Reply to oh yea @12:41.

This is not a prediction where we'll finish next year. I agree that 8th in the Pac would be unnacceptable. This is a power ranking based on what we did last season and what we have returning. Nothing more than that. Based on that, 8th is about right since none of the players we are expecting to fill in have proven themselves on the field yet.

Rankings don't mean anything. Just look at all the top ten rankings UCLA has in recruiting. That hasn't lead to squat.

Its all about on field performance. I agree with the 8th place power ranking at the moment. Now its up to the team to change that in the fall.

Given that he opens his number four with, "You might as well pick the next five teams from a hat." I have no problem with his ranking if it can be called that. We all could see what would happen to our 2010 season with graduations, a Morman mission, Price declaring and a flotilla of untested underclassmen, however gifted they might be, being pressed into service. This season will be a desert. Six or seven wins is about right (I hope) without a stumble. Nine wins would be a windfall, possible but a reach. In other words, to some, this season will look like we're treading water. We're not. This is the time to keep the faith. For those who can see beyond the wins and losses, the great recruiting classes and solid coaching staff will begin to show up on the field this year. 2011 is the real make-or-break.

Ted Miller is in no way bias against UCLA. Actually he knows what he's talking about more than most ESPN's columnists. He just had a stupid, pointless assignment to do, so he did it. And he was under the impression that UCLA would do a lot better than it did this year, so I think he's a little hesitant now. Rightfully so.

Beat SC
That all

These rankings are about today -- not 2009 -- and what's coming back in 2010. Recruiting success also is a secondary factor.

Recruiting was a factor for Ted Miller in the case of Oregon, Wash, USC, Stanford and Cal. In the case of UCLA, it was not worth a mention even though UCLA got national press for their recruiting class and it was ranked higher than 4 of the 5 he mentioned.

Pretty accurate, imo, having Oregon, OSU at top with ASU, WSU at bottom and everything being very close in between. I think 'SC falls into that "in between" mix and could finish anywhere from 3 to 8. Having Stanford early will be an advantage in that they won't quite have their identity down after losing Gerhardt. That could be the opportunity for us to stake a lead in the quest for the #3 spot against one of the teams that will challenge us for that spot (with Cal, imo).

I also think schedules will be very important. Having Oregon after a bye and OSU at home (along with 'SC) might be the key when all is said and done.

If the Bruins finish 8th in the Pac 10 next year, then the Nueheisel hire was a waste of time.

"ESPN's Ted Miller ranks UCLA at No. 8 ..." That's not what the article says.

Ted Miller wrote, "You might as well pick the next five teams from a hat." That means he's picking UCLA as one of 5 teams which will finish between 4th and 8th. The fives teams are Berkeley, Washington, Stanford, Arizona, and UCLA -- not necessarily in that order. That's a far cry from saying that UCLA is at #8.

The subject of the Miller article is superfluous; i.e., it has no relevance to anything that will happen in the Fall. Even if UCLA were ranked #1...so what?

Not quite sure I get where all the "our schedule is horrible" stuff comes from.

at Cal
at Oregon (bye week previous)

at Washington - they lost 3/4 of their DL, 2/3 of their LB (and 2 more off the 2-deep at LB) - their Offense will be good, but lose a lot on D on a team that went 5-7 and may be a bit demoralized after playing Oregon the week before us and having @BYU, Nebraska, @USC on their schedule.

All other tough games are at home (in conf) for a team that was IN every game last year except perhaps Cal. Not saying we'll be in the Rose Bowl or NC, but I think our schedule is actually pretty favorable...

Mike H,You seem to have left off:
@ K-State
Houston
@ Texas

I would have put UCLA at seven ahead of Arizona. The rest of the list looks pretty right on.

jaytphillips - The column was on the conference so I focused on those games.

Regarding non-conference, only Texas is on ESPNs top 25 that they recently put out...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=4901998

Houston's QB is really good and their type of offense will be tough for our Defense. Kansas State is a much better team from where they were last year when we played them. All three games will be tough regardless if these teams are ranked in the top 25 or not.