Weekly Answer, Pt. 8
Check after the jump for this round of Answers...
1) Do you think the Chargers would have won the Super Bowl if they had kept Drew Brees? - Anonymous
That's impossible to answer. Rivers is a damn good quarterback, and I think defense and a running game are more their issues.
2) Rumor has it Henderson did not sign his LOI. Any truth to this and is there a chance that we can steal him? Are we still recruiting now, and if so, who and what positons? - Anonymous
Well, recruiting for 2010 is done, and yes Henderson has not signed a LOI and no I don't think there's a chance.
3) Since they lost out Nottingham is seems like an elite QB or 2 is a priority. Is there any QB's that UCLA is looking at for 2011? It this a strong year of QBs? - gerry4ucla
Here's a preliminary list of UCLA's QB recruits: HERE . It isn't a particularly good year for quarterbacks so far, but kids could blossom.
4) If Rick Neuheisal were to go 6-6 or 7-5 in the regular season again this year do you think recruits will still buy into Rick's "heading in the right direction mantra"? Because his 3 year record will be significantly worse than Dorrell's. - Anonymous
Yes, because he's a good salesman of himself and the program. Any worse than six wins and it gets a little tougher, but the big year is 2011.
5) How many games do you think UCLA football needs to win next season for it to be considered successful? - Anonymous
Good lead in...UCLA needs/should win seven games despite a very difficult schedule. Less is possible if things break the other way, but given the talent and the loss of talent by some other Pac-10 and non-conference teams, seven wins should be the minimum.
actually, what I think he's saying is that the vast majority of the talent RN has brought in will either be red shirting or playing as RS freshmen next year. The 08 class was good, but wasn't really his. Go back and look at the 2007 and 2006 classes and you'll see why UCLA was so effin bad the past few years.
SC-ucla Myths Dispelled (Part 1)
This Sunday is the final meeting between the two schools in sports until November, so now is a good time to compare the two.
It's interesting how bruins incessantly brag about how smart they are, but don't you wonder about a person who wears his intelligence on his sleeve and tries too hard to prove he's supeior? If you're relaly that intelligent then keep it to yourself.
Fact: A 2008-2009 survery indicated that SC and ucla were tied at 15th in American colleges' academic standing. Cal of course was ahead of both schools, and Stanford was No. 1 in the west. Comparative Trojan and bruin SAT scores are almost identical.
And do you know how long the "career" of a fulltime college student is?-- About 32 months of actual class time spread out over 3 years 9 months. 32 months! Now that is a nice start, but it is only a start. What one does for the remaining 60 years or so of his life might count for something too. One continues to learn until the day he dies.
Intelligence is defined as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills," but intelligence takes on many forms, and few are intelligent in every form. One can be brilliant in math and yet be a moron when it comes to changing the oil in his vehicle. And good conversation skills, the ability to think quickly on your feet, or having a great sense of humor are components of intellignece. And none require a college education.
Most college students' I.Q. averages are about 110 to 115, with some topping at 130-135. This is not genius status by any means. Few are geniuses.
So perhaps another component of intellignece, and one that bruins and Trojans alike might try to develop...is humility. Now that would be smart, real smart in fact!
LAWYER JOHN
well, of course this is true, as reflected in the following rankings of the best universities in the world: http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/worlds-best-universities/2009/10/20/worlds-best-universities-top-200.html
SC and UCLA neck and neck. Or not.
LAWYER JOHN, You're full of BS. Please do a little more of research before posting comments about UCLA academics.
Thanks, spedjones, for the link.
According to the Oct. 2009 U.S. News & World Report college rankings (probably the most-referenced set of college rankings), UCLA was ranked #32 in the entire world and USC was ranked #112. If you just consider the academic peer review scores, UCLA rated a perfect 100 while USC rated a 62. On a ranking basis, UCLA was even higher than Cal (#39). Caltech was actually #1 in the western U.S., followed by Stanford.
Thanks SpedJones, you cited your source and gave us a link! UCLA is ranked 32nd in the world and USC is ranked 112th. "This Sunday is the final meeting between the two schools in sports until November It's only February so your first sentence is questionable unless football and men's basketball are the only two sports in which the schools compete. And the number of spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors in the post makes a message about intelligence a little hard to take seriously, but I like your thought on humility which I think was what the post was all about. It's just that when USC fans come onto this blog and throw around the bull and mistruths, taunt, and try to gloat, I feel the need to defend my beloved university. I know what would make this blog nicer for me, and that is if Trojan fan stayed over on the Trojan blog. I'm sure that goes both ways.
lj - regarding UCLA-sc myths, the biggest myth to be dispelled is that "bruins incessantly brag about how smart they are". This is a false statement you are putting forth as fact without listing one shred of evidence to back it up. To even consider those on this blog as a small cross-section of bruins is problematic, at best, as a lot here are self-proclaimed fans who haven't yet attended UCLA or never plan to do so. That is as ludicrous as non-sc fans stating that 'all sc fans are thugs', because there are truly many people who actually attended USC who are also not thugs.
BE REAL has enriched our lives with the following gem:
"If you're relaly that intelligent then keep it to yourself."
He is doing an excellent job of following his own advice.
LAWYER JOHN,
You do make some interesting points there. Yes, USC has done well in terms of increasing their academic standards, and a person's education goes beyond the few years he/she spends in college. But if you are going to compare the two schools, remember when both universities were created. As far as I know, USC was created in 1880 and UCLA was created in 1919. That means USC had 39 additional years to develop their academic and athletic standards. The fact that UCLA and USC are even considered rivals in these areas is a poor showing on USC. Again, both universities have done well, and each have their strong points, but the age of the universities should be being considered when compared to each other.
You can cherry pick your reports to prove a point. I am basing my assertion on the report I read.
And thanks bruins for pointing out some of the typos I made. I can see we are all working hard on that 'humility' concept.
A BE REAL post that wasn't just spedjones reverse-trolling. It must be an early Hanukkah present.
The Washington Monthly has developed another set of college rankings which attempt to factor in "good to the public interest." It reports data on research, service, and "social mobility." The last is the most interesting and shows the percentage of students receiving Pell grants, and how well they perform. As would be expected, a greater percentage of UCLA students receive Pell grants than do USC students. What is surprising is how the public school, with less personal attention and larger class sizes, manages to graduate a far greater percentage of these students than does SC. It's a worthwhile read:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings/national_university_rank.php
FYI: UCLA #3, USC #41 (both pretty good given the competition)
The Washington Monthly report supports why, as a public education guy, I have the utmost respect for Stanford. JustSC; not so much.
People that don't exist:
1. Santa Claus
2. The Tooth Fairy
3. Leprechauns
4. Students that were accepted to UCLA but rejected by USC.
I think Lawyer John is drunk most of the time when he posts. He reminds me of my old roommate, who used to spew a lot of pompous garbage when he got drunk which was mostly incorrect, but he thought he sounded smart. And, like Lawyer John, his delivery was real sloppy. Hey, maybe it's the same guy . . . Jim, is that you?
I think all those 60's and 70's acid trips and 80's Coke binges have finally caught up to Ambulance Chaser John.
LJ.. "I am basing my assertion on the report I read."
Isn't that just a fancy way of saying "I cherry pick my reports to prove my point too." ?
LJ.. "I am basing my assertion on the report I read."
Isn't that just a fancy way of saying "I cherry pick my reports to prove my point too." ?