Weekly Answers, Pt. 1
Check out the first batch of weekly answers...
1) Is there a date by which the configuration for the PAC-12 will be decided? - Bruin Ball
With Colorado still in flux about the year it will join, I don't think there are any hard dates for any realignment issues yet.
2) Cannot believe that another starting lineman will be a casualty of academics (Baca). Considering what happened to Kai, I would think that they would be ever vigilant on making sure their Oline remained eligible. Does he have any chance of winning his appeal? - AlanW
UCLA thinks it has a really good shot on his appeal, yes.
3) So whos to blame for all the academic issues? Granted, the students are to be held at fault, but who on the UCLA Staff was asleep at the wheel? - Go Bruins!
Who was asleep at the wheel? The players.
4) I love the video interviews. I was just wondering if every now and again, if you could include practice action? Obviously not plays for all to see. Just some of the platers making a nice catch, run, tackle, etc. - Anonymous
UCLA forbids the recording of practice footage during any play. So, unfortunately, no.
5) Right this moment--as you write this--is UCLA's offensive line better or worse than the end of last year? - Blue Bruin
Better. Another year with zone blocking will help, plus the guys are a year better, and while Su'a-Filo's loss hurt, he wasn't Jonathan Ogden. He was great for a freshman. But that's "for a freshman." Now, if the Baca deal is not resolved...then they're hurting.
Just wondering if it is too late to rescind the deal bringing in Utah and Colorado. Did you see the 2010 National Ratings for Colleges for the Pac-10 (Pac-12)?
5. Stanford
22. Cal
23. USC
25. ucla
44. Washington
86 Colorado
111 Oregon
111 WSU (tie)
120 Arizona
129 Utah
139 Oregon State
143 Arizona State
So why is the Pac-10 allowing in Colorado and Utah?-- oh, yeah, for football, how could I forget.
Instead, I'd propose a new Pac-4 that includes only the California schools; the rest of the conference is dumbing us down.
LAWYER JOHN
Here's what happened with Jeff Baca: He dropped a class in the spring. The coaches knew about it but can't talk about it. He took extra classes in the summer and did well. The coaches know that but can't talk about it. The NCAA is involved because Jeff didn't finish the last academic year qualified. The NCAA, as we all know by now, moves like a snail, but Jeff will be qualified by the first game. This has been reported on other sports blogs.
What guarantees that the NCAA will act by the first game? Looks how long it takes them to act in other cases. As I recall, Brian Price missed a few games because the NCAA took so long to clear him as a freshman.
The program was asleep at the wheel.
As much as we like to believe they are student-athletes a majority of them are just athletes or athlete-students at best (you can lay out the names of Rhodes scholars or kids with high GPA's, then feel free to point out the ones who would not have gotten into UCLA if they didn't play a sport).
Athletes need to be watched, sad but true.
Appreciate the clarification, '64...
BE REAL:
I wish for once you would take your moniker seriously. Does anybody else but an academically insecure Trogan take these rankings seriously? You do realize that these rankings are compiled by US News based on the information that is self reported by the respective institution, right? Since SUC is SO good at self reporting, I'm sure these rankings are valid.
I might remind you that US News, unlike the NCAA, doesn't audit these self reported numbers. However, when an independant publication did do their homework and did some simple auditing of their own, what they found was quite interesting, although not altogether surprising. It seems it was discovered that SUC's own Viterbi School of Engineering maintained that it had 34 faculty members who were members of the National Academy of Engineering. Unfoturnately, it seems that when SUC's list was cross referenced with the NAE's official list, only 22 of those members appeared. Interesting. Furthermore, it appears of those 34 faculty members, only 17 were full time. US News requires that any faculty members you claim, must be Full Time. SUC responded by saying they were reviewing their policies. Therefore, I'm sure we have NO reason to question the validity of such rankings, especially since SUC has proven to be such a reliable source. Once a CHEATER ALWAYS a CHEATER!!!!
BTW, how many NAE members you have on staff Full Time, is a HUGE factor in determining these rankings. I'm sure SUC also knew that. Happy Reading.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/08/usc
SUC, "If you can't BEAT 'EM, CHEAT 'EM"
US News is the college rankings' version of the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Note that in their list of the WORLD'S best universities UCLA ranks #32 ... 80 spots ahead of usc at #112.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/worlds-best-universities/2010/02/25/worlds-best-universities-top-400.html
In 2008, Clemson climbed from 38 to 22, by manipulating the ranking system. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/06/how-game-college-rankings-tips-clemson
We all know SUC is pulling the same antics. The industry I work in is full of SUC grads, and all of them proclaim their school is all about legacies and connections, not academics.