Patience is a Virtue
Guys,
After seeing some comments regarding my assertion that UCLA fans need to stay patient, I wanted to clarify my stance.
First things first: a 35-0 loss, and even a 35-7 loss that goes down in the manner it did last Saturday, should be unacceptable. I get the anger, I get the frustration, I get the simple confusion. How can a team that won at Texas be the same team that goes down 28-0 to an only slightly better-than-average Cal team? Trust me, I don't get it either. If I had the answers, I'd be coaching and not writing.
Like I said, I can appreciate the disappointment-turned-anger.
But when I say patience, I think I'm using the wrong word.
I think UCLA fans need to practice better expectation-management. A brief look at this schedule, given the state of the team coming in and the injuries that have happened since Day 1 of training camp, and I think 3-3 was about right. Maybe even 2-4. The Bruins should have beaten Kansas State. They should have lost to Stanford. They could've beaten Houston. They should've lost to Texas, crushed Washington State and lost to Cal. Any way you slice it, that's pretty much what should have happened before the season.
Of course, things didn't exactly play out like that, but the end result is nearly the same.
Going back to the losses to Cal and Stanford. A few guys have written about how they wouldn't be upset if UCLA had even competed in those games, but lost by a few. You're right. Again: You're right. Those were atrocious performances. But those can pop up every once in a while with young teams, especially young, one-dimensional teams. I think the coaches definitely have some explaining to do, but I also think that bad days sometimes happen in football. There are a 1000 reasons, but they happen. As unhappy as you guys were on Saturday, Texas fans were just as unhappy a couple weeks before.
So when I preach patience, I'm not saying don't get upset after losses like the Cal and Stanford game. I'm simply saying that the idea that "It hasn't happened since 2005, so it needs to happen NOW!" is flawed. Yes, you were told to practice patience under Karl Dorrell. Yes, the Neuheisel era hasn't exactly been the quick turnaround that you desire. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't take a step back and really analyze the direction of the program. UCLA could go 1-5 the rest of the way - no really, it could - and still, I'd think that 2011 was the year things should come together. At least from my perspective, that hasn't changed.
Dear Jon,
Best post you have had as the Beat Reporter for UCLA. The points you raise are the very points I have tried to make throughout this season.
As I have oft stated, I don't expect to win EVERY game, or the P10 or the NC, or get to a BCS bowl game this year.
I was at Texas and saw what this team is CAPABLE of doing. With the exception of NO ABILITY TO PASS against Texas, the rest of the O, D and Special Teams performed much higher than anyone would have expected. I expected to see a loss in Austin. I was pleasantly suprised by the way the team outperformed anyone's expectations. I was also at Cal last Saturday. Seeing both live, AND watching both replays, I can tell you that the INTENSITY was clearly different. The passing game still sucks, but the remainder of the team lacked any intensity.
So, I appreciate the post that you understand our frustration.
Peace!
These are the same "fans" that were nowhere to be found when we were 0-2, looking at a 0-4 start to the season...
I totally agree with your post. This team needs another year to mature.
Side note: These fickle "fans" need to stop b-tching and complaining.
Nice clarification Jon. Thanks for taking the time to explain your position about "patience." Many of us Bruins have become Pavlovian in response to certain words. Patience happens to be one of those oft used yet ill-defined in the context of UCLA football.
Jon,
Anwser this and if can't that will help you understand or frustration and anger.
Look at Boise St, UTAH and TCU and it's rosters of talent, and the coaching staff.
1. Who's talent is better UCLA's or the teams listed above
2. Who's coaching staff is better?
3. Who's teams are better prepared for Saturday
I will help you with the answers:
1. Should be UCLA
2. I will let you wiggle out and say all are equal
3. UCLA should be last on your list
With that how is it that we are this bad going into year 3? Is question 2 UCLA should be last because if there are equal we would be a better prepared team a better coached team.
It is not about wins and losses, it is about competing! This team has gotten blown out multiple times every year under RN and that is just unacceptable.
Jon, that was a lucid and well written post and I appreciate you taking the time to post it.
My frustration lies with RN and his rah rah cheerleader coaching style, I think a coach like Harbaugh, or even RN having a coaching mentality like Harbaugh, would get more out of the athletes that UCLA has.
I know that injuries and suspensions have played a big role with this years Bruins team, but UCLA has the depth to overcome SOME of the issues and has not.
I am just an armchair QB who played sports a hundred years ago but some of the coaching decisions are confusing.
The coaches have played many freshman, therefore burning many redshirt opportunities, but the use of some of the freshman players has been questionable, such as Barr coming in to block or as a diversion or Riley coming in for a play or two a game. If the coaches were not going to redshirt these guys they should get them on the field more.
And, Chow's manlove for Prince is strange, it's like he won't even consider Brehaut or Bell. If Prince is the BEST possible player then OK, but to play Prince even when he is hurt or has missed 3 weeks of practice is baffling, is Prince THAT much better even at 50-80% health?
I will be a Bruins fan even if they go 0-12, but nobody can expect me to not be concerned that they are 0-12 when they have the ability to recruit the way they do and have athletes like they have.
Like I said in the other post you do a great job, in my opinion, on this blog and I applaud you for your work.
I appreciate the comments, Jon. If it happened once or twice per year - fine, it happens to everyone, but it seems like it's week to week as to what we should "expect". To be quite honest, I'm not sure if we'll beat Oregon by 7 or lose by 70. The "effort" (for lack of a better word) doesn't seem consistent enough to even guess what's going to happen. I know you feel the opposite, but it isn't just that we're 3-3 to me, it's more about how we got to 3-3, and how we got to 3-3 this year gives me no confidence in the rest of this year...or next year...or next...
Jon,
"They should have lost to Stanford. They could've beaten Houston."
Well I agree with half your statement anyway. Yes, they shouldv'e beaten Houston. But why would you EXPECT them to lose to Stanford?? Are Stanford players that much more talented? Has the coach been there a lot longer than at UCLA? Obviously the answer is no to both. Given this, I don't think losing to Stanford was an automatic. Could it possibly have anything to do with the quality of the coaching?? By the way, USC has a brand new coach and reduced talent on the team, but lest we sound impatient, should we be perfectly content about a blowout loss to them as well.
@Anonymous, "These are the same "fans" that were nowhere to be found when we were 0-2, looking at a 0-4 start to the season...
I totally agree with your post. This team needs another year to mature.
Side note: These fickle "fans" need to stop b-tching and complaining."
You need to worry about your own backyard and quit looking over your neighbors fence, who are you to question anyone's status as a "fan" (as if anyone who questions the team is not a true "fan")
Many of the people questioning the coaching or the play of the team have been here not only since the team was "0-2, looking at a 0-4 start to the season" but have also been here for many years.
Maybe you should get yourself a posting name and quit hiding behind the "anonymous" tag and show that you are a "fan" and not some trogan troll.
I would say the true "fans" are the ones that are on here with questions and concerns about the state of the team.
Tony
You said the coaching staffs were equal but the other teams are more prepared on game day. Wouldn't equal coaching staffs be equally prepared?
@UCLA Tony
Saw this in Bruins Nation. The dude has a point…
Boise State and TCU
Good first line talent, and they do show case well against big talent a couple of times a year…
One issue I have with these teams is that they traditionally have weak schedules, SOS is usually on the other side of 50. Sure they show well against one or two BCS schools spaced out a month apart because they don’t take a constant pounding.
How good would they be with their shallow talent depth if they had to go about their business, playing week-in-week-out slugfests that are the games of the Pac-10, SEC, Big-12, Big-10 and even ACC, when there are maybe one or two potential gimmees a season, but four or five top 25 teams too?
Let’s look at some stats:
Strength of Schedule (SOS)
Oregon State=1
Washington State=4
Arizona State=6
UCLA=7
Washington=8
California=12
Stanford=14
Arizona=16
USC=25
Oregon=39
TCU= 56th most difficult SOS rating
91.51 rated Boise, with a surprising 28 SOS rating thus far, still gets to play:
59.71 = San Jose State
64.27 = Louisiana Tech
76.43 = Hawai’i
75.12 = Idaho
71.91 = Fresno State
Before taking on 85.10 = Nevada, then finishing with the 61.72 rated cupcake Utah State
Put that in perspective for the Bruins games to come:
92.22=Oregon
87.30=Arizona
86.17=Oregon State
73.67=Washington
82.18=Arizona State
79.64=USC
Therefore, the 75.17-rated UCLA plays three teams stronger than Boise State’s 1 toughest competitor (Nevada), before taking on two more higher rated teams than Boise’s next toughest competitor.
Boise will be fit, trim and ready for their highly touted Bowl game against some other team that has played a schedule more like UCLA, and will be bashed and bloodied.
===============
I'd add...I'd like to see how crisp the players of Boise State, Utah and TCU would be after taking on 75.56 rated Kansas St, then to play 90.36 rated Stanford, before a 69.11 breather with Houston, and then go to Texas stadium for the Longhorns.
Since those teams don’t play a consistently kick-ass schedule, there is no basis for comparison for how the players or coaches would respond.
If patience is a virtue, then logic is a necessity. Fans in general are fickle, emotional, and illogical. Its the nature of the beast to find scapegoats and spread the blame quickly without having all the facts. That is why they we are only fans and not coaches or athletic directors. :)
It is all about expectations, guys. Closing the gap....between historically mediocre and national laughingstock. Despite Rick's boasts, we all knew he really had a 4 year plan, right? Just look at how much Colorado and Washington had improved under Rick by year 4.....errr, ahhhh, uhhhh, doh!!!
"Better expectation-management" is the key phrase here.
Any team in the Pac-10 outside of Washington State can beat any other team with the probable exception of Oregon. That means every game is in jeopardy, and every game could be lost
I bless the wins and try to get over the losses within two hours following the game. Better for my health.
LAWYER JOHN
It should not be about wins or losses but about leadership. The coaches should know who is ready and prepared to do battle every saturday. And I think this coaching staff is so lost or ignorant that they keep making the same mistakes. Playing a not 100% QB not once but twice. The team should be ready to go every Saturday not "we will get better". As an alumni who donates to the school generously, I feel that UCLA and Dan Guerrero does not care about the fanbase. Eventually, myself and other alumni will get tired of this and stop our annual Wooden Fund check. So Block and Guerrero, don't let that day come. That day may come sooner not later. Dr. M
Booya, great post. This team has a bunch of gamers growing up. Give them time to blossom.
oh, so magically in 2011 everything will be settle? how about a steady improvement over the yrs for 2011? Don't see how program is from Dorrell era.