Highs and Lows
Here's a link to my feature on the recent UCLA-USC rivalry game for some its seniors: Check it out
Pretty great stuff from the players, who have so much invested into this game. Interesting to hear them talk about the rivalry in such vivid terms.
If there's one thing to say and stress to our football players, it's this:
Don't talk. Show.
Agreed, VB. And agreed, Anon 9:40. The Bruins need to walk the walk. They have bee so good at talking the talk. Put up or shut up, I say!
Someone explain this Micah Kia quote to me...
"I've argued with a lot of people who said they were retaliating for us taking that last timeout, but you have to understand where we're coming from. We're going to fight until the bitter end. To act like they were going to take a knee and throw a bomb - and I know there are two sides to the story - but in our eyes, it was disrespectful."
He talks about how we're going to fight to the bitter end, but when SC went ahead and fought to the end too, it's disrespectful? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? As much as I hate USC, this is the one thing thats driven me nuts. CRN called the timeout in a game where we were doing absolutely nothing on offense. There wasn't a chance in hell of a comeback and anyone could see that. CRN still does it and somehow manages to make us look worse instead of just getting out with the loss. But nobody wants to talk about that?
This may not be well recieved, but here it comes nonetheless...
I'm a UW fan, so maybe I'm off base here. What USC did with the TD pass was a juvenile move, but certainly precipitated by RN's juvenile move of calling his TOs in a lost game. Both sides could have handled that better, and RN walked into that one.
I understand UCLA's anger, especially after USC laughed it off and then did the team jump around on the sidelines.
But it was an example of lost composure that I think we've seen from UCLA all too much in the last 12 months.
A coach urged much of the team off the field after the loss to KSU without shaking hands. Against UW, there were two occasions in the 4th quarter (not captured on TV) where large portions of the UCLA team approached midfield looking for a fight with the UW sideline. These occurred after Bell's INT and another back-breaking play. UW did the "jump around on it's sideline" after the INT, with no posturing to the UCLA sidelines. They were merely an equally desperate and limited team, celebrating their first big play in weeks. They were not trying to show anyone up and there was no indication of any disprect to Bell or anyone. Nonetheless, 20 hotheads from the UCLA sideline are headed to the UW bench, and the UCLA coaching staff had to come out (on two occasions and corral their guys).
Right now it has the look that the UCLA coaching staff doesn't have the team where they can control their emotions or their composure.
They sort of look like impotent parents, unable to corral their children who are acting out more and more when they don't like the reality that life has handed them. I don't think it represents UCLA very well, and it doesn't look like the UCLA staff is in control of things.
Sure, a win saturday would do wonders both in terms of appearances and true development. But I think part of the UCLA reaction last year gets at a deeper issue and may not be just a limited one time deal.
By the way, UW Fan here again.
One of the most fun games and atmospheres I've ever been to was UCLA's come from behind victory over USC in the 1992 game. The game where JJ Stokes caught 2-3 long TDs in the 4th quarter from a SR walk-on QB (Barnes?) who had transferred from UCSB that summer.
Even for USC fans, the people in front of us were incredibly low and rude people. It was great as they stalked off with the game lost. Their college age daughter, with whom no one had exchanged a word all evening, turned around and loudly and profanely informed us (and the UCLA fans next to us) that she would earn more money than any of us in our entire lives, so we should not to get too high emotionally just because UCLA won.
Pure class.
VB, you're just bitter that Pete made CRN and his crew look like a bunch of chumps. Pete Carroll and Reggie Bush left USC with a big ol' mess of problems, but I'll always find that last touchdown hilarious.
If the Bruins can't beat our crappy team this year, CRN and company's chumpitude will be beyond dispute.
And, also Blitzed-weed . . .
At that point,SUC wasn't "fighting" for anything. They had a lead and the 'victory formation' was the proper tactic. Anyone that does not think that Pete Carroll was a mu.thur fuhk!n azz.hole for calling a play action out of a victory formation is either a SUC troll or a moronic d!ckweed. Take you pick, Bitzed-weed.
Hey UB, Anyone who thinks anything like that is out of line in a rivalry game like this, is an idiot. Al Verner said it best. They should have stopped it. There is no respect in this rivalry. If there was, CRN wouldn't have called timeout when he knew it was over. He did it just to mess with Carroll.
I adore the hate though. God forbid anyone use a little reality. They MUST be a trojan troll if they refuse to agree with everything CRN does. It's like when I said we'd struggle to finish 500 earlier in the year and people boohoo'd. Gee...I was right! umad?
I never said CRN made the right decision, dumb.azz. However, since you asked . . .
It wasn't necessarily the wrong call. Yes, the game was lost and the timeout was meaningless, INSOFAR AS THE OUTCOME OF THAT GAME was concerned. But there is something to be said for a coach giving his players, about to lose a big rivalry game, a sense that the coach has "fight" in him. How did Cheatey Petey respond? He gave his players, with victory well in hand, a sense that he is an azz.hole -- not unlike anyone that thinks that Pete's call had even an ounce of class.