Check out the latest batch of weekly answers…
1) When the Pump programs were shut down, how much did this affect UCLA’ BB recruiting? Are the coaching staff making inroads with other AAU teams or programs?
I don’t think there’s much doubt that the Pump situation has affected UCLA, and Howland needs to find a way to make up for it.
2) Given the grueling last decade in UCLA football, how much responsibility for that lies with coaching (Neuheisel, Dorrell…Toledo? Heck, Donahue?), how much with the administration’s priorities, and how much with uncontrollable structural factors? You’ve indicated that the football program doesn’t receive the kind of administration support required in order to be a contender. Is this a case of them really not caring how the program does, or is there a prospect that enough disappointment/embarassment could trigger an increased commitment to football? Thanks for the great blog! – Nathan
First off, Nathan, great question.
To start, I don’t think you can simply quantify the answer in terms of percentage, so I’ll just say this: There were a combination of factors, including incredibly poor recruiting and coaching decisions, that led UCLA to this point. In my opinion, the poor recruiting results were a big catalyst. Some of other factors include the administration’s priorities, the money that goes to football, and even the fan support that boosts the team. But there were also a weird cacophony of events – the hiring of Pete Carroll at USC, the carnival-like atmosphere that developed there, the, well, boring nature of UCLA during that time, and the changing college football landscape – that did not help the Bruins.
Secondly, I certainly don’t think it’s a matter of caring, but the word embarrassing is interesting. I don’t think the administration at UCLA is embarrassed with where the Bruins are now, despite middling results in the 2000s and two 4-8 records over the last three years. Others have said UCLA would need to really bottom out for that to happen, and while it may feel like 4-8 is bottoming out to fans, I don’t sense that whatsoever from the admins. Even Dan Guerrero is at least publicly 100 percent behind Rick Neuheisel at this point. Would that happen at, say, Auburn? And I’m not saying that UCLA needs to be Auburn – I think that’s a pipe dream – but that rabid mania that surrounds some of the upper-echelon football programs across the country and seeps up into the administration and university’s top level just doesn’t exist at UCLA.
3) What makes it so hard for us to develop good O-line? I found that I really don’t understand o-line play. What defines a good player and what kind of play by an o-line you see and say “wow!”? Thanks! Keep up the good work! – Bruin ’05
The key to sound offensive line play is two-fold – knowing what to do better than anyone and then actually doing it. The first part requires an intrinsic instinct for the position, and it’s something that only the good ones really have. I played five years as an offensive linemen, and I never got it. I would read and react, and essentially fling my body into my gap or my responsibility, and try to do a passable job. But I could not instinctively know when to disengage, when to let a defensive lineman tire himself out, when to help chip another defender. When I watch a guy like Ryan Clady of the Broncos, much like a center fielder who positions himself to never have to dive, I see an ease and a grace in his blocking, so much so that it looks like he knows WHY he’s making a block, and not just that he has to.
Which leads to the second part, and that’s the execution of the block. That’s where you need the size and the strength and the nasty and the technique and the ability to cheat without getting caught. I will tell you that on every offensive play, someone holds. Every play. No doubt in my mind. The good ones don’t get caught.
The hard thing to do when comprising a talented offensive line is to find five guys who are developed at the same time. That’s why when you see teams having success, typically three or four are either seniors or redshirt seniors, and if not, then the younger guys are just freaks of nature. There’s a reason that it’s always best to load up on offensive linemen in recruiting.
4) True or False: It’s absolutely inexcusable to lose four in a row to a school ($C) that underwent some major (ahem) transitions in the last couple of years. They got guys coming in as transfers the last couple years and there’s more instant chemistry there than at UCLA with a program that has been in place for years. – UCLA Dynasty
True.
5) Over the years fans, critics, and writers (including yourself) have cited UCLA’s academic standards as one factor in the inability to field a nationally-competitive football team. Now that Stanford has finished in the top 5 with a 12-1 record, isn’t it time to lay that excuse to rest? – ed_jacobson
I want to see Stanford do that on a yearly basis before I put that completely to bed. UCLA has had great individual seasons, too, but sustained success is a different matter.