What's The Rush?

That strategy hasn't been working so well for Florida State recently, but still well enough to pound FUCLA.

it may not have worked with Florida State or Penn State, yet it works with Texas. Plus, many of the top recruits just want to get it over with. Years ago, high school juniors wouldn't receive calls from the recruiting services. Now, they are. I don't mind Pete giving out scholarships early. His staff has seen these kids since they were freshman. There are still many, many great players in SoCal who would kill for a scholie from SC. If anything, it is more desirable then ever.

13-9...... 3-0 against sc in the only 2 sports that matter. Next year the end results will be the same, but the margin of victory will be greater. LOSE ON!!

You are living in a fantasy world my friend. UCLA will put up no fight next year. Pete Carrol is mad and thats a bad thing because he will rub UCLA's nose in the dirt.I am talking no mercy, we could be up by 50 points and still go for it on 4th down. Guaranteed. FIGHT ON!

I guess I am not so sure why they are worried...considering USC has the #1 or #2 recruiting class every year, why worry about some joke like UCLA taking "our" recruits. Who are we going to worry about next...Appalachian St.?

I highly doubt people like Joe McKnight or Jimmy Claussen ever considered University of Crap in Los Angeles...hahaha

Agree with Scottware's take, PC will not hold anything back. So 13-9 can recite all of his cheap rhetoric that he wants to. Let miguelito speak his usless words of "no" wisdom. PC will open up the flood gates and 66-19 will seem like a close game. Fight On!

"University of Crap in Los Angeles"........Thanks for that stroke of brilliance and true wit USC1966. I'm sure you have sparked sophomoric laughter everywhere amongst fellow "brain surgeons" as the late, great Jim Healey called you Trojans. Hint: He did not coin the term based on the sterling academic reputation of your beloved university.

This is how you end up with some kid whose performance levels off or drops off from his junior year. Would seem that the best kids would be willing to wait for SC's offer vs. going to a lesser school.

Hey Borno, Healy would be more than a little suprised to see where SC's academics are today. Besides, I suspect most of us would have challenges getting into EITHER school today if we had to.

borno - I'm sure USC1966 was only reacting to the incessant derogatory statements regarding our alma mater we get from UCLA faithful on our blogs (although I cannot condone the name calling business). But your reminder of the quip by the illustrious Mr Healey (a prominent brain surgeon himself I'm sure) has convinced me to repost my soapbox comment from another thread - enjoy...

I would like to dispel some of the old and tired myths UCLA faithful feel compelled to perpetuate about USC. I do want to point out that I believe UCLA is a good school and respect it as a top notch academic institution. However, I know many members of the UCLA brainwashing program do not respect USC and continue to sling disparaging (and false) remarks about USC at every opportunity.

One of the most egregious myths advanced is that USC is a wealthy school full of rich (and I guess by natural extension - spoiled) kids. One can only assume this has to do with USC being a private school. Well, being a private school simply means that USC does not have direct support from the state for its operations. This means USC must charge a much higher tuition than public supported schools. However, USC has one of the largest aid programs in the country to counter balance the cost and help families from all economic backgrounds afford a USC education. In fact, a college board assessment revealed that median family incomes at UCLA were higher than those at USC. This is not to say that USC has solved a major issue in higher education - rapidly rising cost, but USC for many families can be less expensive and more affordbale than UCLA's. So if USC is not full of wealthy elite and in fact has a very economically diverse student body, why the myth?

Being a private institution does have its advantages. USC is a very entrepreneurial school. It can be creative and innovative in developing academic programs that provide a unique and enriched environment that is unmatched at UCLA. USC was able to get a 100 million dollar gift for a Bio medial research center from a UCLA graduate - the donor apparently was frustrated with UCLA's bureaucracy and wanted to see his investment go to a school that could maximize his investment. So I guess in terms of academic enrichment, USC students are quite wealthy.

Another myth is that UCLA is a superior academic school. Rankings in general are a bit of a sore subject to many education experts since they tend to over generalize a schools strengths. Case in point, USC's Annenberg's school for communication and its school of Cinematic Arts are considered the best in the country in their respective fields. For students wanting to study these fields, this would mean USC (for them) is better than an Ivy League education. But, since rankings and stats seem to be an integral component of how people view the overall academic ability of their schools, I will play along. In the recent US News and world report ranking, USC's undergraduate ranking was (27 - UCLA 26th). Many undergraduate and graduate programs were ranked well ahead of UCLA's (such as engineering). Not exactly numbers to substantiate the claim that UCLA is a "superior" academic school Further, USC recent freshman class was "academically" superior to UCLA's in terms of SAT scores.

Now lets move beyond the stats to the intangibles - like USC's average classes are smaller than UCLA's. USC has a lower (read better) faculty to student ratio. USC has launched many innovative programs including the renaissance program that rewards students who excel at two or more widely separate academic disciplines and encourages students to take minors or double majors that cross disciplinary lines. Integrating research as the core experience from freshman through post docs is rapidly becoming the signature of a USC education. Reducing or eliminating the sit and listen model so prevalent in education today towards a learner centric model that treats every student as a contributor and director of their own educational path is USC's focus. Imagine a college education that is defined by what you discovered and contributed to making a real impact on society or in a community vs what you got on the final.

USC is also rapidly growing its highly successful residential colleges where student live with senior faculty members in a residential environment. USC has worked aggressively to create a very unique educational experience that has yet to be recognized and appreciated within the academic community.

Finally, myth #3 that USC is in a dangerous area (or as many like to say in a "ghetto"). USC is located in a working class neighborhood on the southern tip of downtown Los Angeles. While the location is not Beverly hills, it is a diverse neighborhood where people of all backgrounds work and live together. In fact, the area has been changing and becoming more gentrified along with downtown Los Angeles. The fact that USC is not in an affluent neighborhood is one if its greatest strengths. USC integrates real world issues and challenges into its curriculum. Participating in the community and working to solve many challenges in urban life are very much part of the academic fabric of USC. Students come to USC not only to learn the theoretical constructs of our modern world, but to be active participants. This makes USC location not only unique, but very much an asset.

A USC education cannot be watered down into a simple set of old and tired adages and the common rankings of the day have not caught up to the ground breaking and innovative approach USC is taking in redefining education. The pursuit of new discoveries, team and independent research, integrating community involvement within the learning process and a diverse community that spans a rich array of socio-economic, cultural and political boundaries is what defines a USC education.

I'm glad you could get that off your chest, conrad. That was clearly pent up inside of you or wonderfully copied and pasted. The intent of my post was certainly not to engage in a debate of who is better that whom, it was simply to skewer one of many smug Trojan posters, many of them who have become tiresome.

As the UCLA representative in this bantorish exhange, I have to agree with you conrad, that it is also old hat when some UCLA supporter writes an otherwise lame post blasting the quality, or lack there of in their opinion, of a USC education. I mean what is the point, really?

However, the most even keeled USC supporter and reader of this blog and the subsequent comments, has to admit that the tenor of the USC faithful- be it both in front of the computer and in the landscape of SoCal- is far more smug and eventually tiresome than that of the UCLA individuals who in this case lob written grenades in return. As a life long LA resident, I rarely engage in such exchanges, but it is amazing how outwardly obnoxious many USC fans can be rather than simply rooting for their team and enjoying their success. I love when UCLA beats USC, but I do not feel the need to immediately beat my chest and boast to everyone within earshot.

Seriousness aside, what I should have also pointed out to USC1966 is that based on the transitive property, if he annoints UCLA, "University of Crap Los Angeles," that would make USC, "University of Southern Crap"! Doh!

I think your generalization and, yes sterotyping, of USC fans is exactly the problem. It seems as though you are implying that in general USC fans are smug and obnoxiuos (even though you classify it as many). Ironically, my experiences with many UCLA fans have been exactly how you would desribe USC fans. Just take a look at the postings on this blog. Regardless, I will not go to a bruin blog and tell them how rude and obnoxius they are - what would be the point?

I didn't grow up in LA so I wasn't "subjected" to the rivalry the way you were so maybe I can see it from a slightly more objective point of view (just maybe)

I have attended many USC games and, with the exception of a very small group of drunken fools, found USC fans to be very classy and much more focused on cheering the team on vs deriding the opponents.

And I wouldn't classify the ability to articulate a coherent thought as pent up energy...

Who cares? Academics is always second to sports and has been since elementary school. All I know is that the better football program resides hand-down at USC. And Pete Carrol is just getting started. This post was about recruiting and we got Joe McKnight and Everson Griffen and UCLA got...I couldn't even tell you to be honest. Any 5 stars?

well at least here...thanks for the reminder scottware. And apologies for the stupid typos in my last post... SC is going to be tough with this roster...

Miguelito, Dont you have a yard to go mow? How are you even able to post on the internet while standing in fornt of a Home Depot?

Once the NCAA gets to Joe McLiar, he'll be playing full time at LA Trade Tech and interning for same agent that Reggie Bush interned for and later signed with.

If the UCLA kicker had been playing for Cheatin Pete, he would still have played in the bowl game. He probably would have lost a little slush fund money, but nothing more than that.

USC has a smaller student to teacher ratio because half of the student body is at LA Trade Tech taking Spanish classes!!

Cheat on!

“…it is amazing how outwardly obnoxious many USC fans can be rather than simply rooting for their team and enjoying their success. I love when UCLA beats USC, but I do not feel the need to immediately beat my chest and boast to everyone within earshot…”

You have got to be kidding me. Were you asleep during the long run UCLA had over USC back in 90’s? You couldn’t stop Bruins from blathering on about their “domination of USC.” You win one game last year and you can’t stop hearing about how our run has ended and now UCLA is on the rise again. What a hypocrite.

2 points, first regarding conrad's comments about going to a bruin blog and tell them how rude and obnoxius they are. My comment was in direct relation to obnoxiousness by certain individuals in this blog as much as in general society. sometimes, points need to be made. If you look at all other comments in any Wolf blog, I have never incessently and repeatedly made taunts or obnoxious claims. In fact as I responded to you earlier, I do not condone idiot Bruin fans who do that as much as an idiot Trojan fans. so to a degree i agree with you, but on occassion the point needs to be made.

Secondly, Larry, I have lived through both long streaks and have attended every UCLA/SC game for the past 24 years. SC fans come out of the woodwork like no other fan base, when their team is winning. Now do get the wrong idea, I loved UCLA's 8 game winning streak, which according to my math is longer than a 7 game winning streak--sorry had to do it in the spirit of our conversation, but UCLA leering was nowhere near the level of that of USC supporters. Now, I will say, that many fans of each school have no affiliation with said school whatsoever, and those fans may be a significant source of obnoxious behavior. but often times, where there is smoke there is fire.

Borno, I think it is fair to say that your perception of the amount of "leering" is highly subjective and prone to bias depending on which side your are standing on. I think you are correct that recently, with USC's success, there has been a large influx of new fans - many of whom probably never attended USC, but I just don't buy the whole your fans are worse than ours position...and by logical extension our fans our better than yours. Do I detect a bit of smugness? ;)

BTW - This thread is dead - lets move on...look forward to more lively debate elsewhere...

I guess I'm akin to JC ressurecting this thread. ::sarcasm::

"However, the most even keeled USC supporter and reader of this blog and the subsequent comments, has to admit that the tenor of the USC faithful- be it both in front of the computer and in the landscape of SoCal- is far more smug and eventually tiresome than that of the UCLA individuals who in this case lob written grenades in return."

I respectfully disagree. I grew up a UCLA fan because of my father. I never recall USC fans gloating. Since UCLA's anomaly-of-a-win, "13-9" is all I've heard. The smug demeanor is a turnoff, and I'm glad to be a Trojan.

"As a life long LA resident, I rarely engage in such exchanges, but it is amazing how outwardly obnoxious many USC fans can be rather than simply rooting for their team and enjoying their success. I love when UCLA beats USC, but I do not feel the need to immediately beat my chest and boast to everyone within earshot."

I have to say, UCLA fans are infinitely more obnoxious. At the Galen Center, UCLA fans weren't goaded; there was an acknowledgement, that's it. At Pauley, I couldn't keep count how many times I was insulted. At the Rose Bowl (not just this year) USC students would generally just yell out "Fight on!" or "Beat the bRUINs!" or variations thereof with sprinkles of colorful language upon seeing UCLA folks (which was every millisecond obviously). At the Coliseum (in the past, of course), UCLA fans would bitch and whine about how they were gonna break the "condoms" (seriously, get new material!). USC fans have enjoyed our success. We didn't go around gallivanting and shouting out our scores. We just sat back and enjoyed. Everywhere, it's "13-9." Case in point, the posts here, which is the Internet equivalent of chest-beating and gloating.

--ashleyatusc

"Once the NCAA gets to Joe McLiar, he'll be playing full time at LA Trade Tech and interning for same agent that Reggie Bush interned for and later signed with."

I have Carroll on the record explaining the situation. McKnight didn't talk to Bush. I don't have my notes on me, but as I recall, another of the USC coaches asked Bush a question McKnight posed and so Carroll answered it when McKnight called later that day. Oh, and Bush didn't sign with that agency.

"If the UCLA kicker had been playing for Cheatin Pete, he would still have played in the bowl game. He probably would have lost a little slush fund money, but nothing more than that."

Are you kidding? Medlock would be gone, gone, gone. And USC isn't UCLA. We don't have a Papa. Therefore, no slush fund. Sorry to disappoint; though I personally wouldn't call it a disappointment that we're not UCLA (G-d forbid).

"USC has a smaller student to teacher ratio because half of the student body is at LA Trade Tech taking Spanish classes!!"

Actually, no. UCLA is the school with all the transfers. Also, keep in mind that after 64 units, (which is about two years) USC students can't transfer in courses from other schools without a preagreed contract. LATT isn't one of the schools with a formal articulation agreement. And USC's Spanish dept. is rather awesome.

"Cheat on!" Coming from the University of Cheating and Lying Asses, I have to laugh.

--ashleyatusc