Why don't we just leave it at that he's sticking with his committment to UCLA.

I'm getting pretty tired of all this USC vs UCLA pushing, pulling, and controversy on this blog over recruits.

All this discussion is pointless. Here's how it will go...

If UCLA holds it's own again this year in the big game and has a decent season (8-4 or better) then the bulk of the players that signed with UCLA will stick with their commitments. Dorrell would have saved his job permanently and the PAC-10 would be well on it's way to restoring it's national respectability. (Something that's been very hard to do when writers constantly refer to your conference as USC and the 9 dwarves)

If on the other hand UCLA reverts back to it's old ways (and wastes the Pre-Season Top 10 good will that is now being foisted on it by most writers) by finishing 7-5 or worse again with a blowout loss to USC. Then a bunch of guys will jump ship - guaranteed. Not so much because they were only committed to UCLA for the chance to play and beat USC (thought that's a large part) but more so because the program will be in major upheaval. Dorrell will be out on his ass, back looking for a NFL WR coaches job and 13-9 would have been for naught.

UCLA is experiencing now what Cal did in 2004 the season after they beat USC in triple OT. (Strangely enough the last time USC was breaking in a new QB, trying to replace a Heisman winner, and lost in a close game on the road).

The country and it's myopic East Coast trained sportswriters have turned their eyes west once more in the hopes of seeing a giant crumble.

It didn't work out too well for Cal in 2004 who put up a fight but were, by the end, a footnote in USC's championship season. I'm interested to see if UCLA can do better. They have the defense...I'm just not sold on their offensive improvements. They'll need it coming to the Coliseum this year. USC hasn't lost in the Coliseum since September 2001. (And no that's not a typo)

UCLA is having a very good recruiting season, possibly its best in the last 5 years or more. It's true that some of their commits are good caliber and could very well play at USC (especially the ones in the top 100). But remeber that these two schools have different recruiting philosophies: UCLA could almotst guarantee a top 100 recruit that they will get playing time because they don't have anyone better on their roster (this is not a criticism but an objective observation).

USC, on the other hand, and Pete Carroll in particular, is offering recruits the opportunity to compete for a starting job. The UCLA commits probably don't want that type of uncertainty, and we don't want players that later change their minds (like it might happen with some of our tailbacks after this season is over).

All in all, let UCLA get their recruits.

Tyler, good post and good thoughts: If the UCLA recruits change their mind at the end of the year (after what unfortunately might be another disappointing UCLA season) and want to compete for a job at SC, come join us, we're the only NFL team in L.A.!!

Fight on!

Central Valley, nice comment and a reasonable take on the difference between the teams. You are right, the level of talent at UCLA is not on par with SC and that might persuade some recruits to pick the Bruins.

Also remember, that UCLA has close to 20 Senior starters this season. That's a lot of positions to fill. Even if the Bruins did have great talent (which I think there are some good ones in the blue-and-gold), they'll be leaving for the NFL anyways.

It isn't just a matter of guys not wanting to compete or feeling they couldn't start at USC. There are just a lot more opportunities in Westwood next year.

always a log jam of talent at SC!