Answer Tuesday! (Part 6)
Here's a question on some interesting comments from across town.
Q: What your take on these comments by Rick Neuheusel: http://usc.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/09/usc-football-neuheisel-burns-on-trojans/22059/#more-22059
Is UCLA closing in on USC in recruiting?
A: I believe every recruit should go where they want. And if they want playing time, UCLA might be the choice. But from those comments, I'd wonder how the Neuheisel ``corporation'' is doing these days with a 3-3 record in Year 2? He mentioned ``coaching resumes'' but well-coached teams usually get better as the season progresses. So, as usual, I don't put much stock in comments like these, whether they come from Neuheisel or Pete Carroll.
We won't know until the end of the year if anyone is closing on anyone else in recruiting.
"But if you look historically, I came to UCLA in 1979, there have been 30 games since 1979, (it’s) USC 15, UCLA 14, and one tie. They’re very even.” - Neuheisel.
Uh, Rick, let's see. Grandpa Joe came to SC in 1929. Since then, SC is 43-28-7 vs. UCLA. They're not very even.
Uh, Rick, Pete Carroll came to USC in 2001. Since then, SC is 7-1. They're not very even.
No, Ricky, unfortunately for you the "monopoly" is alive and well at SC.
Uhh, Brent. Maybe you never got one of those Christmas cards that went, "Ho, Ho, Ho!!! Eight in a row!!! from one of your Bruin friends. If you had you'd be a little more humble. As evidenced by the 2006 debacle this thing can turn on a dime.
SlickRick, you have not passed go, you have not collected $200.00. Roll the dice it's still your turn....
Brent --to bad you were not at some press conference where Rick made such a comment and you could then make your appropriate retort.
He would have to become speechless.
Good response.
Hey, Barney, since 2006 the dime has sure turned. SC 2, Ruins 0. As long as Pete Carroll is at SC you're toast, Pal. It's like John Wooden reincarnated on the right side of town. Without Sam Gilbert buying cars and paying for abortions.
Barney, those eight years were a dark period (coupled with ND's streak). However, most of the games were highly competitive, whereas USC has dominated the last 9 years (excluding 2006) against UCLA.
During its win streak, UCLA's average margin of victory was 7.1 pts (USC 200- UCLA 257). Six of the games were 7 pts or less.
1991 L 21-24
1992 L 37-38
1993 L 21-27
1994 L 19-31
1995 L 20-24
1996 L 41-48(2OT)
1997 L 24-31
1998 L 17-34
USC's average margin of victory in the 8 wins noted below was 23.25 pts (328-142). Throw in the loss, and it is 20.2 pts (337-155) over the last 9 games. UCLA has been competitive in only 2 of the last 8 games:
1999 W 17-7
2000 W 38-35
2001 W 27-0
2002 W 52-21
2003 W 47-22
2004 W 29-24
2005 W 66-19
2006 L 9-13
2007 W 24-7
2008 W 28-7
USC is Park Place. UCLA is Baltic Avenue.
Leave it up to uscmike to put it all into perspective.
Moreover, SUCLA did nothing with that 8-game winning streak. Their 1998 team was their best and all they had to do was beat Miami to go to the National Championship game, but they lost. And they went to two Rose Bowls during their streak where they got beat twice, by Wisconsin.
Pretty sad. That's why it it really tough being a bruin.
The weird thing about UCLA fans is that they forget to mention that USC had more Rose Bowl wins during UCLA's dominance.
What do you expect Ricky to say? I'd also spin it that way. I actually hope fucla gets better so when we beat them it would mean something.
Fight on, USCMike!