Whither UCLA Football?
By on April 30, 2008
1,423 reads
Paragon had an interesting discussion on the emerging Neuheisel era over at Conquest Chronicles a day or so back that I wanted to delve a little deeper in to. Here's the crux of the argument:
The only problem? It's a completely ridiculous assertion. College football doesn't work this way. frak even touched on this in the comments:
How so? I'll provide Exhibit A of how focusing solely on defeating your cross-town rival makes the biggest of differences:
Ohio State was not a relevant national player until Jim Tressel showed up. Cooper was hated at Ohio State for focusing on Michigan as 'just another game'. Tressel got it. Unless Ohio State beat Michigan on a regular basis, his tenure was not going to be a success. In fact, it was the only way his tenure was going to be a success. To pretend that Ohio State football existed in a vacuum, and there was no need to pay attention to Michigan was ignoring reality.
What does success against your rival bring? One thing, and one thing alone: Recruiting success. And UCLA needs to begin recruiting at a consistent Top-10 level if they're going to be successful in years to come. The only way they can accomplish this task is if they regularly beat Pete Carroll. And the more you beat Pete Carroll at the recruiting game, the more obvious it will become that Pete Carroll is not that much of a genius of a coach.
The deification of Pete Carroll is a bit absurd. He was a .500 football coach in the pros. It does not take rocket science to figure out what he has been so successful at the collegiate level. It is not a 'life's work of philosophy' - it's being the 4th choice in a coaching search, some dumb luck, a gangbusters recruiting philosophy, and football acumen. I will repeat: Pete Carroll is not a genius. College football is not terribly difficult to figure out: recruit well, don't try to invent complex schemes that take four years to learn, and let the athletes out-muscle the weaker, slower, and smaller team.
Pete Carroll is a genius? Their general offensive philosophy is not complex: there's no 'spread the field' formations, there's nothing exotic about any of it. It's line up, hit the other team, and run. This is not Urban Meyer or even Mike Leach we're talking about here. There's nothing about USC's philosophy that 'changes the game'. All they do is open up 10 yard holes for their running backs to plow through, and give their quarterback the literal equivalent of a year-and-a-half to complete a pass. Given that much time, my one-armed uncle could successfully complete passes. A genius? Maybe on a recruiting basis, sure - but the offensive and defensive schemes are not rocket science. USC does not disguise blitz packages, they do not line up in exotic offensive or defensive formations. They just beat you off the ball. That's it. It's not genius. It's called executing with better players.
And yet, we all talk about Pete Carroll in hushed tones as though he discovered a way to desalinate water, solve global warming, and feed seals. Carroll is good at two things: recruiting, and motivation. You know who else is great at those two things? Mark Richt. You take away either one of their recruiting advantages, and guess what? They're both not going to be very good coaches.
I agree, focusing on only beating USC gets UCLA nowhere. However, short-term, it generates enough recruiting interest in the school that the natural advantage that USC has experienced over UCLA vis-a-vis recruiting hopefully starts to even out. We can all assume, based on reports - that Neuheisel should be a good motivator. If he can close that recruiting gap, the rest of the pieces will fall in place.
And closing that recruiting gap starts with one thing, and one thing alone: beating USC. Do that, and the rest will follow.
Just ask Jim Tressel.
Talk about throwing the kid to the wolves, and they still have no O line to protect him. Sure at some point ucla will be relevant again, they can't afford not to, but this obsession with USC and how we do it leaves me scratching my head. Do your own thing at your own pace and stop worrying about someone else.An admirable thought, to be sure - namely, that UCLA needs to only accomplish what they believe they can accomplish, regardless of how they perform against their biggest rival?
The only problem? It's a completely ridiculous assertion. College football doesn't work this way. frak even touched on this in the comments:
In fact, the only game that really matters for the bruins next season is against Pete Carroll. Pete Carroll is the driving force behind everything that the bruins do. They don't care about bowl games, or championships. The only thing that matters is beating USC.He's right, of course. Will UCLA football be relevant again? Yes, but right now, the focus has to remain on defeating USC. UCLA could finish 2-10 next year, and so long as one of those wins was against USC, a segment of UCLA's fan base would be happy. Is that kinda' ridiculous? Yes - defining your success based on beating your rival alone is kinda' funny - but that's the reality of the situation. And if often makes you a far better team in the long run.A ucla coach can not hope to keep his job if he is consistently embarrassed by his cross town rival. Neuheisel knows this. Hes read all the press, and hes looked at all the blogs, and he knows just how much USC is a monkey on the bruin's back.
How so? I'll provide Exhibit A of how focusing solely on defeating your cross-town rival makes the biggest of differences:
Ohio State was not a relevant national player until Jim Tressel showed up. Cooper was hated at Ohio State for focusing on Michigan as 'just another game'. Tressel got it. Unless Ohio State beat Michigan on a regular basis, his tenure was not going to be a success. In fact, it was the only way his tenure was going to be a success. To pretend that Ohio State football existed in a vacuum, and there was no need to pay attention to Michigan was ignoring reality.
What does success against your rival bring? One thing, and one thing alone: Recruiting success. And UCLA needs to begin recruiting at a consistent Top-10 level if they're going to be successful in years to come. The only way they can accomplish this task is if they regularly beat Pete Carroll. And the more you beat Pete Carroll at the recruiting game, the more obvious it will become that Pete Carroll is not that much of a genius of a coach.
The deification of Pete Carroll is a bit absurd. He was a .500 football coach in the pros. It does not take rocket science to figure out what he has been so successful at the collegiate level. It is not a 'life's work of philosophy' - it's being the 4th choice in a coaching search, some dumb luck, a gangbusters recruiting philosophy, and football acumen. I will repeat: Pete Carroll is not a genius. College football is not terribly difficult to figure out: recruit well, don't try to invent complex schemes that take four years to learn, and let the athletes out-muscle the weaker, slower, and smaller team.
Pete Carroll is a genius? Their general offensive philosophy is not complex: there's no 'spread the field' formations, there's nothing exotic about any of it. It's line up, hit the other team, and run. This is not Urban Meyer or even Mike Leach we're talking about here. There's nothing about USC's philosophy that 'changes the game'. All they do is open up 10 yard holes for their running backs to plow through, and give their quarterback the literal equivalent of a year-and-a-half to complete a pass. Given that much time, my one-armed uncle could successfully complete passes. A genius? Maybe on a recruiting basis, sure - but the offensive and defensive schemes are not rocket science. USC does not disguise blitz packages, they do not line up in exotic offensive or defensive formations. They just beat you off the ball. That's it. It's not genius. It's called executing with better players.
And yet, we all talk about Pete Carroll in hushed tones as though he discovered a way to desalinate water, solve global warming, and feed seals. Carroll is good at two things: recruiting, and motivation. You know who else is great at those two things? Mark Richt. You take away either one of their recruiting advantages, and guess what? They're both not going to be very good coaches.
I agree, focusing on only beating USC gets UCLA nowhere. However, short-term, it generates enough recruiting interest in the school that the natural advantage that USC has experienced over UCLA vis-a-vis recruiting hopefully starts to even out. We can all assume, based on reports - that Neuheisel should be a good motivator. If he can close that recruiting gap, the rest of the pieces will fall in place.
And closing that recruiting gap starts with one thing, and one thing alone: beating USC. Do that, and the rest will follow.
Just ask Jim Tressel.
Flag
Props (0)
This article is
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?
USC Football: Like this team?
6 Comments
Loading comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete