Mandel > Local Beat Press

by Tydides on Nov 25, 2007 5:51 PM PST in Football Comment 18 comments

It's a credit to Stewart Mandel that he is able to keep tabs on everything that is going on in college football. It is an insult to our local press that Mandel covers the Bruins better than most of our local writers.

In his "Five Things We Learned This Weekend" section, we start off with a little bit of humor regarding the idiot bandwagon fans across town.

Ever since the Trojans' Thanksgiving-night smackdown of then seventh-ranked Arizona State, it seems USC fans have reemerged from their two-month hibernation to resume thumping their chests.

As Trojans LB Brian Cushing said after the Arizona State game, "We're starting to play like the team people thought we'd be." But they still shouldn't have lost to Stanford.

With all due respect to the aforementioned teams, it may well be that the two best teams in the country right now are USC and Georgia ... but so what? If the Trojans wanted to play for the championship, they shouldn't have lost to arguably the worst team in their conference...

Emphasis mine of course. Let me see if I can summarize this... Mandel to trOJan Whiners: S.T.F.U.
Just the way it should be.
I also enjoyed his subtle shot at their infamously fickle bandwagon riding fanbase. I bet at least half of them had to buy all new ketchup and mustard crap after their loss to Oregon because they burned the first set.

Now that I've gotten the whole rivalry week smack out of the way, let's get to the good (or bad) stuff, where it pertains to our Bruins:

UCLA could reach the BCS. I'm sorry ... what? Yes, it's true. Of all the strange postseason scenarios still floating around, I don't think you possibly find one any more bizarre than the fact that the Bruins, who just reached bowl eligibility this weekend, are still technically alive for the Rose Bowl.

No one is more shocked than we are.

The craziest part of all is, just as easily as the 6-5 Bruins could go to the Rose Bowl, they could also go to no bowl at all if they lose. If Arizona does beat ASU, it would give the Pac-10 seven bowl-eligible teams for six spots and almost assuredly restrict them to one BCS berth. Guess which would be the odd team out in that scenario? Yep -- the same team that's playing for a Rose Bowl berth next week.

Anyone need more evidence that there is nothing that should save the Doofus' job? If this confluence of events EVER happens again, I will be surprised. One game decides whether we go to the ROSE BOWL or NO BOWL AT ALL? What's worse, we don't control our own destiny. All I see here is opportunity wasted. In a season where we were supposed to show the country what we were made of. Where preseason pundits proclaimed that 10 wins would be the bare minimum expectation in Westwood, we sit on the precipice going into the last game of the season. Bowl eligibility means nothing if you don't go to a bowl.

His final point puts the injury excuse to bed:

A little more detail on that 16-0 UCLA win over Oregon: The Bruins netted a grand total of 220 yards of offense, the Ducks 148. The only touchdown of the game came with 4:29 remaining. This was not the result of two epic defenses so much as it was that both teams are one more injury away from having to hold open tryouts at quarterback.

I weep for anyone who had to watch this game.

Even so, the injury trend has hardly been limited to the Bruins and Ducks. USC (John David Booty), Cal (Nate Longshore) and Washington (Jake Locker) have all had to play games without their top signal-callers as well...

Okay, he did think OR's first name was Omar, but I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of every team's full depth chart either, so we'll cut him some slack here. Besides underscoring the inherent unwatchability of the game itself, he rightfully points out that plenty of teams have had injury woes, and I believe we played 3 of the teams he mentions and beat all of them. I didn't see people breaking out the injury excuse for our opponents. I guess injuries are only a valid explanation if it's your own team. Injuries are a part of the game. They are not an excuse, and not having a contingency plan is unacceptable. Not having the personnel to execute that contingency plan is unacceptable. Karl Dorrell's butchery of this season is unacceptable. If UCLA is serious about football, the outcome of this upcoming game will be irrelevant to the decision to fire Dorrell. Unless the administration thinks that we'll have a chance to back into a Rose Bowl and Pac 10 Championship with 3 conference losses and 5 overall losses every year.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Opportunity Wasted

That is the underlying theme of this season and Dorrell's miserable career at UCLA.

Great column by Mandel and as always superb effort in breaking down for us T.

I have been thinking all day and I still cannot fired up for this game. There is nothing in me that is excited to see ugly, unwatchable Dorrellian football.

Last year was a little different because we had the STREAK on the line. But nothing like that is line for us except for a miracle shot at a Rose Bowl, we have no business playing in. I am going to watch the game. And my heart will be rooting for the blue and gold. But my brain is already set for Monday.

by Nestor on Nov 25, 2007 6:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Ulcer/nausea medicine

Tape the game, then find out if we won. It makes it a lot easier to watch, plus you can fast forward past all the crapola and watch the whole thing in a relatively short time.

And you won't be all that worked up over things.

by Fox 71 on Nov 25, 2007 7:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

One (meaningless) caveat re. the bowl situation

If we were to beat $C next week, UCLA would be guaranteed a bowl game no matter the result of Arizona/ASU. My understanding of the bowl selection process (as stated by Mandel, as well as other "authorities") is that before a 6-win team (Arizona) can be selected to a bowl game, every 7+ win team from the same conference must be placed in a bowl game. In which case, Arizona is the odd man out (assuming Cal beats Stanford, getting its 7th win).

Of course, a loss to the $uc'sters would make this meaningless: either Arizona loses and we go to the Bell Helicopter bowl, or Arizona wins. With a more impressive resume, they likely get the final Pac-10 bid. Alternatively, If Cal loses to Stanford and Arizona wins, those 2 teams + UCLA form a pool from which the final two Pac-10 bowls (Emerald and Bell Helicopter) select.

by bruinhoo on Nov 25, 2007 6:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Apparently the bowl order has changed

According to this, the Las Vegas Bowl is now the 5th place bowl. If we end up in Vegas, we will play BYU again.

by SuperBruinMan on Nov 25, 2007 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the bowl correction

forgot about the Emerald/LV switch. Can't say that LV would be a bad game for us (at least in a selfish manner), as I will be in Vegas in the week leading up to the bowl, and would go if KD had been fired prior to the game. Can't say that a BYU matchup would be that compelling however.

Under my second scenario, I assume that the 4 7+ win teams would be claimed by the top 4 pac-10 bowls, leaving Arizona, Cal, and UCLA to fight over the Las Vegas Bowl and the Bell Helicopter/Ft Worth Bowl. I imagine that LV would pick Cal, and Bell would select Arizona (better chance of getting fans to travel from AZ to Texas than from California, as well as a more positive vibe (for lack of better words) for AZ than UCLA (Arizona not expecting much success, while UCLA falling well below expectations = AZ fans more likely to make the trip to this lower-tier game).

by bruinhoo on Nov 25, 2007 7:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Bowl nightmare scenario

As the above posts have gotten me into thinking about the possible bowl placements and matchups, several hypothetical bowl placements for the Pac-10 have come to mind, dependant on the results
of next weekend's games. Given a set of results that are quite possible to occur, a nightmare scenario of sorts arises regarding the Pac-10 bowl slate. This nightmare may apply equally to UCLA's chances, as well as to the selection committees of lower ranking Pac-10 bowls.

If: U$C d. UCLA, Cal d. Stanford, and Oregon St. d. Oregon: The top 3 bowl tie-ins would be reasonably set, with $C in the Rose Bowl, the Holiday Bowl choosing ASU/OSU, and the Sun Bowl choosing the remainder of ASU/OSU [an Arizona win over ASU would solidify this theory, removing the slight possibility of ASU gaining a BCS-at large bid].

After the Rose/Holiday/Sun select teams, 3 bowls are left (Emerald, Las Vegas, Bell Helicopter, in order of selection) to choose from 3 or 4 teams (Oregon 8-4, Cal 7-5, UCLA 6-6, possibly Arizona at 6-6).

While Oregon is the #4 Pac-10 team in this scenario, I believe that the Emerald Bowl would jump Oregon and take Cal instead, as Cal would likely be a better draw for a Bay Area bowl game.

This leaves the Las Vegas Bowl to pick next, with a set of unappealing teams from which to choose. Again, the seemingly logical pick is Oregon. However this would set up a rematch of last year's game against BYU (as the MWC representative), which the bowl committee is likely loathe to repeat. The second option, of course, is the 6-6 Bruins. While this may encourage a number of Bruin fans to make the post x-mas trip to Vegas (good from the local standpoint), this sets up a rematch of our September game v. BYU, also not ideal from a bowl committee standpoint. If the choice is between Oregon and UCLA, I can't say what the choice would be, but that the LV Bowl organizers won't be very happy. If Arizona beats ASU, I could actually see Arizona being selected over both teams. While Arizona also has recent history vs. BYU (7-20 loss in September), it comes into bowl season with the strongest momentum (4-0, including wins over Oregon and UCLA) and would likely induce fans to make the trek to Vegas. [*assuming that the bowl can choose a 6-6 team over a 8-4 team, with an open bowl tie-in remaining for the 8-4 team]

This leaves the new Bell Helicopters Ft. Worth Bowl. If Arizona does not become bowl eligible, it takes the leftover from the Las Vegas Bowl, taking either a flatlining Oregon team, or a disappointing UCLA squad. While such teams would help from a publicity/TV standpoint, neither team is likely to bring many fans to Fort Worth. Arizona bowl eligibility, I believe would make circumstances more palatable for the bowl; it would be the ideal choice for this bowl committee. If Arizona is bowl eligible, and Oregon has already been selected, the bowl would take Arizona, due to; 1) better resume for Arizona compared to UCLA, 2) proximity/ease of travel for Arizona fans (fans are more likely to travel from Arizona to see a surging team than from LA/Portland/San Francisco to see a bad Oregon or UCLA team).

Short story, if Arizona and southern cal win on Saturday, UCLA stays home. An ASU victory means that UCLA goes bowling, but the Vegas/Bell bowls (particularly Vegas) face unfavorable selection choices.

by bruinhoo on Nov 25, 2007 8:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Bowl selection rule clarification

from the NCAA bowl handbook(page 9, unable to copy). It would seem that a bowl cannot leapfrog a 6-6 team over a remaining 7-5 or 8-4 team. The language of the rule may allow for an opening for a bowl to take the 6-6 team if the better team would otherwise be guaranteed to be selected for a bowl game, but likely not worth the effort of argument.

by bruinhoo on Nov 25, 2007 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

you are correct

the end result is that the last bowl, the 6th bowl, would have to choose between 6-6 Arizona or 6-6 UCLA in the aforementioned scenario. It's not a lock that we go to a bowl.

editor, DumpDorrell.com ... formerly posted as DumpDorrell

by BruinCore on Nov 25, 2007 9:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If Arizona wins...

Our game earlier in the day will have determined whether we go to the Rose Bowl or no bowl at all.

by SuperBruinMan on Nov 25, 2007 10:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My question is...

when did Simers become such a pathetic kiss-ass C***? Could the LA times get any worse? Could it be any more meaningless?

I'm really starting to fear KD will be around next year. This injury BULL$SHIT is too easy an excuse that's getting too much momentum and would let DG off the hook from having to do some really heavy lifting.

If KD is back, I'm done. No donations. No football or BB season tix... I'll probably call KD every day and send him charred UCLA swag a couple of times a month... as it is, it's impossible to root for (not hate )UCLA football, for me that carries over to everything as much as I wish it didn't. Because as much as I love UCLA, I hate the people and the attitude that it's okay to suck at football too much.

How hard is it to at least try at football?

Oh, and I think it's top 5 teams from the Pac 10 are guaranteed bowl spots but I'm not positive.

by greatgymnasticschool on Nov 25, 2007 7:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Pac-10 bowl guarantees

it is the Rose Bowl (Pac-10 champion) plus 5 lower bowls, which would customarily go to the 2nd-6th place teams. However, the lower bowls are not restricted in which teams they choose, assuming; 1) bowl eligibility, and 2) that no 6-6 team can be picked unless all 7-5 and better teams are guaranteed a bowl game. I am unclear if the second requirement means that a bowl cannot choose a 6-6 team if a 7-5 team remains, or if a 6-6 team can be chosen if a 7-5 team remains and at least 1 tied-in bowl remains.

by bruinhoo on Nov 25, 2007 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It might be a good sign

Slimers likes to say the opposite of the majority opinion just to stir the pot and gain notoriety. If he's talking about keeping the Doofus, then the majority must realize that he must be fired.

by Tydides on Nov 25, 2007 7:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oregon Game: Injury BS

Excuse me, but KD had his first string QB and RB ready to play in the game -- and, in fact, they did play.

Am I the only one who saw Olson and Markey in the game? Am I the only one who remembers that they were our starters?

So, apologists, can't use that excuse as an explanation of our dismal O against Oregon.

How can people spout this stuff. Even a geezer like me remembers that Olson and Markey played.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Nov 25, 2007 7:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Another Dorrell classic line...

He noted that yesterday the offensive line had a problem communicating. How hard is it to yell, "there he goes" when a defensive lineman runs past the invisible offensive line? After all, every team has been doing it for years...

by Gary72 on Nov 25, 2007 10:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Fouts was saying..

A couple of things I recall Fouts or the other guy saying during the game:

A) Just generally questioning the UCLA play calling
B) Said Dorrell had done himself no favors by playing the race card
C) Mentioned the injuries, but didn't really lay the season on them.

Bob O. (Signholder #3)

by TuneMan7 on Nov 26, 2007 5:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Las Vegas = No Toast

If the Bruins go to the Las Vegas Bowl, let's hope history repeats and Ed Kezarian is the interim coach.

by Bruin77 on Nov 26, 2007 8:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Can hope, but unlikely that Vegas picks the Bruins

unless we beat southern cal. To avoid the rematch with BYU, I believe that Cal would be picked. If Cal wins, it can do no worse than the Vegas Bowl (nor could Oregon), and UCLA would fall to the Bell Helicopters/Armed Forces Bowl.

If Arizona and Southern cal win, we likely stay home.

by bruinhoo on Nov 26, 2007 9:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know how they spout this stuff

UCLA didn't look that great before Olsen got injured. And maybe Olsen and Cowan wouldn't have gotten injured if the offensive line had been better coached.

by Chandler on Nov 26, 2007 9:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs