Was 13-9 really worth it?

by bruinmike88 on Dec 11, 2007 1:35 PM PST Comment 14 comments

In hindsight, was our win against SC last year the worst thing that could have happened to our program? Let's take a look at what has unfolded as a result:

Pros:
-We kept our record for the longest win streak in the rivalry.
-We stopped SC from reaching the national championship game where presumably they would have spanked Ohio State.
-We beat SC!

Cons:
-We were stuck with another year of KD hell and made to believe that 2007 would finally be THE YEAR.
-Dewayne Walker became the man who masterminded the biggest win ever (!) and thus indispensable in the minds of the UCLA athletic department and the idiot general fan base.
-Our defense got full of itself and thought they could win games just by stepping on the field, and thus didn't take lesser games seriously, leading to embarrassments like those perpetuated in Salt Lake City, Pullman, and Tucson.

So while it was a huge win for us in terms of the rivalry, I can't see any way in which it improved the long-term health of our football program. In a way, it's the game where Dewayne Walker largely and unbelievably usurped Terry Donahue's status as godfather of UCLA football. Walker firmly entrenched himself within the program and made himself the de facto shot caller somehow, almost purely due to the legacy of that win, and we're going to be stuck with him and HIS CHOICE for head coach (I can't believe I just wrote that) Norm Chow for a long time.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

13-9 was like a one-night stand

and now we have to deal with the STD issues.

by bluegold on Dec 11, 2007 2:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

If we lost that game SUC's streak would . ..

be 9 and counting. It was worth it . . . not unlike most one-night stands.

by charnaw on Dec 11, 2007 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe we got a STD...

but man, that chick was smokin' hot! It was so worth it.

by bornagainbruin on Dec 11, 2007 6:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm

I think we would have been in the same exact situation we are in now. The injury bug has really taken it's toll on our team this season, and it was better off that it happened to the doofus, and not some new coach. While next year does not look very promising for the Bruins, a new coach with a new system taxed by injuries such as we had this year would have knocked us back 5 years. At least now we can start off with a good recruiting class coming in.

by SunshineSandwich on Dec 11, 2007 2:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

5 years?

Nothing in college football is 5 years. 5 years in college football is an eternity. Five years ago it looked like Maurice Clarett was gonna win 2 Heismans... at the least.

by njbruin on Dec 11, 2007 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yup

Exactly. If a new coach would have come in and tanked, it would take him 5 years (eternity) to get back into a position to even win the PAC-10.

by SunshineSandwich on Dec 11, 2007 2:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Ugh

I have posted at least two long diatribes about this ridiculously idiotic belief that it will take UCLA 5 years to contend again. Under any scenario it will not. UCLA needs 2 or 3 years with a skilled coach at most. Two or three years is the amount of time it takes to get a team up and running.

Of course, this is on the condition you have a skilled coach worth a damn. If you don't, it will never happen. Which is the point.

Get the right guy in there and it takes 2 or 3 years. Unless the team is Rutgers 2000 level of bad, then it takes 5. But UCLA is not Rutgers 2000 nor even close.

by njbruin on Dec 11, 2007 3:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

READ!

I am not saying it WILL taken UCLA 5 years to contend in the current situation, I am saying that if a new coach would have come in and had the same injury bug hit in his first year implementing new systems, etc, it would have been a killer.

by SunshineSandwich on Dec 11, 2007 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Just Ask Dodger and LA Kings Fans

Was the 1988 WC worth it? Only one post-season game win in next 19 seasons.

Was 1993 Stanley Cup final appearance worth it? Only two playoff series victories in next 14 seasons.

The false sense of security that befell those franchises after nearly miraculous achievements also struck down the UCLA FB program in the wake of 13-9.

by 78Bruin on Dec 11, 2007 2:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

yes!!!

13-9 will live on in the Bruins' lore forever and our streak of 8 consecutive wins will hopefully remain as the longest one (unless we beat $C by even more games!)

While Dorrell's final year will eventually fade away over the years (much like that slick-hair ex-b-ball coach)... I know it feels like crap (or STD, as bluegold puts it) right now but those 3 Cons are NOT the direct result of 13-9... they are really more the indicators of the Dorrell/Dorrellistas/coaching-search foolishness!

And if we do choose DW or NC as our coach (in due time "perhaps likely" proven to be the wrong choice), we can blame DG or TD, but not 13-9.

So IMHO, 13-9 is definitely worth it!!!

by HK Bruin on Dec 11, 2007 6:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yes it was worth it

It is always worth it. I don't care if we only win by 1 point each time.

And, we keep them from the national championship game?

And, we are the first team to hold them under 20 points in 63 games?

You have to ask?

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Dec 11, 2007 6:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yes!

it was worth it. DG should have still fired Dorrell. But SuC will have a very hard time matching our 8 win record. That is for a long time. Unless of course we hire the wrong coach ... then the program could end up in a long term tailspin. Still, at this point, we have a shot to turn it around.

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

by BruinCore on Dec 11, 2007 6:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Wouldn't of Mattered

Even had we lost that game he would have been back for this year. He was one year removed from being "Pac 10 Coach of the Year" (vomit), had just found the bestest most awesome Defensive Coordinator, had all those returning players, so there is no doubt in my mind even if we lost he would have been given 1 more year to "right the ship".
Plus, Streeter aside, the race issue didn't really come up this year, pretty much because everyone acknowledges he was given plenty of time to do something. Had he been fired last year I don't think that would have been the case, again for the reasons given above.

by Insomnia333 on Dec 11, 2007 9:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It was worth it.

Beating justsc is worth a lot. In this case, we sacrificed a year of our lives, but that's not a bad trade for a win over a team that was talking about having the NC in their hip pockers, right next to their fat wallets.

by Fox 71 on Dec 12, 2007 6:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs