When Rich Perelman stepped down as the LA Times blogger for "What's Bruin", many eyebrows were raised when they chose a SUC hack like Adam Rose to take over. He tried to maintain that he could be objective, and while he may be able to do so from here on out, this was certainly not the case two years ago, when he displayed a propensity for lying and spinning worthy of a trOJan, but certainly not worthy of a journalist. In the interest of fairness, from the Anals (yes, one N) of bad writing, we present you with Adam Rose's Verbal Diarrhea.
I will not link the article, as it is better not to reward his mental deficiency with hits at "laist", but I will block the relevant points that show why Rose is just another typical trOJan SCumbag. He calls this dreck "Why (SUC) Haters Are Lame".
FLAME #1: USC breaks all the rules.
USC has faced lots of allegations over the past year, but that's due to the increased scrutiny that comes with the national spotlight. Notice that I didn't say "convictions" or "violations." The team has managed itself far better than Thug U and they didn't demonstrate the same handicap that plagued the Bruins. As for Reggie Bush, nothing seems to stick to him (kinda' like most college defenders over the past three years). If anything shady happened, look to his step dad. This is the same guy who alienated USC fans when declaring that Reggie would go pro several weeks before Reggie made his decision official. There won't exactly be any tears shed in the land of Troy if he goes down for something.
Adam is allegedly a journalist, which means that technically he should be just as capable of digging up any of the items on the laundry list of transgressions under Pom Pom, Timmeh, et al. Keeping in mind that this "article" was written in 2006, I wonder how his clairvoyance regarding the Bu$h situation is working out. Last time I checked, Reggie is still on the hook and the justice department is now involved with SUC's cheating because of Mayo's shady entourage setting up a fake charity. Great call, Adam. Maybe you can pick the Patriots over the Giants in this past year's Superbowl too.
FLAME #2: USC fans are bandwagon.
Of course there are bandwagon fans in Los Angeles. Does anybody else remember what Laker car flags looked like? They were yellow. I remember some very empty stands while the Trojans slumped through a 5-7 season in 2000. I even traveled hundreds of miles to watch a squad dubbed "the worst football team in USC history." Why would anybody subject themselves to that sort of loyalty? Because when I wasn't sitting in the stands I was sitting in class with a much maligned (a so-called underachiever before he took home the Heisman). Students are the best fans (followed closely by alumni) because they are more dedicated, more passionate, and more connected with the student-athletes. As a student-fan, I appreciated the support from non-student diehards when we were loosing, but I couldn't be upset with the large bandwagon that came shortly after USC's last non-bowl loss in 2003 (and yes, I was on the road for that game, too). The students and alumni have always been there. To everybody else, welcome aboard.
By that I mean a simple google search for football attendance reveals that the season Adam talks about was when the trOJans drew 57 thousand per game in Paul Hackett's final year. Even a bumbler like Karl Dorrell drew 76 thousand in his final year as a lame duck coach (although those numbers were likely inflated due to ND). Bob Toledo as a lame duck? 65 thousand. Yes, lame duck coaches are a good metric, because by that time, the bandwagon fans are gone and the team hasn't had success in a while. So is Adam arrogant enough to say that his sole presence in 2000 offsets this difference of thousands? Well he is a trOJan isn't he? Seems that he doesn't even have a point in this paragraph except to namedrop Carson Palmer like a giddy schoolgirl. Although he's right in his implication that Palmer has gone on to do great things, like this:
I suppose the thousands fewer fans that the trOJans drew than the Bruins did in similar situations is evidence that trOJans aren't bandwagoners...oops? Adam: YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.
FLAME #3: USC is an ivory tower dynasty. Damn Yankees, errr, Trojans.
USC's fans are actually cheering for something that has taken shape over just the last 5 years. Pete Carroll has built something from nothing, taking over a team that had just recaptured the Victory Bell after 8 long seasons, and did it all while being looked down upon as an NFL retread. Unlike other sports dynasties which do it with money (ahem, Yankees), Carroll energizes the team with his own youthful enthusiasm and energy. Other coaches don't take snaps with the team in practice, and that attitude is part of the reason he was able to recruit the best players despite the modern era of NCAA scholarship parity. While the NFL's version of parity gives the best team the last draft pick (and only one per round), Carroll takes future top picks into his program en-mass.
"Today, ivory tower usually describes a metaphysical space of solitude and sanctity disconnected from daily realities, where certain idealistic writers endeavor and even some scientists are considered to reside."
That phrase. It does not mean what you think it means, Adam. Given what has transpired since then regarding Bu$h and Mayo, his line about sports dynasties not doing it with money is particularly hilarious. Even if we ignore that, the Yankees are a professional franchise and are within their rights to build their team however they want, SUC is supposedly an amateur football program. Criticizing the Yankees for building a team with money and holding up SUC as virtuous because they "don't" is one of the most fallacious arguments I've ever heard. I've never heard anyone flame SUC as an "Ivory Tower Dynasty". You know why? BECAUSE THAT PHRASE DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. The rest can only be described as brainless fluff, much like Petey the "Humanitarian" or Petey the "Physical Genius". "HE TAKES SNAPS WITH THE TEAM, OMG." Hope you didn't cream your shorts, Adam. I'm sure those snaps are the reason that they want to go to SUC. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the free flatscreen TVs in their dorm rooms or free houses. I'm sure no one at SUC knew anything about that.
FLAME #4: USC is the University of Second Choice.
Stay classy, Bruins. I'm sure those erudite scholars of Westwood realize this is an ad hominum, or "straw man," attack (the last cry of a desperate orator). Different institutions are going to be better at different things (USC gets the gridiron, UCLA gets the hardcourt, USC gets film, UCLA gets medicine). When painting the schools with a broad brush, remember that USC was recently named Time-Princeton School of the Year, and that the incoming Freshman class has a 3.7 GPA and middle 50% SAT range of 1290-1430. Once somebody becomes a Trojan, they become part of a network so strong it's known as the USC Mafia. And if sports are your thing, USC and UCLA are neck and neck for the national lead once football championships are factored into the NCAA rankings (which don't officially crown a champion). When it comes down to it, which championship is more impressive, football or men's gymnastics? (Sidebar: After (UCLA and SUC), Stanford is third. With Cal ranking just outside the top 10, California is by far the top college sport state in the nation.)
I don't know what an ad hominum attack is, probably because it's spelled ad hominem. The point of this is not to be a Grammar/Spelling Nazi, but to point out that in a paragraph meant to illustrate how the gap isn't as big as people think it is between SUC and UCLA, he only shows that the gap is as wide as ever with his bumbling of the English language. He's the ice skater that goes for the big jump and falls flat on his ass. If you're going to assert your "smarts" by throwing out Latin phrases in a smug tone, I humbly ask that you SPELL IT CORRECTLY. Furthermore, an ad hominem attack and a straw man attack ARE NOT THE SAME. This guy is a journalist? Are you freaking kidding me? How is an an "argument against the man" the same as "intentionally misrepresenting an opponent's position"? He probably thinks this is an ad hominem too without realizing that intelligence and understanding are the central focus of his paragraph.
I looked up this supposed Time-Princeton thing (from the year 2000), and all I saw was references to helping out in its immediate community (and yes, that area needs PLENTY of help). This is certainly admirable, but it doesn't advance his argument. UCLA is a University Of The People. Our public status ensures that our accomplishments advance the interests of our immediate community, the State of California, and beyond. SUC, once again, is left playing catch up.
He talks about the trOJan mafia like it's a good thing, nevermind that it doesn't travel well. UCLA is worldwide. My UCLA degree will be respected the world over. SUC degrees are only worth something in Los Angeles, and most of the time not even then. How's that trOJan mafia working out in paragraph 1, where he throws Bush's family under the bus? That's some good old fashioned trOJan loyalty.
Then there's the pathetic "if we count football championships" argument. I don't see him mentioning that SUC awarded themselves championships from 7 decades ago that they never actually won. No, this, like everything, has caveats. That's the SUC way. "SUC would be as good as UCLA, IF YOU COUNT..." We don't need caveats. We're UCLA. We are better than SUC. That's why we had the most applicants in the country once again for the hundreth straight year (I've lost count). It goes without saying that I got into both SUC and UCLA. That's what we UCLA students have in common: rejecting SUC. It's so common that we don't even have to mention it as Adam does in reverse (a claim, given his writing, that I am quite skeptical of). That's just the way it is.
See, I can write a flame piece too, except my piece is grounded in facts and logic. I sure hope Adam didn't go to journalism school to put out this kind of garbage, because I've already done him one better, and that's with an Engineering degree (let's just say we are not known for our writing). Looks like Shakespeare was wrong: A Rose by any other name actually smells like sh!t.