When Does This Year Become Next Year? This and other questions ...

by Achilles on Sep 29, 2008 12:00 PM PDT in Football

We're all great at parsing every move by every coach and every player.

It's one of the things that's fun about blogs and message boards, too. The game gets played or the recruit gets recruited and then we sit around and try to figure out what happened after the fact.

Well, that's all well and good, but what if the reasons don't matter so much. What if we're just not a good football team and it doesn't matter if it's the player's fault or the prior coach's fault or the current coach's fault or the fan's fault or the marketing department's fauit or the administration's fault or it's the fan's fault.

What if, in 2008, Bruin football is just not that good? What if, no matter what anyone does, the team is going nowhere?

And -- if that's the case -- when do you start packing it in and start playing for next year?

Or do you never pack it in and play for next year?

If Rick Neuheisel was ever going to have the luxury of playing for next year, this is the time, though. As much as he may care about the seniors, he didn't recruit them and in a couple of months, he'll never coach them again. Their careers, for all intents and purposes, are done. They aren't winning a national title. They aren't going to a BCS Bowl game. They are headed for the history bin of UCLA football as a group of kids who played on the prior coach's 10 win team and many of them played in the 13-9 upset of USC.

Before going any further, what does playing for next year mean? To me, it means that younger players start getting longer looks, regardless of whether or not it is the best move for winning every game. In practical terms, it would mean that while Khalil Bell would continue to play, young runners would get more carries than they normally would if winning was paramount. It would also mean that Ben Olson doesn't get to play much down the stretch -- like it or not Kevin Craft and Chris Forcier need the work more than he does.

The answer could be that you never pack in the season and start playing for next year. Maybe you just keep going with your best players and you don't worry about getting returing players more reps in games or practice. It could be that if you shelve the senors, you'll do some psychological damage to the team. Or, maybe, you need to go with the younger guys as a morale boost.

Is it a philosophical question? Is there something "owed" the seniors because they are seniors -- is there something they've earned because they are in the program four or five years and have given a lot of time, blood, sweat and effort to the team? Or is it practical -- we appreciate all you've done, but hell -- SCOREBOARD -- you haven't let the team to all that many victories and now we have to go with the younger guys. Just thinking out loud, does the fact that Neuheisel is a Bruin himself factor in? Does he "relate" to the seniors because they are Bruins and he's a Bruin and therefore he'll stick with them? Would a more mercenary coach with no prior ties to the program be more willing to protect his own career by thinking about next year, this year? Is philosophy better in the long run than pragmatism?

I really don't know the answer to this one. I also think that even if you might start playing for next year, this year, you can't start yet, even if the ultimate outcome might already be obvious. Technically, we can still win the conference. We can still play in the Rose Bowl. Yes, we'd probably have to win out, but there is still that chance.

On the other hand, in two or three weeks, it could become painfully clear that the season is a wash -- nothing more than a transition to some better future. If that became more obvious to everyone, when does this year become next year?

0 recs | Comment 28 comments |

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You always play the best players

until the end, whether it’s Rahim Moore at strong safety or Khalil Bell at tailback. Neuheisel wants to continue to run a competitive program and that means playing the best at all times. Next season is next season. The players will get better and be ready when the time comes as the practices get more competitive.

by bruin95 on Sep 29, 2008 12:28 PM PDT 0 recs

I agree

i think what you have to say is the tie goes to the younger player at this point in the season.

So, for example if Olsen and Craft are about the same, you go with Craft because he will be playing next year and the experience will help. But if Olsen is clearly better, you go with him.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Sep 29, 2008 1:18 PM PDT up 0 recs

+1

The best play or you’re sending the wrong message to the team. Plus, 6 wins isn’t entirely out the question with Wazzou, Stanford, OSU, and Washington on the schedule. All is definitely not lost!

If there’s a tie (like IMO Boeckman and Pryor at OSU) then you of course go with the kid who will play next year. But I think this past game showed just how much a healthy senior like Bell can help the entire team’s development

by bruinhopeful on Sep 29, 2008 1:20 PM PDT up 0 recs

Astute observation hopeful.

Its just like if you put a JV player up on Varsity. All of a sudden the kid lights up and plays like he’s belonged there all along. That’s typically a product of the influence of his other team-mates. Players build upon each other and need to be surrounded with the best. Even if that means you play a senior whose career at UCLA is coming to an end.

by eubruin on Sep 29, 2008 8:13 PM PDT up 0 recs

Ditto

by bruin8uclap on Sep 29, 2008 8:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

I agree with bruin95

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

Right now, we are playing for a conference championship. When/if that becomes out of the question, then we play to beat U$C. We should put the best possible players on the field in order to send a message and shock our rivals.

by drumfool on Sep 29, 2008 12:50 PM PDT 0 recs

Jim Tressel is already "playing for the future" . . .

. . . by playing his Sr. QB less and true freshman Terrell Pryor more.

by orlandobruin on Sep 29, 2008 12:55 PM PDT 0 recs

That's not a very good example

when Pryor and Boeckman have been sharing snaps since the first game of the season and Terrell Pryor is, well, Terrell Pryor.

by bruin95 on Sep 29, 2008 1:05 PM PDT up 0 recs

Play for pride

I think you play as best as you can. Pull out a few more games, try to get at minimum a bowl game. This may also help in the recruiting front, as well as for the fans in the stands who pay well to see their Bruins try their best and not give up in any matter.

While we don’t have the best talent in the Pac-10, do we really have the worst? I’m sure Stanfurd isn’t packing it up already. We need to start being a little more positive.

by paisano522 on Sep 29, 2008 1:20 PM PDT 0 recs

re:Play for Pride...if nothing else...

Boy do I agree with your post!

VERY Proud of this BRUIN squad.
The very best the rest of the year!

by GogetemBruins on Sep 29, 2008 3:11 PM PDT up 0 recs

Don't see why they would be

considering they have more wins than we do.

by turs12 on Sep 29, 2008 10:34 PM PDT up 0 recs

Play the best

As disappointing as some of the play has been, its just too early to think about next year. We almost beat Fresno St. this weekend, and they are ranked.

I was negative earlier (for good reason), but there is the argument that we have played 3 ranked teams in our first 4 games, and that 1-3 ain’t bad considering that. I mean, we are going to win some more games, and it might be a few in a row to start the Pac-10. Given that, we’ve got to continue playing the best players.

Anyway, I think if the young kids were ready to contribute, they would be playing. I also think that as the season progresses the young kids will get better, and by the end will be playing more (Howland has used that strategy to great success). The thing I am looking for most is a future standout running back. Recruiting blogs told us we had one or two, but now I am not sure. [Though I loved Coleman this weekend—can you say skip hicks].

by rfirpo on Sep 29, 2008 1:32 PM PDT 0 recs

I don't

think that we can start to play for next season with the coaching staff that we have. We can win any game and thus should play to win all games.

by eubruin on Sep 29, 2008 8:15 PM PDT up 0 recs

By Playing the Best

we will be playing some younger players.

I like what Palcic is doing. No position is locked in.

And, we have a good rotation going with Bell and Coleman.

Would anyone seriously not play Brigham Harwell because he is a senior? I think not.

I don’t see any seniors playing just because they are seniors.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Sep 29, 2008 1:54 PM PDT 0 recs

I cannot recall

(or perhaps I have blocked it out) but wasn’t playing seniors because they were seniors a Dorrell thing?

I think you play the best, be they freshmen or otherwise.

Realistically speaking, I think we know that we are playing for next year. This team will likely continue to improve and may even throw in some pleasant surprises along the way (e.g., Tennessee—which gave Auburn a helluva game this weekend).

CRN knows what he is doing and I won’t second guess him. But I hope that some of our younger guys get some playing time. We will only be better next year.

by Barnes2JJ on Sep 29, 2008 2:27 PM PDT up 0 recs

On Defense

I’d like to see some of the frosh play over Norris.

And I am not sure Hale is one of our best three LBs.

Perhaps at some point in the season the lowerclassmen should play in their place, but not yet.

by Free the 16 on Sep 29, 2008 4:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

these are the two areas I'd like to see change

I’d love to see Hester get a shot at CB eventually, along with Glenn Love at safety, and I think Ayers is our second best (healthy) LB right now. That kid can play.

by bucknellbruin on Sep 29, 2008 9:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

Play your best and play to the end

Going into this season there were many questions about this team and how the new coaching staff would make an effect on the squad. I’m sure many people had high hopes going into the start of the season, I know I did.

But realistically, what we are seeing is pretty much what we can say was expected, with a few exceptions.
For one, we were not expected to blow teams away and that teeter tooter Tennessee game sure was a good indicator. Although it did kinda put our head in the clouds.
The BYU loss sure did bring us back to earth real quick.
More injuries than expected, who could have figured that into the equation.
More freshman are playing, which is a good thing as a far as building on experience, the bad is that they are green and are having to learn while on the job. A by-product of the injuries.

Nonetheless, one can see the improvement from one game to the next, and coach RN is playing who he thinks will do the best job at that time, be it senior or freshman. I don’t by no means believe they should toss in the towel, that’s just not fair to the seniors, the underclassmen, coaches and the fans. A positive attitude is crucial to this program, and no one more than coach RN knows that.
The future of this program is very bright, and yes there is a light at the end of the tunnel. We just need to ride it out till we get there, and we will.

by SlyBruin on Sep 29, 2008 3:24 PM PDT 0 recs

Achilles- Great Topic

This is a very interesting topic. Hopefully, we won’t be thinking about topics like this in futuer years, as we move fully into the CRN era (without holdover effects of KD).

My vote, as many above, would be to use the best players available, with ties going to the younger players.

I am curious as to the general sense of the BN community in terms of how the answer would affect recruiting. If we used younger players, and got our clocks cleaned, would players want to come because they see that they can play early (with the depth chart not based on seniority), or would they look elsewhere because they want to play for a winner? I would guess that playing for a winner counts for more, but that is strictly a guess. Would welcome other thoughts.

My sense is that the biggest draw for a lot of these HS kids is the chance to make it to the pros via the college of their choice. The pro background of our coaching staff is extremely relevant in this regard. The other relevant item, however, is whether the players improve their skills to the next level during their time at UCLA.

Football is obviously a team game. If we play a lesser talent, let’s say at QB, to prepare for the future, that means the WR’s aren’t getting as many chances to show improvement, the RB’s aren’t getting as many chances to show improvement because the defense stacks against the run, etc. The resulting image might not be all that attractive to recruits.

by islandbruin on Sep 29, 2008 4:47 PM PDT 0 recs

It's the wrong message!

You don’t quit on those men if you ever want them to not quit on you.
There are red shirt freshmen that are watching, and practicing. They already know they’re not playing this year but they’re still expected to train hard. No one wants them to stop just ‘cause it’s not going well for them this year.

I also wouldn’t expect us to quit on a team that is showing improvement each game. Wins are not the only measuring stick of our program. We should keep fighting until there are no more games on our schedule…isn’t it the RIGHT thing to do?

by BruinWannabe on Sep 29, 2008 4:51 PM PDT 0 recs

The Ben Olson Era

“Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio…” , a line from a Simon and Garfunkel hit reminds me sadly of the hopes and dreams at BN when Big Ben signed on with Karl Dorrell. With K-Craft doing a serviceable job and C-Force and Fresh Prince waiting in the wings, there is probably no hope to see SPJ again. Ben had the double misfortune of injury and coaching from Dorrell. Can he get a medical redshirt this year and come back next year? Or, would he be disqualified by age and have to join me at AARP? Anyway, I admire Ben for fighting the good fight and wish him the best in everything he does.

by bruin75 on Sep 29, 2008 5:12 PM PDT 0 recs

I think Coach Neuheisel plays to win

I can’t believe that Coach Neuheisel would ever do anything that would not maximize the chance to win the game he’s coaching. If he thinks Olson mazimizes that chance, I’m sure Olson will play. How else can he play it? Could he possibly say to the coaches or the team “Hey, guys. I’m going to play only next year’s starters, to get them some experience.”

by Fox 71 on Sep 29, 2008 5:39 PM PDT 0 recs

good topic

i think we play to the end… frankly i’ve been impressed with craft’s progress, and as far as i’m concerned olson will need to earn his spot back if he wants it. craft has shown a capacity to adapt and not make errors, something BO has never really done. i don’t think anyone had an expectation that we would necessarily be bowl eligible this year. i think with locker’s injury up here in seattle and the sorry state of wazzu football, we should definitely be able to get a few wins and with the experience and growth we show each game, get some unexpected wins later down the line. i’d like to see the pac10 get back on track in general so that even if we do have a subpar year, at least it’s not in a completely irrelevant conference…

by seattlebruin17 on Sep 29, 2008 10:01 PM PDT 0 recs

You play for next year, while playing to win every game

I had a buddy that coached High School basketball and the one thing that shocked me the most was the delicate balancing act of playing to win while finding valuable playing time for your younger players.

I think even if Ben Olson gets back to 100% this season, you don’t play him. He has the NFL body type and arm, but he’s had one good game in all his time at UCLA. Sure you can blame Dorrell and the 4 OCs he’s had to play under, but great players find a way to achieve results. Drew Olson for example, played great and found a way to put up those 10 wins. He also played for Dorrell and the lamentable WC offense. But, he put up those points, and found ways to come back from large deficits.

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

by MexiBruin on Sep 29, 2008 10:40 PM PDT 0 recs

Drew

threw screen passes to mojo… you might have noticed he can do a lil something with the ball… they abandoned the wco to find ways of putting the ball in mojo’s hands and that worked to massively inflate drew’s numbers. Ben has never had that kind of talent to dump the ball off to. Additionally, Ben has been the victim of a staff that play completely contrary to his strengths. He can make throws no one else on this team can. If the O-line continues to evolve and can provide adequate protection, his ability to stretch the field would go miles towards helping an inconsistent, but talented, running game.

If you really think that a QB is not often the product of his environment I ask you to look at two crosstown examples. Carson Palmer was awful until Norm Chow had the opportunity to work with him. He has a very similar skill set to that of Ben’s and has shown to be a pretty damn good QB since then. Matt Cassel is another example. He got stabbed in the back by the $C staff, but has since been able to learn from a great staff in New England and is having decent success in Brady’s stead.

He deserves the chance to compete for the spot, but, as I stated in another post, this has to be about putting the best players on the field. Competing for the spot is all anyone deserves, and if he can demonstrate he is the right guy then the staff should put him in the game.

Dustball!

by dustball on Sep 30, 2008 11:55 AM PDT up 0 recs

Agreed about one game

Ben played like a superstar in the 2006 opener against Utah. But never seemed to have a grasp of the offense after that. He was the top QB in the nation coming out of HS and everybody thought he was the 2d coming of Elway. How could so many college scouts have overrated Ben? Too bad, if he had Norm Chow maybe he could have been alot better.

by bruin75 on Sep 30, 2008 1:42 AM PDT 0 recs

In Ben's Defense

"But never seemed to have a grasp of the offense… "

Who did?

Was there a CTS/Norvell “offense” to grasp?

I agree, completely. Under Norm Chow, he would have been a star (and still may be.)

sjh

by Class of 66 on Sep 30, 2008 6:06 AM PDT up 0 recs

This isn't about seniors

this is about creating competition for the position. You have to continue playing the best players, young or otherwise, because it is from their play that the others grow and improve. Taking away competition and playing young guys because they are “the future” does nothing to inspire them to improve. It does nothing to provide them with the leadership and tutelage to improve. I can’t see any scenario where I would do any more than give them a few extra reps for experience, and I would think that our staff has the same approach.

Dustball!

by dustball on Sep 30, 2008 11:41 AM PDT 0 recs