In my opinion, teams should always be judged based on their resume rather than the name on the front of the jersey. Period. That said, does any logical person still buy UCLA being a bubble team? At the beginning of the year I could see where the writers were coming from, and I agreed that UCLA's preseason was lacking quality wins. That time has long since passed.
Clearly the writers at SI have not been high on UCLA all year, but at this point they are being ridiculous. UCLA is one win off the Pac-10 lead. They blew out Cal, Stanford, Notre Dame, and USC in succession. They just beat the Pac-10 leader by double figures. All the losses except one were against tournament quality teams.
In no way would I concede the Pac-10 title, but if UCLA fails to win the conference, does anyone see them not being one of the top 33 at large teams based on their resume?