Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: UFC 146 Results: Junior dos Santos TKO's Frank Mir

The "Eye Test": Bruins’ GPA After A "GE" Course Against Washington State

PASADENA, CA - OCTOBER 8:   Quarterback Kevin Prince #4 of the UCLA Bruins carries the ball against safety Tyree Toomer #15 of the Washington State Cougars at the Rose Bowl on October 8, 2011 in Pasadena, California.  UCLA won 28-25.  (Photo by Stephen Dunn/Getty Images)

Writing up the grade post for this game reminded me of certain classes from undergraduate days. Not sure what the fun GE GPA boosting courses are these days on campus but how many of you remember the cool dinosaurs class to fill out the GE requirement? There was also a class on the "History of Italian Cinema" (I don't remember the course number any more but IIRC Toby Bailey was in the class that yours truly took in my very last quarter at UCLA). There were also the old reliable musicology classes ranging from history of rock and roll or music of Latin America.

All fun stuff. The point here is getting an "A" in those classes were different deals in getting As ... uhm ...in any OChem classes in South Campus. Well to be honest, getting "A"s in North Campus classes were different ‘deal' than getting "As" in the South. Suck it gbruin, tasser10, Tydides, Telemachus and rest of you suckers. Can you see where I am going with this? Before getting to the grades for the Washington State, I think it's useful to take a look at the Cougars' schedule again.  

Coming into the UCLA game, Cougars' 3 wins included a victory over a mediocre FCS team (Idaho State), a terrible UNLV team from MWC, which followed up that loss with a 25-point home loss to Southern Utah (0-2 in the Great West conference!), and the worst or second worst team in our conference. So I think that should give anyone pause if they want to make a big deal out of a desperate come from behind victory against this team in the Rose Bowl.  So I appreciate the relative improvement Paul Wulff's team had made compared to last two horrific seasons, but from our perspective it was more than reasonable for the Bruin community to expect a comfortable win at the Rose Bowl.

So the Bruins eeked out a victory against this Wazzu team. It's nice that the Bruins are 2-1 in the Pac-12 South and still "alive" for a bid to make the conference championship game. It is also clear to us that Bruins have more than enough talent to make a run through the lesser part of the conference this year. Yet as freesia and gbruin pointed out yesterday, UCLA fans would be wise not to make too much out of a "win" in a "no win situation." Once again, let's look at the latest game through the prism of our "eye test" and get a sense of where the program is halfway through 2011 season.

The grades (if you have the stomach for them) after the jump.

Star-divide

1) Is our defense prepared for each and every team we play?

So the defense is feeling pretty good about the win against Washington State. After all, a clutch pick from Andrew Abbott stopped the Cougars when they were attempting to put together their last drive in the game. For the first time this year Datone Jones made appearances in the opposing backfield as our front-4 finally showed some signs of life. From Peter Yoon at ESPNLA:

And the UCLA defense, the scapegoat for the Bruins' lackluster start this season because of its inability to stop opponents to anyone's satisfaction came up with a couple of key stops, including Andrew Abbott's interception that sealed the victory when a loss would have sent the season spiraling down the drain.

"It's huge," Abbott said. "We've been a little down and out, but this is the kind of thing that could springboard our whole season and it could springboard our whole program. We're not there yet. We still have some work to do and we need to learn from this and keep getting better."

Still UCLA's defense had been looking for a sign that things were turning, and the Bruins may have gotten just that Saturday night. They got eight tackles for a loss after getting just 17 in the first five games this season and had two sacks after getting only three in the first five games.

And Abbott's interception with 2:01 left came on a third and five. UCLA has had trouble all season on third down, entering the game No. 119 out of 120 in third-down conversion defense. The Bruins allowed Washington State to convert 11 of 20, but got the stop when it counted most.

Well guy, don't celebrate too much yet. Even after this "redemptive" performance UCLA is now ranked 118 out of 120 in third-down conversion defense. More troubling issue here is despite some bright spots here and there, the defense remains a huge concern a massive liability in fourth year of Neuheisel's program.

Let me add some more positive points from yesterday's game before getting to the ugly issues. Eric Kendricks was awesome. I think at this point he is easily the best LB in this team. He finished the night with 8 total tackles, 5 of which were solo. He was all over the field making an emphatic case for why he should be getting more playing time over certain veterans (more on that topic later). Similarly Seali Epenesa, Iuta Tepa, and Owa Odighizuwa continued to shine whenever they were given the opportunities to get action in the DL rotation. 

Besides Andrew Abbott, I thought Tevin McDonald had a solid game as a redshirt freshman. I think we can all be excited about his future in Westwood, if continues to develop in next couple of years. So those were the few bright spots.

Unfortunately the positives were mostly outweighed by the negatives thanks to another disconcerting performance against a bad conference opponent.  From what I saw with my own eyes, I saw a Bruin defense getting man handled from the opening drive. I saw recurrence of poor fundamentals and bad tackling. I continued to see no pressure from the starting front four on the QB (until the rotation was finally shaken up later in the game). Just in the first drive, the defense hurt itself with 2 personal fouls. Plus we continued to see the dreaded 7-10 yard cushion from our DBs.

I guess another positive from Saturday night was that our defense stiffened up in the red zone. That's fine because in the red zone the safeties had no choice but to play tight. The question I have is why couldn't our safeties play tight during rest of the game when the Cougars were marching up and down the field?

I have mentioned this before and I will say it again. Our blitzes look slow and predictable. It seems like everyone else can tell when we are sending in our safeties or DBs for a blitz because they get picked up effortlessly. There seems to be no effort on the coaches' part to bring pressure from different angles and from different positions. It's vanilla stuff that doesn't seem very difficult to scout.

As for personnel use, it continues to be befuddling how Sean Westgate even with just one good arm keep getting playing times over guys like Kendricks. From what I have seen in 6 games, guys like Epenesa and Tepa are more effective than guys like Nate Chandler. If game performances are any indication we should see serious shake up in our D Line.

As for numbers, it is hard for me to give a solid grade to an unit that let Washington State dominate the time of possession and convert 11 of their 20 3rd down conversions (notwithstanding the Abbott pick). Our defense is so porous right now that almost the entire field feels like comfortable 4 down territory for our opponent. It's not a pretty picture. So despite a victory, the grade for this unit for the week is a C-: 1.7.

2) Do we call offensive plays to catch our opponents off guard?

Number wise, it was another meh performance against the Cougars. I guess our offense this year has been somewhat meh at the halfway juncture of this season. Those with glass half full can thus claim it to be an improvement because our offense has been mostly atrocious last few seasons in Westwood.

I think I am increasingly leaning towards the camp, who is concerned with our offense's sole reliance on the pistol formation. I don't have anything against it but I am not comfortable about our offense using it as its prime and what often appears to be only set. I wish we used it along with other formations because at the very least it would not expose our QBs to so much punishment.

There were actually some decent play calls yesterday. I liked the use of Josh Smith from the F-Back slot which resulted in a nifty TD. I liked the fact that we actually had Jet Ski run outside instead of slamming up the middle. Yet while I found those aspects encouraging, I have to note how the coaches didn't bother looking for Joe Fauria till third quarter as one of the most dangerous weapons in our offensive arsenal didn't have a single catch against over-matched opponent.

I like the fact that coaches are trying to get Jordon James some touches. The problem is they keep calling the same end around play for him near the goal line that has already become too predictable after 3 games. It worked against Oregon State the first time. It has looked slow developing and predictable since then. They need to come up with something new.

Jet Ski had a decent game, running for 110 yards in 12 carries. However, I don't really understand our running back rotation. It seems coaches forget that they have Derrick Coleman available in obvious situations when they need to grind it and pound it a bit. You'd think with guys like Jet Ski, Coleman, James and Malcolm Jones, they would often mix them in the same drive to keep the defense off balance. I haven't seen much of that. Jones didn't get any action against the Cougars.

Frankly, I am scared to imagine where we would be last night if we didn't get to great catches from Nelson Rosario (more on him below as well). I don't think we saw an offense that was dynamic and exciting. I think we saw a unit that was ... well ... meh. The grade for this category is a C:2.0.

3) Do our players look like they know what they should be doing at all times?

Unfortunately the answer for this category is not very comforting. I mentioned the two personal fouls in our very first defensive possession that extended a long Cougar drive. That kind of mistake was killing us all night.  Someone (didn't get the info from announcers), committed a bonehead personal foul right after a PAT in second half, setting up a huge return for Washington State in their first kickoff return in second half.

There was also the usual getting play calls in time that hurt us throughout our game. We actually had to burn a time out after Prince got a first down in the first series of second half, as players looked clueless in the huddle. I guess the excuse here is that Prince has been rusty but unfortunately it has been a pattern for us in every game this season.

Our quarterback(s) also missed wide open receivers throughout the game. Joe Fauria was open multiple times but both Richard Brehaut and Prince missed him. On the other hand, when Brehaut through a perfect deep strike in first half, it just fell right through Randall Carroll's arms.

I guess the team deserves some credit for rallying on offense and the defense stiffening in the red zone. However, there wasn't much I saw on Saturday night that gave me confidence that our team is on its way of turning into a well oiled machine. There are still too many mistakes, bad fundamentals, costing the team over and over again. The grade for this category is also a C:2.0, but I think I could have been  harsher here.

4) Do our players play for 60 G-D minutes every game?

The answer depressingly continues to be negative. Again the players deserve credit for being resilient and not quitting, despite the sense of general malaise that seemed to pervade through most of the first half and parts of the second. However, the question remains - why do our players look they are often just going through the motions?

Nelson Rosario is a very good example here. Rosario seemed to have woken up from a long nap in the second half. He did make a great catch setting up our first touchdown in the first half. Otherwise thought, he seemed be cruising through the game. Even the announcers (who usually don't go out of their way to criticize players) called him out for not putting in his best effort in going after the ball or attempting to pick up YACs. 

While Prince threw an underthrown ball that got picked off towards the end of first half, the replays showed how Rosario didn't make much of an effort to bat the ball down or play the role of an aggressive DB. Reportedly he was chewed out by an assistant coach during half time for not playing hard enough and he seemed to respond in the second. The question for us though is why do we have to go through all this at half way point of the season in Rosario's senior year in Westwood?

Rosario wasn't the only one who seemed to be going through the motion at times. Let's focus on another player with a lot of physical talent on the other side of the field. Late in the second half, after the Bruins got SPTRed following a missed FG by the Cougars, Datone Jones finally got a "sack" in a huge goal line situation.  However, if folks saw the replay of the "sack" near our goal line, they would have sees that Jones had given up on the play at first after getting blocked. It's not the first time I have seen it from Datone this year. That was certainly not the example of one of the so called best players in this defense playing hard for the entire game. I hope coaches note stuff like and then figure it into PT, because to me I see guys like Owa playing harder, coming off the bench.

Anyway, if our team had played hard from the get go, Saturday night's game wouldn't be a nail biter. The grade for this category is also a C-:1.7.

5) Do our players execute?

There are some positive notes in this category. I think it is worth mentioning how Prince got it done in certain key situations (not all of them) on Saturday night. I loved the moment he connected on the bomb, minutes after he was classlessly booed by some idiots in the Rose Bowl.

The TD passes to Josh Smith, Shaq Evans, and extra point conversion to Rosario were great. I enjoyed Prince's 11 yard pass completion to Smith for the game clinching conversion on 3rd and 7 towards the end of 4th.  Speaking of enjoyment, yes it was really cool to see the joy in the face of Tyler Gonzalez after his extra point conversions. The kid got it done.

Still the penalties, the dropped passes (Randal Carroll), the missing of wide open receivers (both Brehaut and Prince), the botched slow developing blitzes and silly personal fouls continue to kill our team through proverbial death by thousands cuts.  BTW our special teams coverage is just awful and embarrassing. These factors dint end up costing us with a season ending loss last night but they can catch up again with us sooner or later, if we don't clean it up or as Neuheisel continue to say "fix" them. The grade for this category is C+:2.3.

Although, not related to this category I should mention the penalty call against Fauria for leaping that gave Wazzu new life after missing their third FG attempt late in the first half.  As KSBruin noted, the only possible infraction, if the rule is applied completely literally, is that Fauria had the gall to come down on a player who got pushed under him while he was in the air. He clearly didn't The SPTRS were in classic form on Saturday night and made a mockery of Larry Scott's effort to clean up officiating issues that have made this conference a laughing stock for years. Just horrible.

6) Do we have leaders on the field?

On the offensive side, it's tough to tell who the leaders are. I'd like to think the game against Washington State will be huge moment for Prince. However, it is tough to tell what to expect from the much maligned and injured junior QB after what he has been through in last three years. Jet Ski and Derrick Coleman did our part but I still don't get the sense that they have completely established themselves this season.

On the defensive side, I think Erick Kendricks is the revelation of this season. He potentially is a leadership material but he is too young. I am hoping players like him get more and more PT during the coming weeks at the expense of veterans, who while offer experience, have not gotten it done.

Still at half way mark of this season, I think this team still is in search of definitive leaders on the field, who can help this program take much needed next step of emerging as more than some average 6 win team (again a 6 win regular season out of this horrible "South" division in the Pac-12 will be considered a failure on BN). The grade for this category is a C:2.0.

Final Grade Card for Washington State Cougars

Based on the discussion here is how it shapes up:

1) Is our defense prepared for each and every team we play? [C- : 1.7]
2) Do we call offensive plays to catch our opponents off guard? [C: 2.0]
3) Do our players look like they know what they should be doing at all times? [C: 2.0]
4) Do our players play for 60 G-D minutes every game? [C- : 1.7]
5) Do our players execute? [C+: 2.3]
6) Do we have leaders on the field? [C: 2.0]

Washington State GPA: 1.95

The grade card for Stanford was 1.97, grade card for Oregon State was 2.12, grade card for Texas was 0.22, the grade card for San Jose State was 0.67, and the grade card for Houston was 2.05. So the cumulative GPA after 4 games according to our "Eye Test" is now at 1.50. Hey, we are just .2 away from a C-!

There is not much commentary to offer at this point. This community has already made the baseline expectations for rest of this season clear. As gbruin noted the Coach Neuheisel bought another 11 days following victory against Washington State. It is up to him to build on it FWIW, and get it done against Arizona. Based on the current set of expectations, Bruins will need to win at least one of the two remaining road games outside Los Angeles. The bruised and battered 1-5 Wildcats (0-4 in the Pac-12) present a golden opportunity for Neuheisel and our Bruins to boost this season GPA. I hope they will seize it.

After all can you imagine explaining getting Bs and Cs classes like the History of Italian Cinema?

GO BRUINS.

Comment 76 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

GPA

great stuff, keep it coming. (even if it sucks hearing it)

by Bruin Bro on Oct 10, 2011 5:40 AM PDT reply actions  

Thanks for the write-up, Nestor

If I am plied with enough beers at the Laughing Man, I will recount my adventures in the Mexican Cinema class, the C+ I received, and the crapfest I unleashed to get the grade raised to where it should’ve been.

But enough of painful topics, we can all appreciate the non-ulcers that we won’t have on Saturday with the bye week. I hope that CRN and the team use this bye week to improve so that we can finally have a good performance next Thursday night.

If punting is winning, bye weeks are double winning!

Dreaming of Westwood while in permanent exile in Virginia

by VABruin on Oct 10, 2011 5:45 AM PDT reply actions  

My first A at UCLA was against Washington State

At the time, WSU was disguised as PE 136 “Sports in American Life.” Everyone got an A, except a guy who never came to class, and he got a C. Our teacher was Senora Bell. I don’t think she taught any more classes after mine. What a wonderful class.

by Fox 71 on Oct 10, 2011 6:14 AM PDT reply actions  

Offense deserves C+ to B-, I think....

Defense is definitely a huge problem, but this the arrival of a semblance of a d-line and a bunch of secondary players coming back it’s not completely hopeless. We’ll see. But the offense is actually pretty efficient.

by selby4000 on Oct 10, 2011 6:51 AM PDT reply actions  

Read the categories closely

We are not looking at generic offensive performance. We are grading whether the offense is dynamic.

by Nestor on Oct 10, 2011 7:00 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

That's right:

That’s exactly why they deserve a higher grade. Two big play action bombs that set up TD’s. Maybe it’s not ‘flashy’ but dynamic should mean having different paces, not trick plays all over the place. By the definitions of dynamic I have seen, people use it to talk about having energy, activity, or force with secondary meaning of a variation in intensity, like the classic soft-loud-soft of grunge music.

By the commonly used meanings of dynamic, then, our offense is properly described as having some of it, but also needing improvement. It’s reasonable for me to rate them at C+ or B-. We have energy, activity, and force (both run and pass are pretty efficient, in fact) and a change of pace.

Do we need to be better at our both our bread and butter and our change of paces? Yes! But if our C offense averages 26 points a game, then an A offense will average how many? 50? JF and DC are averaging almost 5 ypc for the season, and running this much will shorten games and reduce your point total. Everybody knows that.

by selby4000 on Oct 10, 2011 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

Execution Is Part of Dynamic

Energy, activity, force, variation in intensity only matter if one executes. Long passes are dynamic when caught. Run plays are dynamic when they gain yards. It is hard to be dynamic without tempo — as Gem mentions. It is hard to be dynamic when we don’t use our personnel correctly — Fauria particularly. It is hard to be dynamic when the coaches cannot get plays onto the field and we waste time outs.

The grade is more than fair.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Oct 10, 2011 7:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well, Nestor gave us a C+ for execution...

and it’s clear that we’re executing on offense better than defense. I personally might have put execution at an overall C (not C+) and the offense at C+ or B-. This would make more sense as we’re all in agreement that the offense isn’t as bad as the defense, and we average about 400 yards per game. Great? No. Good? Not yet…but improving and pushing towards a B? I think so…i understand you differ. That’s fine.

By the same logic I think I would have graded the defense a bit harsher than Nestor.

I agree with the tempo criticism but it doesn’t seem to me like we have no tempo, just that too often we’re a bit off tempo. II also agree that using Fauria more in the passing game would help. This is, I agree, an execution problem. But we DO gains yards in our run plays, and we DO catch passes for long gains. We DO execute, just not as consistently as we need to to have a good offense. To use the tempo analogy we are sometimes a bit off tempo and our offense will improve when we – like a band – get ‘tighter’ meaning that our timing is better. This only comes with tons of reps, even for great musicians.

by selby4000 on Oct 10, 2011 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

See what A offenses -- with no more talent than ours -- do to WSU the rest of the year

And I bet it will be closer to 50 points than to a squeaked-out 28, and more likely over 500 yards than under 400.

WSU has a mid-major level defense, and not a good mid-major.

by bluebland on Oct 10, 2011 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

I find it hard to give the offense a B-

when our starting quarterback doesn’t realize how important he is to the team, and instead of sliding on the keeper off the pistol, jumps in the air like a RB trying to score a TD and thereby breaks his leg…

While I’m grateful Prince learned from his many injuries last year, I really didn’t want to lose Brehaut… and again, this appears to be coaching…

Apologies if this has already been brought up in other posts— been busy and way behind the post here!

by BruinBaller88 on Oct 10, 2011 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

1.50? Looks like athletic probation!

Truly pathetic. Why won’t Neuheisel bench people who don’t try?

by Seth Chandler on Oct 10, 2011 6:53 AM PDT reply actions  

Two cents worth...

A couple of additional comments Nestor.

The "interception"…sitting in the stands it was very obvious that there was a route miscommunication between Lobbestael and his receiver. This was not a coverage interception where the defense correctly defended the pass. The defense get no credit for this pic in my mind. I had no doubt that WSU was going to continue to march down the field, convert on long third downs and at least get into position for the field goal if not the score. Key fundamental mental mistakes giving up critical penalties and a complete inability to dictate the flow of the game. Worse than a C-

One other serious problem with the offense. Tempo. This offense never gets into a rhythm. I don’t know how many offense plays in total we ran Saturday but we never strung together a consistent period of time where the offensive play calling looked coherent or tactical. We demonstrated this problem against SJSU and TEXAS and the problem continues. Don’t think the play calling relationship between RN and his OC is any more functional than it was with Chow…I suspect that the culprit is Rick, being the one consistent variable in that equation. When they do get it going, the offense looks OK. Agree: C

by GemCityBruin on Oct 10, 2011 7:17 AM PDT reply actions  

Re. Interception

It was a coverage interception. Lobbestael was trying to throw it out of bounds and Abbot made a nice play on the ball. No matter what, if a DB gets an interception, they deserve credit for it.

by King J77 on Oct 10, 2011 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

Not too sure about that...

From where I was sitting it seemed pretty clear that the receiver was not where Lobbestael thought he was going to be.
I think Lobbestael thought he was going to stop and hook to the outside and instead he never made that break.
In either case Abbott gets the brownie points for reading the ball and making the catch because it turned the course of the game.

by GemCityBruin on Oct 10, 2011 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

Could be

I thought I read a post game review somewhere that said he was trying to throw out of bounds. Probably just the writers interpretation of the play though. either way, as you said…he get’s the brownie points, lol.

by King J77 on Oct 10, 2011 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

And another cents worth

The Immaculate Interception that preserved 13-9 — saved us a game that looked like it was going down the drain. Our Bend D was about to break.

The reward? Another year of CTS.

This interception was not much different.

I am thrilled we won, but I think this grading exercise very important because it keeps the focus on where it belongs. Are we reaching Coach’s definition of success.

No matter our record, this has been an ugly year.

No matter the win against WSU, the first half was one of the ugliest I’ve ever seen.

No matter a few good plays against a weak opponent, our D is terrible. Nestor is correct, we play the cushion and give up yards until they are so close to the goal line we cannot give them a cushion, and then, we stop them. Uh, how about trying tighter coverage, at least some of the time, on other parts of the field? Can it be worse.

I continue to look at these kids and see great talent being underutilized and undeveloped. The coaches are failing them.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Oct 10, 2011 7:27 AM PDT reply actions   2 recs

Absolutely right on the money 66...

In some respects this interception was worse…as it came against a meaningless opponent that we should of never been in the position to lose to.

From our opening 3 and out the general mood was sour in the stands. After the second series it was worse. When Prince came in…the booing…wasn’t at Prince, it was at the decision making…at RN. Before the injury news spread in the stands sending Prince in looked desperate.

WSU dominated the pace, the flow, the tempo of the game. They beat us.
This game simply reinforced the growing, knawing pit in the stomach that is UCLA Football under RN.

That damn interception just looks like it will prolong the root canal…

by GemCityBruin on Oct 10, 2011 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

Prince came in mid-series after Brehaut was helped off the field.

Are you saying that the crowd thought CRN was pulling Brehaut at that point? I don’t think so.

Formerly AllHailMightyBruins

by AHMB on Oct 10, 2011 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think by this point some people weren't paying attention...

and the spattering of boos in my area really seemed ot be coming from the idlely aware people.
No one should be booing any of our guys coming into the game regardless but we had fans in our section who weren’t even aware that Bre had gone down…but when they saw that #4…huh? what? who?
I always sit there and thank these people for coming to the game cause it hides the empty seats but…geez pay a little attention once and awhile (or at least share whatever it is they’re drinking)

by GemCityBruin on Oct 10, 2011 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

+1 '66

I really share your view it felt great to win but I’m afraid the malaise will continue.

Play with so much passion nothing else matters

by KnudsenRockne on Oct 10, 2011 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

Weak Opponent

In the grand scheme of things, they were definitely a weak opponent. However, we really don’t have the right to call anybody weak right now. Every opponent deserves respect because our own house is a POS right now. If we were meeting/exceeding potential then yes WSU would be a weak opponent, but then we would have beat them by 4 TD’s.

Right now, under the Rick Neuheisel regime, UCLA is a bottom of the pack team who everybody pencils in as a win. Sucks but it is where we are. Not that everything you said wasn’t spot on.

by King J77 on Oct 10, 2011 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

Agree

By calling WSU weak, I do not mean to say that we are stronger or better.

I’ve been saying all season that it is pretentious for a team that plays as poorly as we do to denigrate another team.

However, I do think it proper to point out that our recruits were more highly rated and that our coaches have not taught them to play to their potential or created schemes to take advantage of it.

When you look at Fox’ stats, you realize that we have no right to call out anyone but ourselves. Our national rating in key areas is dismal.

We are the weaker team that other teams should look forward to playing.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Oct 10, 2011 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

(Tangential) Back in the day..

There were also the old reliable musicology classes ranging from history of rock and roll or music of Latin America..

Sorry to hijack this, but I just had to add..

They were called “Micks” back in the sixties and one of ‘em was Paul Tanner’s Jazz class. That was the up-side. The down-side was that all of the jocks had first dibs and it was hard to get into. I tried for three years and, one semester — because I had to avoid Double-Secret Probation — I took three P.E. courses: basketball and bodybuilding in the morning and volleyball in the afternoon with my main squeeze and her sorority sisters. It was good for 1.5 units of “A”, I was in the best shape of my life, and the Gamma Phi’s were pretty decent looking in those days and could drink you under the table at Mom’s.

by WHP '68 on Oct 10, 2011 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

I had a brick from Mom's for a long time

then it sort of disappeared. That was back in the drinking days.

by Fox 71 on Oct 10, 2011 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't remember some of the good times at Mom's

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Oct 10, 2011 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

Italian 46, Intro to Scand Lit, Development of Jazz(a & b)

Padding the GPA to offset all the south campus fun. This could be a thread onto itself.

Now moving onto the grades, well at least its a win. With all the issues we’ve had, its good for the kids to get a win at home. Given that Bre was hurt early and we didn’t implode, C+.

by Bruin'96 on Oct 10, 2011 8:00 AM PDT reply actions  

The UCLA English Department is ranked #9. In the world.

Getting an A was never an easy task. From personal experience, I can say it was a lot tougher than getting an A in Math 31A, for example.

by Seth Chandler on Oct 10, 2011 8:27 AM PDT reply actions  

I had one of the best teachers I ever had for English 1 and English 2

A man destined from birth to be a professor of English – George Bernard Tennyson. What a break getting a professor for English 1, rather than a TA.

by Fox 71 on Oct 10, 2011 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Patrick Stewart was a guest lecturer in my Shakespeare class

It was in the years before Star Trek, when he was an actor at the Royal Shakespeare Company. I still have my volume of Shakespeare with his autograph.

In one lecture, Patrick and Professor Rodes discussed the character Enobarbus from Anthony and Cleopatra and how you could play him this way or that way.

Then Patrick demonstrated by reciting the same speech (the description of Cleopatra approaching on her barge) two different ways. I remember in particular how Patrick/Enobarbus said the word “purple.” It was the most amazing thing.

It was a great class, but overall, English was so difficult that I knew that the one thing I didn’t want to do after graduating was write for a living. So guess who ended up in journalism, PR and advertising….

If I recall correctly, Prof Tennyson was a direct descendant of the poet. That must have been some class! What an introduction to UCLA.

by Seth Chandler on Oct 10, 2011 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

No, I'm pretty sure it was his real name.

My father was an assistant (or associate, I can’t remember which) professor of English at UCLA back in the early 60s. He taught drama and American Lit, I think. I recall his telling me that Tennyson was a direct descendant.

by Seth Chandler on Oct 10, 2011 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

Agree with your description of the English major

I basically chickened out from it and ran for the comfort and security of South Campus.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Oct 10, 2011 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

The South Campus majors are all pretty tough.

I think English ranks with some of them, though. Or perhaps I just didn’t have the right talent for it.

by Seth Chandler on Oct 10, 2011 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

Econ was my minor

I fulfilled my distribution requirements with nine econ classes.

by Seth Chandler on Oct 11, 2011 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

All those science things have answers that are right or wrong, with decimal points and all that

I majored in econ, and there was a lot that was a matter of opinion. I always did better where the little dot was a period rather than a decimal point. I’m very glad, though, that there are kids taking those hard courses, because I don’t want the wings to fall off the airplane, and I want my doctor to know all that stuff House is always talking about. (Althuogh it’s never lupus.)

by Fox 71 on Oct 11, 2011 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think there's a range

From somewhat difficult to ball busting. Not all South majors are necessarily tough though on a relative scale. I hesitate to point fingers and name names because I know someone will take exception, but I think the majority of people in south campus recognize that there’s a hierarchy of difficulty, and those that don’t agree are those that are on the bottom of that totem pole :)

by Tydides on Oct 11, 2011 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah. I had a few friends who were grad students in the English dept

Not only were the profs tough they engaged in psychological warfare on their students.

Great story from an English Grad student buddy: Back in the early days of word processors he was writing his dissertation – he handed in a chapter and his advisor covered the first page with red marks; the second page had half as many and the marks decayed exponentially until there were no marks on page 20 (1/million as many ;)

He made the changes and resubmitted it. A week or two later he got back something with the same pattern but with maybe half as many marks. And some vague admonition “Better – keep revising”… so he reformatted the previous version so it looked differently and submitted it… it came back with even fewer red marks and faint praise “Almost there! Keep revising.”

That discovery cut his workload waaaaay down.

Play with so much passion nothing else matters

by KnudsenRockne on Oct 10, 2011 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

31A is easy

Because the people who are going into math related majors aren’t taking it because they all passed out of it via AP courses.

by Tydides on Oct 10, 2011 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

That makes perfect sense.

So glad I didn’t take 3A. It was probably harder!

by Seth Chandler on Oct 10, 2011 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

Only ranked #9 ? It was on a par with some Ivy League programs at one time

Because of my own personal interests & prerequisite requirements, I enrolled in several literature & writing courses during my time at UCLA.

It was advanced language content analysis & complex writing schemes all rolled into one. A lady instructor was an old spinster, the way we said it then. Among others, she singularly reminded me of a tough minded, uncompromising mother superior that expected not a tiny fraction off her scale of excellence & perfection from anyone ever participated in her course. Everybody submitted to her teaching methodologies, much as we dreaded and learned, regardless of our final course grade.

The day when she handed back to me my term paper with a scarlet letter C plus some blunt, yet succinct critiques was the day the sky fell on me. I never felt so devastated, melancholy before. Yet, warts and all, we acquired the language foundation that benefited our academic and professional pursuits.

That is the bottom line, although our very own BOTTOM was nearly charred & burned.

I am not repeating or rehashing everything BN folks commented about our football coach. But I have to say the Bruin program, from top to bottom, utterly lacks direction, coaching skills, strategies required for achievements on the field. Athletes’ conduct & discipline off the field is the only area Neuheisel deserves acknowledgement.

by Htse005 on Oct 10, 2011 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Ninth in the world means we're still on a par with Ivy League schools

The top 10 are Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Berkeley, Yale, Columbia, Toronto, Stanford, UCLA and Chicago. I’m sure the order could be slightly different, depending on the criteria.

Sounds like you had a great experience in the English Department. Brings back memories. There were some very tough graders.

by Seth Chandler on Oct 10, 2011 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with you

My room-mates were English majors and don’t recall it being a picnic. So that’s why I took English 85 – it was something like “Literature for science majors” or something. Took the final hungover after I stayed up the night before and closed out Westwood Brewing Co on St. Patrick’s Day! Somehow I BSed with an “A-”! My last quarter at UCLA … By then I was already set … So I could Uhm take chances!

by Nestor on Oct 10, 2011 1:32 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions   1 recs

It was not a picnic.

I got better grades in law school.

Formerly AllHailMightyBruins

by AHMB on Oct 10, 2011 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Very few things at UCLA were a picnic.

Professional school was more work, but easier than UCLA in all reagards.

by Bruin'96 on Oct 10, 2011 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

Damn, I wish I took Nestor's class - he's an easy grader

Coming up with a half dozen Red Zone stops was great for our Defense – I am proud of them and I suspect that game will haunt WSU’s offense for the rest of the season – that Bogus penalty on Fauria for jumping too high gave our D a chance to mentally punish their offense. Great. Good morale booster. Good on them! BUT – the fact is they hardly ever stopped WSU anywhere else on the field. Nester’s tender-heart gave them a C- even though our defense remains woefully unprepared to defend against passes. Also, I love Westgate the kid has heart and I suspect that his presence on the field makes other players play better – but playing him when he has a broken hand. WTF? We were trying to get WSU over-confident?

I would probably give a slightly higher grade on offensive play calling (execution is a separate category). We went deep, we ran to the side, – but I gotta say it was pretty rare that we caught them ‘off guard’ – to my eye our players beat them b/c we were better athletes. (BTW: Although throwing to Fauria would have helped us, I wouldn’t give credit for catching them off guard). I’m not asking for gimmicky plays but mixing things up a little better. Still, on this one I’d give them a C+ or even a B-. But as N said – we need to do try some other formations – especially since Bre is out for a while.

Execution bugs me (I’m going to fold this in with the 60-minutes category). Why do both our Offense and Defense needs at least one (and often two) drives to ‘warm up’? Inevitably, we spend the rest of the game playing from behind – which isn’t where you want to be with a ‘game control running offense’. Other teams can start at the opening whistle – why can’t we? This sort of thing hurts us a lot more with the offense we’re running.

(I don’t have anything to add to players knowing what they’er doing and leaders on the field)

The coaches really don’t deserve a C- for this game. The players sucked it up and got it done but it is another case of lions led by donkeys.

Play with so much passion nothing else matters

by KnudsenRockne on Oct 10, 2011 8:35 AM PDT reply actions  

The coaches are lucky

that there isn’t a coaches-only component of the Eye Test. Something like “Do our coaches help or hinder our on-field performance?”

By itself, the persistent wasting of time playing “I don’t know; what play do YOU want to run?” charades would cap their maximum grade at C. Add the predictability on both O and D, and add the confounding allocation of playing time, and I’m afraid our coaches’ grades would be hovering in the low ones or zero points.

Conversely, were coaches graded separately, players’ grades would improve.

[Not suggesting a new grading category; just sharing Knudsen’s frustration. Six games, six Stomach Test fails.]

by Bruinut on Oct 10, 2011 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

A couple of non "eye test" numbers for consideration

According to ncaa.com/stats

Defense 3rd down % – 118 (out of 120)
Red Zone defense – 110
Sacks – 113

My defensive grade for the year based on numbers – F

Punt return average – 108
Kickoff return average – 93

My special team grade for the year – F (With extra credit for choice of players to return punts)

Total offense – 63
3rd down percentage – 62
Passing yards per game – 90

My offensive grade for the year – D

The team fails the eye test and the numbers test. Yet the players are skilled. How can this apparent contradiction be explained? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Sure. You know the answer. Those who don’t want to change coaches know the answer as well. We all know the answer.

by Fox 71 on Oct 10, 2011 9:03 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

We don't give a grade for something as specific as Red Zone defense ...

but that was the key to the game.

If this was a report card, the team barely gets a passing grade because the Red Zone D earned it some extra credit.

That’s really what scares me about this performance. Yes, the team won and that’s better than losing. But WSU had first and goal four times in the game (twice on one drive due to the leaping penalty) and only came away with three field goals.

Those stops masked the fact that WSU was able to easily drive down the field on us — they just didn’t get touchdowns. Most competent Pac 10 teams score at least one touchdown in that situation and we continue to let teams drive down the field, we can’t count on them coming away with only field goals in the future.

One other thing I did like: We threw over the top a few times. Randall Carroll dropped one he should have had (and I really liked the fact that after the drop we went right back to him on a sideline route instead of benching him for the drop. And Nelson made a nice catch on that deep ball Prince threw that led to Coleman’s touchdown.

If the Pistol forces teams to keep the safeties up to watch the run, throwing deep is important. I hope they keep using Carroll, I think he had more snaps on Saturday than he had in previous games. He’s so fast he almost mandates a double team with the safety because very few corners can run with him.

by Achilles on Oct 10, 2011 9:28 AM PDT reply actions  

It's interesting ...

Fauria comes and goes.

He also goes in and out of the line-up, switching off with Harkey.

That reminds me of something:

When you’re at the game, you really notice how much substituting the team does on both side fo the ball. We run guys in and out on almost every play. Our d-line rotates a lot, depending on down and distance. It’s not clear to me if it’s to keep guys fresh or if it’s situational or what?

But you see is and wonder if guys have trouble getting in and out of rhythm. It’s something you don’t notice on TV, because of the replays and stuff. But you notice it at the game.

by Achilles on Oct 10, 2011 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

Curious. Did you happen to notice that this was primarily our habit, or was it both teams.

Continuity? KISS? Being too smart for our britches? I dunno. Interesting observation.

U-C-L-A Fight, Fight, Fight! Go Bruins!
Go Lakers! Go Dodgers! Go Angels!

by Bruins78 on Oct 10, 2011 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

I didn't really watch WSU ...

I was just noticing that Fauria and Harkey were rotating a lot, that the wide receivers rotate a lot and the D-line does, too. Didn’t notice as much rotation with the LBs or DBs or even the RBs — though Coleman and Franklin do rotate.

The D-Line thing was most noticeable because you don’t see that so much. And WSU was no huddle a lot so the guys were sprinting on and off the field sometimes.

I’m not really criticizing, because I’m not sure what’s going on. But it is something you notice more at the games. At home, I’d have to pay attention to who is out there.

by Achilles on Oct 10, 2011 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

Most teams seem to run a version of no-huddle these days

Which means that at least a few plays in a row they have the same personnel. It’s all part of the speed and tempo we utterly lack.

by bluebland on Oct 10, 2011 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Funny you mention that

Josh Smith was talking about it during the post game radio show interviews. He said that it’s difficult as a WR to come in and have to produce right away because you’re cold and you need to get a rhythm. Said the WR’s coming off the bench do their best and don’t mind doing whatever it takes to win.

I do see a lot of substitutions going on as well. You do notice it more live than on TV. Sometimes i think it is what leads to so many bonehead mistakes like having too many guys on the field after a TO or guys running off the field and not being ready to defend the next play.

by King J77 on Oct 10, 2011 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

Interesting observation

Hadn’t noticed that, but it is very noticable how much trouble the O line has in getting into rhythm. And then when they do, they call a TO, or there’s a television TO or a penalty which disrupts everything. As a matter of fact, I’d say that lack of rhythm is one of the major problems with the offense. Good teams can consistently drive, and we’ve been able to do that in the past, but not in recent years. Constant substitutions could explain a lot about this team.

by ucla717274 on Oct 10, 2011 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

The modern game...

All these "package" substitutions do seem to be self defeating sometimes.

I know this is the modern game, with "packages" for specific downs and scenario’s. Works well at the pro level and the top tier Div I programs have mastered it.

We’re struggling with it and it just kills the continuity of the offense and the defense.

We struggle deciding which package to send in, take too long to get it into the game and then the guys come in without their head in the game…and that is coaching.

by GemCityBruin on Oct 10, 2011 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

It's also a losing proposition ...

against the teams that go no-huddle and it makes it hard to run the two minute drill on offense.

by Achilles on Oct 10, 2011 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yep...

It’s trade off. On one hand it simplifies the coaching and teaching process. As a player you only need to know your responsibilities in your "package."

But the flip side is what you mention. And, I would think that the opposite side of the ball almost always has the upper hand because they study the tape, know the package tendency, watch for the key indicator player in the package and then run the high percentage defeat of the package.

The answer …how about cutting down the number of packages, use your most athletic players who can handle multiple sets and then defeat the counter with your better speed, discipline and ability?

Coaching…

by GemCityBruin on Oct 10, 2011 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

Heart

Glad you brought up number 3.
From the opening bell against Houston, our opponents have effectly used the quick set. No huddle. After a play, our DL is looking elsewhere. Their heads are down and their hands on their knees. They are almost looking defeated. When WSU did not huddle our DL was falling all over them-selves trying to set-up and find the line scrimmage.
Why isn’t our LB’s pointing and calling out the opposition as they break huddle? Throwing out ugly stuff to their QB or their top rusher. Our guys got to make the game personal. Perhaps, personal equates to heart?

by Ol'Blue&Gold on Oct 10, 2011 11:21 AM PDT reply actions  

"Suck it, gbruin"?!

Perhaps you aren’t familiar with the rules in this community and the consequences of disrespecting the frontpagers. Because you have been a valuable contributor, I’ll refer you to the Community Rules and tell you this is your only warning. Thanks.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Oct 10, 2011 11:51 AM PDT reply actions  

Fox could have warned you.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Oct 10, 2011 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Dividing zero by anything is still zero

Let’s expand some more. Don’t cost nothin’.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Oct 10, 2011 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, we don't need to apply L'Hopital's rule

until the denominator, the number of front pagers, approaches zero.

So, we can give you front pagers your choice: Do you want your compensation to be (a.) zero, (b.) undefined, or (c.) anything you want, so long as there is no one to collect.

Note to Fox: every one of those apostrophe’s in the Subject line is legitimate.

by Bruinut on Oct 11, 2011 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

I remember the hospital's rule

I remember that I actually thought I understood it (before I said adieu to math.)

by Fox 71 on Oct 11, 2011 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nope. I just looked it up.

I remember the name. If I thought I understood it, I was totally deluded. I read about it in Wikipedia, which I thought woudl dumb it down enough for me to understand. I didn’t understand anything. I assume that it’s something really neat, but why would anyone want to know what M. Hopital theorized? When is it needed? I know it’s best use now is to pay the front-pagers nothing, which is good, of course, but when else would I need it?

I’ll hang up now and take the answer off the air.

by Fox 71 on Oct 11, 2011 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Kai Maiava got the personal foul after the XP

Not the first time he’s done stupid things at UCLA.

by bluebland on Oct 10, 2011 1:12 PM PDT reply actions  

Ugh

So that was him.

by Nestor on Oct 10, 2011 1:28 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Bruins Nation, an unofficial daily online scrap book covering the greatest collegiate athletic program in the nation. Established June 16, 2005. GO BRUINS.

Managers

Uclabear1_small Nestor

Arron_afflalo1_small Tydides

Brad_pitt_as_achilles_small Achilles

377011_2642084725867_1068030137_32302525_1166539782_n_small Ryan Rosenblatt

Telemachus_small Telemachus

Licenseplate_small gbruin

2761_small tasser10

Blue_bellerophon_small Bellerophon

Img_0052_2_small Patroclus

Small DCBruins

Of Counsels

094_small Ajax

Menelaus2_small Menelaus

Small Meriones

Small Odysseus

Associates

Eee_small freesia39

Uclabruins_small AHMB