Rivals Underestimates UCLA's Recruiting

UCLA Football has had a rough few years.  There is no doubt in anyone's mind that last year was a disaster, with just a few bright spots.  But there is one thing with which most of us agree:  Coach Neuheisel has revitalized recruiting for UCLA in a big way.  Apparently, the folks at Rivals don't feel that way.

First of all, we have discussed ad nauseum the value of rankings done by recruiting web sites.  While it may be ok on an individual level, evaluating a recruiting class is far more complex than simply taking the average of the rankings, or, as in Rivals' case, adding up the number of recruits.  That method is actually, well, stupid.

The size of a recruiting class has absolutely nothing to do with its quality.  

And before talking about how good the recruits are, how about checking to see if the program is recruiting in areas of need?  Bringing in the top 5 RBs in the country is not gonna be very helpful if you're running out of Offensive Linemen.

Secondly, smart recruiting consists in finding players who fit your system and your program.  Boise State, Oregon and TCU have done quite well without lights out recruiting classes.

So when some dimwit at Rivals.com says that UCLA has failed to capitalize on U$C's troubles, I say bull!

Bull, because CRN has stolen some U$C recruits right out from under the Trogans' noses (Dietrich Riley, Jordan Zumwalt).

Bull, because many of the players that made up U$C's "fantastic" classes left, or never came (Mr. Trogan Markeith Ambles, Seantrel Henderson).

And Bull, because many of the kids who end up going to U$C would never get in or make it at UCLA.

It's like these guys write in a vacuum without knowing anything about what they're writing about.  CRN had a MONSTER class a few years back, top 5 in the country, it was one of the best recruiting days for UCLA in a long while, despite mediocre results on the field.

Even when the author tries to soften his own position, he makes a statement that needs qualifying:

In all fairness, though, UCLA is off to a relatively strong start in its 2012 recruiting class. Still, none of the Bruins' commitments were seriously targeted by the Trojans.

That's right, none of our commitments were targeted by Trogans, because they could read and would never set foot in that cesspool.  Just because they are in the same area, doesn't mean that a UCLA target is also a U$C target, and vice versa.  

Last year's class for CRN may not have been the highest ranked but it filled crucial areas of need in the trenches.  It's not necessarily UCLA's fault if there are only a few "4-star" linemen out west in a certain year.

You can say what you want about UCLA not capitalizing on U$C's troubles, but as CRN says:

"At the end of the day, it's about us," Neuheisel said. "If we go out and play like we're capable of playing and put ourselves in postseason play and have a great showing in that capacity, people will come to UCLA because they'll be intrigued about the momentum of the program.

"When they get to UCLA, they'll say, 'Holy cow, what a beautiful campus.' They'll see the kind of kids and the character of the student-athlete that we have at the school. They'll be excited about it. Moms and dads are going to say, 'I want my son here.' That's how you get a program going. We're not far away from getting that jump-started."

Who gives a rat's ass what U$C is doing?  We are not trying to be them.  

The author claims that U$C had a top class in the last recruiting cycle, but further down he talks about defections that have happened and that may keep happening.  So what does that tell you?!

Even Flame Kitten is cat enough to admit that you know in the first 10 minutes when someone's a Trogan.  And I know in the first 10 words when someone writes a dumb article.