Bruin Football Tradition

by Nestor on Jan 4, 2006 6:10 AM PST in Football

Bumped - for those who need a reminder about the tradition of UCLA football. It is lot more than just getting excited about winning Sun Bowls over Northwesterns of the world. Also note the tagline at the very end of this post which was put up before the season got started. GO BRUINS. -N

We recently read an outrageous blindo post attacking the tradition of Bruin football, sullying our accomplishments, heritage, and prestige of Bruin football, effectively attempting to lower the expectations of UCLA football for this incoming season to such a level, that they would celebrate a 7-8 win rebuiding season as a BCS sense. Here is a taste of the mentality of Dorrell backers:

I am more about being competitive year in and year out, having a classy group of guys who represnt our school well, and every so often have a team that has a shot at winning the PAC-10 and beating some good teams along the way. I would like once every ten years to go into Miami or Oklahoma or wherever we are sent to play against a favored team, and pull off a victory. I want to beat SC every so often, and have stretches where we are actually favored for a few years. Once a decade do I expect to have a glimmer of hope of having a miracle season and once a decade I will accept a 3-4 win season. Other than that, I enjoy being in the 7-8 win range.

Unbelievable.

These types of KD apologists repeat the myth that UCLA doesn't have a great college football tradition. UCLA is just a basketball school, and really, therefore, so the self-fullfilling prophecy goes, you can't expect too much success, and therefore, the mediocre performance of the head football coach must be excused, as you can't expect too much from him anyway.

This is such rubbish. Odyesseus back in November of last year laid out an epic post detaling the Bruin football tradition. Here is the gist of it.

College Football Data Warehouse (see the right hand panel of our blog for link) has a lot of neat statistics that easily dispel this myth.

First, UCLA is ranked 25th alltime. This is an amazing feat in itself. Consider: UCLA was founded, and began playing football, in 1919.

Notre Dame is #1 on CFDW's list. Notre Dame was founded in 1842 and began playing football in 1887. Alabama began playing football in 1892, $C in 1888, Oklahoma in 1895, Michigan in 1878. So those teams had a bit of a head start on us.

UCLA didn't have a winning season until Bill Spaulding's first year as head coach in 1925. We lost to three high schools and the USS Idaho in that first year.

We've come a long way:

18 Conference Championships
1 National Championship
1 Heisman Trophy Winner
12-12-1 Bowl Record (did not compete in a bowl game other than the Rose Bowl until the 1976 Liberty Bowl, against Alabama)
8 straight bowl victories (1983-1991)
12 Rose Bowls

Compiled Rankings

From 1950 on, it's quite impressive

Quarter Century:
1950-74: 15th
1975-99: 14th

Decade:
1950-59: 9th
1960-69: 17th
1970-79: 18th
1980-89: 8th
1990-99: 13th
2000-03: 18th

Winning percentage since 1950:

20th, .638 (note that South Florida has only been D I-A since 1997, Boise State, only since 1968)

10th places us higher than Arkansas, LSU, and Washington, along with many other programs of course. (Other teams of note: Oklahoma 1, .752; Michigan 5, .724; $C 9, .688; Notre Dame 10, .688; Florida State 12, .677; Arizona State 13, 664 ;Miami 14, .664; Florida 17, .657; Washington 24, .615

Oh we have more facts and stats for the blindos and rest of Dorrel backers if they really want an edumacation on the history and tradition of Bruin football.

One more fun fact. Athlon Sports asked fans "which school has the best greatest college football tradition?". UCLA was one of the ten programs listed. Also listed were Notre Dame, Texas, $C, Nebraska, Michigan, Alabama, Oklahoma, Penn State, and Ohio State.

Granted, we received less than one percent of the vote (but Texas also received less than one percent of the vote). (The Evil Empire won, and Nebraska won a greater percentage of the vote than Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, or Alabama, making this poll a travesty in my opinion -- but it's not exactly scientific).

If anyone has any more examples of Bruin Football tradition, we'd love to add it. Great facts to add would be number of alumni in the NFL, number of All Americans, and other accomplishments.

But just looking at the raw numbers compiled by CFDW, it's tough to say that UCLA doesn't have a great football tradition, or that UCLA hasn't traditionally been a very prominent program with a great tradition.

But the apologista arguments never really on pesky things like facts. These are the same people who thought L***n would be a better coach than Coach K. You just can't take these arguments seriously. But you can shoot them down with facts. Apologistas can't take facts.

UCLA has a great football tradition. We deserve better than mediocrity and hearing the nonsense of Dorrell suporters.

One last stat: we beat $C for eight straight years! That is an accomplishment that has never been exceeded or equalled in the storied history of the rivalry.

Every year we should expect to beat $C. This year is no different. KD must beat $C or this season is definitely a failure. If he beats $C and gets 9 wins we can consider this season is an improvement. Don't accept mediocrity because the talking heads, the higher ups, the mid-level bureacrats, the self-interested press or proprietors. or delusional blindos of message boards tell you that's how it is.

That's not how it is, and historically that's not how it's been.

MUST WIN 9 and BEAT $C!

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

I have a sneaking suspicion...

...that those who are willing to settle for a "competitive team" and "beating USC every so often" probably didn't even attend UCLA.

Nobody that I know that attended UCLA would say something so absurd.

What a f'ing disgrace.

by Ajax on Jul 7, 2005 10:22 AM PDT 0 recs

Exactly ...

I don't think some of these losers actually attended UCLA ... otherwise, they wouldn't be setting this kind of asinine low threshold as their measure of success.

by Nestor on Jul 7, 2005 11:21 AM PDT 0 recs

Statistically speaking

You must then classify Karl Dorrell's 10-2 season as a highly successful season, since this is only the 7th time in school history that UCLA has a 10-win season. However, something tells me that you're far from happy with the 10-2 season we just achieved. The same can be said for teams from the past. We don't know how they achieved their wins, we only know how many games they won. Ten years from now, we don't care who Karl Dorrell beat and who he got blown out by. The only numbers that matter ten years from now is the record of 10-2.

I can guarantee you that twenty years from now, you will have a Nestor protege who will lambast the football program for underachieving with an 8-5 record and losses to SC and a few other teams. Your protege will cite KD's 2005 10-2 season as one of UCLA football's glory days, even more so if KD wins 9 or 10 games again next year.

by ucla2k3 on Jan 4, 2006 8:43 AM PST 0 recs

Nope ... wrong again

I can tell you that none of my friends who went to UCLA with me or are friends who I know to be Bruin fans from my UCLA student days (91-96), their kids, "proteges" ... or whatever ... would never ever accept a season to be a successful one if it included a 19-66 assraping from USC. Never. Look at the successful seasons from past - most of them included a regular season ending win over USC. That is what considered one of the main components of a "succesful season" for people who actually attended UCLA. None of them considered this past season to be a (channeling Steve Lavin) a "gratifying season."

by Nestor on Jan 4, 2006 8:52 AM PST up 0 recs

But ....

At the same time, you have to understand that the landscape has totally changed from when you went to school and now. Back then, UCLA was a Pac 10 power and a school to be reckoned with. USC sucked and they sucked bad. Now, the roles have reversed. You have to admit that UCLA is slowly becoming a Pac 10 power again. Winning 6 of 8 conference games after going 4-4 the last couple of years is some improvement. You can not be too negative about our program as too much negativity does not promote growth. I enjoyed our 10-2 season and I'm hoping we can improve on what we have now.

by ucla2k3 on Jan 4, 2006 9:18 AM PST up 0 recs

Spare me ... "don't be negative" BS

We heard that all the time during the Lavin years. It's the coach's fault for the program underachieving, not the fans.

by Nestor on Jan 4, 2006 11:00 AM PST up 0 recs

Well, if you look at this season, maybe

but what about season 1 and 2 in the Dorrell era?

by Ajax on Jan 4, 2006 11:27 AM PST up 0 recs

Seasons 1 and 2

...were an abysmal failure, period. No ifs, ands, or buts. That is why I'm very encouraged at this season's 10 wins. Especially with those 4 come-from-behind victories. In past years, those would have been 4 losses, guaranteed. Now that the Bruins have shown that they can win close games and not falter in the final minutes, we need to acquire the killer instinct and put mediocre teams away before we head into the locker room. When we win on a consistent basis, we also need to be able to win by 20 to 30 points so that when the poll voters open up the Sunday papers, they'll have no doubt about voting UCLA in the top 10.

by ucla2k3 on Jan 4, 2006 1:59 PM PST up 0 recs

You are forgetting

The 2 most important players in all of those comebacks, Drew Olson and Marc Lewis (Toledo recruits, btw) are gone.

by Ajax on Jan 4, 2006 2:11 PM PST up 0 recs

It's like this

This year's 10-2 season is akin to an otherwise smoking-hot chick with a huge boil on her forhead.

She sure is hot, but I just can't overcome that darn boil.

by Ajax on Jan 4, 2006 9:00 AM PST up 0 recs

Well then ...

Just close your eyes and enjoy her fine body until a better chick comes along. We should take the same attitude in football. If you keep waiting for the perfect one, it may never come and you're cheating yourself of the opportunity that has been presented. As the saying goes, take what you can get until a better opportunity presents itself.

by ucla2k3 on Jan 4, 2006 9:20 AM PST up 0 recs

RE: Well Then

Does that mean you are on the UCLA bandwagon, but will jump off when times get tough and you see a better gig? Perhaps you should jump to USC, she is looking ok right now?

"The best way to tell a bruin from a trojan is the smell. Better to smell like an animal than a dick"

by Brewin on Jan 4, 2006 10:49 AM PST up 0 recs

LOL

Not at all. What I meant is instead of being like Nestor where you get all worked up and upset about what we didn't achieve, we should just sit back and enjoy what we have cuz what we have is something special (a 10-2 season is not a common occurence at UCLA). We shouldn't just write off the program entirely just because it doesn't have the personnel we approve of. Waiting for the perfect personnel to move in may never happen, especially at UCLA where I don't think they make athletics one of their high priorities. But if it does happen and we get a kick-ass coach and a kick-ass team, then all the better for the school and the fans.

by ucla2k3 on Jan 4, 2006 11:13 AM PST up 0 recs

Just in case you thought I was lying before

This time, Nestor's bag or tricks includes:

An insult: "this blindo probably enjoys going out with fat and fugly chicks with hairy legs." Nice.

On the substance, I don't think the facts cited demonstrate that the Bruins have a "great" football tradition. Certainly a respectable one, but not the type of team that is in a major bowl every year and has a bunch of national championships to show off. And not the kind of team that justifies expectations such as "Every year we should expect to beat $C" including in years when they are extraordinarily talented and haven't lost in recent memory.

UCLA has a solid tradition, that I hope will build over time. But it's an overly rosy view of the past to regale us this tales of victory from years ago when we haven't won a national championship in 50 years.

by SenorBruin on Jan 4, 2006 10:00 AM PST 0 recs

Isn't it odd

That your making the case for the Bruin's great football tradition by citing past records, including the 8th best figure from the 80's, all while poo-pooing our 10-2 season and ripping Donahue? I though both this year and the 80's were disgustingly mediocre.

by brewinTK on Jan 4, 2006 10:10 AM PST 0 recs

Donhaue had a good start in 80s ...

but he imploded down the stretch specially after the 1988 season. And Donahue arguably underachieved given the NFL talents he stockpiled at the UCLA sidelines during the early 80s. We got a taste of what UCLA football should be like under McNowne before it all blew up in December 5, 1998. Toledo had a huge opportunity to build a monster, an opportunity Vermeil had just in his second year, and Donahue after winning his 3rd Rose Bowl. But they (Donahue and Toledo) blew it due to their lack of killer instincts. They never wanted "it" badly. Once Toledo was fired, UCLA had a golden opportunity to reassert itself as an elite program by making a dynamic hire like a Leech, Hawkins, or even Mariucci ... but the Morgan Center blew it by going for a safe, pathetic choice. We will be a decent, cute program, personifying the image of "gutty little Bruins," that Donahue loved to promote. But in reality ... under Dorrell ... UCLA will never taste the kind of 20 game magical run we experienced under Cade. And that is a shame ... given the talent and resources we have access to given our status as one of the elite public universities in the nation.

by Nestor on Jan 4, 2006 10:59 AM PST up 0 recs

I agree there.

We should've hired a proven commodity, especially in a sport that has the potential to generate tens of millions of dollars for the athletic department. What a shame.

by ucla2k3 on Jan 4, 2006 11:16 AM PST up 0 recs

Tradition??

I've been reading the posts here for the last few months, and it still amazes me how worked up everyone gets over our team. But such is life as a Bruin...

In response to the original post here, all I see from the stats shown above is a history of average-above average UCLA football teams with occasional runs of good-great teams highlighted by our one national championship in 1954. You can't (with a straight face at least) mention our name with the likes of Notre Dame, Texas, $C, Nebraska, Michigan, Alabama, Oklahoma, Penn State, and Ohio State. The fact remains that we are not a school rich with football "tradition". All you would need to do is attend a couple SEC, Big-10, or Big-12 football games, and you'll know right away that football runs deep for those schools. Come back from one of those games and go to a UCLA home game, and you'll think you're at a pre-season NFL game.

Sure we've had our fair share of teams ranked in the top 25, and our Rose Bowl moments, but the bottom line is that we are far from breaking into the NCAA football elite. Unfortunately, a football "tradition" comes from years of continued success, a devoted fan base, supportive alumni, a dedicated athletic department, consistent recruiting, a great college football stadium, etc. I'm not so sure we have any of these...

That said, I think it's a little harsh to rag on an over-achieving team, which endured a rash of injuries all year to our O and D-lines, which started the year with what I would call merely "above-average" talent, and an inexperienced coaching staff. Am I happy getting blown out by UA and $C, certainly not... Am I going to demand that the entire program get dismantled. No way. Putting things in perspective, 10 wins with the talent we had, 3 years removed from Toledo, and playing with the injuries we suffered. I would call it a good year...one that we might be able to use to carry some momentum into next year. It would be great to have been competitive against $C, but realistically, I would pick $C over a handful of NFL teams this year.

Sadly, unless the apathy which surrounds our program changes, I'll take any 10-win year in a heartbeat.

by norcalbruin95 on Jan 4, 2006 11:47 AM PST 0 recs

Apathy

Apathy is a vicious cycle. Apathy feeds off losing and it makes it very hard for a program to establish a strong fan base that is needed to ensure the success of any program. Ask USC. During the 1990s, the average attendance at the Coliseum was about 45,000 to 50,000, not the sold-out 92,000 that you see now. The Trojans were able to break out of that vicious cycle and the rest is history. If only we can break out of our apathy as well, things would be quite rosy. As much a headache as it is to deal with 80,000 people at the Rose Bowl, I always love to see the stadium full to capacity.

by ucla2k3 on Jan 4, 2006 2:07 PM PST up 0 recs

Which is it?

So, in your older post, you say "Every year we should expect to beat $C."

More recently, you say "UCLA must beat SC 5 out of 10 times," and that UCLA only needs to "compete with USC year in and year out."

Which is it?

It confusing, partly because the statements are somewhat contradictory, and partly because you seem to have "expected" them to win this year when I don't think any reasonable evaluation warranted it.

by SenorBruin on Jan 4, 2006 12:50 PM PST 0 recs

They are not contracdictory

You just can't read. I expect UCLA to beat SC everytime we play USC. It's a rivalry game. Recrods shouldn't matter. Each team should come with the mentality that it can win the game. So ... it is reasonable if the end results become 50-50, each team winning the half time. That is why it is totally consistent to going into every USC game with the expectation that we should win that game, and then be ok with the end result if we end winning 50 percent of those matchups. That is called playing at the same level of your rival. Under Dorrell UCLA is nowhere close to that level playing field with USC. Dorrell has continued the recent Toledo tradition of being USC's bitch (last year being an exception to the current norm). And, that is not acceptable.

by Nestor on Jan 4, 2006 12:56 PM PST up 0 recs

Logic lesson

To begin with, didn't someone chide me yesterday for making criticising your grammar when I made some mistakes too? Yes. So don't say stupid shit like "You just can't read" while misspelling contradictory. It's a two-way street fella.

On the substance, everything you say is fine and good, but, yes, your statements are contradictory, at least the way you use them.

You have said repeatedly that you "expected" a win against SC this year. And, since they didn't, you've repeatedly claimed that the season was a failure. You've further indicated that the SC loss was the main reason that you can't consider this year a successful season- since the Bruins exceeded your other expectation of 9 wins. What follows from that is that you expect them to win every year, and, if they don't, the Bruin's are failures.

You then turn around and say that you only expect UCLA to beat USC 5 of 10 times. The converse of that is that it is okay (or at least to be expected) that they would lose 5 of 10 times. But you can't stick to that. Instead, in a year when there is every reason to believe that it properly should be considered an acceptable loss, given the context (USC is really good), you can't accept it. You still call the season a failure. This failure of logical discipline eviscerates your initial proposition, rendering it either meaningless or hollow.

These propositions as used are contradictory. You may now proceed with your dancing....

by SenorBruin on Jan 4, 2006 1:17 PM PST up 0 recs

No really ...

You just can't read. Let me make this simple for you - this was an "OK" season. But it was not a "successful" season given how we got assraped by USC. Did you get that? That loss to USC would have been palatable had Dorrell's team not laid down like bunch of dogs on December 3rd. Yes ... if we played like we did last year (04) against USC, then under the totality of circumstances ... a 10 win season coupled with a death match type of loss to USC would have been palatable for us. But it didn't happen. We got the shit kicked out of us ... just like Carroll did to Toledo's teams. So that is not really an "improvement" under our standards.

And again you are reading/reconciling my posts like a total moron. It is all right to come into every USC game with the expectation that UCLA should win the game. That is called having a winning mentality ... not the pathetic attitude of geez ... hope we can keep it close. I'd like our football team come into the USC game with the attitude that it will win (not can, "will") the game, and then play like it leaving everything on the field. We clearly haven't two out of three years under Dorrell ... which was one of the main reason he was brought into Westwood ... so that UCLA can "fire out" in this game. If UCLA played like their lives were on the line against USC (which we haven't under Dorrell) then it would be palatable or "okay" if we won 5 out of 10 of those games. Now you can proceed with your mendacity which in your world is considered "logical reasoning".

by Nestor on Jan 4, 2006 1:53 PM PST up 0 recs

Boys, boys....

.... you two sound like my grandkids going back and forth. Though they're at least more polite.

I'm confused though. Nestor, are you saying that you'd call the season a success, and knock off the criticism of Dorrell, if we'd just given USC a better game?

by OldBob on Jan 4, 2006 2:04 PM PST up 0 recs

Yes ... the 10 win season

would have looked legit if we played like a "10 win" team against USC and Arizona. We didn't.

by Nestor on Jan 4, 2006 2:18 PM PST up 0 recs

OK, sadly, this sums it up best

I think this sums up what I want out of KD:

"This is really what we wanted," said guard Fred Matua. "We want to be out there and play it to the fullest. We don't play to just stay on top. We play to win, man.

"We're not about putting the game in our defense's hands. We want to take it from them on our terms. If we go down, we're going down fighting, not just hopin' and wishin'. This is how we play at SC, and any high schooler that wants to play like this, man, come on through. We don't play scared."

Ironically, this came from one of those ass-clowns across town. When I think of our team in recent years, this "10-2" season included, I think of us as little wascally wabbit that got lucky a lot of times. I'm tired of us having that poor-me victim mentality, "thank Lord we only got mugged twice, not the other 10 times" mentality.

by stevenucla on Jan 5, 2006 12:42 PM PST 0 recs

Good quotes

Actually, though, I think that is a good part of what Dorrell HAS done right this year. He's managed to get the guys on the same page and get them to believe. Say what you want about the 2 losses, but from all the quotes I've read over the season and before, the players seem to have bought into a better team attitude, and have certainly shown some rather large stones on at least five occassions this season. Also, I sure haven't heard anything from the players along the lines of what you quote in your last paragraph.

by OldBob on Jan 5, 2006 2:47 PM PST up 0 recs

You haven't heard these lines

because I was quoting an SC player after the Rose Bowl game, not one of ours. I was using that quote to illustrate the fact that I think we lack that killer instinct. I agree we are very talented, maybe KD knows what he's doing, but at the same time, I don't think we just have "it", that little thing that makes a difference between 10-2 and 12-0.

by stevenucla on Jan 6, 2006 11:16 AM PST up 0 recs