"You Can't Win Every Game"

by Barnes2JJ on Jun 30, 2007 12:44 PM PDT Comment 36 comments

Bumped from the diaries. Barnes2JJ with a money post. GO BRUINS. -N

I may take some heat for this diary, but I wanted to put this item out there.

From the recent UCLA alumni magazine (page 46), is this quote from senior defensive tackle Kevin Brown:

"You can't win every game. Our biggest focus is to live up to our potential and play that UCLA style of football [like] those teams that were going to Rose Bowls. Everyone has dreams of winning the national championship and Pac-10 title, and with good work those things are going to come, [but] you have to have short-term goals. You focuse on square one, you go game-by-game. When the games come, everything falls into place from practice." From this quote, Kevin seems like an intelligent, educated guy to me. I don't know him at all and he's probably a great guy. In fact, I agree with most of what he said.

But I am a little troubled by the first sentence in the above paragraph: "You can't win every game." I am also a little troubled by his statement that you have to have "short term goals." To me, that smacks of KD's "three game season."

I am going to play a little devil's advocate here. Why can't you (that is, UCLA) win every game? What is wrong with long term goals (winning the National Championship)?

I am not writing this diary to stir things up on BN. I am not a flamethrower or a bombthrower or whatever. I post the above quote (which, after all, is taken from UCLA's alumni magazine) to encourage some debate about this.

Why am I bothered by this? I don't think members of championship teams (no matter what sport you are talking about) say things like, "You can't win every game" and think you should have "short terms goals." Think back to the 1980s Lakers (or even the Celtic championship teams of the 80s), some of the Yankee dominant squads, or (God forbid me as I write this) the recent SuC teams. There was a certain attitude there, call it arrogance maybe, but I believe those teams that do make it to the top have to have a certain arrogance (or higher level of confidence) than other teams. Those championship teams DO think they can win every game.

Anyway, perhaps I am making too much of this. Maybe I have "micro-analyzed" his statements. I truly do not intend to pick on Kevin Brown at all and I'm not trying to turn this diary into another KD pinata bash. I also hate to focus on the negative, but hey, this is something I just read, and therefore, it may be ripe for discussion.

I just think the expectations for UCLA football have, unfortunately, fallen, and this does concern me.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Barnes2JJ

I am glad you wrote this up. The same exact thought went through my head when I read Kevin Brown's quote and it reminded me of AA's remarks from last season when the kid would get crushed over every loss.

It really tells me something about the difference in mentality between these two programs.

One has "it" and the other clearly doesn't.

Thanks for this. You are on the money.

GO BRUINS.

by Nestor on Jun 30, 2007 1:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

He's being realistic

and by that, I mean if you know your head coach is going to go run-run-pass-punt on every offensive possession and go for the field goal in the red zone, then he's absolutely right: You cannot, and WILL NOT win every game.

by Tydides on Jun 30, 2007 1:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

One more thing ...

I added the blockquote tag in there ... so now you can see what simple codes we use to do those shaded blockquote. You can just click on edit diary and check it out. And this diary is getting bumped. GO BRUINS.

by Nestor on Jun 30, 2007 1:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Thank you

for the bump and the edits. I still need to figure out the codes to properly format these things.

by Barnes2JJ on Jun 30, 2007 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How Do You Make Block Quotes?

by BruinFan1 on Jun 30, 2007 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Next time

You write a diary with quotec text, I can go into your post and insert the tag. You can then check out what I did.

Hard to share it in the comment section.

You can also check out basic html tags by clicking on the link under "About Us"

You are a lawyer in training at a top-25 law school. I imagine you are smart enough to figure it out by clicking on that link under "About Us".

by Nestor on Jun 30, 2007 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You Hit The Nail On The Head

If there's one thing I hate in sports, it's a lack of confidence.

KD's "play not to lose" mentality is permeating throughout.

by BruinFan1 on Jun 30, 2007 1:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This is bad

I guess Kevin couldn't play for Boise State. And you can't go into a season expecting and planning on being unbeaten. After all, a 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 game season is just too long to expect to win.

Hey Kevin - go into Pauley and look up! Try an 88 game season.

How on earth can we expect this team to compete for a national championship if the team expects to lose. And who should get the blame for this negative mindset? Well, see if "expect to lose" is on Coach's Pyramid of Success? Somehow I don't think it's there.

This is disgraceful. It's probably a truthful recitation of the thoughts of all our players, but it's still disgraceful. And there is only one person who can be blamed for this.

The romper room sites will probably hail this as astute KD teaching of realism, and exalt in the mediocrity it nurtures.

by Fox 71 on Jun 30, 2007 1:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

this reminds me of the ESPN UCLA showcase

Dorrell-speak is a disease that is contagious. In the ESPN showcase our players were giving excuses for not winning THIS season, not last. It was incredible. Its one thing to be realistic but its another to sacrifice an aggressive can-do attitude just to be realistic. This is disappointing.

by DumpDorrell on Jun 30, 2007 1:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Blame it on Dorrell.

You can't blame Kevin for this. Blame Dorrell's consistent losing and "soft-manner" demeanor. This is unacceptable in College FB where 1 loss can knock you out of a national title game. This team needs a coach who can rile up the team and put the boots to an enemies throat. If there is one thing I've learned about watching College FB religiously during the last couple of years, a coach's passion and desire can make or break a team. KD needs to grow some balls and show some emotion on the sideline.

by ratmboy on Jun 30, 2007 1:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Meanwhile, the arrogant buggers...

... across town frequently mirror their coach by saying, "We feel like we can win every game."

Shoot, even AA and DC used to say that, "if we play our game, we feel like we can beat any team in the country," or words to that effect.

Man, oh man.

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Jun 30, 2007 2:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

M, I'm sorry to say it

Mr. Dorrell is the answer to both your questions. "Why not us?" Mr. Dorrell is standing in our way. "Why not now?" How can we expect our teams to have an aggressive attitude when they are told they will not win every game. Wouldn't it be easier just to pick the games you're not going to win and announce it in advance. That way we wouldn't have to bother watching.

It's not like we're some out of the way state normal teacher college getting invited to Lincoln or Norman to let those guys see if they can break a hundred. But our head coach doesn't realize this.

Change the context just a little and its prototype justsc: "We know we can't abide by all the NCAA rules. We know we'll have a few guys who get free housing. But so what." We would be all over that like white on rice, and deservedly so. What do you suppose the chronicle guy is saying about our team now? And he's right to say it.

by Fox 71 on Jun 30, 2007 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fox -- THAT'S the point, my friend!

I am seriously considering wearing a T-shirt with "WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?" on it to all the games, esp. since my seats are Row 16 next to the team tunnel.

As much as I agree with the "If not now, when?" mantra, I like WNU?/ WNN? because it can hopefuuly force people to asky WHY THIS TEAM, with 20 returning starters, an improving defense, a talented QB, AND a favorable home schedule, could NOT WIN IT ALL NOW?

And, if we don't pull off AT LEAST TEN WINS and a share of the Pac-10 Title, well, you already know the answer...

WHY NOT US? Dorrell.

WHY NOT NOW? See above.

If I got a bunch of blue shirts made up with "WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?" do you think they'd catch on?

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Jun 30, 2007 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think they would do well.

How could anyone not get behind them. They're positive. They're creative. I say do it.

by Fox 71 on Jun 30, 2007 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's a little ahead of the game

Many of the posts on this site are intelligent and well thought out, but its comments like this that have to stop. You already know that it's Dorrell's fault if they don't win a share of the Pac-10? What if Forbath misses 5 kicks and UCLA loses by 1 in a game to clinch the Pac-10 title? Oh wait, that would be Dorrell's fault for recruiting the No. 1 kicker in the country and having him disappoint in one game. I'm not saying I don't expect this team to win 10 or win the Pac-10. I do think winning the Pac-10 will be doable, albeit difficult with 'SC's strength, but winning 10 games should definitely be achieved (by the way, if UCLA wins ten games, it will be just the third time in history that the Bruins have had 2 ten win seasons in a three-year span...see how stats can be fixed?) Nonetheless, you cannot forsee the future and it is unfair to blame Dorrell for not winning 10 games next year before the team hasn't won 10 games. There could be a flood of injuries, a set of unfortunate circumstances that have nothing to do with Dorrell that end up costing us a close game...a million things could happen. I'm not saying we shouldn't expect the best...not by a long-shot, but it's unfair to say, "this is the threshold and if it's not achieved, it's your fault." If the team disappoints next year and doesn't compete the way we want it to, then fine, Dorrell should be canned, but what if a kick-ass team shows up and runs into a couple of unfortunate circumstances that leave it just short of the threshold? The point is, lets just see how the season plays out and then decide whether Dorrell should be fired. This is his make or break season, no question about it, but lets not judge until after the season is over. Before we overhaul a program that has been improving its recruits and increased its short-term and long-term expectations, we need to give it a fair shot to make good on its expectations.

by Chick Hearn on Jun 30, 2007 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's ridiculous

First of all, the expectations that we have for the team isn't the issue here, it is THE PLAYER'S EXPECTATIONS that are the issue. You don't see how it's a problem that one of our players does not expect to win every game on the schedule? If ANYONE IN THE WORLD should be sold on the chances of this team being the greatest team ever, it should be our players.

It is the culture of "not good enough", this culture of "moral victories" which leads to loser speak like this, and while I wouldn't want to be the messenger who tells our team that it is impossible to win every game, I'd hate even more to be the guy that made him think this way.

As for not being able to judge a season until after it is completed, that too is nonsense. The axe can and should be applied the second it is apparent that we will not be the Pac 10 Champions this season. Hopefully that moment never comes, but if it does, the axe should be swift and decisive. How are WE supposed to give this team a "fair shot" at fulfilling the expectations when the players themselves are not willing to give THEMSELVES a fair shot at the ideal perfect season?

by Tydides on Jun 30, 2007 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chick, I respect your opinion...

... as well as your choice of online moniker. (The PnG have been flat-out snakebit ever since the old master passed away.) However, I must disagree.

To me, my "WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?" mantra can be used both ways, positive and negative.

If we win our first few games CONVINCINGLY to start the season (i.e. no double-digit comebacks in the fourth quarter, actually covering the spread against non-conference teams), then WNU?WNN? can be our mindset to ESPN and every other East Coast-biased media to give the team -- and its staff -- more attention and accolades. IF we win and produce and perform, then why SHOULDN'T we be taken seriously in the BCS and for player awards? WHY THE HECK NOT?

If we do NOT show improvement and consistency, however, then what caused it? Or, WHO?

As to your points:

We may have to agree to disagree. Your hypothetical seems incomplete.I understand we need to see the season play out, but what if we made some bad play calls to put us in a position of being down by 12 isntead of up by 9 at the same point in the game? Or, what if we had 2 mintues left in the first half of that game, with the ball at our 20, and KD sticks to previous form and OKs running plays and slants where the ball is caught no more than 6-7 yards ahead of the LOS?

I'm not saying I don't expect this team to win 10 or win the Pac-10. I do think winning the Pac-10 will be doable, albeit difficult with 'SC's strength, but winning 10 games should definitely be achieved (by the way, if UCLA wins ten games, it will be just the third time in history that the Bruins have had 2 ten win seasons in a three-year span...see how stats can be fixed?)

True. But then I msut ask the question -- HOW MANY TIMES has the school had 2 12-GAME regular seasons 13-game regular and bowl-game seasons in a 3-year span?

So far, I count that we've had THREE 12-game seasons (before Bowl Games) in KD's four years so far. JUST IN THOSE SEASONS, he averaged EIGHT WINS, counting Bowl games.

My point is this: 10-win seasons are becoming more commonplace as teams expand their seaosns to incldue mroe games, from pre-season games to conference championships. 10-win seasons are stilla ccomplishments to note, but the increase ins easons should be noted, too.

By analogy: would Harrick's 20-win seasons look as good TODAY, when every Pac-10 team plays 18 Pac-10 games, PLUS the Pac-10 Tournament, PLUS 2 or 3 pre-season invitationals AND non-conference opponents?

Nonetheless, you cannot forsee the future and it is unfair to blame Dorrell for not winning 10 games next year before the team hasn't won 10 games. There could be a flood of injuries, a set of unfortunate circumstances that have nothing to do with Dorrell that end up costing us a close game...a million things could happen. I'm not saying we shouldn't expect the best...not by a long-shot, but it's unfair to say, "this is the threshold and if it's not achieved, it's your fault." If the team disappoints next year and doesn't compete the way we want it to, then fine, Dorrell should be canned, but what if a kick-ass team shows up and runs into a couple of unfortunate circumstances that leave it just short of the threshold? The point is, lets just see how the season plays out and then decide whether Dorrell should be fired. This is his make or break season, no question about it, but lets not judge until after the season is over.

I can agree with this point in principle. However, I also suggest that $C and Oregon and Cal have been able to sustain multiple injuries and have had consistently better performance than our team over the past few years. This is due in no small part to their ability to recruit and develop quality depth. Injuries are sadly inevitable in college athletics. After 4 years of coaching, we should have contingencies in place for insuring depth. That being said, I am willing to take injuries into consideration as the year progresses.

Before we overhaul a program that has been improving its recruits and increased its short-term and long-term expectations, we need to give it a fair shot to make good on its expectations.

I must respectfully but firmly disagree with the boldface area. Coach Dorrell has wanted to compete for Pac-10 championships from Day One. This was announced at his intro press conference. However, we have fallen far short of those goals.

We have heard about learning and growth and heading in the right direction for four years -- with only ONE season above 7 wins to show for it.

We have heard EVERY SPRING about quarterbacks having trouble with understanding the offense, due in no small part to significant ANNUAL coaching turnover (save in 2005).

We have gone from the Coach talking about Pac-10 and BCS championships during the first season... to efforts to salvage a disappointing year by reducing their hopes to a "3-game season."

We have 20 starters returning. An improving and aggressive defense. Experienced receivers, running backs, and offensive linemen. A blue-chip recruit at QB, with extra maturity and physical development than most QB's with his relative experience. An experienced, scrmabler of a backup QB who helped beat $C. A promising LB corps. A returning All-American at DE. A hard-hitting safety in the DB rotation. A #1 recruit at kicker.

UCLA has the tools to compete for a championship, PAc-10 and possibly national.

People may laugh at the notion as unrealistic, or unreasonable, or unthinkable.

WHY NOT US?

WHY NOT NOW???

WHY THE HELL NOT?

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Jul 1, 2007 3:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The meaning of 10 wins

As M just pointed out (as have others throughout the months), the fact that UCLA football has achieved a limited number of 10-win seasons has to be considered with the knowledge that the length of the college football season has varied throughout the years (it ain't as short as it used to be).

Under the current NCAA rules, we have 12 regular season games, plus a bowl (13 total). If you really want to compare the relative strength of a 10-win season now to prior seasons (As saying "this was only UCLA's Xth 10-win season", winning percentage seems to be the most accurate means). Looking back at the history of UCLA football, excluding the very early years, we have played anywhere between 8 and 13 games in a season

a 10 win season, including a bowl under current rules = .769 win % (.833% w/o the bowl game; 10-2).

In a 9-game season, a 7-2 record is the closest fit, with a .778 win%
For a 10-game season, an 8-2 (.800%), or 7-2-1 (.750%) record is the best approximation of a
In an 11-game schedule, an 8-2-1 record (.773%) is the near exact equal to a modern 10-3 season; the most accurate point of reference.
A 12-game schedule is close enough to 13 that a 10 win season is here the proper compariaon.

by bruinhoo on Jul 1, 2007 3:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And the application...

While I am sure that we can all agree that a 10-win season is a fine accomplishment for Bruin football to achieve, those that cite the small number of such seasons in our program's history, together with having achieved one such season under the current regime as "proof" of the "rightness" of the program's direction (its 4am, forgive the awkwardness) must take into consideration the variance in the length of seasons in the past (ie, no matter how good a team is, it can't have a 10-win season while only playing 9 games).

Using my last post as a guide, here are the prior seasons of UCLA football that, by winning percentage, equal or better a contemporary 10-win season (.769%, assuming participation in a bowl game). Source: UCLA media guide

8-2-0 (.800%, PCC Co-champion)
6-0-4 (.800%, 2nd PCC, #7 AP)
10-1-0 (.909%, PCC Champion, #4 AP)
8-1-0 (.809%, 2nd PCC, #6 AP, UPI)
8-2-0 (.800%, PCC Champion, #4 UPI, #5 AP)
9-0-0 (1.000%, UPI National Champion, #2 AP)
9-2-0 (.818%, PCC Champion, #4 AP, UPI)
8-2-0 (.800%, 3rd PCC)
8-2-1 (.773%, AAWU Champion, #4 AP, #5 UPI)
9-1-0 (.900%, 2nd AAWU, #5 AP, UPI)
8-1-1 (.850%, 2nd Pac-8, #10 UPI)
9-2-0 (.818%, 2nd Pac-8, #9 UPI)
9-2-1 (,792%, Pac-8 Champion, #5 AP, UPI)
9-2-1 (.792%, 2nd Pac-8)
9-2-0 (.818%, 2nd Pac-10)
10-1-1 (.875%, Pac-10 Champion, #5 AP, UPI)
9-2-1 (.792%, Pac-10 Champion, #6 UPI, #7 AP)
10-2-0 (.833%, Pac-10 Co-champion, #9 AP)
10-2-0 (.833%, 2nd Pac-10, #6 AP, UPI)
10-2-0 (.833%, Pac-10 Co-champion, #5 AP, USA Today)
10-2-0 (.833%, Pac-10 Champion, #8 AP, USA Today)
10-2-0 (.833%, 3rd Pac-10)

22 Seasons in all, out of the 79 seasons that UCLA has played major conference football (dating to 1928, with our joining the Pacific Coast Conference).

While a 10-win season has a good look to it (and would give Dorrell a couple years more job security, for those so interested), keep in mind that a 10-3 season would not crack the top 1/4 of UCLA's Football teams - good, but not outstanding from a historical perspective.

by bruinhoo on Jul 1, 2007 4:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hoo

You should combine those two comments in a stand alone post in the diary section. Everyone needs to read that info. Great research.

by Nestor on Jul 1, 2007 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ditto

Great work, hoo. Some seriously excellent research here.

I am also thankful that the above debate is respectful, but this whole "10 win" mantra is really getting out of hand.

Everyone has heard of inflation. Well, the same thing has happened in football with the number of games teams play (and therefore, the number of wins a team is likely to have).

It's the same way with the number of bowls we have now. I am tired of hearing that we went to this bowl or that bowl. Almost everyone goes to a damn bowl these days. And if they are bullsh*t bowls, they are bullsh*t bowls! Not to mention that we are getting beat by crappy teams in these bullsh*t bowls. I mean, if a crappy team beats us, what does that make us?

Let's not sugarcoat this, friends. We face reality on BN. This ain't romper room.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 1, 2007 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Looks like

Your post started a sh!tstorm over at BRO.

Some assclown actually compared Kevin Brown's quote with something that apparently came out of the mouth of Vince Lombardi. lmfao!

by bluestreet on Jul 1, 2007 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I won't read BRO

I went over there once and threw up.

Those people are clueless. I honestly won't waste my time on them.

By the way, what does it say that Kevin Brown's quote was mentioned in UCLA's magazine in a POSITIVE context?!

Here is what the writer of that article said, immediately before Kevin's quote: "Defensive tackle Kevin Brown...waxes philosophical, acknowledging that success is often found on the journey, not just the destination." This is followed by Kevin's quote.

(Sorry, Nestor, I have to run out now and still need to learn the blocking of the text--I swear I will learn.)

Everyone read that correctly? Success is found on the JOURNEY (oh, we had a nice season, a bunch of wins, a 66-19 loss, whatever, but we learned a lot about ourselves), not just on the destination (Pac 10 title, National Championship).

Good grief! Our own alumni magazine is clueless! I can feel my blood pressure going up as I write this. Sheesh!

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 1, 2007 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that there is success in...

... the journey.

But there is nothing wrong with striving for BOTH.

Strive for success in the destination, so that even if you miss out, the success in the journey comes from knowing you tried your honest best in reaching a goal.

I'm still learning about all the ins and outs of a legal career, but that doesn't mean that I don't make an honest, concerted, aggressive effort to win every case I'm involved in.

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Jul 1, 2007 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Yours is an intelligent post. Strive for success in the journey and in the destination.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 1, 2007 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

I'll get that done when I have time this afternoon.

by bruinhoo on Jul 1, 2007 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes combine it in a diary

we will reference it on DD as well.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 1, 2007 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't championship caliber teams always say...

...that their goal is "obviously to win every game ... but we're going to take it one game at a time." So why are we not focused on winning every game?

"You can't win every game?" Why not? Who says you can't? Who announces that? I'm embarrassed at that quote. If he truly believes that he should leave the team. I don't care how much talent he has.

There's a difference between believing you can win every game and actually winning. Yeah, you may not win every game (the odds may be against you), but it doesn't mean you can't.

by BruinEd03 on Jun 30, 2007 3:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yep

When I read the little article with the quote the first time around, I sort of glossed over what he said. Then, I read it again and thought, "is that a misprint?"

Unfortunately, I don't think it's a misprint. I wish someone would tell me that it was.

I think it's pretty simple: if you don't expect to win every game, you probably won't. What is wrong with setting your standards high, damn it all?

Once again--Toledo said, "I came here to win National Championships." Dorrell said he "wants to win the Pac-10 and beat SC." Toledo did not succeed, but he came damn close. Everyone knows that to win a NC, you probably have to go unbeaten.

(Rhetorical) Which attitude is more inspiring for the team?

by Barnes2JJ on Jun 30, 2007 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I know it was rhetorical, but it's pretty inspiring when a coach remembers your birthday. Give Coach Karl some credit there.

Duke and North Carolina called: They want Steve Lavin back. GO BRUINS!!

by Allofmybros on Jun 30, 2007 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My birthday

is coming up in a couple weeks. Should I expect a card from Coach?

by Barnes2JJ on Jun 30, 2007 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He sends cards?!

Wow. The dude is more of a stud than I thought.

Duke and North Carolina called: They want Steve Lavin back. GO BRUINS!!

by Allofmybros on Jun 30, 2007 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

REMEMBER A BRUIN

I hope bruinsnation.com will take a moment to remember Joel Siegel (who was best known as the movie critic for abc News).

Joel was a renaissance man at UCLA. An active supporter of civil rights (he went to the South to work with Dr. King). He opposed the Vietnam war. He wrote great humorous and insightful columns for the Daily Bruin. He was the editor-in-chief of Satyr (the student humor magazine). He created classic editions of Satyr which parodied "Sports Ill-stated" and Time. He was a member of the Kelps (the spirit -- actually, more the beer -- organization). He was a success at everything he touched. Most of all, he was an optimistic spirit and a very decent guy.

A donation to the Daily Bruin in his name would be a great thing if you would like to remember him.

by uclagradscdad on Jun 30, 2007 4:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Joel Siegel

I was in school with Joel and he was a good guy as an undergrad, so I am sorry to see him pass. As a Vietnam veteran, no comment on the other.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by BillSouthBay on Jul 1, 2007 7:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sad to ehar of his passing...

... although I lost a little respect for him when he loudly made a scene while walking out of a Kevin Smith movie.

Nevertheless, he brought wit and spirit and sincere enthusiasm to his work as a film reviewer.

Prayers for him and his family. Rest in peace, fellow Bruin.

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Jun 30, 2007 5:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I hate to bring up the L-name again

But the loser Lavin had the same kind of mentality. He once said that, of course his goal is to win the national championship, but that some years are more realistic than others. This might be true, but it is something you do not verbalize to the press. You keep it to yourself.

But Lavin could not keep it to himself, because he needed Bruin fans' expectations to be lowered. He needed to condition them in advance, to be ready to accept the inevitable -- the trademark Lavin underachievement, inconsistency, blow-out losses, and ultimately, early tourney exits. Basically, he was just telling Bruin fans -- if you expect a championship this year, then you are dreaming.

KD is no different. There is no way in h*ll he will ever win a BCS championship game and he knows it. His goal is to make a respectable showing to keep his job awhile longer, to fend off critics, to appease his non-demanding supporters, and to perpetuate the smokescreen that UCLA football is doing just fine, progressing just fine, and to give him additonal time for growth.

Unfortunately, the headcoach's mindset inevitably filters down the the players. The championship aura does not permeate the UCLA football program in any degree. How could it, when the headcoach has no clue as to how it feels to win a championship, nor how to go about winning one?

by bluegold on Jul 1, 2007 10:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs