Our Natural Advantages

by Nestor on Jul 31, 2007 5:06 AM PDT in Football Comment 21 comments

Every now and then while talking up Karl Dorrell's mediocrity as the head coach of UCLA football, you will hear us talk about UCLA's "natural advantages." If you are still wondering what exactly that term means, read this article just published on WWL (emphasis mine):

UCLA has won championships in 16 different sports, ranging from big-ticket titles in men's basketball to dynastic streaks in men's tennis, volleyball and softball. The Bruins boast titles in swimming, golf, gymnastics, soccer and track and field as well.

UCLA's success begs the question: How can one school have so much success across the board?

"There's no better job in the country for any sport," Krikorian explained. "You're getting the rare opportunity to work with what I feel are the best coaches in the country in almost every single sport. You work with the best athletes, the best administrators.

"It's a lot of fun, but it's quite humbling. If you're third or fourth in the country, that's just not cutting it. [The school's success] adds a bit of pressure to your job because the expectations are so high, but with that you gain a bit of confidence -- you know you're part of something special, something much larger than yourself and your program. It's a thrilling opportunity."

UCLA has some built-in advantages. It's much easier to attract the best student-athletes to an academically challenging institution in sunny California than, say, North Dakota. And of course, the Bruins' long history of athletic success is tangible evidence for recruits that an NCAA championship is seemingly always within reach.

"I think there are a few reasons why our program is successful," Krikorian said. "One, we're at a great university. Academically, it's one of the best, and it attracts kids that are intelligent and have a burning desire to be successful. Two, we have the right support staff around coaches and players -- whether it's weights, training, coaching, administrative -- everything is in place to be successful. Three, you need talented players, and we've been able to attract talented kids with a tremendous amount of integrity, heart and work ethic. When you add it all together, nothing can go wrong. You've put yourself in a good situation."

But while those ingredients are necessary for any successful program, what sets UCLA apart is the support the coaches receive and the focus on producing not just successful athletes, but successful people as well. Perhaps no coach epitomizes this philosophy more than UCLA's legendary coach emeritus, John Wooden. The Hall of Fame basketball coach led the Bruins to 10 NCAA championships (including seven consecutive) in his 27-year reign as the Wizard of Westwood. In his current role, Wooden serves as a friend, confidante, and not surprisingly, coach to the rest of the Bruins' staff.

Read the rest of the article, which goes on to provide some wonderful account on how Coach Wooden is watching out for all of our programs.

As I was reading the article I was struck by the words of Krikorian. You didn't hear him making any excuses for UCLA academics being too tough for athletes. You didn't hear him making any excuses for UCLA's facilities not being world class. You didn't hear him making any excuses for the high COL in Southern California. All you heard from him was just relishing the greatness and tradition associated with that four letter word and the opportunity to coach and to win championships in the best athletic program in America. Coming to think of it if you substitute Krikorian with the names Howland or Savage or Scates, you'd get the same exact answers.

Yet if you substitute Krikorian and insert the name of you know who, all you would have gotten would be boilerplate, tired, boring, pathetic clichés, making sorry excuses for years of mediocrity.

Everyone knows it. You know it. I know it. And probably some reality based folks in Morgan Center knows it. Hopefully at the end of this coming football season, if it becomes clear that the standards established and revered in every UCLA sports is not being met in the world of UCLA football, our great university with all its natural advantages will be looking for a new coach to take us to a new direction. There is no reason we can't have in football what we have in every other major sports at UCLA.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

In the UCLA First to 100 Special

There are also many great quotes from the coaches about the bar being set high and all of them seemed to relish the challenge of keeping up with the other teams in the program.

Bruinforever mentioned the special, and I must say after seeing it last night, it is highly recommended viewing, especially pertaining to Nestor's post.

http://www.bruinsnation.com/story/2007/7/26/1710/91276

by Free the 16 on Jul 31, 2007 8:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Natural advantages

are vehemently dismissed by supporters of a deficient coach who cannot recruit top players into his program.

Concurrently, such supporters advance the argument that 5-star players are really not needed, that it is just as good to see unheralded recruits develop right before our very eyes.

by bluegold on Jul 31, 2007 9:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Bluegold

What? We don't want 5 star recruits? Seeing unheralded recruits, etc. That is fine for basketball since we have a proven high level program or tennis where we competed 8 years out of 10 for a NC, or volleyball, but not in football. We are on the outside looking in, and we need all the 5 star recruits we can get. Tell the supporters to "pound sand" and do a reality check.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by BillSouthBay on Jul 31, 2007 11:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

but these advantages are commonplace in Pac-10 ...

I know I run the risk of being banned for disagreeing with The Canon - but how unusual are these advantages in the Pac-10? (please read to the end before you flame me ;)

I am not knocking UCLA's academic rep, nor its climate nor its committment to student athletes - but I am saying that Stanford, Cal, and U$C can claim pretty much the same advantages - and they, too, boast many championships in a variety of sports. [We hit 100 first and can brag about it - but those other schools aren't that far behind] Our advantages have paved the way for hiring super coaches for many of our teams but we still have to fight our Pac-10 rivals for conference titles because they, too, have good coaches and good players.

UCLA attracts good players, no doubt. In fact, UCLA draws good enough players that even Dorrell can reliably beat teams like Rice or SDSU. This suggests to me that UCLA could draw more talented coaching which would make us more attractive to better recruits.

The advantages don't automatically make UCLA's teams elite - the school has to back them, too. This isn't only money and facilities, but also actively recruiting the best and keeping them. We should never allow our best talent be hired away from us - we should never settle for mediocrity or our advantages are wasted.

Note: Stanford fired its head coach to get the team headed in the right direction (and the AD even appologized that it may have been a bit unfair but he had to do something)

by UrsaMajor on Jul 31, 2007 1:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Wrong

First of all comparing UCLA's natural advantages to Cal and Stanford's situation is silly. Lot of UCLA's advantages come because of the direct access our school has the ready made talent available in our backyard in Southern California. We have that. The Bay Area schools don't.

When we have a good coach in a program that can harness that talent those Bay Area schools don't have a chance. You can see that now in hoops with Howland demolishing Cal, Stanford and all the other Pac-10 schools in recruiting. And same thing is happening in baseball.

As for comparison to SuC, WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING? Are you blanking out that SuC is located around Thug Central. Are you going to argue that UCLA doesn't have an advantage over SuC because our superior academics and our location within Southern California.

Our advantages give our programs an inside track to being elite if they are led by competent coaches. And that was the argument behind N's post.

You missed the whole point.

by bluestreet on Jul 31, 2007 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sigh - let me explain ...

You say "comparing UCLA's natural advantages to Cal and Stanford's situation is silly?" Do you think UCLA is incomparable? Is UCLA is better than those schools in all possible ways? Is UCLA's academic reputation far better than Stanford's and Cal's? Is the SoCal climate much better than Palo Alto's? Do North Bay and East Bay high schools totally lack football talent? UCLA may have certain advantages that other schools lack but Stanford, Cal and U$C have their advantages, too. That is why they are competitive in so many sports - like we are.

As far as these schools "not standing a chance" vs well-coached UCLA teams - it would be more compelling if they never beat us at Bball during Howland's tenure. How many of our well coached teams go undefeated in the Pac-10? Trust me, in the Pac-10 they stand a chance of beating us.

It is fun to joke about U$C's academics but US News' Best Colleges has Stanford ranked #4 (tied), Cal at #21 (tied), UCLA was #26 and USC at #27 (tied) - I don't think you can make the case that U$C is a much worse school than UCLA anymore. http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php

Most importantly that whole "missing the point" issue: My point was that good coaching is still crucial because UCLA is not unique in having natural advantages. We compete against many schools with natural advantages and the competition is fierce.

by UrsaMajor on Jul 31, 2007 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you want to carry the Trojie's water

Arguing they are on the same level as our acdemic programs, then you are being just clueless. We have had posts after posts on this tired issue in a number of places. Those rankings are interesting, but that's just one data point. If you have been around elite law firms, grad schools etc around East Coast, you'd know an undergraduate degree from Usc simply doesn't have the same cache as one from Ucla or Cal.

And if you are going to argue the Bay area schools have access to same level of recruiting talent as Ucla, then you are beyond helpless. Its interesting you are dropping Cal's name. How many NCs they have and when was the last time they won the pac in either hoops or football.

If you are going to sound like such a moron then do it over at some Pac-10 message board near you.

by Nestor on Jul 31, 2007 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Moron?

There's an old saying "The first one to throw a punch is the one who lost the argument."

Your angry insults are surprising since my original post in this was supportive of your original message - that despite having natural advantages we need to have good coaching because we're not the only ones with natural advantages.

My posting that link was to rebut an accusation that USC could not claim academic quality - whether you agree with USN or not, their opinion is widely believed.

As far as 'access to talent' - AFAIK all universities have the right to recruit in Southern California - not just UCLA & U$C.

If you are going to sound so angry, go get some therapy (and if you delete this account for daring to question the Teachings of Nestor, I'll sign up under another name and e-mail again and again).

by UrsaMajor on Jul 31, 2007 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That doesn't sound like a saying at all

In fact, it's not.

I'll just point out here that you were the one who started this with the combative tone talking about banning and "The Canon", so as far as I'm concerned, N is free to call a spade a spade. If you had simply let your arguments stand on their own without the aggressive tone, maybe people would try to debate your points rather than look for ways that you're wrong. There's a difference there, and hopefully you weren't doing it intentionally to flamebait, because that's lowbrow trOJan-esque behavior.

For instance, talking about USN. I dispute that it is as widely believed as the old SAT was. They suffer from the same problem (narrow/imbalanced/misplaced testing criteria) and thus suffer the same criticism. If I'm going to make my college decision based on one ranking, I would look at the factors relating to what the school can offer me (academics) rather than factors relating to money, and in this case, USN is not the ranking for me. In fact, I would be suspicious of any rankings done by a US based publication ($orry, but that'$ America now - just look at tuition hike$, it'$ all part of the same problem).

I do find it ironic that you tell N to get therapy when you're the one who promises to "sign up under another name and e-mail again and again". You don't think that's a little childish? Whatever the case, I don't think people realize it literally takes 3 mouseclicks to ban someone. I just don't think it's worth your effort. That effort would be better spent correcting your (hopefully unintentional) flamebaiting habits.

by Tydides on Jul 31, 2007 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No kidding

he starts a post with a derisive tone and starts whining when he gets called out on it.

by Nestor on Aug 1, 2007 4:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

Arguing on behalf of Trojan academic prowess you are still sounding like a moron.

If you actually lived and worked in real world, you'd realize exactly how little respect the elites in the academia and professional world have for a degree from Southern Cal.

And no ... it is not as simple as every other school having same access to recruits in Southern Cal. If you have the faintest clue in recruiting, you'd know that UCLA has an advantage over schools like Cal, Stanford, and all other Pac-10 schools except for Southern Cal when it comes to having access to one of the richest hotbed of high school talent in the country. To assert otherwise is nothing short of MORONIC on your part.

by Nestor on Aug 1, 2007 4:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interestingly enough

Cal was co-Pac 10 champion in football last season. It is true though that the level of high school talent is much higher in Southern California.

by SuperBruinMan on Jul 31, 2007 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

real-world, N's right

regarding the wider perception of the schools. There is no question that USC has put much effort into strengthening their academics in recent years (to their credit), but; 1) it is true that USNWR is one of many ratings - as has been widely discussed in so many forums, it is a system that tends to favor certain types of universities over others. And 2), once you leave the west coast, the climbing academics at SC are not particularly recognized.

To echo N, from my own experience in the southeast, USC does not garner the same respect as these other schools. One person stated this directly, others - be it from contacts at eastern law firms, friends and their families that (not to sound dickish here) are rather influential in areas of the south and eastern seaboard - there are 3 schools that matter in California: Stanford, Berkeley and UCLA (I imagine that Cal Tech would be included, if its graduates were more widely represented geographically/professionally).

by bruinhoo on Jul 31, 2007 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

UCLA has been forthright

in saying that they don't give a damn about rankings. Our administration refuses to pad our stats and spin things to get a lower number in some magazine. It makes sense to me if you consider that UCLA has been the most applied to school in the country, what, four, five, six years running?

As a current student, all I want out of the administration is for it to provide the best possible education that it can, rankings be damned. UCLA is known the world over (literally) as a top-notch academic institution, and justifiably so. $UC? Not so much. That's all you need to know.

by Tydides on Jul 31, 2007 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ursa

You are simply wrong. UCLA's advantages are unique ... unique from the Bay area schools for weather and local athletes, unique from SuC for school location and academics (no question academics - that article you cite includes criteria that has nothing to do with academics such as alumni giving, what the faculty think of their own school, what alums think of their own school, etc.), and unique from every other Pac-10 school for location, academics and local athletes. Cal and every other Pac-10 school besides SuC and Stanford are not even close to UCLA's number of national championships if you want to continue to use that metric. You are so way off the mark here.

editor, DumpDorrell.com ... formerly posted as DumpDorrell

by BruinCore on Jul 31, 2007 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

BruinCore

UCLA's particular set of positives may be a unique set but UCLA is not unique in having a set of positives. I mean no one is arguing that UCLA is not just the best school but the only good one, too. Right? Of course not. We know that Ucla has many good things - things which make us special and unique - but other schools have good and unique things, too. There is (are) only one fighting Irish. If it were not so, imagine how boring college sports would be - how empty would national championships be.

BTW: I was not using that USN report to say "Lookie here, Stanford is better than UCLA" after teaching here for a while and seeing the U.G.s I thank god I went to UCLA. I only quoted that to rebut the point that U$C cannot claim any academic quality. I have collaborated with colleagues at U$C and they aren't any dumber just 'cuz they work over there and I work up here.

Still, in my heart I know UCLA is the best school in the world but in my head I have to add "for me."

...

But we're getting away from an astoundingly crucial fact here, folks: The Pac-10 is an intensely competitive conference - in all sports - and simply attracting great players is not enough to win championships.

We can't act like a proverbial prom queen expecting the best and brightest to ask us out - we have to go after them ... if we don't, we'll wind up with coaches like Dorrell.

by UrsaMajor on Jul 31, 2007 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

National championships

1 UCLA: 100
2 Stanford: 94
3 Southern California: 84
4 Oklahoma State: 48
5 Arkansas: 43
6 LSU: 40
7 Texas: 39
8 Michigan: 32
8 North Carolina: 32
8 Penn State: 32

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/champs_listing1.html

by UrsaMajor on Jul 31, 2007 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

oops cut off a line

BruinCore was right that only UCLA, Stanford and USC rank highly in NC's ... but lookie dat. Da Pac-10's for real!

by UrsaMajor on Jul 31, 2007 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

SC/UCLA story

To make a point, when I was a senior in H.S. I had a chance to go to either SC or UCLA on a baseball scholarship and "grant-in-aid". I saw both schools and leapt at the UCLA chance even though I knew it was an inferior baseball program. Why? I drove thru Westwood, up Gayley Avenue, along Sunset, down Hilgard, and on campus (some car access allowed at the time). I didn't like SC anyway but the drive around both campuses made it a no brainer.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by BillSouthBay on Jul 31, 2007 2:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs