THE "WHY NOT" LIST (REVISITED)

by Meriones on Sep 17, 2007 12:38 PM PDT in Football

Less than ONE MONTH AGO, I posted up my latest, longest list as to all the reasons why UCLA SHOULD have been expected to contend for the Pac-10 Championship this year. I did not anticipate revisiting this list so soon into the season, nor did I want to. And somehow, I knew it was possible.

Yes, it is still mathematically possible for UCLA to win the Pac-10 outright. I understand this. Yes, I love my team, and I love my school.

And yet my list of "WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?" can very easily be turned on its head.

Why does a team with "10 returning starters on offense" commit multiple penalties on 3rd down???
Why does a team with "10 returning starters on defense" give up five touchdowns to a team missing its No. 1 QB, RB, and WR to injuries?
Why does a team with "17 seniors on the depth chart" come out flat against an 0-2 team with multiple injuries?
Why does a team with "25 seniors on the roster" have multiple players telling the media that the team performed poorly in PRACTICE?
Why does a team with "only 3 (out of 6) road games against opponents with over-.500 records in 2006" start a season 1-1 on the road?
Why does a team with its "first 6 games against opponents with first-year starting QBs" give up 333.67 yards passing per game by opponents?!?
Why does a team with its "first 5 road games against opponents with average Sagarin rating of 50 in 2006" lose by 38 points to an unranked team?!?
Why does a team with its "returning leading rusher (Markey) averaging 4.9 yards per carry in 2006" rank SIXTH in the conference in rushing offense?
Why does a team with "returning Pac-10 sack leader (Davis) with 12.5 sacks in 2006" rank last in the Pac-10 in total passing defense?
Why does a team with "all [of its] games against pre-season AP Top 25 opponents (U$C, Cal, and our own internal scrimmages) in Los Angeles" record the second worst-loss by a ranked UCLA team to an unranked team in school history?!?!?
Why does the "No. 1 QB recruit (Olson) in 2001" continually look at only one side of the field before passing the football, and complete only 50.5% of his passes on the year (49 for 97)?
Why does "a head coach (Dorrell) in his 5th year in the conference" allow three of his starters (Davis, Tevaga, and Everett) to be hurt in the closing five minutes of game when the team is already behind by over 30 points?!?!?
Why does a team with "a rushing defense that was tied for 1st in the Pac-10 and 9th in Division I at 91.1 yards per game in 2006" allow 26.0 points per game?
Why does a team with a "total defense that was 2nd in the Pac-10 and 35th in Division I at 314.5 yards per game in 2005." give up 406.3 yards of offense per game?

WHY IS IT that a team that had all these advantages in talent, depth, numbers, and experience is worsening as the young season progresses?

I THINK WE KNOW WHY.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Brilliant.

Hope AD DG is reading.

greg in denver

by gbruin on Sep 17, 2007 1:02 PM PDT reply actions

Something I just heard on ESPN

WRT UCLA-Utah: "Incredible. UCLA exposed as a fraud yet again." Not that I completely agree, but substitute "Dorrell" for "UCLA."

by Oldguy on Sep 17, 2007 1:08 PM PDT reply actions

For those listening to the Radio Massacre

As I did on Sat., Wayne-O on the sidelines said, right after the Utah TD on the opening drive that he saw the Bruins come out of the tunnel with no energy - that they just "didn't have it" today.

WHY IS IT THAT sideline Wayne-O can see the flatness but . . .

nevermind, I already know the answer.

The Mad Bruin

by lostnacfgop on Sep 17, 2007 1:27 PM PDT reply actions

Excellent Post M...

well said.

In all of this, I truly feel for Bruce Davis. He had a great year last season, and should have joined the draft. Instead, he decided to stick around for one more year with Walker, for what I'm sure was billed to him as "The Year", with a soft schedule and all these veteran players and all that other bs. What a shame that a smart and talented athlete such as Davis was not only injured (hopefully, not too serious) in Utah due to atrocious decision making, but now faces some serious questions regarding his professional prospects. What a shame.

Now, Dorrell and Walker may not owe anything to the scores of faceless alums and nameless Bruin fans in general, but they owe it to guys like Davis who took them at their words and gave up their shot at the next level to come back and play for them. And this is how they repay him? This is the best these "coaches" can do? I wonder, were they truly looking out for Davis' future last year when they enticed him to stay, or did they envision padding their resumes with Davis' success on the field, in the hopes of creating their own shot at the pros? What a shame.

by kdout on Sep 17, 2007 2:40 PM PDT reply actions

You think you feel bad, how do you think BYU fans

Man, after the UCLA loss, I consoled myself thinking the UCLA loss was ok because it was to a #11 ranked team. Now, UCLA goes and loses to lowley Utah. How do you think that makes BYU fans feel now after losing to Tulsa?

Thanks a lot UCAL, now we have to deal with an arrogant Utah that can boast of beating the team that throttled us! Geeez!

by DanW on Sep 17, 2007 2:46 PM PDT reply actions