The Friday before Game 1. 

It doesn't get any more exciting than this.  It's bad enough that it's a holiday weekend.  Even worse that we have to wait until Monday to see how the Neuheisel era will begin against the Vols.

In the interim, all we can do is wait.  And not get much work done.

So, in that spirit, I joined the UCLA Faithful at the Bruin Touchdown Club breakfast this morning.  If you haven't been to one of these, it's a gathering of fans, led by our very own Geoffrey Strand, which features food, friends, cheerleaders and some words from our Bruins. 

For this installment, it was Coach Neuheisel's turn, along with Brigham Harwell, ATV, Logan Paulsen and Micah Reed.  It was an interesting morning, but the highlight was the presentation by Neu:

And, besides giving a nice talk about the upcoming season, Coach Neuheisel also eloquently addressed the ads placed by UCLA in the LAT and Daily News we've discussed before.

Just 3 more days.

GO BRUINS.

UPDATE - N: We have taken the audio link out per Rick Neuheisel's request. GO BRUINS.

According to the LAT, Southern Cal's branding police won a victory over USC (University of South Carolina), convincing the U.S. Trademark Office that Southern Cal owns the rights to the "SC" logo.

The University of Southern California and the University of South Carolina share the same initials. But they won't be sharing a trademark logo.

Not now that the administrative tribunal of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has ruled that the local USC has priority of use when it comes to the "SC" logo, including the interlocking version.

Good for Southern Cal.  And I mean that with utmost respect, as our friends from across town call themselves "Southern Cal," and have several trademarks for that phrase to prove it.  Of course, they don't want you to call them "Southern Cal," but according to Adam Rose, they don't want anyone else called Southern Cal either.

The University of Southern California loathes the moniker "Southern Cal," even though they make a limited run of "Southern Cal" branded apparel every year. The production is necessary for the school to retain its trademark and prevent anybody else from using it.

Interestingly, Klein and Rose ignore some of Southern Cal's more recent trademark efforts.

According to the Trademark Office, Southern Cal is also seeking exclusive possession of the following terms:

CHEATIE PETEE™
THE HUMANITARIAN™
DAMN SPORTS AGENTS!™
CHEAT ON™
WE OWN THE POLICE™
'LIL ROMEO'S TEEN FANCLUB™
NEITHER OJ DID IT™
WHITE NATION™
GAP CLOSERS™
MCNAIR'S DOG HOUSE™

Please keep this in mind.  As we know, Southern Cal can be aggressive with their trademark enforcement practices.

Happy Friday all (and let me know which ones I missed!).

GO BRUINS.

It was another beautiful day at Spaulding Field.

Once again, I was able to duck out to spend a half hour or so watching our boys gear up for the Vols.

For most of my time, the Bruins were broken out by position working on drills.  But, I was able to hang around for a little scrimmaging, including the No. 1's going up against one another:

It was a spirited exchange, with players on both sides of the ball hooting and hollering.  And, I believe it was Milton Knox who mixed it up with another player briefly in a nice show of emotion.

More (lots more) pictures after the jump.

GO BRUINS.

Continue reading this post »

Interesting blurb by Gary Klein over at the LAT's blog. 

Instead of boning up on the play book or something, our friends at Southern Cal spent the day in meetings yesterday to remind themselves of the difficult-to-understand notion that getting free rent, uh, isn't okay:

USC players sat through several meetings Tuesday, including one in which they submitted forms with their housing information.

The Trojans, of course, are no stranger to housing-related issues.

USC is awaiting the outcome of the NCAA's investigation of Reggie Bush, and one of the main issues concerns his family's living arrangements in a house near San Diego while the Heisman Trophy winner was playing for the Trojans.

In summer 2006, the NCAA ruled receiver Dwayne Jarrett ineligible because of his living arrangement with quarterback Matt Leinart the previous year. Jarrett had paid $650 a month, Leinart had paid $650, and Leinart's father paid the balance of the $3,866 rent for a luxury downtown apartment for 13 months.

Jarrett was reinstated without missing any games and was ordered to pay $5,352 to charity as a condition of his reinstatement.

But, in another example of the clear pro-Trojan bias at the LAT, Klein only tells half the story.  The "housing form" he mentions isn't just limited to housing. 

Fortunately, through my limitless network of contacts, I was able to obtain a copy of the form.  Here it is:

University of Southtern California Fall Compliance Form

Dear Student/Athlete:

As you know, USC is committed to excelence on the field.  However, it is important to remember to also play lip service to relevant NCAA regulations as well as those pesky California and federal laws.  Fortunately, our history of villainy at Southern Cal has permited us to compile this comprehensive form.  Please fill it out completely.

1.  In the past twelve (12) months, have you:

    a.  Allowed a tutor to write papers for you?  _____  [Answer: No.]
    b.  Solicited a prostitute (Song Girls excluded)?  _____  [Answer: No]
    c.  Committed felony assault with a deadly weapon? _____  [Answer: No.]
    d.  Purchased, used or displayed a replica firearm? _____  [Answer: No.]
    e.  Purchased, used or possessed 136 Ecstacy pills? _____  [Answer: No.]
    g.  Attacked a teammate (with or without fracturing jaw)? _____  [Answer: No.]
    h.  Committed spousal battery (whether or not deserved)? _____  [Answer: No.]
    i.  Committed vandalism? _____  [Answer: No.]
    j.  Committed false imprisionment? _____  [Answer: No.]
    k.  Committed indecent exposure? _____  [Answer: No.]
    l.  Trashed the dorms or other university property? _____  [Answer: No.]
    m.  Sucker-punched guy a frat party (whether or not deserved)? _____  [Answer: No.]
    n.  Exclaimed "I own the police" (truth is no defense)? _____  [Answer: No.]
    p.  Obtained free house for your parents from sport agents? _____  [Answer: No.]
    q.  Taken thousands of dollars in cash and gifts from sports agent? _____  [Answer: No.]
    r.  Committed sexual assualt? _____  [Answer: No.]
    s.  Accepted free rent from "teammates dad" or otherwise? _____  [Answer: No.]
    t.  Taken steriods (whether or not from Ting's dad)? _____  [Answer: No.]
    u.  Knocked up any Southern Cal athletes? _____  [Answer: No.]
    v.  Hit a fellow bar patron in the face with a drinking glass? _____  [Answer: No.]
    w.  Taken any classes from Senora Garcia (formerly known as Senora Ross)? _____  [Answer: No.]
    x.  Created or joined any racist Facebook groups (whether or not as "joke")? _____  [Answer: No.]
    y.  Arrested for marijuana possession (use is okay)? _____  [Answer: No.]
    z. Trained or neglected 20 or more pit bulls? _____  [Answer: No.]
    aa.  Attacked a teammate (with or without fracturing jaw) (yes, we need to ask again)? _____  [Answer: No.]
    bb.   Resisted arrest or obstructed justice? _____  [Answer: No.]
    dd.   Committed robbery (with or without use of handgun)? _____  [Answer: No.]
    ee.  Allowed your "slow" son to post a video on uscripsit.com? _____  [Answer: No.]
    ff.  Received thousands of dollars in illegal benefits from known agent and runner right under coaches noses? _____  [Answer: No.]

2.  If "Yes" to any of the above, please call Carmen Trutanich at (310) 555-4USC immediately. 

3.  If "Yes" to any of the above, please notify the Southern Cal Rapid Media Response team by pressing the large illuminated blue button at any "USC Crisis Station".

Signature:  _________________________   [If you cannot sign, you may make your mark (X) in the space provided or ask your official USC sponsored test taker for assistance].

According to Scott Wolf, the meetings are apparently having a big impact:

``I'm already bored and it's the first day,'' one player said after attending several meetings Tuesday.

Well, at least they are trying, I guess...

GO BRUINS.

Can you feel it?

You've gorged on pre-season previews.  You have your tickets in hand.  You know the roster like the back of your hand.  You wake up at night in a cold sweat rhythmically repeating "stay healthy" along with "Olson" and the names of each of the Bruin's offensive linemen.

It's just about go time, fellas.

And, today, our boys are back in action.

Well, practice is probably still in progress.  But, I was able to spend a half hour or so at Spaulding Field.  I wasn't there long to report much, though it was interesting to see that the only QB's to attempt a pass while I was there were No. 7 above, and No. 14 Kevin Prince:

More pictures after the jump.  Whether the coming season is up and down, or just plain sideways.  I.  Can't.  Wait.

GO BRUINS.

Continue reading this post »

As a couple of you have already pointed out, Coach Howland signed a new seven year contract today.  From UCLA Sports Information (via LAT):

UCLA head men’s basketball coach Ben Howland and the University have agreed on a new seven-year contract, athletic director Dan Guerrero announced today. The new contract, which runs through the 2014-15 season, includes guaranteed compensation of $1.97 million for the 2008-09 season and escalates to $2.3 million for the 2014-15 season. It also includes the incentive package from his previous contract that has a maximum value of $235,000. [...]

 "Ben Howland and UCLA are a great combination," said Guerrero. "Ben is at the top of his profession and is deserving of this commitment by the University. He has returned UCLA to the nation’s elite, as illustrated by three straight Finals Fours and three consecutive 30-win seasons. He is an outstanding recruiter, and the foundation Ben has built for our program promises to keep us at the forefront for the foreseeable future."

Talk about well deserved.  And it's good to see UCLA doing the right thing after what's been one of the best coaching runs in memory.  As Jeff Eisenberg at the PE points out, it's a nice raise for Howland:

The deal is a significant bump over the extension he signed last summer. Howland made $1.5 million for the 2007-08 season and would have made $2 million by the end of the contract in 2013-14.

via www.beloblog.com

Of course, I can't say that our pleas to hold onto Howland led to this development, which has likely been in the works for a little while.  But, I'm never one to doubt the collective weight of our words either.

It's also great to hear that, despite the slow pace of the Pauley renovation project, Howland's heart still seems to be in the right place:

"I have said this before, but there is no place I would rather be coaching than UCLA," said Howland, 51. "I grew up a Bruin basketball fan and this is my dream job. We have great young men in our program, both on and off the field, and they are the real reasons for our success. UCLA is a special name in college basketball thanks to Coach Wooden and I am proud to be the caretaker of his program. I am also grateful to Chancellor (Gene) Block and Dan for the faith they continue to show in me."

Gotta love it.  Let me just say again.  Thank God for Ben Howland.

GO BRUINS.

(Ed. Note:  I understand that this topic is likely between somewhat and ridiculously uninteresting to many of you, so if you aren't interested in inter-blog squabbling, please avert your gaze.  For the rest of you, thanks for indulging this very long little slice of heaven.)

For those of you not keeping tabs, a few days ago, a fellow SBN blogger SMQ took a shot at Neuheisel, and I responded.  SMQ then responded by attacking our expectations for the Bruins' 2008-09 football season.  In a lengthy post, which I've already addressed, SMQ attacks our motives in setting expectations in previous years, thusly:

What this is, really, is an admission that the "expectations" for Dorrell were ridiculous –– intentionally constructed to be beyond not only any independent projections but beyond the realistic grasp of anyone in his position.

In response, I said before, and say again:

It's all very polite, but he's calling us liars.  He's attacking our motives and credibility.  He's saying we don't write what we believe.  Instead, we have some dark hidden agenda.  Before, it was to get rid of KD.  Now, it's to support Nueheisel out of some "all-out investment in coach-worship."  In short, it is, at best, a lame conspiracy theory and, at worst, an ugly personal attack.

Well, that didn't sit well in some corners.  T Kyle King, our esteemed SBN colleague at Dawg Sports, has chimed in, as he did previously in effusively praising SMQ's post, arguing that:

SMQ’s disagreements with other bloggers, no matter how vehement or heartfelt, never descend to the level of personal attacks. ...

Nowhere in there were there the sorts of cheap shots, sweeping overgeneralizations, or ancillary sideswipes which all too often typify disputes in the blogosphere. ...

While the members of the Bruins Nation community may not like what SMQ has written here, though, SMQ steered clear of attacking the singer rather than the song.

I responded in the comment thread over here as follows:

[...]  I don’t think it’s quite right that SMQ "steered clear of attacking the singer rather than the song" (with due respect to Kyle, whose opinion I value).

SMQ certainly wasn’t bombastic, and he writes very well, so I can see how folks might get that impression. But, it wasn’t like he was disagreeing with us about who will win the Lakers game tonight. I wasn’t saying, it’ll be the Lakers, because Kobe will be on fire, with SMQ saying that it’s Celtics all the way at home. He’s saying, very directly, if politely, that we were being disingenuous, and writing things we don’t mean for some imagined ulterior motive. He’s saying both that the message is (or, rather, was) wrong, and that it was wrong because the author was intentionally writing things with no basis in fact ("intentionally constructed to be beyond not only any independent projections but beyond the realistic grasp of anyone in his position"). That’s a personal attack, in my opinion.

Yet, rather than address (or even acknowledge) my points there, Kyle chose to write a lengthy rebuke at his own place.  Kyle's finger wagging concluded thusly:

Disagree with SMQ if you will, but give the man his considerable due. He did not offer a personal attack; indeed, one of the many ways in which his posting was noteworthy was for its lack of invective and its evenness of tone. Perhaps this merely is a clash of personalities---Bruins Nation and Sunday Morning Quarterback are, respectively, the most and least partisan college sports weblogs at SB Nation---but, if SMQ is to be taken to task, let it be for what he actually wrote, not for some caricature of it.

Sunday Morning Quarterback did not outline a conspiracy theory and I would take issue with anyone who accused Nestor, Menelaus, and the rest of the Bruin faithful of such a thing. However, Menelaus’s recent diatribe against SMQ was over the top and unfair to an extent that did nothing to help me make the case that Bruins Nation is a forum for impassioned yet reasonable fans. If Menelaus’s response is representative of his approach to constructive criticism---and, to be clear, I do not believe it is---he should steer clear of tin foil hat analogies, which do him no favors after a posting like that one.

There are so many points to make.  I will try to be brief, but there is a lot of material to deal with.

First off, let's deal with the main issue squarely.  Was SMQ's critique of BN's expectations for the Bruins' 2008-09 football season a personal attack? 

Before I go on, let's be clear, calling out someone's motives politely is the same as calling them out any other way.  No amount of graceful verbiage, however "nuanced or exacting," changes that.  So, saying that BN "intentionally constructed [expectations] to be beyond not only any independent projections but beyond the realistic grasp of anyone in his position," I'm sorry to say, is an attack on our integrity.  It's an attack on the singer, not the song.

Let me try to illustrate.  Maybe if I make it more tangible, no one will get lost in SMQ's nice prose.  Let's suppose your investing some money.  Your investment guy tells you to expect a 6% return on your investment, with no risk of loss.  A year later, the investment fails and you loss everything.  There are several possible explanations here.  Your broker might have justifiably relied on flawed market reports.  Or, he might have made an honest mistake and misinterpreted accurate data.  Or, he could have intentionally constructed expectations that went beyond not only any independent market reports but beyond the realistic grasp of anyone in his position in order to earn a higher commission. 

If it's either of the first two, his message was just wrong.  If its the later, he was lying.  And to call him out on the later is to attack his integrity.  Of course, there is a difference between attacking the message, and attacking the messenger. 

Tellingly, it doesn't appear that SMQ's audience was at all confused.  They interpreted SMQ exactly as intended: that SMQ was calling BN a liar.  Just two examples, from the thread at Kyle's place.  First, we have Skin Patrol, from SBN colleague Hogs Heaven (who also commented at SMQ):

 

At least BN is honest with themselves about what they’re trying to accomplish. ;)

 

I think SMQ’s point was that… they aren’t.

Or, how about Beatuofa, from the same thread:

.... And to crow that BN is honest about their goals—I think that’s the whole point of what Matt (SMQ) is saying, that they are being more than a little disingenuous at least, and hypocritical at worst, in their wholly negative spin on Karl Dorrell and the newly wholly positive spin in Rick Neuheisel....

So, I guess, I got it wrong, but no one else has.

In the end, repeat it all you want.  It wasn't a personal attack.  It wasn't a personal attack.  Just know, that it was.

Second, was SMQ's critique advancing a conspiracy theory?  By definition, a conspiracy theory is:

A conspiracy theory posits that a coordinated group is, was, and/or will be secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including hiding the existence of the group and its activities.

Again, the answer is squarely yes. 

SMQ basically compared three data points, namely, our expectations for the football team in 2006, 2007 and 2008, without "going into the returning [2008] roster in extreme detail."  Based upon his opinion that BN's expectations in 2006 and 2007 were inflated as compared to 2008, SMQ concludes that the difference is attributable an intentional plot to set expectations for Dorrell beyond any realistic level as a means to see him "canned." 

Of course, SMQ doesn't analyze or even disagree with BN's expectations for each individual season and, in fact, he mostly agrees now ("It’s not that these projections are destined to be wrong"), just as he did then.  And he doesn't touch on any of the many reasons why our expectations might reasonably differ from one year to the next, (aside from snarky references to HFCAGIOACRN), such as schedule, roster or the distinction between newly hired and long-established coaches.

In other words, SMQ is ignoring, or at least glossing over, the merits of the various data points, and instead promoting a third explanation for his views:  a secret cabal of Bruins fans set upon "canning" one coach and "worshiping" the next.  That, my friends, is a conspiracy.

Third, when did SMQ become completely unassailable?  When did he become immune to criticism?  Because this debate isn't really about the "right way to argue over expectations."  My post was hardly a "diatribe," and SMQ's was hardly the poster child for evenness and respect.

On the one hand, Kyle cherry picks my post for only the quotes he believes might support his theme:  SMQ is saint;  Menelaus is unfair nasty guy.  Specifically, he attacks me for these selective quotations:

[H]e's calling us liars. He's attacking our motives and credibility. He's saying we don't write what we believe. Instead, we have some dark hidden agenda. Before, it was to get rid of KD. Now, it's to support Nueheisel out of some "all-out investment in coach-worship." In short, it is, at best, a lame conspiracy theory and, at worst, an ugly personal attack.

What comes in between the above quoted introduction and conclusion is an amusing mish-mash of snark, obfuscation and flawed analysis. . . .

[T]hroughout his commentary, SMQ also misses perhaps the most critical point. Specifically, he wrongly compares our collective expectations for a first year coach (Neuheisel) to one who'd been on the job 4 and 5 years (Dorrell)...

[D]on't buy into any of the sham details in SMQ's team-by-team analysis. It's so replete with inconsistencies as to be laughable.

By the way, I stand behind all of that.  If I had to do it over again, I might re-title the post (which I thought was funny), and delete the word "sham."  But, the rest, is still dead on. 

On the other hand, let's consider these quotes from SMQ:

Now that the message is "Head Coach Richard Neuheisel Is the Best CEO in America," the tone of the rhetoric has changed completely –– it’s all positive, all the time –– but the commitment to the message is as staunch as ever....

[R]ingleader Nestor laid out the expectations for that season...

Obviously.  And obviously, now that UCLA has a real Head Coach rather than an unqualified Doofus, for which BN lobbied so tirelessly, the excuses employed by the Dorrell apologists for the team’s mediocrity over the last five years will not do.... [T]o make the excuse of losing players for a bad record is just ridiculous....  No, Head Football Coach/Amateur Guitarist/Innocent of All Charges Richard Neuheisel is the Head Football Coach who will finally push the Bruins over the top...

O rly? That’s, uh, quite a change of opinion of the Bruins’ potential in a single year....

My first thought when Neuheisel was hired was, "How long will it take for Bruins Nation to turn on him?"  Obviously, with an all-out investment in coach-worship of this order, it’s going to be a long, long time.  Most fans have high hopes for immediate improvement under a new coach, but they don’t understand how to protect that investment.  Nestor does.  People don’t give a motorcycle gang of angry sumo wrestlers this wide a berth....

It’s not that these projections are destined to be wrong... but in context, they are staggeringly hypocritical....

[Dorrell's] was 10-10 when the current clan at BN first took the drumbeat virtual at Fire Karl Dorrell midway through the 2004 season.... Three years later, the same folks appear very willing to accept losses to the high end of the Mountain West and to Pac Ten bottom-dwellers... as a natural step in the rebuilding process.  Six-win seasons were completely unacceptable for Dorrell, but HFCAGIOFACCRN can take all the time he needs.

What this is, really, is an admission that the "expectations" for Dorrell were ridiculous –– intentionally constructed to be beyond not only any independent projections but beyond the realistic grasp of anyone in his position....

Is SMQ's dripping sarcasm, condescension and snark really any better than what I wrote?  Why should he get a pass for politely, but not at all subtlety, ridiculing BN?  What about when he mocked our "single minded obsession" and impending struggles with a "future without their nemesis empty and devoid of meaning" (his words)?  Is any other notion not just wrong, but completely inconceivable, particularly when it comes from someone who holds himself as a impartial observer? 

Fourth, isn't it at least a little bit telling how this all played out?

Nestor himself just wrote he’d be ecstatic if the team went 6-6 this year, and admitted the very real possibility of going 3-9/4-8. He writes off BYU as a loss - not a toss-up, but an expected loss - even though LA beat BYU last year in the regular season and should have beat them again in the bowl game. And the reaction was, "Hmmm, sobering."

Say what? I mean, really, WTF? It’s a rational prediction, but it’s been a rational prediction for the last two years, and BN consistently wailed about how underachieving the team was - it’s the exact result that made that site explode with contempt on a daily basis. I thought they expected progress. Dorrell never had a regular season worse than 6-6 and they berated him and ran him off like a leper. But when Head Coach Richard Neuheisel The Best CEO In America™ fails to take a single step forward (that’s Nestor’s expectation, not mine), it’s cool - just give him time.

You understand that my criticism had little, or nothing, to do with your overall perspective re UCLA performance this year. Much of your post, including the detailed history of Dorrell’s underperformance, is quite accurate. That said, your treatment of Neuheisel, as I explained, is one sided. It’s just that simple. So, take whatever issue you’d like in your overall distaste for BN, but please, try to stay on topic.

Now, far be it from me to suggest that SMQ is human, and possibly got a little miffed that I'd have the audacity to disagree with anything in Mandate for Change.  Of course, it's impossible to believe that SMQ chose to get his digs in against BN after refusing to engage in a discussion about his barbs about Neuheisel over at his place.  Yep, the guy is unassailable.  He had the "expectations" post in the queue from the beginning.  And Mr. Evenhanded wouldn't even dream of taking a shot if he somehow was suffering from a bruised ego.  And no one out there might even think so.

Fifth, why do folks go so far out of their way to soft pedal this and defend SMQ?  Kyle, for example, gives SMQ a wider berth than a motorcycle gang of angry sumo wrestlers, in saying that "SMQ [merely] had some questions about Nestor’s game-by-game analysis, wondering a bit about" BN's expectations.

Huh?  SMQ was just "wondering" aloud, like some absent minded professor wandering across campus?  The tone wasn't sarcastic and snarky?  No, no, it was a hallmark of "evenness of tone" (evenly snarky?).  Really?

Listen, I fully understand that I'm not one of the "gang."  I get that some people worship SMQ and look down on UCLA and BN.  But, to see outsiders circle the wagons around SMQ like this baffles me. 

As I've said, he's a pretty thoughtful guy, known for in-depth analysis and doing his homework.  But, I won't apologize for calling him out on this one.

Sixth, and finally, let me address, in closing, some of the side issues raised by Kyle's post.

• Are you really trying to support your argument by comparing the comments to my post, to the comments to SMQ's?  I'm sorry, but you could just as easily say that SMQ's post didn't hit the high water mark (or, more correctly, conveyed exactly the intended message), when it inspired comments attacking BN's "nonsensical drivel," "biggest bunch of hypocrites," and delighting in a "takedown" of a blog that couldn't be "more deserving."
• Your main substantive point, that Neuheisel should perform better in his first year at UCLA than BN expects, rests on a misapplication of the premise that "maintaining prior level of play with the former coach's players appears to be Coach Neuheisel's modus operandi" (emphasis added).  Among other things, and most fundamentally, this ignores that talent and experience wise, the cupboard at UCLA is considerably more bare than it was at Colorado and Washington.
• It's not right to chide me more attributing the "single-issue blog" comment to SMQ when, despite not authoring the specific line from EDSBS, he's said basically the same thing himself before.
  

Thanks to anyone who had it in them to get this far.  But, some things just can't go unanswered.

GO BRUINS.

As you know, last week, Nestor set out our expectations for the Bruins' 2008-09 football season.  We said that, at this snap shot in time, the Bruins could finish anywhere from 6-6 to 3-9 depending on how things shook out.

Some of you pushed back with conspiracy theories, suggesting that we'd toned down expectations to give Neuheisel a "honeymoon."  And we responded, in much detail, setting forth the many reasons we felt that this season would be a rough one for the Bruins, and had a nice fact-based back and forth.

And that was it.  Well, at least until SMQ took a shot at Neuheisel, and we had the audacity to respond.  Then, after this "single-issue blog" (do they mean UCLA's three consecutive Final Fours?) disagreed with SMQ, we had our response.

But, instead of supporting his labeling of Neuheisel as a "charlatan," SMQ lashes out at Bruins Nation, suggesting that our football predictions are "ridiculous" and part of a fraudulent and politically calculated attempt to stay on "message."  Specifically, SMQ begins:

One of the really entertaining things about UCLA partisans Bruins Nation is how staunchly on-message it is at all times. It’s apparent some of its founders have political backgrounds. When the message was "Fire Karl Dorrell," no opportunity was missed, no sentence was written that might weaken the campaign. Not even after a 26-point win. Not even if it was November and L.A. could still potentially make the Rose Bowl.  Nothing could stand in BN’s path.

Now that the message is "Head Coach Richard Neuheisel Is the Best CEO in America," the tone of the rhetoric has changed completely –– it’s all positive, all the time –– but the commitment to the message is as staunch as ever. Take the site’s official expectations for Neuheisel’s first season, for example.

And then, after comparing our expectations for this year to those of years' past, concludes:

What this is, really, is an admission that the "expectations" for Dorrell were ridiculous –– intentionally constructed to be beyond not only any independent projections but beyond the realistic grasp of anyone in his position.

It's all very polite, but he's calling us liars.  He's attacking our motives and credibility.  He's saying we don't write what we believe.  Instead, we have some dark hidden agenda.  Before, it was to get rid of KD.  Now, it's to support Neuheisel out of some "all-out investment in coach-worship."  In short, it is, at best, a lame conspiracy theory and, at worst, an ugly personal attack.

What comes in between the above quoted introduction and conclusion is an amusing mish-mash of snark, obfuscation and flawed analysis. 

On the one hand, he puffs up the Bruins, lauding them as "a team that returns its leading passer, leading rusher and five of its seven leading receivers," presumably to make our dour predictions seem fool hearty.  Of course, that conveniently ignores that said "leading passer" [Olson] is injured and had a mere 1040 yards passing, with just 7 touchdowns (and 6 INT's), in limited duty; that the "leading rusher" [Bell] had just 795 yards and also is returning from season-ending injury; or that UCLA's best two receivers are gone and the best of the remaining five "leading receivers" [Johnson] had just 322 yards on 25 receptions.

On the other hand, SMQ seems to begrudingly agree with our assessment:

It’s not that these projections are destined to be wrong –– without going into the returning roster in extreme detail....

Indeed, this agreement is no doubt compelled by even a cursory review of UCLA's lineup and upcoming season, including that:

• We have no healthy experienced quarterback, and our lone returning starter has been both uneven in performance and fragile in health;
  
• We have a brutal schedule, including a strong OOC slate of BYU, Tennessee, and Fresno State, which have pre-season rankings of 12, 22 and 29, respectively.  We also have most of our toughest conference games (Oregon, Cal, ASU) on the road;
• We have an unheralded, inexperienced, and frightfully thin offensive line;
• We have limited overall experience, on both sides of the ball, with only 9 returning starters (compared to 20 last year);
  
• We have basically only one proven returner in both the secondary and at linebacker;
• We have two green, undersized and inexperience defensive ends; and
• We have seen recruiting suffer through much of Dorrell's tenure, with most of the help this year being in the form of freshman.

And, don't just take our word for it.  Even if one were to question our motives, surely they would believe virtually the same predictions coming from such folks as "prognostocenti par excellence" Phil Steele and others:

6.  UCLA - The Bruins have just 9 returning starters and maybe less than that if OB Ben Olson does not return from an injury suffered in the spring.  They do have an inexperienced O-line but were an injury ravaged team last year so they have more experience than you would think.  UCLA gets five Pac-10 HG's [home games] but still needs and upset or two to land a bowl bid.

Moreover, throughout his commentary, SMQ also misses perhaps the most critical point.  Specifically, he wrongly compares our collective expectations for a first year coach (Neuheisel) to one who'd been on the job 4 and 5 years (Dorrell).  To be sure, we had higher expectations for a coach who had several years to establish his system and recruit in his players.  Come back next year or in 3 and see if things change (they will).  It's that simple.  And it doesn't take a conspiracy theory or tin foil hat to get there.

It's also funny that this conspiracy theory is so completely at odds with the usual jabs at Bruins Nation.  You see, for years, we've been branded as the unreasonable, crazy, demanding, lunatics, that are uncontrollably filled of hate and vitriol.  Folks like SMQ openly worried about our well being.  But, now, you're all to believe that we've, overnight, been transformed into some sort of cabal of athletic department suck ups; shills for the UCLA man. 

Shouldn't we be running amok with pitch forks, trying to run Neuheisel out of town in favor of Richt, Meyer, Rodriguez, Saban or fill-in-the-blank coach we'd never have any hope of landing?  Shouldn't we be sifting through CRN's garbage looking for dirt to use against him?  Shouldn't we be making up lie after lie to advance our secret, demented and terrible hidden agenda?  Heck, where's the fatwa?

Of course, the more reasonable interpretation is that we actually think Neuheisel is the right guy for UCLA.  And we are giving you our best, reasonable expectations for the team's performance at this particular moment in time.

And don't buy into any of the sham details in SMQ's team-by-team analysis.  It's so replete with inconsistencies as to be laughable.  We picked a win against unheralded BYU teams at the Rose Bowl in prior years, but not a nationally 12th ranked BYU team or a Utah team on the road?  Shocking.  We unreasonably expected wins against Arizona, Washington and Oregon State in 2007, no doubt as part of our secret plan to inflate expectations, when SMQ predicted UCLA would win each of those games himself?  We are slow playing it with our predictions, because we won't chalk up wins against ASU or Cal teams which are the Pac-10's consensus No. 2 and No. 3 teams this year?  Is he really making such a fuss because we called games at Washington and against Arizona toss-ups?

Also, which is it?  Our predictions (which he seems to agree with now) are wrong?  Or, our predictions from years past (which he did agree with in part) are wrong?

You lace it all together with good prose, and some sly jabs, and it's a conspiracy!  Well, I guess if you look for anything hard enough, you might just find it. 

GO BRUINS.

Just the other day, bluestreet pointed out one example of the Lame Pettiness of Neuheisel Haters. 

In that case, we saw how Seattle Times writers with an ax to grind against Neuheisel jumped at the opportunity to take a joke at an alumni auction out of context.

Well, those guys aren't alone.  Now, our friends at SMQ are taking their turn:

The New Guy(s): Rick Neuheisel has a long way to go to escape the long shadow of charlatanism: he left Colorado with more than 50 rules violations and two years’ probation in 1998, was investigated for illegal recruiting visits, reprimanded by the board of the American Football Coaches’ Association and compared to Al Capone in Slate (the NCAA got him, but only for a technicality – gambling on basketball. like Capone got nailed for tax evasion – instead of the meat of his transgressions).

This kind of jab isn't unexpected, at least from the Bill Plaschke's of the world (I can just see the Capone reference in one of his patented single sentence paragraphs). 

But, it's not what one would expect from SMQ.  You see, despite apparently OMG holdingz a grudge, SMQ is a pretty thoughtful guy, known for in-depth analysis and doing his homework.

So why would SMQ be so cavalier with the facts about Neuheisel?  Surely, before branding Neuheisel a "charlatan," he'd cite to more than a couple five year old articles that tell only part of the story.  Surely, SMQ's above-average Google skills gave light to the many, many articles which show the other side of the equation.

Funny thing, though.  The points in those articles weren't mentioned.  Maybe SMQ didn't have the time. 

Or, maybe, he's trying to advance the easy narrative and stir the pot like any other non-affiliated "pundit" we'd expect to see on the WWL.  Who knows?

GO BRUINS.

They say that things in life often come in 3's.

Today, Bruins Nation hit a pretty big 3, with another one just around the corner.

Earlier today, Bruins Nation logged its 3,000,000th unique visit (with over 8 million page views).

And, next week, on June 16, Bruins Nation turns 3 years old, which is the blog-years equivalent of 33, or maybe 333.  (Though, old as BN may be, you'll see that we were talking about Rick Neuheisel on Day One.)

Now, I don't mention this to toot our own horn.  I'm merely an interloper who joined Nestor, Odysseus, Ajax and the rest of the gang mid-stream.

I mention it to recognize how vibrant this community has become, in large part because of your contributions.  Bruins Nation is you, and we all together are thriving.

For many months, and particularly with the migration to BN 2.0, we've witnessed remarkable contributions by so many of you.  So, consider this a big hat tip by us mods to Rye, bruinbabe, 66, godblesstyus95, tasser, Fox, bruinhoo, BruinBlue, BruinsRule, isodore, rfirpo, jlegs, uclafan11, bluestreet, Daynuh (just to name a few), and all the new regulars  who have contributed so much to this place.

As we've said time and again, we do with just for fun, out of our love and devotion to all things blue and gold.  And BN would only be a shadow of its present self without great comments, FanPosts, etc. from you guys/gals.

So, enjoy a beverage (or 3) on us today, and let's get back to UCLA.

GO BRUINS.