[readarmy1976]

OK, that shows how closely I follow college basketball. But like I said, the basketball team is much more sequestered with 4 times as many games (travel, hotels, etc) and 1/4 the players. Plus, I\'m just parroting Lane Kiffin here who was saying, "we know right away who the SC kids are and who the UCLA kids are." I don\'t think the kids who pick UCLA have a football championship at the top of their list.

Yeah there are other party schools, but come on it\'s a big state school in the middle of LA. It\'s difficult to make a turkey sandwich in that environment, let alone learn a playbook. I personally love UCLA and westwood, so this is not a knock, just a theory as to why they\'re never good at football despite all that talent.

Penn State is a total party school, but it\'s cold and in the middle of nowhere so it\'s better for work. I don\'t know much about SC campus life, but it\'s a smaller, private institution as far as I know. different vibe than a state school campus. UCLA is like walking into one of those Van Wilder movies.

Uh, UCLA made three straight Final Fours from 2006-8; I think they still know a certain something about producing great basketball teams there. (The 2007-8 edition with the Love/Mbah a Moute/Shipp/Collison/Westbrook was one of the great college basketball teams I\'ve ever seen...and we should have had the Pac-10 title that year.)

As to football: I\'m pretty sure the Trojans know how to party, and partying is pretty common among football players everywhere, with perhaps the exception of Pullman, WA and Corvallis, OR, where presumably they have rousing games of Parcheesi as their extracirricular activities. So the "partying" explanation is less than convincing for me. (What is is a serial record of hiring bad-to-mediocre coaches, which must surely change at some point.)

[readarmy1976]

OK, that shows how closely I follow college basketball. But like I said, the basketball team is much more sequestered with 4 times as many games (travel, hotels, etc) and 1/4 the players. Plus, I\'m just parroting Lane Kiffin here who was saying, "we know right away who the SC kids are and who the UCLA kids are." I don\'t think the kids who pick UCLA have a football championship at the top of their list.

Yeah there are other party schools, but come on it\'s a big state school in the middle of LA. It\'s difficult to make a turkey sandwich in that environment, let alone learn a playbook. I personally love UCLA and westwood, so this is not a knock, just a theory as to why they\'re never good at football despite all that talent.

Penn State is a total party school, but it\'s cold and in the middle of nowhere so it\'s better for work. I don\'t know much about SC campus life, but it\'s a smaller, private institution as far as I know. different vibe than a state school campus. UCLA is like walking into one of those Van Wilder movies.

Uh, UCLA made three straight Final Fours from 2006-8; I think they still know a certain something about producing great basketball teams there. (The 2007-8 edition with the Love/Mbah a Moute/Shipp/Collison/Westbrook was one of the great college basketball teams I\'ve ever seen...and we should have had the Pac-10 title that year.)

As to football: I\'m pretty sure the Trojans know how to party, and partying is pretty common among football players everywhere, with perhaps the exception of Pullman, WA and Corvallis, OR, where presumably they have rousing games of Parcheesi as their extracirricular activities. So the "partying" explanation is less than convincing for me. (What is is a serial record of hiring bad-to-mediocre coaches, which must surely change at some point.)