Schadenfreude? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Schadenfreude? (/thread-16577.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Schadenfreude? (/thread-16577.html)
Schadenfreude? - JJJ - 10-10-2018
I'm happy we're not on this list.
Five Most Disappointing Teams in College Football so far.
5. Louisville
4. Boise State
3. Florida State
2. Michigan State
1. Nebraska
https://sports.yahoo.com/five-disappointing-teams-college-football-far-184452364.html
RE: Schadenfreude? - Austroturf - 10-11-2018
(10-10-2018, 08:08 PM)JJJ Wrote: I'm happy we're not on this list.UCLA doesn't make the list? Interesting.
Five Most Disappointing Teams in College Football so far.
5. Louisville
4. Boise State
3. Florida State
2. Michigan State
1. Nebraska
https://sports.yahoo.com/five-disappointing-teams-college-football-far-184452364.html
RE: Schadenfreude? - 82lsju - 10-11-2018
(10-11-2018, 12:39 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(10-10-2018, 08:08 PM)JJJ Wrote: I'm happy we're not on this list.UCLA doesn't make the list? Interesting.
Five Most Disappointing Teams in College Football so far.
5. Louisville
4. Boise State
3. Florida State
2. Michigan State
1. Nebraska
https://sports.yahoo.com/five-disappointing-teams-college-football-far-184452364.html
once again the Pac-12 gets no respect.......
RE: Schadenfreude? - Hank 91 - 10-11-2018
It's going to be interesting to watch how UCLA's season plays out. Even though they're showing signs of improvement, there's a very real possibility that they'll be sitting at 0-11 -- and with the prospect of an 11th-straight loss to the Cardinal -- when we face them in their final game on November 24th. I still believe Kelly will build them into a powerhouse once he has a couple recruiting classes under his belt, but this has been a dark year for them.
lex24 - lex24 - 10-11-2018
I’m not so sure, Hank. Kelly won when what he was doing was unique. Now it’s common. Plus he has SC to deal with in SoCal recruiting.
Obviously he has to get his guys in before any determination is made. But it’s fair to question his ability to win in these circumstances.
RE: Schadenfreude? - Hank 91 - 10-11-2018
I guess I'd agree that success isn't a certainty for Kelly, but I guess I just feel like he's going to be able to get better players than he did in Eugene. He probably had to work to get guys to come. Even with all the Nike money and the elite facilities, it's still Eugene. I figure he'll have an easier time recruiting to a school that is, by some measures, the most sought after college destination in America. (It's not Harvard or Stanford, but UCLA has had the most applicants for a few years in a row.)
RE: Schadenfreude? - CTcard - 10-11-2018
(10-11-2018, 02:34 PM)Hank 91 Wrote: I guess I'd agree that success isn't a certainty for Kelly, but I guess I just feel like he's going to be able to get better players than he did in Eugene. He probably had to work to get guys to come. Even with all the Nike money and the elite facilities, it's still Eugene. I figure he'll have an easier time recruiting to a school that is, by some measures, the most sought after college destination in America. (It's not Harvard or Stanford, but UCLA has had the most applicants for a few years in a row.)
A few things on Kelly, UCLA and recruiting.
First off, most of Kelly's winning in Eugene was not with his own recruits. He was only there four years. However, recruiting did turn upwards while he was at Oregon and much of Helfrich's winning in Eugene was with Kelly's recruits.
Secondly, UCLA has been recruiting generally quite well according to the services, and so far there is no sign of an upturn with Kelly. Whether these previous recruits are the kind of players Kelly wants or not, I don't know. Still, it appears that the recent issues at UCLA are more connected to development than recruiting.
UCLA
Mora's UCLA classes by 247sports (# nationally, # Pac 12)
2012: #18, #4
2013: #7, #1
2014: #18, #3
2015: #12, #2
2016: #13, #2
2017: #20, #4
Chip Kelly's classes
2018: #19, #4
2019: #85, #11 (so far - it's probably too early for this to be meaningful, especially with only 8 recruits)
Oregon
Before Kelly
2006: #50, #9
2007: #14, #2
2008: #34, #8
Kelly
2009: #30, #3
2010: #12, #3
2011: #12, #2
2012: #14, #3
Finally, a university's appeal to a football player is generally most dependent on the football program itself and not a strong function of the university's appeal to students broadly across the nation. After all, Alabama has the top recruiting class most every year.
RE: Schadenfreude? - Goose - 10-11-2018
(10-11-2018, 03:00 PM)CTcard Wrote: [Over the years, UCLA has always recruited "pretty well". No matter who the coaches were, they seem to get a fair number of good athletes. What is not to like? Westwood, a good school, and some good history. The problem has always been that UCLA always seems to lack something, no matter what they do get. Traditionally, it has been offensive line being composed of quick but not very big guys, and the same problem has appeared intermittently on the defense. Even in years that they appear not to have these issues, there are injuries and then they do. The fact Kelly was able to have a good class in his first year with a late start on recruiting shows that the UCLA name does mean something.
UCLA
Mora's UCLA classes by 247sports (# nationally, # Pac 12)
2012: #18, #4
2013: #7, #1
2014: #18, #3
2015: #12, #2
2016: #13, #2
2017: #20, #4
Chip Kelly's classes
2018: #19, #4
2019: #85, #11 (so far - it's probably too early for this to be meaningful, especially with only 8 recruits)
Finally, a university's appeal to a football player is generally most dependent on the football program itself and not a strong function of the university's appeal to students broadly across the nation. After all, Alabama has the top recruiting class most every year.
Unfortunately for Kelly, UCLA seems destined to always play second fiddle to USC. No matter what they do, it seems this is always so. Maybe Kelly can change that, but I doubt it. He will be under lots of pressure to win and win big now. I think the new "big money" at UCLA has little if any patience with trying to change the culture by evolution. Lots of pretty good coaches have come to UCLA, started out well, seemed to be going in the right direction, and then "crashed and burned". This has happened even during periods where USC was not, in fact, very good. I would be surprised if Kelly was not the next one in that line. There is just too much USC "legend" to overcome. If, OTOH, Kelly is successful, he definitely deserves a place in the coaching pantheon.
RE: Schadenfreude? - muiron - 10-13-2018
Though this is thread has become a UCLA thread, the title is appropriate as to another Pac 12 team. UCLA POUNDED Cal today, 37-7. That 3-0, "hey we're ranked" bloom? Long gone. I hope it means Cal is awful and not that Kelly's magic is already working at UCLA. I'd like to count our last two games, both on the road, as W's!
RE: Schadenfreude? - Redrum - 10-13-2018
(10-13-2018, 11:17 PM)muiron Wrote: Though this is thread has become a UCLA thread, the title is appropriate as to another Pac 12 team. UCLA POUNDED Cal today, 37-7. That 3-0, "hey we're ranked" bloom? Long gone. I hope it means Cal is awful and not that Kelly's magic is already working at UCLA. I'd like to count our last two games, both on the road, as W's!From your lips to God’s ears. Reading the moaning on Bear Insider was like a wonderful trip in the Wayback Machine. I love the smell of burning bear hair in the morning.
RE: Schadenfreude? - Goose - 10-14-2018
Cal really has nothing on offense. UCLA also had a good scheme against the Bear defense. Cal just didn't play well on defense, and it is probable they can't play well on offense. Is this a bad case of sophomore slump for Wilcox or is it that the staff over there is over-matched in the PAC-12? Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that. I can just be glad that Cal is still Cal.
Their board is fun to read right now though. For a few games, Wilcox was God. Now he is the devil incarnate. Beau Baldwin is even worse than that.
RE: Schadenfreude? - 2006alum - 10-14-2018
I don't know how much fun it should be reading other PAC-12 teams' board fury these days. "Schadenfreude" might be the right title for any other P5 conference, or, quite frankly, the AAC. So many of the schools in our conference are down this year (UCLA, Cal, Arizona), and even the recent powerhouses aren't what they once were (Washington, USC, Oregon, us). The best OOC win in our conference is owned by a 3-3 team (Arizona State), and their win was over an unranked Big Ten team that lost to Northwestern (Michigan State). The three one-loss schools (Colorado, WSU, and Oregon) have exactly one P5 OOC win among them, and it was against 0-6 Nebraska. Most of the conference is living in a glass house these days, so it's hard to take much glee in our traditional rivals' even greater ineptitude given that there's something of a pox on all our houses.
When does basketball season start again? Oh wait...
RE: Schadenfreude? - Goose - 10-14-2018
Along the lines of the previous post, SC beat Colorado while rushing for a grand total of 63 yards. That is just hard to imagine. It will be interesting to see what SC can do at Utah next week. I don't think they can be that one-dimensional and beat Utah. SC is once again favored to win the South, but I am not so sure. The South appears to be composed of teams all of which are not very good.