glduck Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 as a casual follower of recruiting, i would contend ucla recruiting has been bordering on the elite the last several years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KUGRDON Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Yes, perhaps out recruiting their on field success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueDuck Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 UCLA has out recruited UO in 7 of the last 10 years, at least according to the so called "experts." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.E. Bruin Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 as a casual follower of recruiting, i would contend ucla recruiting has been bordering on the elite the last several years. It is not even borderline, UCLA has been recruiting at an elite level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBug708 Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Oregon has out coached UCLA in 8 of the 10 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBug708 Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Yes, perhaps out recruiting their on field success. The last four years, UCLA has finished first or second in the south and probably first or second in the PAC-12 south. I think it's about even. But if you are trying to tell me that recruiting is an exact science, I won't argue. Thankfully there will always be Arizona State, probably the one team that underachieves more than UCLA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.E. Bruin Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Yes Struggling to recruit elite talent? UCLA got the #1 QB in the nation from CA #1 TE in the nation from Conn #1 RB in the nation from TX # 1 C in the nation from HI UCLA finished with a top 20 with a class of only 18 commits, UCLA has no problems bringing in elite recruits. Your assement is 7 years behind the times, this is no longer a program operated by Toledo, Dorrell, or Neuheisel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 It is damaging to your program to not have an on-campus stadium. Look at the records: Miami Hurricanes --> no on-campus stadium --> conference champions last 10 years: zero Pitt Panthers --> no on-campus stadium --> conference champions last 10 years: one UCLA Bruins --> no on-campus stadium --> conference champions last 10 years: zero UCLA is the Miami of the West Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.E. Bruin Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 It is damaging to your program to not have an on-campus stadium. Look at the records: Miami Hurricanes --> no on-campus stadium --> conference champions last 10 years: zero Pitt Panthers --> no on-campus stadium --> conference champions last 10 years: one UCLA Bruins --> no on-campus stadium --> conference champions last 10 years: zero UCLA is the Miami of the WestAnecdotal evidence at best, UCLA problems before Mora arrived were far greater then not having an on campus stadium. Miami won multiple national championships playing at the orange bowl and their recent problems are not due to not having an on campus stadium. Other then playing in major cities and in off campus stadiums, Miami and UCLA are not comparable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueDuck Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 UCLA is Texas A&M without the retarded fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Hail Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 It has been 16 years since UCLA has won a conference title. The school is located in the greatest hotbed for recruiting in the nation. Obviously, their poor results have got to be due to more than just mediocre coaching. Can you find the flaw in this argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Hail Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 UCLA is Texas A&M without the retarded fans. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.E. Bruin Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Can you find the flaw in this argument? Yes, UCLA has always played in an off campus stadium, in good times and bad, hey did not just move to the Rose Bowl 16 years ago. There were many internal reason why UCLA struggled many years before Mora arrived, and a lack of an on campus stadium is not on that list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.E. Bruin Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 ... I would say UCLA was more comparable to Virginia before Mora arrived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueDuck Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 I would say UCLA was more comparable to Virginia before Mora arrived. How so? Virginia doesn't have half the talent Cali or Texas have. A&M has been second in Texas forever, same with UCLA. Both have great recruiting classes most year, and both never do anything with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.E. Bruin Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 How so? Virginia doesn't have half the talent Cali or Texas have. A&M has been second in Texas forever, same with UCLA. Both have great recruiting classes most year, and both never do anything with it. Virginia is a top public school, I disagree Virginia is in a very fertile recruiting area, they generally recruit well, and for some reason they never do anything in the ACC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueDuck Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 So your only comparing it because of academics? We are talking football here. Virginia is more like Cal imo, or even Maryland. All are in fertile recruiting spots, and none ever win for more than a few years, then go back to being around .500 teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.E. Bruin Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 So your only comparing it because of academics? We are talking football here. Virginia is more like Cal imo, or even Maryland. All are in fertile recruiting spots, and none ever win for more than a few years, then go back to being around .500 teams. Academics and culture are very big reasons, for years Cal has been accepting recruits that have no business being at Cal. For years UCLA had to deal with an administration that did not believe in investing money into athletics or making exceptions for athletes, I think Virginia was the same way. Texas A&M is nothing like UCLA, culture or academics, Texas A&M is a weird conservative semi-military type school in the middle of nowhere Texas. Football is king at A&M, they do not have the same hurdles with admissions or funding that UCLA or Virginia have to deal with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueDuck Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Yes, but football wise UCLA and A&M are the same type of place. You both fire and hire coaches over and over. You both get top 10 recruiting classes most years, only to finish with 8,9,10 wins. Both teams are always the "it" team in August and September and nowhere to be seen in November. Virginia is irrelevant, what the culture is at the school is irrelevant, how both football teams continue to underachieve with so much at their disposal is relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckfandan Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 I think it's pretty clear that academically UCLA is more comparative to UVA, but in terms of football advantages and underperformance UCLA is more comparative to aTm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.