Rome and Roth
- Thread starter Suudy
- Start date
Loved the WSU conversation, but just as big, I had no idea that UCLA has played 20 true freshman this year. That says volumes about over-rated 4 star recruits from previous classes. Clearly neither the UCLA staff nor the recruiting gurus knew much. And it suggests that UCLA will be better in years to come.
When new coaches start a ton of their new recruits, I wonder how much of it is putting the best athletes on the field vs. building for the future while the coach still has time. That didn't work so good at Colorado, but Chip is probably smarter and likely will do better recruiting. But it makes me feel for the older guys on the UCLA team that had worked hard, assuming there were some.
To the OP, Roth is a guy to watch. Very talented and he has made quite a case for Minshew more than once.
Last edited:
UCLA fans are on suicide watch this season but so were we in Leach Year 1 & 2. UCLA is either the #2 or #3 school for sending kids to the NFL as of this year. Chip is a good coach whose game didn’t translate to the NFL (yet). He will get it done at UCLA. They will beat SC many more times and possibly become bigger than Oregon ever was with the extra advantages
Chip, I agree. I think the only things that might derail Chip are 1.) he is older and may not be quite as willing to mortgage his life to his career as he was at Oregon; and 2.) UCLA is almost the poster child for a soft campus in every respect. Tough environment in which to succeed with a football program. Not saying that Chip can't or won't succeed; I believe that he will do so; but he is fighting a much bigger on campus uphill battle than any other PAC coach...even Cal, all things considered. At least at Cal the team has a couple of clear and identifiable opponents that they can unite to overcome. At UCLA it is simply the ultimate soft environment with no easy on campus opponents to help galvanize the troops.
You might be right but I am curious about the "soft" comment. I've heard it dozens of times. Aren't half of UCLA's kids (and those at every state university) from rough-and-tumble / low or lower-middle-class neighborhoods doing two-a-days in the heat of LA or Fresno or El Paso?
What exactly is going on at UCLA football practice that is day-to-day different? Are they getting mani-pedis while the rest of the PAC is rolling in sand? Do we think there's a meaningful difference still in 2018 that Chip couldn't control?
Just because you’re from the ghetto, doesn’t mean you’re tough. Just as owning a gun doesn’t make you tough, it makes you soft (easy way). Look, UCLA is in a wonderful community, close to the beach and everything anyone would want. The training table is an afterthought and it isn’t close to the dorms...... as Neuheisel states, it’s easier to get to fast food than it is to get to the training table, gym. The whole environment makes an entitled 4/5 star athlete soft. They feel they ‘made it’ without actually ‘making it’. Now turn to WSU which has the training table and gym steps away from the dorms. There is no beach to distract, its school and football. The training table is the best food around. Calories are counted, nutrition is controlled, work outs are psychologically engrained. WSU/Hard UCLA/Soft..... look at the standings.
LEON BENDER KNEW THE TRUTH... SPOKE THE TRUTH.
UCLA is where they "become soft".
Please Leon... Make it happen today!
UCLA is where they "become soft".
Please Leon... Make it happen today!
You're right that it doesn't "make" you tough, any more than having a great job, income and family "makes" you happy, or eating well "makes" you healthy. But I'd venture there is a correlation.
And anyway, this isn't a substantive answer to how UCLA "makes" kids soft. I'm open to the possibility that kids go soft there - but nobody has provided a real answer to this.
I think UCLA makes kids soft because of the environment. Westwood is the super nice area of Los Angeles. Beverly Hills is nearby. It’s wealthy posh and a very easy and comfortable environment.
When you are surrounded by day spas, rodeo drive shopping, pink berry frozen yogurt, fusion tacos with Kobe beef with a Siracha poblano Creme fresh reduction sauce....how the hell are you supposed to strap on plastic armor and play tough?
You won’t. You’ll turn soft just like the frozen yogurt. You’ll get comfortable, football won’t seem so important, you’ll be shopping for designer jeans, checking out the latest sun glasses, relaxing by the pool watching girls with the best plastic surgery bodies flirt in Gucci bikinis.
There are a million distractions, a million reasons to lose focus.
Go put in a couple extra hours at the gym and watching film.... or... or.... go to that rooftop pool party on Sunset with those two bleach bottle blondes?
And that’s how UCLA goes soft. You aren’t in an environment to prepare for battle and focus. You are immersed in a superficial theater of opulence and superficiality.
Exhibit A. “The Rosen One”
http://www.sportingnews.com/us/othe...am-ucla-quarterback/d24azvar6iut1ankrfa8i7c8x
Chip, I can only offer a few anecdotes. If you want hard research data I can't help.
At the end of the Toledo era I was asked to fix a number of AC/ventilation issues in the relatively new weight training facility. I was probably in that building a dozen times, for a rough total of 20 hours. Yes, it was during the day (though at various times), and sure, many kids would have been in classes. Yet there was seldom more than maybe 1-4 guys there, doing anything. Bear in mind, this facility was for all sports, not just football. I asked one of the staff why nobody was ever in this really nice facility. I asked the same question twice, at different times, of two different staff members. The two answers were similar...along the lines of, "if you had all these good looking girls and so many other things to do, would YOU be lifting?". Bear in mind, clothing is minimal for the female population in LA for about 10 months out of the year. A couple of years later (Carroll era) I was doing the same thing in SC's weight facility. Again, the facility was not solely for football. The room was never full, but there were never fewer than a half dozen guys doing things, and usually more like a dozen. Draw your own conclusions.
I also took care of the Associated Student's buildings at UCLA for maybe 7-8 years, starting late Toledo. I have spent a fair amount of time on a lot of campuses. The student union facilities at UCLA had the fewest number of kids reading & studying that I've ever seen. It was mostly eating & socializing. I'm sure they study somewhere; I have had two sons go thru the UC system and understand what they do there in order to graduate. But how do I explain what I've seen at UCLA?
Two kids from my Sunday School classes over the years ended up at UCLA. I visited one once, while on campus for other business. She took me around, pointing out the stuff to do, what she liked about UCLA, etc. She was a cute girl, and in a sorority, but I surprised at how much overall social life there is on campus...both Greek and GDI. From that standpoint it is much more like WSU than I expected, particularly being familiar with UCSD and UC Davis (my son's schools), both Cal Polys (where I recruit a lot), USC, Loyola and several others. UCLA seems to have a lot more on campus student life than any of the others I just mentioned...almost like a residential campus. The only one that came close was Cal Poly SLO. Maybe that is because UCLA is a resort in an urban/mass suburban environment (much like Stanford in that regard) as opposed to, for example, USC (where until recently you simply did not walk certain directions from campus, especially after dark).
Finally, just a cultural observation from an old fart. Athletes on Cal's campus seem to develop a bit of an "us against them" attitude due to the various groups hostile to athletics on that campus. Athletes on SC's campus are accustomed to being relatively well regarded for a number of reasons. UCLA is the only campus that I've visited where the culture seems to be for the athletes to try to fit in and not be seen as athletes. It is fine to talk about it if somebody else brings it up, but it seems to be gauche for an athlete to bring it up themselves. I find that interesting, because nobody there would find it out of place for a musician to discuss a concert in which they had performed, or a play in which they had acted.
Chip, the common thread in all this is what I generically refer to as "soft". At WSU I roomed with guys who would take a shower when they got up at 5:00 - 6:00 am, then blow dry their hair so it wouldn't freeze on the way to the gym for their lifting before classes. When I asked the UCLA weight room staff what the busiest time of the day was for the weight room, I was told that sometimes they had quite a few people in the late afternoon, and the swimmers & water polo folks tended to be early, but otherwise there wasn't a specific time (other than a month or so leading up to the season) when they were particularly busy.
I'm not sure if this helps you to understand my use of the term "soft", but it is at least an attempt. Keep posting; I enjoy your observations.
At the end of the Toledo era I was asked to fix a number of AC/ventilation issues in the relatively new weight training facility. I was probably in that building a dozen times, for a rough total of 20 hours. Yes, it was during the day (though at various times), and sure, many kids would have been in classes. Yet there was seldom more than maybe 1-4 guys there, doing anything. Bear in mind, this facility was for all sports, not just football. I asked one of the staff why nobody was ever in this really nice facility. I asked the same question twice, at different times, of two different staff members. The two answers were similar...along the lines of, "if you had all these good looking girls and so many other things to do, would YOU be lifting?". Bear in mind, clothing is minimal for the female population in LA for about 10 months out of the year. A couple of years later (Carroll era) I was doing the same thing in SC's weight facility. Again, the facility was not solely for football. The room was never full, but there were never fewer than a half dozen guys doing things, and usually more like a dozen. Draw your own conclusions.
I also took care of the Associated Student's buildings at UCLA for maybe 7-8 years, starting late Toledo. I have spent a fair amount of time on a lot of campuses. The student union facilities at UCLA had the fewest number of kids reading & studying that I've ever seen. It was mostly eating & socializing. I'm sure they study somewhere; I have had two sons go thru the UC system and understand what they do there in order to graduate. But how do I explain what I've seen at UCLA?
Two kids from my Sunday School classes over the years ended up at UCLA. I visited one once, while on campus for other business. She took me around, pointing out the stuff to do, what she liked about UCLA, etc. She was a cute girl, and in a sorority, but I surprised at how much overall social life there is on campus...both Greek and GDI. From that standpoint it is much more like WSU than I expected, particularly being familiar with UCSD and UC Davis (my son's schools), both Cal Polys (where I recruit a lot), USC, Loyola and several others. UCLA seems to have a lot more on campus student life than any of the others I just mentioned...almost like a residential campus. The only one that came close was Cal Poly SLO. Maybe that is because UCLA is a resort in an urban/mass suburban environment (much like Stanford in that regard) as opposed to, for example, USC (where until recently you simply did not walk certain directions from campus, especially after dark).
Finally, just a cultural observation from an old fart. Athletes on Cal's campus seem to develop a bit of an "us against them" attitude due to the various groups hostile to athletics on that campus. Athletes on SC's campus are accustomed to being relatively well regarded for a number of reasons. UCLA is the only campus that I've visited where the culture seems to be for the athletes to try to fit in and not be seen as athletes. It is fine to talk about it if somebody else brings it up, but it seems to be gauche for an athlete to bring it up themselves. I find that interesting, because nobody there would find it out of place for a musician to discuss a concert in which they had performed, or a play in which they had acted.
Chip, the common thread in all this is what I generically refer to as "soft". At WSU I roomed with guys who would take a shower when they got up at 5:00 - 6:00 am, then blow dry their hair so it wouldn't freeze on the way to the gym for their lifting before classes. When I asked the UCLA weight room staff what the busiest time of the day was for the weight room, I was told that sometimes they had quite a few people in the late afternoon, and the swimmers & water polo folks tended to be early, but otherwise there wasn't a specific time (other than a month or so leading up to the season) when they were particularly busy.
I'm not sure if this helps you to understand my use of the term "soft", but it is at least an attempt. Keep posting; I enjoy your observations.
That's ok. I'm not sure how big the Jim Everett fan club is these days either.
Similar threads
