Bruleif

It's a good idea in concept, but it's not practical. With conferences getting bigger and going to 9-game schedules, that takes away one out of conference game. That wouldn't be such a problem, except that schools rely on a certain amount of home games to make money - if one extra game is now guaranteed to rotate home and away, the remaining out-of-conference games really need to almost always be played at home and the better opponents won't agree to come to your place without you going to theirs. But I do not see that as a problem. Many schools set up "home and home" OOC games. UCLA has had lots of them in the past decade (Nebraska, Tennessee and Texas come to mind.) I assume that teams which normally sell out their stadiums (Tennessee, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc) lose some money by setting up "home and home" series. But so what? Couldn't the risk of losing money be offset with a formula that would give them a better shot at the NC game if they schedule a tough OOC component and win? And don't schools make the most money when they win the NC? I just don't like the idea that we are rewarding schools for ducking quality teams. Look at some of the SEC and BIG 10 opponents from last year. Let's say Nebraska played Alabama in an early OOC game this upcoming season. And let's say it was a "home and home" series. Yes, both schools might not make as much money as if they were playing a creampuff. But think of the buzz! Think of the ratings! And think what a great leg up the victor would have in the NC hunt! Instead of September being a relatively ho-hum month, just think of the excitement. I just think that a team should be rewarded for taking risks -- not for avoiding them (a la SEC). Set it up so each school has to play 3 OOC games and then change the math so that a school gets more credit for an "away" victory against a quality OOC opponent. Am I missing something? I get your point and all, but you left out the Pac 12 when discussing weak OOC schedules. Hawaii, Nicholls St. Northern Arizona, and E. Washington are 4 Pac 12 opponents this first week of college football. The Pac 12 does it too. No one is going to say that New Mexico St. is a football power either are they? I've always believed that the Pac-10 and now Pac-12 has done better than most conferences on their OOC SOS. Of course there are exceptions. But Stanford and USC always play Notre Dame. UCLA has played Tennessee, Texas, Alabama, Michigan and Nebraska in recent OOC games. I think there are 3 schools in all of the BSC that have never played a non-BCS opponent - UCLA is one and I think Notre Dame is another but I cannot remember the third. Can anyone out there tell me? Also, I think that almost all Pac-12 schools schedule their creampuff opponents durng the first 3 games. Pac-12 schools generally do not scheduile creampuffs later in the year. Isn't there a week in the Big 10 later in the year during which almost all of teams schedule creampuffs - or is it the SEC that does this? I am not sure. There is a definite advantage to scheduling creampuffs later, as a team is more likely recovering from more injuries later in the year. The most important point is that no matter which conference does it, the scheduling of creampuffs, early or late, should not be rewarded.

It's a good idea in concept, but it's not practical. With conferences getting bigger and going to 9-game schedules, that takes away one out of conference game. That wouldn't be such a problem, except that schools rely on a certain amount of home games to make money - if one extra game is now guaranteed to rotate home and away, the remaining out-of-conference games really need to almost always be played at home and the better opponents won't agree to come to your place without you going to theirs. But I do not see that as a problem. Many schools set up "home and home" OOC games. UCLA has had lots of them in the past decade (Nebraska, Tennessee and Texas come to mind.) I assume that teams which normally sell out their stadiums (Tennessee, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc) lose some money by setting up "home and home" series. But so what? Couldn't the risk of losing money be offset with a formula that would give them a better shot at the NC game if they schedule a tough OOC component and win? And don't schools make the most money when they win the NC? I just don't like the idea that we are rewarding schools for ducking quality teams. Look at some of the SEC and BIG 10 opponents from last year. Let's say Nebraska played Alabama in an early OOC game this upcoming season. And let's say it was a "home and home" series. Yes, both schools might not make as much money as if they were playing a creampuff. But think of the buzz! Think of the ratings! And think what a great leg up the victor would have in the NC hunt! Instead of September being a relatively ho-hum month, just think of the excitement. I just think that a team should be rewarded for taking risks -- not for avoiding them (a la SEC). Set it up so each school has to play 3 OOC games and then change the math so that a school gets more credit for an "away" victory against a quality OOC opponent. Am I missing something?

The last few years out linebacker crew has been slow as hell. Many who can't keep up with the tight ends. When we say the defense will be faster we are primarily talking the LBs. we have a young and very quick group. Sure we don't know how they will perform, but they will be able to catch a RB around the end and stick with TEs and even WRs. So it's just a very fast group. Thanks for the clarification.

I'd like to see the BCS formula changed so that a school's ranking is based on the number of wins it has each year and that a win over a non-BCS school would not be counted. This would address the tradition that some schools have of repeatedly scheduling creampuffs. IMHO the more quality OOC matchups there are the better it is for college football. Non-conference games with quality opponents are more highly anticipated, by both fans and the media, and they are more fun to watch. It also enables fans to better gauge a team's overall quality earlier in the season. Is this a good idea or not?

I've seen many posts where Nebraska fans say that the Cornhusker defense will be faster this year. What is this based on? Observations of practices? Statements by coaches? Faster players being promoted to starting positions? I'm not saying the Cornhuskers will not be faster - I just curious how people know that now. Wouldn't you have to see the team in game conditions when you can compare its speed to the opposition's to really know if it is faster than the previous season? Or can you tell by what you see or hear from reliable sources prior to the season?

Yes we ran a 3-4 last year. Deviin Fuller is definitely going to be an impact WR. He has great speed and hands. He's a natural. It's like you're telling me my ex is great in the sack. Good thing I'm not running low on dime pieces. I did not know that Nebraska offered Devin Fuller a scholarship. Do you know if it was at WR or at QB?

Yes we ran a 3-4 last year. Deviin Fuller is definitely going to be an impact WR. He has great speed and hands. He's a natural.

The "thinness" and/or "youth" of the D-Line are the reasons that those who follow the Bruins closely are very excited about Vanderdoes' availability. He fits nicely into an area that was previously a concern. Also, many followers of the Bruins expect Cassius Marsh to have a big year. One interesting question re the Bruin D-Line is which DE will line up on the same side as LB Anthony Barr most of the time. The theory is that a very quick Cassius Marsh paired on the same side of the line as Barr could present problems to offenses. Time will tell. Also, Barr does not always play on the same side - he flips around.

Here is one Bruin fan's PROJECTED D-Line depth chart. UCLA DEFENSIVE LINE 2013 DE: Cassius Marsh 6’3” 260 SR; Brandon Willis 6’1 275 JR*; Kylie Fitts 6’4” 270 ; Sam Tai 6’3” 275 SR*; NT: Ellis McCarthy 6’4” 6’5” 330 SO; Seaali’I Epenesa 6’1” 310 SR ; Kenneth Clark 6’2” 305; Brandon Tuliupupu 6’1 286 DE: Eddie Vanderdoes 6’4” 305 ; Owa Odighigizawa 6’3’ 268 SR *; Keenan Graham 6’1” 255 SR*; Eli Ankou 6’3” 290 FR*; Nate Iese 6’4” 243 FR

Owa had a hip injury and in the spring they had to go in to remove scar tissue so it is unknown what his status is. The advantage of having Eddie Vanderdoes is that Mora and Co. can now redshirt Owa if need be.

Oops...forgot the link. http://beta.pac-12.com/videos/pac-12-football-media-day-podium-video-ucla-bruins?DB_OEM_ID=30500

Below is a link to a video of the UCLA portion of PAC-12 Media Day, with Coach Mora, OL Xavier Sua Filo and LB Anthony Barr. One question from the press asked about how important it was to UCLA to beat Nebraska last year. I thought all three were pretty impressive but then again I am biased.

Here's a link to a newspaper story on Eddie Vanderdoes, for what it is worth. http://www.dailynews.com/ci_23765387/college-football-uclas-prized-recruit-eddie-vanderdoes-cleared?source=most_viewed

Late yesterday, July 30, Eddie Vanderdoes, a 5-star defensive lineman from Auburn, California, was cleared to play for UCLA. He had originally signed a letter of intent to attend Notre Dame but requested a release from that to be closer to home. It is anticipated that Vanderdoes will play immediately and may likely start on the D-Line. This may not be a worry for Nebraska fans but the news is being greated joyfully on the Bruin sites, especially due to the uncertainty of the injury to Owa.

Yes, the information about Manfro's family was very interesting. All I know is that all through spring and fall camp those who follow the Bruins more closely than I do and who went to the practices were raving about Manfro, saying that he just has this football knack of finding open space on the field, kind of like a Wes Welker.

I thought it might ease the pain a little if you knew the QB you lost to seems like a decent fellow. http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/football/la-sp-0912-plaschke-ucla-hundley-20120912,0,3318019.column

How can UCLA lose to Oregon AND go to the Rose Bowl? The only way Oregon and UCLA meet this year is by meeting in the PAC-12 Championship game and the winner of that goes to the Rose Bowl. Also, how in the world could Nebraska schedule Arkansas State and Idaho State? Is Nebraska trying to get into the SEC? Uh, if Oregon is undefeated and goes to the National Championship game? The schedule has been made for quite some time. "The schedule has been made for quite some time" does not really answer my question, which is this: "Why is a school with a strong football tradition such as Nebraska scheduling schools with much smaller programs such as Arkansas State and Idaho State?" I realize that schedules are made in advance, but UCLA (and I think two other BCS schools whose names I cannot remember) has NEVER played a non-BCS school. If you are going to schedule two "Little Sistes of the Poor" schools then you might as well move to the SEC, where that kind of scheduling is par for the course.

How can UCLA lose to Oregon AND go to the Rose Bowl? The only way Oregon and UCLA meet this year is by meeting in the PAC-12 Championship game and the winner of that goes to the Rose Bowl. Also, how in the world could Nebraska schedule Arkansas State and Idaho State? Is Nebraska trying to get into the SEC?

Playing the same team twice is like marrying the same women twice: where's the excitement? (Although in UCLA's case, facing a Rose Bowl opponent that they already played that season is a good formula to follow. Both in the 1966 Rose Bowl vs. Michgan State and the 1976 Rose Bowl vs. Ohio State, the Bruins faced two teams that they played - and lost to - during the regular season. And in both cases UCLA won the Rose Bowl (and in both cases Michigan State and Ohio State were rated No. 1 coming into that game).) Way, way, way too early to talk about the Rose Bowl for either team. One week at a time.

But it is just a game.

The "shouldn't's" should be saved until the end of the year. Nebraska fans believed prior to the game that it would be a walkover, but that was not based on any real knowledge of the Bruins. It was based on assumptions. Ask your question again at the end of the year. Then everybody will know which Nebraska losses should be in the "shouldn't" category.

Or realizing that it's just a game played by 18-22 yr olds. I think you have hit the nail on the head. Years ago I read where the players get over a loss fairly quickly so I figured why should I obsess about a loss if they don't?

There appear to be 4 good teams, other than UCLA, in the PAC-12: USC Oregon Arizona State Arizona Did I leave anyone out? Anyway, we do not play Oregon this year. Of the remaining 3 teams, Arizona State is the only one we play on the road. Still, it would be a very big challenge to run the table. I have believed for many years that it is harder to beat 3 or 4 good teams than 1 great team. Any team can get lucky in one game, or come up with a great one-off performance, plus turnovers can turn any game on its head. But with the up and down emotions of 18-22 year olds and the impact of injuries in college football it is very hard to beat a series of decent teams. So we will see.

Husker66, I can understand where you are coming from. UCLA fans have felt the same way for the last 13 years. I don't think our expectations are as high as those of the Nebraska fans, but I think it is fair to say that UCLA fans expect that the Bruins should end every year in the top 10 or 15. And we have not been any where near that level for a long time. It's been a long, sad haul for Bruin football fans. And, lest we forget, we lost to our hated crosstown riveal 50-0 last year, so I definitely know your disappointment.

Dear Mythical Sky Being: Since I am an atheist I do not believe in you, so take a hike. And I wonder how people can believe in an all powerful entity that spends time fretting over college football. Cheers.