Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth
UCLA is a city school. You can't define a result and then proclaim that UCLA's round peg doesn't fit the square hole you constructed.
You have state flagship schools and state land-grant schools, and BCS schools tend to fit under those two buckets. Then you have other major state schools, private schools, directional schools, and city schools. You can't include "they must suck" into the definition of city school.
|
Eh, fine - they still suck at football.
You can have 'em if you want 'em. I would consider UCLA to be a 'regional' school more than a city school (Just as I would consider UNLV), but that's fine. I think of them as more of a "K-State" style program rather than, say, Memphis, but I'm not going to be picky. I mean technically Cal is Cal-Berkely, no? So is Cal a city school? I would certainly never consider them as such.
It doesn't seem that UCLA is a square peg at all, but again, I'll assume they are for the sake of argument.
The Bruins still can't hang with the big time programs with any regularity. They're a mediocre program with spurts of success.