|
|
Post by laaztec on Sept 10, 2019 7:08:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by KDub on Sept 10, 2019 7:15:02 GMT -8
Wow!
Tough times for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdmotohead on Sept 10, 2019 7:17:55 GMT -8
Looks like his pants are around his ankles and he's taking a dump...
|
|
|
|
Post by 12414 on Sept 10, 2019 8:06:34 GMT -8
Maybe Steve Fisher can give UCLA some pointers on how to distribute free tickets to the students.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Sept 10, 2019 8:16:28 GMT -8
As funny as this is, I would like to see UCLA somehow beat OU on Saturday (as unlikely as that may be) and go on a solid win streak. We need the win against our lone P5 opponent to "look" as good as possible for as long as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Sept 10, 2019 8:20:02 GMT -8
It actually kind of depressed me to see that program in that state. The Rose Bowl is patterned on the Yale Bowl, and it didn't look a whole lot different that the average sparsely-attended game in New Haven. Of course, some of this was brought on themselves with the crappy product and the even crappier kickoff time.
Growing up in L.A., there was a time when UCLA football had a really good thing going on. There was a definite buzz, even with competition from Rams, Raiders, and USC. Something to keep in mind: While the Bruins have a crap product right now, they also have in the past -- and still drew reasonably well. I'm afraid such a depressed turnout might be another indicator of football's loosening grip on the American sports consumer.
|
|
|
|
Post by randiego on Sept 10, 2019 8:57:15 GMT -8
Even with free tickets you'll spend $44 on parking and two waters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old School on Sept 10, 2019 9:19:33 GMT -8
Everything about a game at the Rose Bowl is expensive (from tix, to parking, to food). It's not priced for the blue collar folks. Maybe some free chicken sandwiches from Popeye's and free beer might bring them in? But nobody will stick around by halftime.  UCLA should hire the KGB Sky Show folks to get more butts in the seats? /shrugs Oldie Out |
|
|
|
Post by cvtower on Sept 10, 2019 11:24:41 GMT -8
Even with free tickets you'll spend $44 on parking and two waters. Oh jeez....don't get me started. $7 "smart" water bottles. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Sept 10, 2019 11:28:13 GMT -8
Looks like his pants are around his ankles and he's taking a dump... Right after we dumped on them. |
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Sept 10, 2019 12:58:12 GMT -8
I don't know should we really consider "sympathy for the devils" (PAC12)??  |
|
|
|
Post by uncledougy on Sept 10, 2019 12:59:55 GMT -8
As funny as this is, I would like to see UCLA somehow beat OU on Saturday (as unlikely as that may be) and go on a solid win streak. We need the win against our lone P5 opponent to "look" as good as possible for as long as possible. I agree 100%! But it’s still hard to watch UCLA win when I consider them my most hated team of all college football. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecalum on Sept 10, 2019 13:05:03 GMT -8
Don't have a problem with UCLA being down. Perhaps with the win it will help with recruiting kids who select name over performance. Didn't we lose San Diego high school RB to UCLA late in recruiting last year? He's probably questioning that decision now? Perhaps our recruiting will get a bump with kids considering UCLA going forward?
|
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Sept 10, 2019 14:25:21 GMT -8
I'm afraid such a depressed turnout might be another indicator of football's loosening grip on the American sports consumer. It is some of that for sure, but the PAC-12 and UCLA in particular have made some media decisions that have KILLED them. The PAC-12 Network has no distribution contract with DirecTV or AT&T Uverse -AND- they just gave ESPN the middle finger. Because of an old contract UCLA signed with IMG that was breached when moving to the PAC-12 Network, UCLA has had to pay IMG $5.6 million over the past 4 years. What was promised as being possibly $7-$10 million per year going to UCLA from their media deal has turned into a reality of, after the IMG cut-out, $683,333 per year over six years of the PAC-12 Network. UCLA doesn't have the exposure they used to when their games were on ABC, CBS, or ESPN. UCLA doesn't have the money to market themselves. UCLA now has a really expensive coach who can't win. Football is losing the grip it once had, but most of UCLA's problems are self inflicted. awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/pac-12-teams-are-seeing-drastically-lower-payouts-than-expected-from-pac-12-networks.html |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Sept 10, 2019 15:12:37 GMT -8
I'm afraid such a depressed turnout might be another indicator of football's loosening grip on the American sports consumer. It is some of that for sure, but the PAC-12 and UCLA in particular have made some media decisions that have KILLED them. The PAC-12 Network has no distribution contract with DirecTV or AT&T Uverse -AND- they just gave ESPN the middle finger. Because of an old contract UCLA signed with IMG that was breached when moving to the PAC-12 Network, UCLA has had to pay IMG $5.6 million over the past 4 years. What was promised as being possibly $7-$10 million per year going to UCLA from their media deal has turned into a reality of, after the IMG cut-out, $683,333 per year over six years of the PAC-12 Network. UCLA doesn't have the exposure they used to when their games were on ABC, CBS, or ESPN. UCLA doesn't have the money to market themselves. UCLA now has a really expensive coach who can't win. Football is losing the grip it once had, but most of UCLA's problems are self inflicted. awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/pac-12-teams-are-seeing-drastically-lower-payouts-than-expected-from-pac-12-networks.html Amazingly, Cal gets even less than UCLA does, which has to thrill that school in Berkeley, as they need all the $$ they can get to keep paying off the hundreds of millions in bonds that were used to rebuild HALF of Memorial Stadium. They will be paying on those bonds for generations to come. |
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Sept 10, 2019 15:32:54 GMT -8
It actually kind of depressed me to see that program in that state. The Rose Bowl is patterned on the Yale Bowl, and it didn't look a whole lot different that the average sparsely-attended game in New Haven. Of course, some of this was brought on themselves with the crappy product and the even crappier kickoff time. Growing up in L.A., there was a time when UCLA football had a really good thing going on. There was a definite buzz, even with competition from Rams, Raiders, and USC. Something to keep in mind: While the Bruins have a crap product right now, they also have in the past -- and still drew reasonably well. I'm afraid such a depressed turnout might be another indicator of football's loosening grip on the American sports consumer. There's a reason UCLA was a poor second to USC in football. IMO Mark Harmon, aka Jethro Gibbs, had the most success post UCLA, followed by OU transfer Troy Aikman. During my time the most successful and most bizarre hiring was Donahue. That said, as SDSU is currently riding the coat tails of a sixty something, be reminded that success, regardless of the level, can be fleeting. |
|
|
|
Post by 84aztec96 on Sept 10, 2019 16:40:36 GMT -8
Looks like his pants are around his ankles and he's taking a dump... That's funny. He actually could be and no one would notice... |
|
|
|
Post by jp92grad on Sept 10, 2019 16:44:20 GMT -8
It actually kind of depressed me to see that program in that state. The Rose Bowl is patterned on the Yale Bowl, and it didn't look a whole lot different that the average sparsely-attended game in New Haven. Of course, some of this was brought on themselves with the crappy product and the even crappier kickoff time. Growing up in L.A., there was a time when UCLA football had a really good thing going on. There was a definite buzz, even with competition from Rams, Raiders, and USC. Something to keep in mind: While the Bruins have a crap product right now, they also have in the past -- and still drew reasonably well. I'm afraid such a depressed turnout might be another indicator of football's loosening grip on the American sports consumer. There's a reason UCLA was a poor second to USC in football. IMO Mark Harmon, aka Jethro Gibbs, had the most success post UCLA, followed by OU transfer Troy Aikman. During my time the most successful and most bizarre hiring was Donahue. That said, as SDSU is currently riding the coat tails of a sixty something, be reminded that success, regardless of the level, can be fleeting. are you just as big a troll on the Bruin site and if so do they hate you just as much as we do here? You have got to be one miserable grumpy old lonely bastard. Why do you continue to post more and more negative $#!+ on every post you write here. You add NOTHING constructive to this site, your act is old. JUST MOVE ON OLD TIMER, PEOPLE ARE SICK OF YOUR NEGATIVE COMMENTS! *** this coming from a some what old fart in the making. |
|
|
|
Post by RiffelBooks on Sept 10, 2019 17:10:04 GMT -8
Along with all the above, the nightmarish LA traffic has to be a factor, too. We think we have it bad with the campus and stadium being separated by a mile. Westwood to Pasadena can't be easy. Fans who live in the Westside, west end of the valley or South Bay have to think that staying home and watching the game on TV is a better option.
|
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Sept 10, 2019 17:19:26 GMT -8
It actually kind of depressed me to see that program in that state. The Rose Bowl is patterned on the Yale Bowl, and it didn't look a whole lot different that the average sparsely-attended game in New Haven. Of course, some of this was brought on themselves with the crappy product and the even crappier kickoff time. Growing up in L.A., there was a time when UCLA football had a really good thing going on. There was a definite buzz, even with competition from Rams, Raiders, and USC. Something to keep in mind: While the Bruins have a crap product right now, they also have in the past -- and still drew reasonably well. I'm afraid such a depressed turnout might be another indicator of football's loosening grip on the American sports consumer. There's a reason UCLA was a poor second to USC in football. IMO Mark Harmon, aka Jethro Gibbs, had the most success post UCLA, followed by OU transfer Troy Aikman. During my time the most successful and most bizarre hiring was Donahue. That said, as SDSU is currently riding the coat tails of a sixty something, be reminded that success, regardless of the level, can be fleeting.
Actually, remembering the old Lone Ranger-Tonto joke, "what you mean "we" white man", "we" did nothing but fall into an extremely fortuitous situation, the gradual demise of
UCLA football.
Following the departure of Terry Donahue five subsequent coaches have posted a combined record of 154-127. Frankly it was Donahue's longevity that allowed him to be the winningest coach
in PAC-8 history, a relatively modest 151-74-8. Yes there were some great moments, including the Bruin's domination of future SDSU Coach Ted Tollner's USC program.
Regardless, Donahue was seen as an icon until his shelf life dictated it was time to go. Frankly, I believe he was personally more popular than his record. So what that meant was any subsequent
coach had to REALLY take the program to the next level. None did. Which, in my opinion, is why fan attendance has gradually, but steadily, been on the decline.
To further the "what we did to UCLA" reality check, as I've said before, like the Trump administration, the Aztec fan base has not grown, even with the recent success of Rocky Long's program. And the one thing UCLA does possess is, for better or worse, a secured future in a stadium that actually exists.
Yes, enjoy the game this Saturday as I will, because from day one I was offended by this hire of a fat retread, knowing this university had the resources to do so much better.
And then, please move on and focus on what the Aztecs can do to generate some real interest and support in San Diego. Their future may depend on it.
|
|
