UCLA Predicts 20 Point Football Victory over USC


Have they lost their mind?

Last year's 13-9 victory was exciting and finally ended USC's 7-year victory streak (average score 35-18) over the Bruins. I can understand UCLA feeling good about themselves - they have a ton of guys coming back, It's the offseason when hope springs eternal, they've scored a few recruiting victories ...

But this is just stupid. Take it away, Dennis Dodd.
This is an issue because the Bruins got, uh, well, somehow left out of my first 2007 Top 25 in January. Being the good [Sports Information Director] that he is, Mr. [Marc] Dellins quickly shipped me the galleys of the spring guide. He apologized in advance for the typos (the bound version is coming). I didn't notice any except the bold prediction on Page 3 about beating USC. Again. By 20. To win the Pac-10. Now that's a good [SID].
No, that's an insane SID.

USC didn't need any extra motivation after dropping their championship hopes on the Rose Bowl turf last December, but now they've got it. I can only imagine Pete Carroll hearing about this (and he will), sitting in his office telling anyone within earshot: "For Realz? They aren't this stupid, are they?" with that confused look ironically last seen in last year's game against UCLA.

Anyway, at least we now know in advance - if it wasn't already a given - UCLA's confirmed a woodshed beating heading its way ETA 12/1/07 at the Coliseum. Sadly, there is no novelty in USC maulings of UCLA. See: 66-19, 47-22, 52-21 and 27-0.

Pete Carroll's biggest loss to date was by 11 points against Notre Dame his first year at Troy. That was a rebuilding team. Since then nobody's gotten the Trojans by anything more than seven points. I really just don't see where UCLA comes off not only calling their shot, but by 20 points. Cal might have something to say about their Pac-10 championship talk as well. If UCLA were to have that kind of season it would have made more sense not to draw a huge target on their backs, no? Let everyone gun for USC and stealthily claim the crown.

At least this once again confirms that UCLA defines itself by how it does against USC instead of more contemporary measures like "wins" and "championships". Because really, who would want to be defined by those things?

[More at www.aolsportsblog.com]