Scott,
Injuries are a part of every game and UCLA losing their QB was no different than Wyoming losing both of their backs. If I had the time right now to go back and search threads I am sure that I could find multiple post by yourself touting UCLA as being a strong team that people outside of the PAC 10 were disrespecting. Wyoming was perhaps the weakest bowl team this year outside of North Texas State and I believed that they would have been beaten by any of the MAC schools that went to bowls, so that speaks volumes about just how OVERRATED UCLA was! This cuts right to the heart of why the BCS sucks, a team like USC can cruise through a average to weak league and then gets bumped up while a team like Auburn plays in a cut throat league and gets punished. I said this same thing about Miami-Fla when they played in just as weak of a Conf (BigEast) as USC does in the Pac 10. Stating that UCLA was not motivated is a cop-out, is this not the same UCLA team that got pushed around the field by Fresno State last year in the Silicon Bowl? Do you believe that UCLA can only be motivated when they play in big bowl games? Wel lthat would be false also since UCLA rarely plays in a large bowl, twice in eleven years. I believe that UCLA was the fifth best team in a weak conf that could not even fill their allotted bowl slots, do you think the fifth best teams from the other larger leagues would struggle with Wyom? Well the Big 12 fifth best team already played Wyom and beat them by 31 but you know AM didn't have as high of a SOS rating as UCLA so therefore UCLA would beat them. UCLA's showing is just another example why the PAC 10 is not currently a top tier league like the Big 12, SEC, ACC, they are the fifth best league and you cannot justify your responses with the lame excuse of injuries, as they are part of the game. To even put forth a proposition that injuries caused UCLA to lose is insane as this is the same Wyom team that gave up nearly 1,500 yards rushing in their final four games.
Injuries are a part of every game and UCLA losing their QB was no different than Wyoming losing both of their backs. If I had the time right now to go back and search threads I am sure that I could find multiple post by yourself touting UCLA as being a strong team that people outside of the PAC 10 were disrespecting. Wyoming was perhaps the weakest bowl team this year outside of North Texas State and I believed that they would have been beaten by any of the MAC schools that went to bowls, so that speaks volumes about just how OVERRATED UCLA was! This cuts right to the heart of why the BCS sucks, a team like USC can cruise through a average to weak league and then gets bumped up while a team like Auburn plays in a cut throat league and gets punished. I said this same thing about Miami-Fla when they played in just as weak of a Conf (BigEast) as USC does in the Pac 10. Stating that UCLA was not motivated is a cop-out, is this not the same UCLA team that got pushed around the field by Fresno State last year in the Silicon Bowl? Do you believe that UCLA can only be motivated when they play in big bowl games? Wel lthat would be false also since UCLA rarely plays in a large bowl, twice in eleven years. I believe that UCLA was the fifth best team in a weak conf that could not even fill their allotted bowl slots, do you think the fifth best teams from the other larger leagues would struggle with Wyom? Well the Big 12 fifth best team already played Wyom and beat them by 31 but you know AM didn't have as high of a SOS rating as UCLA so therefore UCLA would beat them. UCLA's showing is just another example why the PAC 10 is not currently a top tier league like the Big 12, SEC, ACC, they are the fifth best league and you cannot justify your responses with the lame excuse of injuries, as they are part of the game. To even put forth a proposition that injuries caused UCLA to lose is insane as this is the same Wyom team that gave up nearly 1,500 yards rushing in their final four games.
