I would appreciate as many journalistic opinions as possible here

The LA Times ran a story on this on the front page, and that was merited. I thought it was a pretty good story and explained the reason for the large number of championships. It was appropriate because it is Los Angeles.

There are sports like volleyball and water polo where California is pretty much the dominant area, volleyball not so much any more but that was certainly the case from 1960 thru 2000. Stanford has probably been a better overall program in the last 15 years, and they have won the overall all-sports championships (I think that is called the Sears Cup) and Stanford might be the leader in colleges represented on Olympics teams.

The column was silly and petty.

 

What he said.
(Good thing Whitlock didn't write this column or I'm sure me and Spnited would have disagreed again).

 

Unless he was being sarcastic, which I didn't catch, Miller came off looking astonishingly stupid. He should have known better.

Most athletic departments I've seen in action like to split up the credit as much as possible, even if the football and basketball teams rake in almost all the money and the public accolades. The celebration was a way for UCLA to say that every team is important to the success of the program. Maybe that's not exactly true, but I'd think they'd want to keep the water-polo coach as happy as the football coach. It's kind of like those all-sports trophies.

 

I show no bias: I hate UCLA and USC.

 

This photo - at least in this case - is metaphorically accurate.

 

This was a not-good column by a not-good columnist. The dropoff from Whicker at the Register is Whitney-like. But they run a lot of cut-to-fit 6'' gamers in their daily tab.

 

OK now, at one point are we talking about with this Christmas goose?
Is it pre-Christmas, still being fattened for the kill, or THE ACTUAL Christmas goose, sitting on the table about to be sliced and diced?
The first one would be full of shit. The second would be full of ... I don't know ... cornbread or some other stuffing?
Just wondering.
And what does this have to do with UCLA?
I have no idea.

 

From our past debates, I knew you would have a reaction to this one, Cadet. And as I thought, it is the same reaction I had.

I also see it as a shot at every non-football athlete. I just know that women's athletics in particular are near and dear to your heart.

And the glossing over of UCLA's men's basketball history is just too stupid to bother with. His whole premise was that football matters so much more because that is what people care about. Apparently he hasn't noticed that a few people do actually pay attention to men's college basketball.

 

I think the column does reek of being a USC homer -- or someone with an ax to grind against UCLA -- but the concept intrigues me. I don't know that it matters a whole lot how many total national titles a school has won when not every school fields a team in every possible sport. I'd be interested to see how the Bruins fare against other major universities in the number of total teams they field. I know at Ohio State, the Buckeyes have won 24 championships in synchronized swimming. Syncro is not recognized by the NCAA, but should those count?

I think comparing a total number of championships is silly, IMHO.

 

My father always said it and it always sounded cool.
I never deconstructed it.

 

What's wrong with the article? I kinda liked it--Colin Cowherd.