Tired of UCLA excuses...or rather, UCLA BS.

Of late, the excuses have been flowing out of Westwood, trying to explain why the UCLA football program hasn't been more competitive.  The worst of them is that somehow UCLA's academic tradition has prevented the Bruins from admitting top athletes whose grades were otherwise poor.

ESPN's UCLA beat writer Peter Yoon: "Anyone can compete at that level if it commits to it. UCLA needs to pay a top-tier coach and top-tier assistants, upgrade the practice facilities and reduce the academic restrictions on admitting athletes. Basically, UCLA needs to start playing by the same rules as those programs."

Former UCLA coach and current sports commentator Terry Donahue: "When you coach at UCLA, you just can't get any NCAA qualifier. That's not part of the deal. UCLA admits athletes who'll be successful in the university and move to a degree. The UCLA coach has different challenges than other schools. So you need to create a big pool of athletes to win."

This is nothing but pure BULL.

UCLA's own fans are quick to point out that it was the first NCAA school to reach 100 national championships across its athletic program.  Clearly there is no problem recruiting talent.  As if to reiterate this, just look at some of UCLA's recent football recruiting seasons, as ranked by ESPN:

• 2010: 10th best class
• 2008: 14th best class
• 2009: 17th best class

Obviously none of these UCLA recruiting classes were better than USC's, but these three classes were second-best in the PAC-10 / PAC-12.  You simply cannot have the second best recruiting class for three straight years and still complain about not having the talent to compete.

But more to the issue of having exceedingly stringent academic standards.

UC Berkeley and UC Los Angeles are cut from the same cloth (matching admissions requirements), yet Cal's gotten better outcomes year over year than UCLA.  Stanford and USC also have stringent academic programs.  According to US News and World Report's 2012 academic rankings:

• #5 Stanford
• #21 UC Berkeley
• #23 USC
• #25 UCLA

If Stanford, Cal and USC can win in the PAC-12, UCLA has no excuses.

And to close the book on this BS, it's no small secret that all schools have what are called academic committees that were created to allow coaches to push recruits through admissions.  Though recruits may meet the NCAA clearinghouse minimum qualifications, they may not meet any given university's own admissions requirements.  That's where academic committees come into the picture.  UCLA is no exception, and here's an excerpt from their own guidelines:

"UCLA is committed to fielding competitive teams in Division IA and the Pacific 10 conference.  This means that outstanding, prospective student athletes will be recruited and admitted from time to time even in cases where academic preparation is not ideal, including a small number of athletes who are likely to be at risk academically, though still deemed capable of succeeding with proper effort and support.

The Committee’s primary focus in arriving at an admission decision is the academic preparation and likely success of the student being considered.  However, the Committee may be informed concerning the athletic capabilities of the student, and the likely athletic contributions of a student, as it considers a specific admission case."

In other words, UCLA DOES allow for (football players) prospective students who otherwise wouldn't have qualified, to be admitted into school.

So when some Bruin tells you this sob story about how UCLA is at a disadvantage due to its high academic standards, you can now tell them that they're full of crap, and that they deserve what they have.

Or as we Trojans like to say...U - C - L - A   SUCKS.