I actually don't recall anyone making that point before. Now back on topic - do you have anything to say in response or are you avoiding my point.You get rather defensive when I mention your broad generalizations. Not the first time someone has pointed this out i bet.
You have no innate sports anything to fall back on, hence stats (ie a useless list of hs 40 times) and TV commentators are what you're relying upon to develop and then support your view.
No but we're talking about Cal. Once you start winning titles more than once or twice every 30 years people will start respecting you. Just because you haven't had a losing record in a couple of years doesn't mean you are on par with big-time programs.
UCLA is not a big time football program. Big time football programs don't pay their coach at the bottom of NCAA pay levels and don't accept mediocrity. UCLA has NEVER cared about football. They've won some games here and there, and generally get decent talent because they are in LA, but have never made the kind of commitment to football that Cal is currently making.
And I've never said Cal is on par with Tenn as a program. NEVER.
UCLA is not a big time football program. Big time football programs don't pay their coach at the bottom of NCAA pay levels and don't accept mediocrity. UCLA has NEVER cared about football. They've won some games here and there, and generally get decent talent because they are in LA, but have never made the kind of commitment to football that Cal is currently making.
And I've never said Cal is on par with Tenn as a program. NEVER.
I agree with most of what you said but isn't it weird that they've never cared about football but have more titles than Cal over the last 30 to 40 years?
