Norm Chow is Dead to Me

No, not really; I'm just formally disowning him. I harbor no ill will toward Norm Chow and I wish him happiness, but not luck or success when it comes to his new job (which he obviously does not need). Chow is no longer a Trojan. He is a Bruin, so he is now the enemy.

Therefore, you will no longer see me pining after his masterful play-calling. Chow has been gone almost as many years as he was originally with the Trojans. Objectively speaking, there has been no drop-off in offensive production over the last two seasons compared to 2002-2004, Chow's last three years with the Trojans. Refer to USC Trojan Football Analysis for evidence of that assertion. Art of Troy has convinced me that the decreased level of scoring over the last two seasons is actually the result of less opportunistic defensive play, especially in terms of turnovers and direct scoring by the defense.

I obviously have a lot of respect for Chow. He is a fantastic coach and he's getting a lot of well-deserved love from pundits after UCLA's upset of Tennessee. I still believe we would have between one and three more national titles (2005-2007) if he had stayed, but that has to do with better play-calling at critical moments in crucial games, and everyone knows hindsight is 20-20.

If UCLA's new coaching staff helps revive a real rivalry between USC and UCLA, that would be a good thing. However, UCLA first has a lot of work to do on the field. They are off to a good start in 2008, but it's way too early to pass judgment on the success or failure of the new Bruin regime. Pete Carroll went 6-6 his first year at USC with Chow and DeWayne Walker on his staff. It will be interesting to compare Rick Neuheisel's first year at UCLA with Carroll's first year at USC.

L.A. Times background info on Chow to UCLA here (my first draft of this post was back in January).

Can Slick Rick Deliver?

The impression I have, based on some Rick Neuheisel statements since he was hired as UCLA's new football coach, is that he is establishing a definition of success for his tenure that is based on UCLA's future performance in relation to USC. I don't mean just UCLA's head-to-head record against USC, but also an ability to win championships and bowl games at a rate comparable to USC. Neuheisel's statements include his televised interview from the stands as a spectator at the Rose Bowl game and his recorded telephone message to UCLA supporters, in which he said, “The team across town has risen to national prominence, and it’s time we meet this head on.”

I respect this approach, but is he setting up himself and his program to fail? My guess is UCLA fans expect to beat the Trojans about as often as they lose to them. Is that a realistic expectation right now? In the past quarter century, USC is 12-12-1 against UCLA, but that includes an eight-game losing streak during the 1990s, pre-Carroll. With Pete Carroll at the helm, the Trojans climbed the college football mountain and have performed at an elite, unprecedentedly consistent level – the 2008 Rose Bowl championship gives the Trojans a 5-1 record over six consecutive BCS bowl appearances. In the same period of time, UCLA has compiled a 43-33 (28-22 Pac-10) record including a 2-4 record in bowl games, none of which were played on or after New Year’s Day.

I don’t expect the Trojans to beat UCLA every year in perpetuity (I can live with one loss out of nine!), but Neuheisel is sowing the seeds of disappointment unless he can engineer a dramatic turnaround in the fortunes of both programs. If he cannot, his performance will not compare favorably against the bar he is setting, and he may not last long in what is probably his last chance as a head coach in the college game.