Once upon a time, and a very good time it was, Cade McNown was
UCLA’s quarterback. … My dad still tells me that story,
choosing to remember the glory days of UCLA football’s
eight-game winning streak against USC from 1991-1998 instead of
acknowledging the current five-game losing streak which dates back
to 1999. My dad’s an optimist, and that’s great for
him.
But I’m a realist. You want optimism? Since tying USC
10-10 in 1989, UCLA has gone 8-6, winning more games than
it’s lost. You want realism? It’ll soon be 8-7.
Someone had to say it.
Before your head turns red, smoke blows out of your ears, and
you suggest I transfer, all I ask is that you really look at the
situation rationally. And let me remind you that you’re the
one with the red face, while my mood is certainly blue. It’s
not that I want USC to win; I simply know they will, and you should
too. I’ve heard all the “any given Saturday”
arguments, but having three weeks off just to think about
Saturday’s game only let people talk themselves right out of
the real world and into one where UCLA has a decent chance.
Remember when teachers used to say that when faced with a
question, your first reaction is most likely to be correct? That
applies here, too. The more you think about UCLA’s chances to
win, the greater the chances become and the farther they move from
the truth.
Go back to that feeling you first got when you thought about
UCLA playing USC, and compare that with how you’re now
thinking about the game. For me, the original feeling was an empty,
hollow one in the pit of my stomach, and instead of talking myself
out of it, I’m sticking with it. This year’s Trojans
may not be as scary as last year’s, but nobody can deny that
they’re still much better than the Bruins.
And something tells me UCLA is no Hickory High, nor is the
school owned by Disney and eligible for Mighty Ducks magic. So
where does that leave us? Any mustered hope has to be false.
I’ve heard people go as far as saying the Bruins have a
one-in-three chance of winning. But take a step back and look at
that number: can you really, honestly say that if UCLA played USC
just three times, UCLA would win one of those games? If UCLA played
USC nine times, you’re telling me UCLA would win three of
them?
My dad isn’t even that optimistic. He placed UCLA’s
chances at around one-in-ten, pretty much because of the difficulty
any team has in winning 10 games in a row. But the Trojans have
already won 20 consecutive games going back to last season, so why
not make it blackjack?
I’m not saying that it’s necessarily bad to be
optimistic, but it may not be the best idea to build up a false
sense of optimism over something that can very clearly (and very
quickly) be proven wrong. A friend of mine says people should
always hope for the best, but expect the worst, and that seems like
the best way to go right now.
Although it’s tempting, let’s not forget USC’s
current streak or how quickly it has dismantled UCLA in recent
years. And although it’s tempting, let’s not forget
that a questionable Bruin defense is going to have to deal with
Reggie Bush, who’s probably only, oh, the best college
football player in the country.
If we don’t forget all that now, we don’t have to
remember it midway through the second quarter when USC is already
winning 17-3 and UCLA inevitably turns the ball over somewhere near
midfield. Instead of using the last three weeks to talk myself into
thinking UCLA can win, I’ve already talked myself through the
effects of another loss, which is a much more efficient use of
time. If the Bruins prove me wrong, great, but they won’t,
and that’s fine, because I’m OK with the loss.
I’ve already gone through the five stages of grief, and
I’m ready to move on.
And you can too. Hope for the best, but expect the worst.
You’ll have more time to study for your finals.
Tracer wouldn’t be writing this column if Cade McNown
were still in college. E-mail him at
jtracer@media.ucla.edu.