SportsHubLA

Maybe it was my Trojan blood, which began inching towards the boiling point. Maybe it was my sense of L.A. pride, which inclined me to defend a city with a sports enthusiasm often shortchanged. Maybe it was just my nose, which curled up upon whiffing the distinct smell of ca-ca. Whatever the case, when my brother Brian forwarded me an excerpt from Ivan Maisel’s upcoming book, “The Maisel Report: College Football’s Most Overrated and Underrated Players, Coaches, Teams, & Traditions,” I was immediately put off by the scribe’s choice for the most hype dependent rivalry.

USC -UCLA.

The premise alone made my head do a Navin Johnson, but before passing judgment, I felt it only right to lend Maisel an ear (or really, an eyeball). I gave the passage a read. Having done so, I feel comfortable saying, with respect to Maisel, who’s affiliated with a fine network (I cash regular checks from ESPN myself) and author of what I’m sure is an otherwise excellent book, the man is either gunning to be a contrarian, attempted tongue-in-cheek irony that went over my head, or doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Regardless of the reason, a careful examination shows his rationale for deflating USC-UCLA simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

“There are the sellout crowds at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and the Rose Bowl. There’s the delight the Bruins took in ending the Trojans’ national championship hopes in 2006 with a 13-9 upset. There’s the 1967 game, in which the No. 4 Trojans and their Heisman Trophy candidate, tailback O.J. Simpson, defeated the No. 1 Bruins and their Heisman Trophy winner, quarterback Gary Beban, 21-20. The game turned on Simpson’s 64-yard, gravity-defying touchdown sprint in the fourth quarter. Dan Jenkins, the best college football writer since Grantland Rice, has that ‘67 game on his short list of all-time greats.

But, c’mon. It’s still in L.A. These people don’t know how to hate a college football opponent. The weather’s too nice. There’s too much else to do. College football is just not important enough.”

Seriously, is Maisel attempting to discount sell out crowds, invested fans and history by playing the “L.A. people are permanently laid back because of the weather” card? Really? Putting aside that it’s among the laziest clichés to run with- I guess “They’re all busy surfing” has a tough copyright- is he actually buying it? Yes, it’s often quite nice in L.A. (one of the reasons I moved here 18 years ago), but sunny skies clearly aren’t the “aggression” cure-all. I’ve seen people restrain themselves from socking at gas pumps. 24/7 traffic jams make it impossible to drive 50 feet without experiencing some form of road rage, whether on the giving or receiving end. 2005 saw Compton achieve the nation’s #1 murder rate! (#1, baby! Woo hoo!) If pleasant climate can’t prevent these and other occurrences of varying hostility, it’s safe to assume L.A. residents are capable of getting amped for a football game and letting the results stick in their craw.

“The lifeblood of a college rivalry is the identity that alumni and fans invest in their school. It is oxygen. It is all there is. UCLA may have lost eight of the last nine to USC by an average of 21 points, but the typical Bruin doesn’t feel a sliver of the angst that has taken up residence in the gut of every Alabama fan. The Crimson Tide faithful awaken every day knowing that they have to go into the office and face Auburn fans who will let them know — every day — that the Tigers have won six straight Iron Bowls. The laidback attitude of most Californians makes for a lukewarm rivalry between USC and UCLA.”

Again, the whole “too chilled out” angle. Pretty weak. I co-host the Lakers and Dodgers blogs for the L.A. Times and often find myself unable to leave the house because frantic reader comments in need of approval keep piling up. I understand why Blackberry addicted courtside Lakers fans give Angeleno sports fans a bad name, but the entire city- much less every USC and UCLA alumni- can’t afford those tickets. The majority of us are in the cheap seats and bars making it perfectly clear we care. Give us credit.

Beyond that, I know for a fact that being on the wrong side of a USC-UCLA pigskin contest can mean dreading the next day at work. I spent years bartending at Westwood Brewing Company, a decidedly Bruin watering hole. And from 1996-1998, I dealt with three straight losses, which resulted in three straight years of taking a LOT of crap from the moment I walked through the doors until the moment I clocked out. Each defeat allowed co-workers and regulars to lay it on even more thick for another 365 days. Did I cry over it? No. Did it get old to the point where being at work would occasionally be a drag? Oh, yeah.

You could generate a healthy debate regarding whether UCLA is even USC’s biggest rival. The Trojan players, and probably the fans, may tell you that they would rather beat the Bruins than anyone else. They do have to live there. The rest of the country pays more attention to USC-Notre Dame (which, by the way, began in 1926, three years before the USC-UCLA rivalry).

First of all, why would it matter what “the rest of the country pays more attention to?” Last I checked, a rivalry was defined by those living it, not those on the outside (sometimes WAY outside) looking in and maybe creating TV ratings. If Maisel acknowledges that the Trojans players and fans would rather beat UCLA, that’s the more important rivalry. End of story.

If there is any doubt about the identity of your biggest rival, then by definition your rivalry is overrated. The only place that doubt is allowed in any rivalry regards the outcome. UCLA and USC are lacking here, too. UCLA’s 2006 upset of USC prevented the Trojans from playing for No. 1. But one of the reasons that the upset made the Earth move is that it was so, so unexpected. When one team consistently loses to the other by an average of three touchdowns, that’s not a rivalry.

Well, as I just said, there isn’t even a sliver of doubt as to the rival’s identity, so that point is moot. But if Maisel is trying to claim that USC’s 42-28-7 record against UCLA is too lopsided to qualify as a true rivalry, wouldn’t USC’s 32-45-5 all-time clip against Notre Dame also serve as grounds for disqualification? It’s the same degree of lopsidedness, just in reverse. Even concentrating on just recent games, Maisel’s argument doesn’t wash. Over this decade, USC is 7-1 against UCLA vs. 6-2 against Notre Dame, but has beaten Notre Dame by an average of 23 points, a larger margin than the 15 point spread averaged against UCLA. Any way you slice it, you can’t contend that USC-Notre Dame has been more competitive than Trojans-Bruins.

Which takes us back to my point, that it never wasn’t all about USC-UCLA.

Until this rivalry becomes competitive, and until the schools move it to a smaller place where it will consume every molecule of air for the week leading up to the game, you’re going to have to find me a better rivalry than this one.

Fine. Then explain to me why Michigan-Ohio State isn’t equally in danger of growing stale, considering the Wolverines are 2-6 against Ohio State this decade and don’t look to be turning an immediate corner to even things out. For that matter, Maisel even uses The Iron Bowl- which Alabama has won once in the last eight years- as an earlier example of why that particular rivalry burns for a a dude rolling tide. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.

Nor should Maisel even feel compelled to try, because it’s always been the emotions and personal history that make a rivalry. It’s what you’re conditioned to feel, no matter if another school might offer you a better game. I challenge Maisel to walk on either USC’s or UCLA’s campus and find an even a small contingent of football fans psyched for the upcoming season but indifferent to the “Crosstown Rivalry” game. That’s never going to happen. You’d get better odds on UCLA actually being able to pull off a win against USC this year.

Sorry. Cheap shot. I guess these fake rivalries die hard.

AK

Discuss: