I had my column pretty much written after halftime.
I left the debacle on my living room TV, sat down at my computer, and started ranting.
Despite three-plus years full of disappointment and frustration, Saturday’s first half made me the angriest I’ve been.
It’s not hard to write when you’re mad. I just copied the running dialogue from the first half and edited out the many, many profanities.
Thankfully, UCLA showed up in the second half and pulled another rabbit out of its hat, allowing me to scrap what I wrote and keep this column more in line with my smiling face.
However, there are two schools of thoughts about this game that I am torn between.
One is that the “W” is the bottom line.
The win means the season, which would have taken a serious and possibly even unrecoverable hit without the Bruins’ second-half resurgence, still has plenty of potential.
And of course, the win’s greatest significance for Bruin fans was UCLA took ‘SC on its own turf and halted that embarrassing four-game losing streak.
Now let’s all take a minute to savor this and the Trojans’ inferiority at everything of significance but football.
Sweet.
But the other, more pessimistic school of thought is that the bottom line is far from all that matters.
UCLA’s ugly side was revealed again in the first half, and every time the Bruins stumble out of the blocks, the more difficult their task becomes.
I couldn’t help but think during the game that I was watching two bad teams. Seemingly every other possession there was a turnover and most field goals were the result of poor defense or a jump shot bailing out a stagnant offense.
USC is horrible. As the better team, the Bruins should have come out confident and aggressive, setting the tone and forcing the Trojans to scramble to keep up.
Instead, UCLA came out timid and unsure. And the Bruins did this after having to answer questions about their resolve following two embarrassingly lackluster home losses.
The Bruins didn’t so much win, as not lose.
I’ve talked to a number of people and there seems to be a tie between the two schools of thought.
After the game, the Bruins said all the right things to sway people to the former train of thought.
“In the second half we came back out and played with the emotion and intensity that we need to have all the time,” UCLA coach Ben Howland said. “This was a huge gut check for us to come back on the road, down a big number.”
“It has to be (a turning point),” freshman Arron Afflalo said. “After this game, it’s the second half of the Pac-10. We have no choice. It’s time to buckle up, and get it done.”
The Bruins raised expectations with their stellar play in early January. Then they significantly lowered them with their lackluster play in late January.
To begin February and the season’s second half, the Bruins have possibly their toughest weekend of the year at the Washington schools.
As the season nears its conclusion, the bottom line becomes all that matters while how UCLA plays becomes less important.
But now, at the midpoint of the Pac-10 season, we can wonder which school of thought is more indicative of what direction the team is headed.
And thankfully, unlike years past, we can hold off on rushing judgment and writing UCLA’s story after just one half.
Peters is a 2004-05 basketball columnist. E-mail him at bpeters@media.ucla.edu.