UCLA - 13   Buckeyes - 6

The really disappointing thing about this loss is that this game was so winnable; the Buckeyes (thanks to one of the better defensive efforts of the last several years) had a number of good opportunities to win this game, but just couldn't close the deal.  The offense was obviously having big problems moving the ball, but they had more than their share of opportunities on the short side of the field to pull this one out.  Two of these 'drives' started on the Bruin 15 and 9; 24 more yards would not have made it a good day for the offense, but our perception of it would certainly have been different.  When you get field position like that (the D also got us started inside Bruin territory two other times on the day), you just have to put some points on the board.  It is not often that a team gets so many good scoring opportunities, especially playing against a quality opponent, and scoring a TD on even one of those could well have changed the outcome of the game.  On the positive side, the Bucks hung in there all day, despite their continual ineptness on offense, and that is a good sign for the future.  The team had seemed to lose some of its resolve in tough games the last couple of years, especially when things weren't going well, but there was no sign of that on Saturday.

The Defense

As many bad things as can be said about the offense, as many, or more, good things can be said about the effort of the defense in this game.  The play of the defense was, in summary, superb; I don't know that I've ever seen a better defensive effort in a game that the Bucks lost.  The most impressive thing about the D was that it got stronger and meaner as the game progressed.  This is particularly amazing when you consider the temperatures on the field approached 100 degrees throughout the game and both teams were obviously dog-tired by the end.  The Buckeye D, though, played aggressively throughout and never lost its intensity.  Tackling was crisp and hard; the majority of the Bruin fumbles were the result of solid defensive play and tough hits.  These fumbles were, by and large, forced, not gifts.  UCLA took the opening drive of the game some 80 yards to a TD, but that was pretty much it for the day.  The Bruins got a lot of yards in the first quarter to quarter and a half, but very little thereafter.  Deshaun Foster, UCLA's excellent, hard-running tailback, had 50 yards in the first quarter, but only 16 in the last three.  He also fumbled the ball four times and spent part of the second half on the bench.  Given the ineffectiveness of the Buckeye offense, the Bruins had a substantial edge in time of possession, but, despite being on the field most of the afternoon, the D just refused to give up.  This was as good an effort from the defensive line as I have seen in many years.  These guys simply controlled the Bruin running game and put good heat on the QB for most of the game.  The play of the defensive ends was particularly noteworthy; both Darrion Scott and Tim Cheatwood seemed to be all over the field.  The linebacking corps was as effective as usual, providing good run support, harassing the passer and dropping back well in pass coverage.  Bruin receivers had few lanes to exploit, particularly after the first drive.  Matt Wilhelm was real solid in the middle and both Joe Cooper and Courtland Bullard had good games on the outside.  On hot days, as this one was, backing up the front seven is critical, and the Bucks showed plenty of depth in both the defensive line and linebacker positions.  Depth in these two areas appears to be excellent and should bide well for us as the season progresses.  The play of the defensive backfield was also excellent; both Derrick Ross and Cie Grant had good days at the corners and Mike Doss and Donnie Nickey were tenacious at the safety spots.  Bruin receivers got very few YAC's (yards after the catch) and paid the price with some heavy hits by this group.  I figured the D to be the strength of this team (that doesn't require a football genius) and it certainly stood tall in this one.  Hopefully, this group will be able to maintain that intensity throughout the entire season; if the Bucks are to have a successful year, the defense will be the primary reason.

The Offense

To say the offense did not have a good game would be charitable, but I have to think it is better than it looked on Saturday.  The Bruin defense was jamming the line of scrimmage, leaving some gaps in coverage, but the Buckeyes could not exploit them.  The Buckeye O is young, and it really showed; we looked confused at times and unable to dictate the pace of the game.  The Bruin secondary jammed the young Buck receivers at the line and this totally disrupted the rhythm of the passing game.  The line held up well at times, but got 'beat to the punch' too often to maintain an effective attack.  The Bruin defense is a veteran unit and really took advantage of the offense's youth, especially along the line of scrimmage.  Most fans, or at least most of the more vocal fans, are laying the blame primarily on the quarterback, and it is certainly true that Steve did not have a good game.  As far as I am concerned, Joe Montana would have had trouble moving the team in this one.  The Buckeye offense is not a very good one and it has not been for the past couple of years.  That should not come as a surprise to anyone.  Defensive coordinators are not stupid, nor are they merciful.  The book on the Buckeye O - put 8-9 in the box, stunt along the line and aggressive play at the corners.  I thought the O line did some nice things in the running game, particularly in the second half, but had way too many breakdowns in critical situations.  On third down, in particular, the Bucks were dismal, averaging less than a yard and going 1 for 14 in third-down efficiency.  At times, protection for Bellisari was nearly non-existent and was no better than mediocre at its best.  This was not a good outing for Steve but I don't know that making a change would have made much difference.  The Buckeye defense was playing extremely well and even a little offense would have been enough.  You don't want to go to a largely untested back-up in a situation where your defense is keeping you close (and giving the O good field position to boot).  I have no idea what was going through Tressel's mind but I'm sure it was not to do everything he could to lose the game.  Given the game circumstances, I think he made the right decision to stay with Bellisari.  It is difficult to gauge the progress of the receiver corps, since they got so little action, but they certainly had trouble running routes and getting any kind of separation from the defensive backs.  I do think that Angelo Chathams had a few good moments; this kid should have a real good career for the Bucks.  I thought the running backs actually had a pretty good game, given the dismal state of the offense.  Both Jonathan Wells and Sammy Maldonato ran hard and Lydell Ross got as much out of his few carries that could be expected.  This was perhaps Jamar Martin's best game as a Buckeye; he ran effectively and just bowled over people in his lead blocking role.  The hope is that the offense will learn from this experience and I think that will be the case.  I don't expect to see a lot of fireworks on offense; the ingredients just aren't in place, but I do think we'll see some significant improvement over the balance of the season.

Well, it is on to the Big Ten season (with the exception of the postponed San Diego State game on October 20) and this team will have to grow in a hurry if it is to be a major factor in the league race.  The Bucks jump right into the thick of it - traveling to Indiana this weekend and then successive games against two of the pre-season favorites in the league - Northwestern and Wisconsin.  First things first, though; the Bucks must rebound against the Hoosiers and concentrate their full thoughts to that effort.