I posted this (below) in another thread, but then I saw yet ANOTHER thread you started about poor, sad, unfortunate Michigan being without their best player (boo hoo!), so I really thought I needed to repost this. You're starting to exceed your Troy Aikman obsession, and this ain't healthy.
What is your deal? UCLA won 5 post-season games, and winning OT games takes guts and determination. They just came up short, as 67 out of 68 teams in the tournament always do. And as much as you say Alabama and Michigan were subpar teams, they were still #2 and #1 seeds, and nothing you say is going to change that. It's a bit comical how you complain about an opponent having foul trouble being "favorable" for UCLA -- as if UCLA didn't have something to do with creating that advantage. And as for height, or lack thereof, it didn't seem to stop Alabama from being a #2 seed and running roughshod through the SEC. Injuries? Every team has them. UCLA was missing their best player due to injury as well, that's part of the game.
The truth is, UCLA got a lot of mileage out of this tournament, and the publicity they got is going to really pay dividends in the near future. USC did as well, but for some reason you're more bitter about the success UCLA had than you are proud about the success USC had, and I don't know why. Okay, if you want to hang onto the 4-0 record against the Bruins the past two years, yes, you have scoreboard. But the Bruins earned their accolades this tournament, and there is no denying that. I suspect you're jealous because UCLA captured the hearts of many viewers in this tournament, certainly the talking heads on TV, and USC became an afterthought after that beatdown by Gonzaga. Well, not much we can do about that now, but you need to get over it.