I can't spot too many teams behind Stanford there that I really thought needed to be ahead of them for that time period except Wisconsin and Houston.
It's a pretty simplistic ranking system, though.
RE: UCLA, historically they have been pretty mediocre with stretches of a few years here and there where they have decent teams and fill in the void if USC is sucking. But it doesn't happen that much more than any other Pac-10 school.
As for right now, as I said, UCLA is getting high-level classes without even trying. In spite of all that talent they've had, there's been not much more historical success than any of the other Pac-10 schools, which all have to work much harder to achieve that same level.
The vacuum of power in Los Angeles isn't going to consolidate the power in the Pac-10 anywhere else; it's simply going to be spread more evenly amongst 8 or 10 other programs for the time being. The Pac-10 will be deep but without any truly elite programs until USC returns to what they have always been.