Ellis on UG

Reading Ellis' article, "Appraising Second Language Acquisition Theory in Relation to Language Pedagogy," left me extremely confused on his viewpoint. Ellis critiques the Universal Grammar theory using a list of pre-set rules about SLA theory. UG tends to do really well in most of the categories. Sometimes it is really unclear whether Ellis believes it is doing good in a category or not. He then says that the theory is pointless because it has no practical value in the classroom. He says that UG goals contradict the goals of the classroom. However, in his conclusion he states that the theory is not any worse than other theories. He states that it is actually a fairly good theory to go by because of its strengths in those categories.

I was left very confused. I'm not sure whether Ellis favors the theory or not. Shouldn't a theory be written with the classroom teacher in mind? If not, what use does the theory have at all. What purpose does it serve if it can do nothing for the teachers that deal with the problems of Second Language Acquisition every day? I think the theory does stand strong as a theory but it is not practical, so can it be said that it is a good theory? Ellis does explain a lot in his article, I'm just not sure of what Ellis really thinks about the theory when he contradicts himself throughout the entire article. I'm just not sure what use this theory has if it cannot do anything for the teacher.