While you all probably thought that Barkley was crushed that his, um, "special friend" (Cheat Carroll) broke up with him and moved out of state, it appears that young Matt has quickly found a new special friend.  From ESPN, all emphasis mine:

“It’s great news," quarterback Matt Barkley told ESPNLosAngeles. "I remember meeting Kiff way back on the recruiting trail when I was a freshman in high school. I liked him when I met him. I like that he knows how to live and breathe the Trojan way.”

When I read the above quote, tears literally built up in my eyes.  It was "like" at first sight.  And Lame lives and breathes the Trojan way.  That is truly special.  Obviously, that means, living and breathing violations of NCAA rules.

But wait, there's more:

"It’s comforting to know that not a lot is going to change,” Barkley said. “Kiff will have his own way of doing things, but I’m glad the offense isn’t going to be a whole lot different."

Oh my.  Pet names already.  I fear that Barkely is rushing headlong into a new relationship without giving it much thought.  How did he get over Cheatey so quickly?  Is this just a rebound relationship?  Only time will tell.

Cheat on.

As Nestor recently reported, backup QB Aaron Corp is leaving $C.  Cheatey Carroll (in today's LAT, no link, emphasis mine) had this to say:

“He’ll get a chance to play right now,” Carroll said. “I think it’s a big statement about Matt Barkley. Aaron’s a great kid and I hope nothing but the very best for him.”

Corp is making a "big statement about Matt Barkley" by leaving? Meaning that Corp knows that Barkley is God’s gift to the universe and no one else can or will ever play QB while he is there? That’s what Cheatey intended because of his unwavering man-boy love for Barkley.

I think the more reasonable explanation for the transfer is that Corp knows that Cheatey’s man crush on Barkley means no one else will ever have a chance to “always compete.” I highly doubt that Corp does not believe he is up to competing for the starting job right now. Remember that Corp was awarded the starting QB job by Cheatey then, when he got hurt, he lost the starting job even when he came back healthy.  In other words, Corp lost his job to injury which, I believe, is a sucky way of running a team.

Stay classy, Cheatey, and take good care of your boyfriend, Matt, who Cheatey pimps at every opportunity. Sometimes players don’t perform as well as you hope and sometimes they get injured, too.

I know that Notre Dame defeated UCLA in South Bend, Indiana on October 21, 2006.  I will always remember this date for two reasons:

1.  I originally had tickets to the game but was not there.

2.  I was not there because I got married that day.

There's more to the story than this but let's just say, given the conclusion to the game, I am glad I got married and did not go to the game to be left with that particular memory.  (Thanks, Karl!)

I am now planning a trip to hopefully see Notre Dame play Michigan on September 11, 2010 at Notre Dame Stadium and I thought I would hit up my friends at BN for any insight.  I plan to travel to and stay in Chicago for a few days before the game but does anyone have any insight as to:

1.  Getting to South Bend from Chicago (shuttles?  buses?  planes, trains, automobiles?).

2.  Getting tickets to the game (Notre Dame's website is not particularly helpful and I was appalled to see some suggested donation of $1,500 just to join some club in order to get a ticket or something). 

3.  Anything in particular which I should check out on ND's campus.

I appreciate any insight anyone may have and thank everyone for any skinny in advance.  For what it's worth, I'm not a huge Michigan or ND fan, but I never pass up an opportunity to check out historic places, including historic stadiums or ballparks.  I can't miss this opportunity (again) and I don't think any more marriages are in my immediate future.

Yeah, right.  You bought that one?

As you know, after Yahoo! Sports scooped everyone (including the LAT) on the OJ Payo story, the Times wrote a short summary of the story on Wednesday.

There was nothing in the paper, including no mention from Slimers, Crowe or Timmeh's biggest fan, Chrissy Dufresne, Thursday about the story, even while it was exploding across the net.

It's Friday and the LAT actually mentioned the story (and Bruinsnation--yeah!) in the generally unfunny Morning Briefing column today.

On BruinsNation.com: "Yahoo! Sports: Tim Floyd Gave Cash to OJ Mayo."

On ConquestChronicles.com: "Yahoo Sports Continues Their Vendetta Against USC."

Partisan politics are alive and well in Los Angeles.

That's the extent of LAT's follow-up to its brief mention of the story on Wednesday.

By the way, exactly how stupid are the writers at the LAT?  The BruinsNation headline is not "partisan" or biased.  It simply states what the Yahoo! Sports story reported.  The Trojan headline is clearly biased, not to mention whiny ("Vendetta against USC*").  Oh, those poor victims over at South Central.  They have it so rough as they commute to their walled-in fortress, er, campus in their luxury mobiles.

Anyway, bashing the Times for its bias is like shooting fish in a barrel.  At least BN got a mention.

Apparently, the NCAA (yeah, I know) is possibly taking a harder look at the numerous alleged violations over at South Central.

Here's the link and excerpt from my favorite paper, the Incredibly Shrinking LA Times:

NCAA investigations into former USC stars in football and basketball have been combined into one probe of the Trojans' athletic program, sources connected to one of the cases said Wednesday.

Investigators have been examining allegations involving Heisman Trophy-winning running back Reggie Bush and NBA lottery pick O.J. Mayo. Bush is accused of accepting thousands in cash and his family for failing to pay rent on a home owned by a fledgling marketer while he was playing for USC in 2004 and 2005. Mayo is accused of accepting cash and other benefits from a middleman representing a sports agency before and during the one season he played for the Trojans in 2007-08.

What's the key thing the NCAA looks for in these situations, sportsfans?  That's right:  Lack of instituional control.  That is apparently why the NCAA's probes (plural) have now been combined into one investigation.

You can read the rest of the short article for yourself.  In the interest of fairness, I thought it was proper to also include (from the article) the following strong denial from SC, Floyd and Pete Carroll, who is never at a loss for words:

USC Athletic Director Mike Garrett referred questions to the university's legal counsel, who did not return messages. Trojans football Coach Pete Carroll could not be reached for comment.

USC basketball Coach Tim Floyd said he hasn't had any dialogue with the NCAA since May and has "never, ever heard" that the investigations were being combined.

Yeah, I know.  SC's "official" policy is not to comment on NCAA investigations.  I just think it is amusing that the school has to actually have such a policy.

I know none of you are going to hold your breath waiting for someone actually to crack down on SC.  But hey, I'm just reporting the news.

Bumped. The world finding out what we already knew about Pom Pom. GO BRUINS. -N

I was tempted to entitle this post, "Dirty" Sanchez, but I just couldn't do it.

Here's the blubbering QB giving his goodbye speech:

"It has been my dream since I was just a little kid to play in the NFL and thanks to this great academic institution and football program, I have the opportunity to realize that dream," said Sanchez, dapperly dressed in a business suit.

"It was with a heavy heart that I say goodbye to this university. But I can't tell you how excited I am for this dream to come true," he said.

This is good news for us.  I never thought Sanchez was all that great, but now SUC has to start with a new guy next year.

With Tebow and Bradford staying around next year, it made sense for Sanchez to leave now.

UPDATE I (N): The bigger story out of this development is about  Petey emerging as a total pompous, conceited and ungracious jerk. This is from Scott Wolf of all sources (HT to silverlakebruin):

USC coach Pete Carroll was extremely ungracious during the Mark Sanchez press conference. He stormed out of the room and did not even sit at the table before Sanchez addressed the media. Something he never did when Matt Leinart, etc., announced their decisions.
Carroll never sat down at the table but stood with his palms on the table. His anger was clear if you spend time around him.
Not a great moment.

UPDATE II (N): Here is the priceless shot from the LA Times making Petey look like disgraceful, classless individual that we all know he is:

Photo Credit: Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times

I am sure this will not be lost upon recruits. You can caption the photo for yourself in the comment threads. GO BRUINS.

UPDATE III (N): Ajax points out how Pom Pom is ripping Sanchez ... wait for it ... on "USCRipsit.com":

"The facts are so strong against this decision," Carroll said. "After analyzing all the information, the truth is there — he should’ve stayed for another year."

Carroll cited a study that shows 62 percent of underclassmen quarterbacks who declare early for the Draft eventually don’t pan out in the NFL. He also pointed to Sanchez’s NFL Draft evaluation, which projected Sanchez as a second-round selection.

"Mark’s chance to increase his value and become the top player in college football next year would have been worth $10-$20 million or more — likely more," Carroll said. "One more year of running a team is almost priceless, so he lost the chance to fully prepare himself and become the very best he could be before going to the NFL.

"That’s why there’s a 62 percent failure rate for underclassmen quarterbacks."

During the press conference, Sanchez repeatedly referred to achieving a lifelong dream as to one of the reasons he made this decision.

"We have always been in full support of Mark pursuing his dream," Carroll said, "he just should have postponed realizing his dream another 12 months."

Petey also went out of his way to diminish Sanchez's prospects:

“He also pointed to Sanchez’s NFL Draft evaluation, which projected Sanchez as a second-round selection.”

Grab some popcorn on draft night. Imagine what a liar Petey will be exposed as if he goes in the first. GO BRUINS.

UPDATE IV (N): Even Trojie homer Bill Plaschke slams Pom Pom for acting like a "jilted lover" and discovers there is no "U" infront of SC:

It's a shame that, on this day, the message from nation's premier college football program was all about football, and not the least bit about college.

I wonder when exactly Bill thought the message from the program of "Senora Ross" and ball room dancing courses was all about "college"?

GO BRUINS

Pat Forde of ESPN wrote a good column the other day as to how and why running up the score (although, supposedly, not a factor in the BCS computer mishmash) pays off.  Here is the link.

The entire column is good and is worth reading but this excerpt caught my eye (emphasis added):

Of the teams that finished the regular season in The Associated Press top five, only Alabama scored a smaller percentage of its points in the fourth quarter than Oklahoma -- the Crimson Tide scored 12.9 percent of their points in the final 15 minutes, Oklahoma 13.3 percent. Texas, whose fans were maddest at the Sooners because of their down-to-the-wire battle for a BCS berth, scored 21.8 percent of its points in the fourth quarter. Florida: 22.8 percent. And USC was the team most likely to pad its margin late at 23.6 percent.

The above except has nothing to do with SUC's defense (which was, admittedly, excellent).  This has to do with padding the score when the game is nearly over and when it serves no purpose with respect to winning the game.  Read the column and check out the examples of other teams which do this.

Running up the score shows a lack of class.  Period.

The morons who worship at the altar of The Humanitarian won't let these or other facts confuse them.  But this does say something as to the character of Petey and of the mindset across town.

Ken Norton, Jr. claims that CRN is telling prospective recruits that if Walker leaves, Norton will be the new DC.  Much as a I hate to link to the Toejam Times, here is the story.  Norton is apparently very upset with CRN over these alleged representations.

More information need to come out about this.  Where is Ken Norton, Jr. getting his information?  I'd also like to see a flat denial from CRN. 

Finally, note this (ironic) little dig from Cheatie Petey at the end of the story:

I've found over the years what you say in recruiting kind of tells who you are," Carroll said. "The truth always comes out in the end."

Sure, Pete.  I am sure you and your program are all about the truth.

 

Yes, Bruins Nation, there really is a Santa Claus.

This new book does not come out until January 2008, but let's just consider this an early Christmas present anyway, shall we?

"Nearly two years after Reggie Bush won the Heisman Trophy, a book detailing improper benefits he allegedly received while playing for the University of Southern California and his relationship with the financiers of a fledgling sports marketing company could further damage his chances of keeping the most prestigious award in college sports.

The book, "Tarnished Heisman" by Don Yaeger and Jim Henry, published by Simon & Schuster, will include transcripts of recorded conversations that contain Bush acknowledging he owed money to the financiers of New Era Sports & Entertainment. Lloyd Lake and Michael Michaels of New Era planned to feature Bush as their marquee client to launch their marketing agency. The business failed after Bush sought representation elsewhere."

And Reggie may not have to worry about the tarnish on the Heisman...because it might be taken away...

"Yaeger said he believes the book could prove significant in pushing forward the NCAA investigation and ultimately lead to Bush losing the Heisman. No player has ever been stripped of the award. The Heisman Trust would decide Bush's fate. This year's Heisman will be presented Saturday in New York.

"My belief is that Heisman voters will have another decision to make in the near future," Yaeger said.

Henry said after he listened to the recorded conversations and examined documents, he was convinced Bush and his family received the improper benefits.

It could also impact victories from the 2005 season, when Bush helped USC return to the national championship game, which the Trojans lost to Texas."

I only posted a few excerpts from the article.  

Read all about it and remember to thank Santa twice this Christmas.

From  Dohn's Blog:

"KARL DORRELL WILL NOT COACH IN PIONEER LAS VEGAS BOWL

Karl Dorrell has decided not to coach the UCLA football team in the Pioneer Las Vegas Bowl on Dec. 22.

"I appreciate the opportunity to coach in the bowl game, but I have decided it is in the best interests of the program for me to decline that opportunity," said Dorrell. "The game should be about the players, especially the seniors. While I would love to take the field with these young men one last time, I felt that my situation would take the focus away from our players and their efforts and that's the last thing I would want to do.

"I wish the players great success against BYU and in their respective futures."

Although I was one of those who wanted Dorrell gone as quickly as possible, I am not sure how I feel about this.  

I suppose it's just as well.  The way things are going, we might be in for a tough time in this rematch. BYU almost won the first game and is playing well.  UCLA is not playing so well and it is hard to speculate how motivated our guys will be.

At least DG let Dorrell decide for himself whether he wanted to stick around or not.  Dorrell's statement is classy and puts the focus where it should be.

This is not my rumor and I am just posting it because it may be of interest.

From today's LAT:

"Bruins defensive coordinator DeWayne Walker is on the short list for the head coaching job at Washington State, though no contact has been made with UCLA, an athletic department source said."

Any thoughts about this?  I know I do not want Walker given the HC job at UCLA, but I would not mind him staying on as DC.  In the back of my mind, a little voice is screaming "Utah! Utah!" but overall, given his "body of work," I think he has done an adequate and sometimes very good job as our DC.  

Part of me wants Dorrell and the entire staff gone, but I would not be completely unhappy if DW stayed and we got a new HC.  I don't think there can be any question that Norvell needs to be gone pronto.  I wonder how many times are interested in "stealing" him away from us?

We'll see how well our defense does Saturday.  We are going to need a huge defensive performance so that we can come away with a stirring 3-0 victory.

What say you (about Walker, not Saturday)?

Guys and gals, what I say here will not affect Saturday's game one bit.  Try and remember that if you feel your blood pressure start to rise.

First, a quick recap of this past Saturday's game: Can we just call it "Dull and Duller"?  That was probably the most boring game I have ever witnessed.  As inept as our offense was, Oregon's was even worse.  I can only imagine what the Ducks' fans were going through.  

For those of you who were not physically present (and get down on your knees and thank God that you were not), it was the quietest RB crowd I have ever experienced.  The best parts of the game?  The pre-game tailgating (of course), the drunken woman four rows back who screeched pure nonsense throughout the 1st and 3rd quarters, and the band's half-time spoof of the Fall of Troy.  

I have said it before:  If Dorrell is HC next year, I will not attend any more games in protest.  Another reason not to attend?  If Dorrell and Norvell are still around next year, watching UCLA football will put you to sleep quicker than warm milk and gingersnaps.

A couple of other observations:  The 1st down runs up the gut were back in full force.  Hey, they are always good for 1-2 yards.  Also, um, Dorvell, when the other team turns the ball over and you have some momentum, don't do the run up the gut thing (I know, I know, it's 1st down, we have to--it's in the Bible or something).  Chuck the ball in the end zone.  Hit them while they are down.  Just a little friendly refresher on Football 101, guys.  I know you guys make the big bucks and all, and I'm just a lowly fan, but running up the gut really doesn't work well in most situations.  I offer my advice here gratis.

On to the SuC game--what to do, what to do.

One thing is for sure--I won't be there.  After witnessing 66-19 (the most disgusting display I have ever witnessed in sports), and after suffering through the insults and obscenities of the Sucster fans, I'm taking a pass on this game and, likely, on all future games at the Mausoleum. It's no fun for me and I won't put the wife through it, either.  For those of you brave enough to endure, you are better than me.  I salute you.

Now, my anti-Suc credentials are as good as anyone's.  Let us not play that game.  And, if I was a player for UCLA, I would give my all on Saturday and would try and crunch every Trojan in sight.  That is what competitive athletes are supposed to think and feel.

But I'm just a lowly fan.  I do, however, want what is best for the program.  Tydides called it "tough love," a term I appreciate and like.  I call it "taking your medicine."

What do I mean?  Because none of us know what DG is going to do with the coaching situation, I am going to assume that a UCLA win and possible trip to the Rose Bowl saves Dorrell's job.  If that happens, this program is doomed for at least next year, if not much longer.

Here's your dose of the most bitter medicine around:  The best thing that could happen this Saturday would be a loss to SC.  And I don't mean just any loss:  I mean a 76-0 pounding that jars your teeth loose and makes you want to puke.  

Why do I say that?  Because it is only after losses like 66-19, it is only after repetitive defeats in third-tier bowl games, it is only after humiliations like Utah and Notre Dame (shall I go on?), that clearer thinking prevails.  Everyone has their own moment of clarity--it just takes some longer to experience it than others.

No, I won't be cheering for SC this Saturday.  Even if I did, I really doubt it would affect the game.  Also, we are 16 point dogs (and probably should be 46 point dogs).  SC will probably take care of business and this diary will be a distant memory.

But UCLA needs to take its medicine.  This medicine (a hideous loss to SC) is the worst kind possible.  But it is necessary for the long-term health of the program, as long as it gets Dorrell fired.

Now, spare me the "you hate Dorrell so much you want us to lose to our most bitter rival" speech, please.  My anti-SuC credentials take a back seat to no one's.  I am trying to think long-term here.  Beating SC would be great--you get to rub it in the face of SC people for a full year.  Hey, that's nice.  Nevermind, that the cancer continues to spread and the program suffers for yet another year, and then another year, and so on.  Is one lousy win worth the future of the program to you?  Judging from some posts I have seen, yes.  But it is not worth it to me.

It is not in our best interests to win.  Sorry.

By now, we have all read Kurt Streeter's original column.  You may have also seen Streeter's follow-up blog-response and his near-hysterical email response to someone who commented on his column.

As Nestor put in his post, I really think Streeter is "losing it."

Please recall that it was Streeter who first brought up the issue of the alleged racial motivation of "some" of Dorrell's critics.  It is not clear to me why he brought it up and that is honestly the focus of this diary.  

Look carefully as Streeter gloats, in his blog response, as to the nerve he touched by addressing this alleged racial animus.  "Ah ha!" he seems to be saying, "if it were not true that some of Dorrell's critics were motivated by racism, then why would so many people be so offended by this one tiny little aspect of my column?"

Because, Streeter, your words are offensive.  Because, Streeter,  you offered up no evidence in support of your charge.  Because, pal, you waved a bloody flag and there was no reason at all to do so.

Now, I am not naive enough to think that none of Dorrell's critics are pure of mind, body and spirit when it comes to race.  Or that there might be "some" people who want Dorrell to go based on the color of his skin.

Like Streeter, I have no evidence to support this theory.  But I grant that it is possible.

The reason for the furor, the reason for the controversy, the reason for the pure shame of it all is this:

Here on BN, if someone calls for Dorrell to be fired, we are generally preaching to the choir.  We do not need to say, "Well, he should be fired because of 66-19, or because of his blind devotion to the ineffective WCO" or whatever.  If you are a regular reader on BN, you are probably already a believer.

Streeter's original column was called, "Keep Karl."  It was an interview with Dorrell but more than that, it was ostensibly a reason to "keep" him as UCLA's head coach.

I am fine with someone defending Dorrell.  I really am.  Tell me why a coach with his record should be given another year, or two, or three, to succeed.  Persuade me.  I am firmly in the camp which wants a new coach, but I am open to a reasoned argument on the other side.

Interjecting the issue of the possibly questionable motives of some of Dorrell's critics does nothing to persuade me to "keep" Dorrell as head coach.  Why would it?

I am not a psychologist.  I do not know why Streeter thought it necessary to add this element to the discussion.  But look at his ranting email response:  How many times does he mention race?  Why does he adopt such a sarcastic tone?  Why bring up the problem of race in America?  The author of the email to Streeter did not deny the existence of racial problems in America.  That extra item was not on the agenda until Streeter addressed it.

I offer to you, based only on Streeter's words, that it is Streeter himself who has the problem with race.  It was he who first brought up the topic. Then, when faced with responses to the same topic, it was clear that a nerve had been touched.  Streeter's nerve.

I think Streeter's column was about a lot more than Dorrell and UCLA football.  It was about more than race in America.

I think it was about Streeter.  

I want to talk about wins and losses.  I enjoy discussions about playcalling and the strengths and weakensses of our team and of our opponents.  I like Sunday-morning quarterbacking.  I like all that "guy" stuff because, well, I'm a guy.  (I know, some women dig that stuff, too, and that is cool.)

I wanted Dorrell to succeed because he was in charge of my favorite football team.  I want him gone because I believe he is the wrong man for the job.  I never cared what color he was and still don't care.

I do not want to talk about race when there is no reason to do so.  

It was never relevant from Day One and it still isn't relevant.

Streeter never got the memo.

Bumped from the diaries. GO BRUINS. -N

Dear UCLA,

The forecast called for rain in the morning, but no one I know felt a drop.  It was another perfect day for football at the Rose Bowl.  You do have it lucky and every opposing fan I've spoken to this year agrees.

The tailgating was the best part of the day.

You won't like some of what I have to say but you need to hear it.

You are not going to beat Oregon.  You are not going to beat SuC.  There will be no miracles this year, even though I would love to see one or two.

It's not always about effort or coaching "hard" or giving "110%."  You are going to lose because you do not have an offense.  You're pretty good at field goals, and your special teams play is, overall, very good.  It keeps you in games, but only for a while.  In the end, you cannot win without an offense.  You couldn't even beat Notre Dame.

That's right--Notre Dame.  There's no need to re-analyze any game this season except for that one.  After the game yesterday, an ASU fan in front of me said to his friend, "We should have beaten them (UCLA) by 60 points.  I mean, they lost to Notre Dame."

Normally, I would have been pi*sed to hear someone say that in my house.  Not today.  You know why?  Number one, his statements were meant as a criticism of ASU and not of UCLA.  Second, he was right.  Think about it and you will agree.

I will say your playcalling has improved through the year.  I saw very few (if any) runs up the gut on first down.  I applaud you for this, but I wonder why it took 10 games for you to figure out that this play doesn't work.  I guess that's why Dorvell gets the big bucks and I'm just a fan.

I don't know if the key penalties--you know the ones--were legitimate or not.  The people in charge of "Bruin Vision" at the RB don't like to show replays of anything controversial.  I do know that penalties are the mark of an undisciplined team.  Sorry--that falls on the coaches.

My dear UCLA, I guess what disappoints me the most is that losing begets more losing.  It also leads to a losing attitude.  When I walked out of the RB after the Notre Dame game, the feeling among the fans was one of absolute shock.  Expectations for the team were still high but our playcalling, preparation and performance were disgraceful.

Yesterday, the feeling after the game was one of complete apathy.  It was almost as if everyone now expects to lose.  I'm starting to feel like a New Orleans Saints fan back in the "paper bag" days.  You put on your gear, you support your team, but in the end, you know you are going to lose.  I know UCLA is not as bad as those old Saints were, but I'm just trying to convey the mood and attitude.

It was been said on BN by many that ASU was very beatable.  They really were.  I don't know if they are just not very good, or if they had an off day, or what.  But if we had any sort of an offense, we would have won--easily, in my humble opinion.

OR was fun to watch.  He is big and fast and strong.  Sure, he made some "freshman" type mistakes (stayed in the pocket too long, forced a couple bad throws) but he also took some ferocious hits and kept on trying.  Put a healthy BO or PC in there against ASU and I think the game result ends up the same.  I really do.

I'm sorry, UCLA, but you are now at a crossroads.  What you have now is not working.  You can be a middle of the pack team who tries to "fix" things and "work and coach harder" each week, or you can chart a new path.  This season is over.  You will not beat Oregon and SuC.  It is not possible even if you give 110%.

I hope you "fix" things when the season is over.  Quite honestly, the season has been over for a long time.  Just replay the Notre Dame game.

Yours,

An apathetic fan in Section 17

As you know, OR will be our starter on Saturday.  While I have horribly mixed feelings about which team I would like to see win (not the focus of this diary, please), I am very excited about attending the game and watching OR in person.

Now, it took Dorrell a while to learn this, but every player is one hit away from being knocked out of the game.  This truth holds special value for anyone brave enough to risk his health playing QB for UCLA this year behind this O-line.  This means that a well-prepared coaching staff (one which is "coaching hard," presumably), will have a game plan ready in the event that a replacement for an injured starter is called to step in and play.

This is from Kevin Pearson's blog over at the  Press Enterprise:

"UCLA Coach Karl Dorrell said it was uncertain who would be the No. 2 behind Osaar Rasshan on Saturday. McLeod Bethel-Thompson is more experienced but Chris Forcier, a true freshman, has been taking second-team reps.

"We're going to slash those two guys," Dorrell said. "It could be either one of those two. We'll make a determination at some point."

Dorrell said he was not concerned about burning Forcier's redshirt if the situation arose."

 
The emphasis is mine.

With three games remaining, I would hate to see Forcier's redshirt burned.  On the other hand, if Forcier is "better" than MBT, and we do still have a chance to win the Pac-10, is it fair for Dorrell to use Forcier, if necessary?  And, if he is serious about burning the redshirt, wouldn't it have been better to have burnt it earlier this year and given Forcier some playing time?  Remember, BO and PC are absolutely not available tomorrow.

I'm really torn on this one.

Open question(s), gang.

Maybe in about 3-4 years we can expect the same lines from MJD, the other Davis, or other guys who wasted their careers going coachless during last 4+ years at Spaulding. GO BRUINS.-N

It's always nice to remember those who came before us.

From Jerry Crowe's column in today's LAT:

"As reported by Bay Area blogger Geoff Lepper of the Contra Costa Times, former UCLA point guard Baron Davis looked into the rafters at Pauley Pavilion last Friday during the Golden State Warriors' morning shoot-around and said, "We should have a banner up there: the only team to make the tournament without a coach." . . .

Somewhere, surely, Steve Lavin's ears were burning."

Tell me that Baron Davis is not your very favorite NBA player right this second.  Go on, just tell me he's not.

GO BRUINS.

Like Bluestreet, I agree that BN is more than just about Dorrell or UCLA football.  Lots of topics are discussed on BN, including the media's coverage of UCLA sports.  And if you don't care about someone's critique of the media, it's perfectly acceptable to skip over these diaries and posts.  

Personally, I think Dohn is a lapdog and a tool.  But I still get some benefit from his blog.  For example, here's a beauty from Dohn's blog when apparently some offensive players admitted that they suffered from a "lack of focus" during the Wazzou game.  This is from Dorrell himself, responding to these remarks:

"I think in their minds, when they say focused, that means we didn't get it executed,'' Dorrell said. "Well, how come we didn't get this? Well, so-and-so didn't do this, and they should have done that. I think it was bits and parts of that. It could be a dropped ball. Is that a lack of focus? I guess so, when you didn't accomplish it. But it wasn't like their effort and everything wasn't trying to do those things.

"So it amounts to their frustration, and that's something that's hard to stomach, but that's where we're at, at this point. You have to keep working, and urge and challenge yourself to be perfect in practice."

Can someone please decipher this for me?  Aside from the normal butchering of the English language, isn't Dorrell simply spinning wildly here?  

Isn't it the job of the coaches and, in particular, the head coach, to make sure that the players are focused?  And what's this nonsense again about "execution" and "practice?"  Dorrell's mantra seems to be that, if we practice well, we will play well during the games.  But that "truism" has not held up at all this year.  And, frankly, talking about practice is a diversion from the real issue.  

Certain players, according to Dohn, admitted that they lacked focus.  They did not say that they needed to execute better--that is Dorrell's spin on what the players said.

It is the job of the coaches to motivate and to focus the players.  If the players were not focused, then someone is not doing his job.

It's really that simple, folks.

One of my favorite parts of the day after a Bruin football at the Rose Bowl. Catching up with these notes from Barnes2JJ. GO BRUINS. -N

Your section 17 correspondent checking in...

A few X's and O's from me, but mostly just observations from the game.

1.  Another picture perfect day at the RB.  Just hot, clear and beautiful.  The traffic getting into and out of the RB was not much fun, though.
2. There were some decent, well-behaved Cal fans in my section.  But good Lord, as a whole, they are a close second only to SuC fans in obnoxiousness.  You people whine about "classless" UCLA fans, then spend all your waking hours creating "fucla" shirts and talking about Sam Gilbert.
3. And I really don't care if Cal's mascot can "beat up" our mascot.  Oski, or whatever that thing's name is, is just plain ugly.  Too bad he couldn't suit up Saturday.  You could have used the help.
4.  I heard your chants about our losses to Utah and Notre Dame, and yes, those chants did sting.  On the other hand, you just lost to a Dorrell-coached squad that got creamed by Utah and ND.  What does that say about you?
5. Oh, and by the way, yes, we did steal your fight song.  And it sounds better the way we play it.
6. One other thing:  yes, we got it, your SATs, on average, are a little bit better.  I know that is a big deal to you guys.  But our girls are prettier.  And our campus is nicer, too (heck, the scenes of "Cal" in the movie, "The Graduate" were actually filmed at Southern Cal!).  And, by the way, if my school's sports history was positively mediocre, I would focus on SAT scores, too.
7. Back to the game.  Fourth and one.  You know what I'm talking about.  This was the first time the boo's really rained down this year, IMO.  And I was booing, too (the cowardly decision, not the players).  

And this will always be part of Dorrell's legacy:  No guts, no glory.  Yes, we won, I know that.  But the true champion takes chances now and then.  The true champion says, "It's fourth and one, and we are going to show you who's boss right now."  Dorrell will never be that guy.  Forgive the comparison, but the very, very good SuC teams always went for it on 4th and 1.  And they would throw the ball 10 yards.  And make it.

Pardon my French, but with this coach, we don't have the huevos.  He will always be afraid to grab for the brass ring--which means that he never will get it.

8.  To the students:  The blue "Den" shirts look incredible.  When I was a student, and as I sat in the student section, I always thought different areas of the stadium were louder than the "apathetic" students.  Not true.  Not true at all.  The student section is the loudest and most animated.  Keep it up.
9. As a whole, our playcalling was better.  We still had some of those precious runs up the gut on 1st down which I am so fond of.  Frankly, if I was a responsible journalist, I would ask Dorrell why he and Norvell think it's ok to waste one play during a series of downs on a run up the gut.  It's a fair question.
10. Cowan is no superstar.  But I like him.  He doesn't make a lot of mistakes and I do like the fact that he scrambles, and seems to enjoy running for first downs.  Saying this takes nothing whatsoever away from Olson.  I think Olson cannot perform to his talents given the problems with our O-line.  That is not his fault.  Just my two cents.
11. Back to obnoxiousness.  Can someone please explain why SuC fans feel compelled to come to UCLA games at the RB?  And why they feel compelled to wear the ketchup shirts when they know they are in enemy territory?  I see it all the time at RB games.  Is the correct word "arrogance"?  Or is it another "a" word?
12. To the UCLA fans who come out of the woodwork with every win, and who disappear completely with every loss:   Why don't you show your face when we lose and defend Dorrell and the team?  At least the regulars on BN show up, win or lose, rain or shine.  Why do you hide?
13. I was thrilled we won, mainly due to the fact that the arrogant Cal fans needed to be brought down a little.  I hope they brought their SAT scores to review for the long ride home.  But my philosophy for the season remains this:  I will root loud and hard for the good guys, but if we lose, it just means we are that much closer (I pray) for the end of the Dorrellian Era.  We will never, ever reach glory with this guy.  Never.
14. The key word everyone is struggling for is "consistency."  Dorrell's teams are not consistent.  Just like Lavin.

P.S. My best friend went to Cal and then transferred to UCLA because he hated the self-righteous idiots at Cal.

So there.

Let me start off by saying that I don't intend to hold up Brian Dohn as a pinata for bashing.  Number one, it's too easy.  Second, although it disappoints me greatly that he is obviously afraid to ask the tough questions of Dorrell, I do get some value out of his blog.  Third, I'm simply not interested in hearing from the defenders of crappy journalism.  

After Dohn responded to 66 in what I, and many others on BN, thought was an insulting and condescending manner, I submitted a similar question to Dohn.  Here is his response from Dohn's blog:

"Do you believe you would lose access to Dorrell and the football program if you pressed Dorrell to answer questions about the team's obvious problems? In other words, if you ticked Dorrell off, would he cut off your access? Is this something you are worried about?"

"No, I wouldn't lose access, but if Dorrell doesn't want to answer a question in a certain way, it doesn't matter how many times it gets asked. Yes, it is frustrating not getting answers to certain questions, but I am not going to badger a guy by asking the same question five times, so he can not answer it five different ways."

Sorry, no earthshaking answer here and, in hindsight, my question could have been better.  Dohn's answer is not much different than the one he gave to 66 (although I didn't find the above answer insulting).  And for those fretting about Dohn's job security, he said he would not lose access if he pressed Dorrell.  So, sleep well, defenders of all journalists, good or bad.

In hindsight, I should have simply asked Dohn why he doesn't simply report when Dorrell won't answer a question directly.  And I find the term "badger" in Dohn's answer silly:  no one is asking him to "badger" anyone.  If Dorrell won't answer a question directly or gives a nonsensical answer, and you can't get a clear and direct answer out of the guy, then just report that.  The reading public could then draw their own conclusions about why Dorrell is not answering questions.  

I will give Dohn credit for answering my question.  I would also suggest that everyone should pose a (respectful) question to him beginning every Wednesday.  The Q's and A's are entertaining to read.  

Interestingly, the following Q&A (not my question) appeared directly under Dohn's answer to me:

"If UCLA still had confidence in Dorrell wouldn't they express that when responding to the press about the Dienhart leak?"

"What leak? Do you mean the false report? What more can UCLA say than making the comment it is untrue? That seems perfect, and succinct, without giving any credibility to the story."

I think we all know by now (from Fox 71's fine work) that this was probably not a "false report."  I sent Dienhart an email requesting permission to clue in the LAT and Daily Bruin, among others, to the fact that this was likely not a false report, but Dienhart never emailed me back, which I took to mean a denial of my request.

Here is where I will bash Dohn:  It's ok not to toe the party line, especially because you don't work for UCLA.  Just because the Morgan Center says something, you don't have to adopt it.  Unfortunately, something tells me that even if Dohn read Dienhart's response to Fox, Brian would still toe the "company line."  

And, by the way, Dohn didn't answer the above question:  Why didn't UCLA express confidence in Dorrell when responding to the "leak" (whether it was false or not)?  Doesn't Dohn's sputtering response sound like someone who is just a tad bit defensive?  I find his reaction very strange.

I just thought you might find the above interesting.