[I apologize for the formatting difficulties that may make this difficult to read. I did my best. The problem I encountered was trying to copy the exact quotes from the pleading, which was in .pdf format, to this post. Sorry.]

Yesterday, Reeves Nelson sued Sports Illustrated and George Dohrmann challenging the accuracy of the way he was portrayed in the article Special Report: Not the UCLA Way.

The “complaint”, filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, sets forth 3 causes of action or legal claims against the defendants: 1. Defamation; 2. False Light; and, 3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

In a series of posts, I’ll try to analyze the content of the pleadings from both sides – as they are filed.

(Front pagers – is there a way we can put the pleadings somewhere where everyone can read them? If so, I’ll send a copy for posting. The complaint and accompanying exhibits contain 64 pages.)

I don’t want to go to deeply into the law, now, because that’s not what I find most interesting about the complaint.

In essence, Nelson is claiming that the statements about him in the article are not true and that Dohrman was either negligent or reckless when he wrote them. (There is a long discussion of this in yesterday’s thread).

Here’s what I find most interesting: In support of his complaint, Nelson has attached 18 affidavits – sworn statements made under oath and under the threat that false statements can be prosecuted as perjury.

The affidavits are from 18 Bruin basketball players, all of whom have had direct contact with Reeves Nelson and were team members during the period covered by the article.

The 18 are: Matt DeMarcus; Larry Drew, Jr.; Drew Gordon; Tyler Honeycutt; Kenny Jones; Tyler Lamb; Lazeric Jones; Malcolm Lee; J’mison Morgan; Alex Schrempf; Josh Smith; Anthony Stover; Travis Wear; Tyler Trapani; Norman Powell; David Wear; Blake Arnet; and Jerime Anderson.

No affidavits are attached from James Keefe, Mike Moser, and Matt Carlino. However, IIRC – Keefe has previously denied the accuracy of the story.

By providing the affidavits, I think the plaintiff’s lawyer is trying to make two points:

Continue reading this post »

What's the one word every bureaucrat fears? -- "LAWSUIT".

Whatever the status of "sovereign immunity" on a UC campus, there are limits. Most statutes do not allow state institutions to shelter themselves from liability for gross negligence or recklessness.

And, many do not allow a shelter for suits seeking damages from the breach of a contract.

It may just be the trial lawyer in me, but when I read the SI article I thought "IF these stories about bullying and serious injuries from deliberate, unrestrained acts of violence are true, the injured players might sue UCLA."

My first thought was for James Keefe whose potential career may well have been ended by a deliberate act of a team mate.

Most of you are probably thinking that one cannot hold CBH or the university responsible for the acts of a crazy student. But, sometimes you can. When someone in charge knows of the risk and turns away from the responsibility to prevent harm, the institution may be held liable.

Is this a lock down case? No, not at all.

But, ask any risk management person whether he or she wants to defend the basketball coach and the athletic director in court, and I promise you the answer will be "NO."

IF these unsubstantiated stories in the article are true, and if the simple fact that both Strap On and Ben Bully have committed moral wrongs is not enough, I suggest that someone in the legal counsel's office take a look at the lack of control in the program and decide if it is worth the risk to keep the dirty duo employed. Sooner or later, someone is going to sue the university for his physical/emotional injuries.

And, that's just one way the university might be sued.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. Warrants thoughtful discussion.  - BN Eds.

I have a confession -- I did not hear or see one down of this game? Why? Because there truly is a God in heaven who protected me from losing to UT while still a Texas resident and from having to experience this game while surrounded by Longhorn neighbors. I left Texas, for good, on Thursday. 

This morning, I thought we were going to win -- and, I thought I had very powerful game Karma -- I've spent the last two days driving Route 66 (aka 40) toward my new home in CA. Route 66. Come on, what could be more powerful?

But, alas, my good game Karma was not sufficient to overcome what appears to be another mediocre performance from an unprepared team.

How can I say that? I could be snide and say one does not have to watch every game to know that we will come out uninspired, unprepared and uncoached. But, actually, I've read the game threads, stories online and had a long, post-game talk with Nestor whose analysis I trust.

I think it may be time for CRN to step down -- mid-season, to see if an interim coach can salvage something of the practice time and games that are left. I am posting this to start a discussion of this topic.

Continue reading this post »

The Houston Chronicle reports that  aTm will hold a press conference, today, announcing the anticipated move to the SEC. The invitation was finalized, yesterday, and there seems to be no question that it will be accepted.

More interesting is an article on the Chronicle's sports page that says that the Longhorn network can be "unplugged" should it be necessary to enable UT to move to another conference.

Staff Writer Tim Griffin writes

An examination of the school's contract with ESPN provides provisions in which UT could walk away from its deal if it joins a new conference.

One thought would be a regional network to contain the other teams rumored to be headed to the Pac 12, OU, OSU, UT and TT. My concern is how that money will be split.

Continue reading this post »

Perhaps, I wanted this game too much. Played in my home town, on the next to the last weekend I will live here, and having NEVER lost to a Texas team during my time here, I wanted this one bad.

I am not a "win or else" or "winning is everything" guy. But, I do not find our count "moral victories" either. 

I have consistently set my standard by Coach's definition of success

"Success is peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing you did your best to become the best you are capable of becoming."  

By that definition, our program was not successful, today.

Much will be written in praise of the many players who left it all on the field. In my eyes, they were successful.

And, much will be written about the players who had a hard day; a freshman kicker who reminds me of the tin man -- in need of a short journey down the path to find the heart and peace that will allow him to use his awesome talent at its highest level; a center coming back from injury, a bit rusty -- he too, will settle in and prove his worth.

But, frankly, I do not think they are the story of the game.

To me, the story of the game was that we were, once more, out coached to the extent that we lost a game that we could have won; I won't say "we should have won" because that denigrates the Cougars who beat us fair and square -- but in my heart, I think we should have won this game AND would have won this game had we been properly coached.

CRN has rightfully placed himself on the hot seat -- and this game shows why his recent body of work has placed him there. I do not want to hear about new coordinators, that we need time for them to adapt and fit in. CRN has been here 4 years. This is his program, now. His responsibility. These are his players, his coaches -- we can't blame CTS, DG or anyone else -- this season is on CRN.

So, why am I so upset by this loss? Because major parts of our program do not pass my eye test -- and have not passed the eye test for his entire tenure in the program.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. - BN Eds.

Since the UH game was put on the schedule, I've been planning on hosting a BN get together in Houston, my home town. I thought I'd do some down home BBQ (low and slow -- not grilling) and drive my neighbors nuts by flying my UCLA flag.

But, Houston is rapidly becoming my ex-home town. We are in the process of packing for a move back to CA. The plan is to live in Sebastopol or somewhere else in West Sonoma County. With my kid at UCSD, and very happy, and the remainder of our family in CA, it's time to come home. 

The moving van leaves here on Sept 8, and so do I. 

Not convenient to hosting an event. But, if enough people are coming, maybe we can put something together at a restaurant or bar. (Also, there's a BN mainstay who moved to Houston this year. She's had her hands full lately but if there is interest in a get together, I'll call her and see if she and I can pull something together.)

Continue reading this post »

The statement of a recently departed, early-to-leave, Ben Howland defector? 

No. This statement is not about Ben Howland and it does not come from one of his players.

It is about Coach. Our rightfully revered John Wooden.

The player? The recently departed Edgar Lacey -- "the Bird" --  who quit the 1968 National Championship team mid-season.

In Lacey's obituary, the Daily Breeze includes the following:

"(The Houston game) was the last straw," Lacey said. "It all started in my sophomore year when he tried to change the mechanics of my shooting.

"And now I have no one to blame but myself for staying this long. He has sent people by to persuade me to reconsider, but I have nothing to reconsider. I'm glad I'm getting out now while I still have some of my pride, my sanity and my self-esteem left."

Wooden told The Times he thought Lacey should return to the team.

"I have never said anything but that he's the best forward we have," Wooden said. "I wish he'd think it over. Regardless of how he feels about me, I do care about him."

Why do I find this sufficiently important for a fan post?

Because, at a time when there is an undercurrent that blames the NBA defections on an inference that the players leaving do not like to play for Coach Howland, I think it important, as a teacher, to take a stand:

The role of a teacher is not to be liked. The role of a teacher is to teach. 

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. Please Tweet this post and"like" it on Facebook by hitting the buttons at the end of this post. -BN Eds.

I am bringing this up after reflecting on the post exposing the role of the "Den Survey" in justification of the land grab that deprived the students of prized seats. We all need to challenge the integrity of that survey and its use in this dispute.

The seat grab is being justified by reference to a “survey” that reeks of academic misconduct — the kind of phony research that besmirches the reputation of any academic institution that tolerates it.

People writing surveys know how to ask fair questions; unfortunately, the also know how to "cook" the questionnaire so as to reach a pre-ordained result.

A great research institution like UCLA, has many people who can draft fair surveys. Obviously, Morgan Center did not seek their help. Probably because they did not want an honest survey. They knew what they wanted and how they were going to use it.

It is clear that in a greedy land grab, Morgan Center made a decision to move the students out of seats which they perceived could be sold for lots of money. They have, in essence, already admitted that with a comment that the students could not have the better seats for financial reasons.

They probably knew that the students would, rightfully, protest. So, they decided to cook something up that they could use, post act, to justify their decision and fight the backlash. They decided to take the low road with a loaded question.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. -BN

I am finding it harder and harder to justify the presence of our athletic programs on campus. 

What should be programs that enrich the student experience, both for those who participate and those who cheer them on, are becoming "professional" ventures -- aimed at competing with the private sector for income. I do not see that as a proper university enterprise.

If we cannot make the students the center of attention and beneficiaries of these programs, we should not waste our time and money on them.

Don't get me wrong -- I love UCLA athletics. I am just deeply concerned with the state of all of our programs AND with the latest news that the students seats have been sold out from under them.

I, for one, an alum who sat in season tickets in Pauley for many, many years, had hoped that the renovation would bring back student seating along the sidelines -- the way it was when Pauley opened -- as a way of enhancing the student experience AND creating the type of crowd atmosphere our student/athletes deserve. They should be playing for their peers -- enjoyed by their peers, bonding with their peers, sharing a student experience with their fellow students.

Pauley opened when I was a student. The student section went from the court straight up on the Sunset side of the floor. The section was cohesive and spirited.

At the same time, we played football in the Coliseum. The students held a sizable portion of the yard line seats -- they were not crunched between the end zone and the 10 yard line. Once more, we rocked the joint.

Why is that important? Because, student athletics serve an important role in the STUDENT EXPERIENCE. They help kids diffuse the pressure of attending a rigorous university. They give them something to do, a place to scream and yell, bond, and have fun. And, in our day, they were inexpensive activities (actually, almost free -- for $75 we bought an activity fee card that gave us entry to all events. There were no "limits" on who could attend or when.) In fact, that was all we paid for in attending a UC campus -- just that activity card.

What' most disturbing in the student seating fiasco is the blatant manner in which the athletic department makes clear that the decision on seating was all about money. Students out. Rich folk in. That's not the way it should be.

The students should have special status. Yes, take the rich folks' money -- but some seats are simply not for sale. 

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. -BN

Photo Credit: b d

I figure most of us have lost our stomach for the tournament. For me, it's because we are not playing anymore.

For others, it seems that many of your "brackets" have blown up.

Yet, I'll watch some of the games. And, "threads" are like watching games with seat mates and friends. So, I'll throw this up. Mod's feel free to pull it if you think it inappropriate.

One starting thought. Florida v. Butler: Florida starts 3 seniors, a junior and sophmore -- no freshmen. Butler starts two seniors, a junior, and two sophmores -- no freshmen. Somehow Donovan keeps his kids long enough to field a "mature" team.

Bumped.  A good discussion topic.  Go Bruins.  [DC]

There's been a lot of talk here about this team having met the minimum preseason expectations set for it. For some, that may be true. 

Not for me.

This team, this coach and this staff did not meet my preseason expectations.

Before today, I never got into the "expectations" discussions because, in my mind, expectations are not objective -- they are subjective. 

With no disrespect intended toward any poster here, even though we challenged for the Pac 10 championship and are going to the tournament, I do not think our players coach or staff have had a successful season. Said another way, they have not met my expectations.

I am old -- and, therefore, old school. Although I understand the value of setting quantifiable expectations -- like "20 wins and a tourney bid" or "Pac 10 championship", I choose not to use such standards to set my expectations or define "success". 

My standard is simple:

Success is the peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing that you did your best to become the best that you are capable of becoming. -- John Wooden

That is all I "expect" of every Bruin team in every sport. Whatever the talent level, whatever the context or circumstances, I expect us to live up to Coach's standard.

That will account for teams that have serious injuries, face bad officiating, or are matched against better talent -- all of which we have had this year. 

I am prepared to lose. I am not prepared to lose playing at a level lower than that of which we are capable.

By this standard, many of our players, our coach, and our staff have failed. Because it is clear to me, that we rarely did our best or played to our capabilities. 

Continue reading this post »

What follows started as a response to Bellerophon's excellent front page post on UCLA's Malaise and Favoritism.

It got so long that I thought I'd better not mess up his thread so I'm posting it as a stand alone fan post.

Like most of us, I really want to love CBH. I believe that he truly understands our culture and honors and reveres Coach. I like the idea of his willingly being "the Caretaker" of someone else's program. I think he is a principled man. And, I like him.

The charges of his "favoritism" really sting. Favoritism in the "classroom" is unacceptable. It cheats all students; those who work hard and get no rewards are obviously hurt; however, those who slack and still get rewarded are hurt, too; for they will never grow and reach their full potential. And, it is a very damning charge to level against a teacher.

Continue reading this post »

(Bumped.  As we enter a crucial week for our school's two major programs, with Football Signing Day on Wednesday, and basketball against *$c on Wednesday night and the Lizard on Saturday, this post on the culture surrounding U.C.L.A. athletics is more pertinent than ever.  This week will go a long way towards showing whether football and basketball can rise above the administrative apathy that seems to hamstring those programs right now, or whether they will continue their descent into medocrity and irrelevance - gb)

{I initially wrote this as a comment in the thread "The UCLA 'Culture" Straight From DG's Mouth". I didn't hit the post button because it grew too long and turned into a rant. This morning, in another thread, I called DG out. I would have left it at that until I read the portion of Shelburne's interview on our front page. I got pissed off and this is the result. No facts, just rant. Want data, do not read any further. Want fair and balanced -- this ain't it.}

These are hard times for the state. Money is tight. And, even though the revenue sports programs pay for themselves and other sports programs, it's not clear that what's holding us back is simply a matter of economics. I think the problems are deeper. And, I think the black hole is in the AD's domain.

How can I say that?

Yes, we may be short of money and trying to run things on the cheap. As discouraging as this is, and it is discouraging, we still are not getting what we are paying for.

There are coaches out there who make less than we pay and put competitive, proud, intense and fundamentally competent teams on the field or court -- and we've lost to them. Their players are less heralded, their facilities are not as good, their campuses are less attractive, their media markets are smaller, and their pay scales are lower -- and we've lost to them.

I am not saying that we should not be getting more from our administration -- but I am saying that we are not using what we are getting well. And, that's on DG.

And, he is failing, elsewhere, too.

Continue reading this post »

No, not as OC -- but, rather, as Head Coach.

I am disgusted with the reports that CRN is throwing CNC under the bus.

So disgusted, that even though I've argued that we cut CRN some slack -- that he had some of the right pieces in place and we ought to let him see how things play out -- I would just as soon have him gone, now.

Why the turn around? Because I don't think CNC was the problem -- I think CRN is.

In my mind CNC was on of those "right pieces" -- who, if given time and some players, would be a part of the turn around.

CNC didn't choose the Pistol he did his best to implement it. CRN chose it.

CNC didn't choose the O Line coach. CRN did.

CNC didn't choose the receivers coach. CRN did.

So, the CEO fires the most talented department head, and actually the department head with a far more distinguished record than the CEO. 

Well, that may be the way things are done, but not in my world. CNC has been a loyal member of CRN's team. He deserves some deference and loyalty back.

My loyalty to CRN? Gone. 

I guess CRN's ploy is to fire everyone around him, and then claim he needs time to restock and give the new coordinators time to implement new schemes. Scrambling to save his ass, CRN is flailing about and pointing everywhere but at himself. I've been on his side and CNC's, until this morning. Now, I've had enough of our Head Coach. 

He built this mess and I've not heard him stand up and say "I've not done a very good job. I've made bad decisions. I am responsible for everything you see on that field. I could have changed things and I didn't. It's on me -- and if I don't do better, I will quit next year." Instead, he's cleaning house. But, he's the biggest stain in the toilet bowl. It's time for a clean flush.

sjh

PS. I was going to write a really long post on the state of both our football and basketball programs. I'll try to get to it, soon. Suffice to say, I'm not a big supporter of either head coach. And, that's sad for me. Because I was.

Having spent 20 years living on a farm, I think I understand the difference between house cats (the weakest sub-species of which is the Lap Cat) and barn cats.

You cannot teach a lap cat to be a barn cat. It just doesn't work. Once accustomed to the cushy life, I don't think cats toughen up. And, barn cats don't want to come inside. No room for their swagger and aggression on a couch.

So, when you need a barn cat -- you recruit a barn cat. You get a cat from a farmer down the road -- a cat born in the barn that has shown barn tendencies. You don't go to a cushy pet store and buy a cat that has been coddled all of its life. You don't get one from the litter of a show cat. 

My best barn cats just showed up and stayed. They really wanted to be on my farm, were talented, but not heavily recruited. 

I'm wondering if our problem doesn't stem from the fact that we've  been recruiting lap cats -- kids who get acclaim and privilege, kids whose natural talent has led them to be coddled by high schools, AAU teams and sycophants throughout their careers. They've been told they are blue ribbon cats and simply expect to continue to hear the accolades. 

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. - BN

I just got  back from the Rose Bowl where the highlights of the night were spending some time with BritBruin, DCBruin and MexiBruin. They are incredibly great guys. But, there is something wrong when my highlight reel has nothing to do with the game.

I'm driving back to Texas, Monday. We delayed the trip so that I could go to this game. I was sure we were going to win and I wanted to be there.

I have a lot of things to say about the season -- and I'll probably write them next week after I get home. But, here are a few random thoughts from tonight.

1. We should NEVER let that pencil dick trogan stick his fucking sword in the middle of our field. I cannot believe that knowing it was coming we didn't have something planned to stop it. Talk about "soft" -- what can be softer than standing by while a guy in a skirt plunges a sword into our home? Next year, we must take a dump on their field -- defile their home the way they did ours.

2. As bad as that was, the game was worse. I am totally disgusted. Totally. I have been a CRN supporter. As I have said often, he was not my first choice; Mike Leach was. But, once hired, I admitted that DG had made the right choice.

I am not so sure, now. I find CRN inspirational. Apparently, this team does not. And, his job is not to inspire me. It is to inspire his team. I have never seen a less inspired performance against our rival than the one I saw tonight. The motivator cannot motivate. And, that bothers me.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped (B) - Not everyone is sold on Chow (unlike "Bend and Break" Bullough), but Class of 66 chimes in with some good thoughts (and makes a good case for Chow) following a very tough weekend for Bruin fans everywhere.  Fire away in the comment thread with your thoughts, and as always, GO BRUINS.

1. I miss Nestor. It's just not the same without him -- more an issue of tone than content. I miss his unique "voice".

2. That said, the front page guys have done an incredible job of keeping BN strong and vibrant. The "new" voices from our old voices continue to meet the high standard of fact based analysis. The posts on football and basketball have been been complete and incisive. 

3. And, the comments in the game day threads have respected the standards set and enforced by Nestor. It seems that, in his honor, we are behaving better.

Now, for a bit of substance.

Continue reading this post »

The last couple of weeks have reminded me of one of my favorite fishing mantras "Any day on the water beats a day off of it". How does that fit here? "Any day in the Rose Bowl beats a day out of it".

Having seen the last two games in person, here are some of my random thoughts:

1. All season long, my basic thesis about this team has been that it is both young and inexperienced. We are now 9 games into our schedule and we are still young -- but now have had 10 weeks of practice and 9 games to gain experience -- and it shows.

a. Richard Brehaut is learning quickly. He was far better in the pistol this week than he was last week; he was far less wooden and his "deception" was far better. He also made better decisions as to when to run and when to not. He still throws into very tight coverage, but he seemed to running his checks better than last week and often found the more open receiver.

b. Much has been made of the play of our younger guys -- they were great. We started a lot of underclassmen. In fact, I don't think we started a senior on D and had maybe one junior. And, there is no doubt that our freshmen made a major impact, on both sides of the ball, yesterday.

c. However, I don't see this as grounds for criticism of our coaches. I can't buy into the "They should have played them earlier" rhetoric. 

It is equally plausible that they played so well because the coaches had done a great job, these past 10 weeks, of getting them ready to play AND did not play them until they were sufficiently prepared to avoid demoralizing mistakes. 

I think the fact that we played well and young speaks in favor of  the staff.

There are some very concrete examples of how this 3/4 season experience has changed players.

Randall Carroll is a much improved receiver. He is multi-dimensional -- not just a long threat; and he is catching the ball.

Malcolm Jones is a different runner than the one who could not hold on to the ball and, after fumbling, left the field head down. He was strong and confident, yesterday.

We can rave about Zumwalt, and I did all game -- but we have to remember that he was playing behind and learning from Patrick Larimore before Larimore's injury.

I guess my point is that the guys who looked great, yesterday, were not necessarily ready to start or play a lot of minutes earlier in the season.

There is no way to debate this point -- we have no data upon which to base our arguments.

But, I choose to trust that the coaches were putting the players they though would do best into the situations in which they thought they would do best. They know these guys better than we do. They have just as strong a desire to win as we do. And, they want them to succeed as much as we do.

Continue reading this post »

1. The Reverse -- And, the Commentary of the Past Few Weeks

As I stood in the stands and watched that play fail -- I wondered what the reaction on BN would be.

Call it a "reverse" or call it an "end around" -- in the storm of criticism of CNC's "conservative playcalling" the failure to call this exact play was one of the oft mentioned BN examples of plays we should be calling.

Some of us put forth the propositionthat, with our lack of talent and speed on the O line, this play would  fail; we were brushed off or seen as "apologists".

So, I find it interesting that, today,  few here are applauding the call. Instead, many are critical. I know, consistency is the hob goblin of small minds and all that ...  but, in light of previous comments, it seems that the "daring" should be acknowledged.

Me, I think it was a dumb call -- as it would have been at any time in the last few weeks.

2. I find it interesting that those who thought RB should have been starting instead of KP -- because they believed that RB was the better QB and that CNC was being stubborn in sticking with KP -- are using this game as support for their thesis.

Those of you who think RB proved so effective as to cast doubt on the fact that he has not been our starter all season --  From the stands he did not look that good.

Yes, he is now our quarterback and I support him 100%.  This note is not about him -- it's about people who want to use yesterday's game to criticize CNC for thinking KP is a better QB -- which I think a healthy KP is.

Yesterday's performance was not all that good.

On more than one occasion, he had receivers well behind the defensive back trying to cover them -- and he threw bad passes; from the stands it looked like he was lobbing the balls -- especially the one that was intercepted -- instead of throwing them. In fact he threw a lot of bad passes -- some high and exposing the receivers to crunching blows when they went up for them.

There was a bad drop or two -- but there were some very good catches -- of bad throws --  that really helped him out. And, he has yet to develop "pocket presence" -- the ability to understand he is about to be sacked; how many times has he fumbled because he did not see a hit coming?

To his credit, he did make some very good throws -- but some were to well covered and double covered receivers where the first response in the stands was "Don't" and then "Whew!, that was great". He lived dangerously and got away with it. I acknowledge it took talent to make those throws -- but that throwing talent was not evident throughout the game.

He still cannot fake in the pistol -- he is wooden and predictable. And, I think CNC really understood this as he used more pro-set out of the shotgun than the pistol.

RB is our QB and I will be in the stands screaming my lungs out for him against Oregon State. But, to see him as the second coming, or the first -- depending on your persuasion -- and to criticize CNC  for not seeing that, is wrong.

3. Where I Agree With the Criticism on the Choice of QB

 I think it was wrong to play KP against KSU and Cal -- not because RB is better, but because I think it wrong to play an injured player -- no matter how loud he claims to be OK. We all knew he was hurt and the coaches should have, too. 

And, wile I am on this theme -- I really think Ayers is hurt, too. Were I king of the world, I would send him to a competent doctor for a complete check AND not play him if he is hurt. I am upset that some here are spewing the "he's trying to protect himself for the draft" crap. That's unfair. That's an attack on his character and we have absolutely no basis to challenge his commitment or integrity.  He is a warrior. I think he is an injured warrior. 

4. Injuries, Injuries, Injuries

Are making me sick. Thigpen plays well and breaks a collar bone. Johnson is establishing himself as a very legitimate receiver and, he too, is hurt. Add that to the long list of starters and promising players who are hurt and you have to wonder -- what have we done to offend the football gods? Yes, injuries are a part of sports, but hey, come on -- we have had way more than our share. And, they are a major part of why we are inexperienced and under talented at key positions. We are simply not a good enough team to lose this many players.

In the stands, some were questioning our off season training. I assured them that our players got bigger, stronger and faster. That' snot it. Knees and bones cannot be trained into invulnerability. We are just getting thrown by the waves. And, it sucks.

4. I Really Do Not Want to Talk About the D 

I simply remain steadfast in my position that the hiring of a DeWayne Walker disciple was a bad move -- precisely because the apple does not fall far from the tree and that tree did not produce much D.

But, I have to disagree with some of what has been written, here, about some of our players. From the stands I saw Rahim make some very sure open field tackles on runners who were going full steam ahead because they had reached the secondary untouched. He seemed to be one of the only players on the D tackling.

And, from where I sat, it was clear that our LB's and DB's were having to make a lot of tackles because the D line was not touching anyone. The holes were huge.

Finally, Scott is a good QB -- made much better because he had all the time in the world to throw. From my seat, I could count several seconds of time. No DB can cover, effectively, that long. I focused for a while on our D line. They got handled, play after play. It was predictable. And, sad. They were trying hard, but the scheme was not working for them. If there was a scheme, at all.

We looked so confused out there -- our D was often not set -- players were looking at each other as if to say "what are we playing, now". And, this was not an Oregon team that didn't give time to set up. This was a team with far fewer dimensions and one that gave us plenty of time, between plays, to get set.

5. The Good? 

The team did not quit and neither did the fans.

I've read here that some were upset that the stands seemed quiet. I can say, from experience, that there are places in the stands from which you cannot judge the noise levels. The best way to know how loud things are is to be on the field (as I was lucky enough to be when I was a yell leader.) I know that the fans cause UA to take at least one penalty and call one time out -- and that they were having trouble with audibles.

The spirit really is there. People were standing -- throughout the game -- when Geoff called for them to stand. Some of us stood and hollered throughout the entire game.

Why is that important? Because, in my heart I know that, in times of deep disappointment we need to replenish ourselves by dipping into our passion buckets. Mine remains full. 

And, I'll be there Sat with a recovered voice and optimism that we will Beat the Beavers.

is more than the fact that we beat Texas. 

The difference is that CRN is not throwing his coordinators and position coaches under the bus.

Reporter Jim Vertuno, of the AP has a couple of interesting quotes from Brown that emphasize his approach to underperforming units. Repeating what he told his coaches Brown is quoted as saying:

I told them if one of your guys is playing bad, I can change them. If three or your guys are playing bad, I change you. I am ready to play each week.

And, 

I'm the CEO who's responsible for it. But, I expect Greg Davis to run the offense and get his coaches to get their players ready to play. I expect Will Mushcamp to run the defense and get his players, get his coaches to get the guys ready to play. ...  I tell them all the time, 'Get it fixed.' That's their job.

My first reaction to these statements was not positive. In recent years, we've had a head coach and a DC, who threw players under the bus; I think that is never appropriate.

But, I'm not so sure it's wrong for a head coach to call out his assistants. 

My sense is that it is counterproductive -- that it is divisive to make these statements, publicly. That these are things better said behind closed doors. And, I think Brown said them in a way that absolved himself of responsibility for the performance of the entire team. While acknowledging that he is the CEO, he seems to duck responsibility. Reminds me of the Enron trials in Houston where the higher ups took the "I'm so far up at the top that I don't know, and therefore I'm not responsible for, what's going on below me."

On the other hand, there are many here in our community who have been waiting for some strong sign from CRN that he recognizes that our DC and some of our position coaches are not getting the job done. 

My feeling is that CRN does not owe us a "sign" -- and that I trust he is putting the pressure on behind closed doors. 

And, that's just fine with me.

But, I'm curious to see how my BN brothers and sisters feel about Brown's approach as contrasted with CRN's.

sjh

PS. I'm hoping Brown pisses off Muschamp with this public finger pointing. I would really love to have him as our DC.

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

In his front page post, N. mentions a part of Jon Gold's article in which he discusses that, in practices, we are focusing on teaching our QB's footwork.

In the article, Coach Chow is quoted as blaming the move to the pistol as the culprit in the loss of accuracy in the passing game. 

It seems that our QB's, when in the pistol, have sloppy footwork -- which Chow has always seen as a byproduct of running out of gun type formations:

" ... that's why I've always been reluctant to go into the gun, because the footwork gets really lazy. Footwork is real lazy in the gun. I fought it for the longest time, until I realized you can't fight it anymore, because that's all high school teams do. It's huge. It's a big difference. Footwork is very lazy in the gun, but we opted for it, so we have to deal with it now."

(Emphasis added)

That makes a lot of sense to me. 

We have QB's, with the exception of Bell, who were recruited to play  in our  pro set offense.

But, because we had an O line that could not block well enough to open up a running game, we moved to the pistol. Now we can run, but our pro-set quarterbacks are having trouble throwing the ball accurately.

Add to that that our receivers cannot catch catchable balls. Why?

My theory, because we are choosing our receivers based upon how well they can block -- not on how well they can run routes, create separation, catch the ball and run. Don't think that's true? Take a look at how often we've commented about how well our WR's have been blocking downfield on long run plays. That's why they are playing. They can block.

I find a few take aways in the quote.

Continue reading this post »

This started off as a response to the front page article asking for suggestions on how to handle the hacks who irresponsibly attack all things UCLA. It got too long to put in the thread, so here it is:

1. Formal: No Weenies for You

I know, I keep repeating the same theme; I've been doing it for years. But, I really think the time has come for the AD to grow a pair and refuse to sanction/grant special access to people who claim to be journalists but don't practice responsible journalism.

We don't have to grant "on field access" to anyone with a tape recorder or pencil. In fact, I'm sure we don't. What do you think would happen if one of us were to ask for access to the press box or practice fields? We probably would not get in -- even though some of us are far better and more accurate sports writers.

A free press can write whatever it wants -- and that's the way it should be. But, there is no rule that says access should be free. As reporters, we earn our access. We must show ourselves to have insight, skill and integrity.

There is more to being a member of the press than simply having a press card. In fact, in this time of "new media", in this time of egalitarian access to distribution, the mere fact that one is employed by the print media says nothing about one's qualifications -- it simply says one gets paid. Unfortunately, the print media has no problems hiring hacks. 

We already limit who gets the free weenies. The policy seems to be "If you work for a newspaper or TV station, feed away." 

I think it's time to change that standard. It's time to refuse free access to those whose track record makes clear that they lack the skill, responsibility and integrity to earn the label "reporter".

Are we censoring them or their papers? Not at all. they can write away. Whatever they want. As irresponsible as they want to be. BUT, they can't do it on our dime or with our blessing.

Smarmy Simers has no right to confront CRN, in our home, with his rude, irrelevant, editorial comments. 

It's about time that DG stood up, not just for our coaches. players, and university BUT FOR THE PRESS. A strong stand against sloppy or biased journalism is a strong stand for the type of journalism we all want -- strong, sourced stories -- responsible stories that let the chips fall where they may.

I'm not calling for "pro-UCLA journalism". I'm calling for "real journalism". I just want accurate, meaningful reporting -- whether we look good or bad, I want a return to the type of journalism that we can all respect whether we like the stories or not.

2. Informal: Ridicule Is A Powerful Tool For Change

My life and work have been profoundly affected by the work and writings of the great community organizer, Saul Alinsky. For those of you who don't know Alinsky, may I suggest two of his books, Rules for Radicals and Reville for Racidals? I used both in my law school classrooms.

The seemingly powerless have power. And, nothing is more powerful than humor and ridicule. 

The "self important" cannot stand to be laughed at. And, neither can the institutions that employ them.

It's that simple. We can write all we want here -- but we are writing to ourselves.

What we need to do is make fun of the hacks -- do it in a very public and funny way. Do it in a classy way -- with real good humor. Call attention to what buffoons they are. Those who love to cast a harsh light on others hate when the light of ridicule lands on them.

There have already been the seeds of such an attack sown in some of yesterday's threads. It may be time to hone a few of those strategies and implement them.

I've written before about one of my favorite Alinsky campaigns. It was against Kodak -- a pillar of the Rochester Community (in the same way that the fishwrap deems itself a pillar of our community.)

It seems that Kodak had trouble hiring people of color. And, Alinsky represented people of color. 

Alinsky used a simple campaign, based on humor and ridicule to win a battle he could never have won with pickets and confrontation:

Kodak sponsored the much revered and honored local symphony. Every year, there was a gala kickoff concert. Patrons of the symphony, who sympathized with Alinsky's cause, donated tickets to the organizer. Alinsky let it be known that he held a sizable block of tickets, that he was going to donate them to poor people who would, thereby, be able to attend their very first concert. And, to make sure that they would not be hungry, that their stomachs would not rumble during the performance, he was going to host a big bean dinner for them. Full of beans, they'd attend with comfort and joy.

The plan was so funny that it received wide spread coverage. People were laughing at Kodak and the wealthy patrons of the arts. And, they could not stand the laughter.

The "threat" of having to sit next to gassed up "untouchables" mobilized the community and Kodak started to negotiate. 

I am sure that the creative minds at BN, the great artists, and the strong story tellers, can come up with campaigns -- rooted in humor and ridicule -- that so embarrass the fishwrap, the register and those who purport to be reporters for them, that they feel like the "fools" they really are.

Ridicule is powerful. It brings about change. 

Let's make fun of them. Relentless fun of them. Let's make them laughing stocks. They will change. And, even if they don't, we may have some fun of our own.

Let me start off by admitting my ignorance: I did not see one play of the Cal game. Not one.

Instead, I spent an incredible Saturday with my kid. Picked her up at UCSD, drove up the coast to Carlsbad, ate at a nice outdoor table at a "comfort food" bistro, and then went to the Outlet Mall and bought her stuff. A perfect day, indeed.

Well, not completely perfect. Every so often, when she was in a try on room, I got on the thread on my iPhone and followed the downward spiral of our football team.

I’ve made no effort to watch any of the game tapes. But, I’ve read everything on this board, including the threads; there is some very strong analysis and advocacy going on here -- top notch stuff. 

Avoiding the game tapes did not help. Ignorance is not bliss. I still feel immersed in the morass and one overriding thought seems to be weighing me down:

We’ve been here before. This is déjà vu of another kind. We are reliving last year’s basketball season -- except the drama is being played outdoors on a football field. The parallels are uncanny. Scary. 

1. We have a coach we love, one we want to succeed who, it appears, is not getting the job done. And, there are serious questions about the contributions, beyond recruiting, his assistant coaches are making.

In football, it’s easier to see the deficiencies. You have a coach in charge of individual positions and one for each side of the ball. The failures are obvious. The accountability more easily assessed.

Just as a righteous demand was made on CBH to shake up his staff, the demand has been made on CRN to do the same. In each case, the demand has been made with an eye to sparing the head coach and a belief that he is not being served, well, by his subordinates. Because each is a CEO, the ultimate responsibility rests on the top guy’s shoulders. If they do not change coaches, and the programs do not improve, the head guys will have to go.

And, that’s hard for me to say. I love both of these coaches and never want to see them leave. If they think staying the course is the right course, that’s their call. I want nothing more than for them to turn around, next year, and say "I told you so. I knew what I was doing. And, now we are in the promised land". But, without some changes, I’m afraid they won’t get there and they, too, will end up on the outside looking in. 

2. Both coaches lack talent and experience at key positions. And, to a certain extent, neither is at fault for the problem.

Last year CBH did not have a talented point guard. And, you cannot play basketball without a talented point guard.

CRN does not have a quarterback. Or an offensive line. Or a defensive line. We have talent but not experience. And, you cannot play football without talent at those spots.

CBH was in the same position. He was there because of one bad recruiting class and a bunch of early defections. 

CRN is there because the cupboards really were bare. And, it takes time to develop the "support staff" -- the O and D lines.

Interestingly, in both sports, size matters. And, size is, to a great extent, a function of age. To play well in CBH’s system, one must be bigger and stronger -- and 18 year old kids just out of high school need the time to develop those bodies. And, to play either line in football, one must be bigger and stronger -- and 18 year old kids just out of high school need to develop those bodies, too.

CRN is in a tough place. His older guys on the line, the guys with the bigger bodies, were not the most talented in the stable he inherited and, therefore, have little experience. Soon, he will have his recruits -- kids who have been here long enough to grow big and strong; if they fail, it will be on him. Until then, it’s not totally fair to judge him.

CBH’s teams failed for lack of a point guard.

CRN’s for lack of a quarterback. Sorry, but neither Kevin Prince nor Richard Brehaut, at this stage of their careers, is sufficiently good to lead an inexperienced, somewhat talented team to consistent victories.

I love Kevin Prince’s heart in the same way that I loved Kevin Craft’s heart. But, we have to remember that our oft injured QB has played very little football, on the practice field or in actual games, for the past 3 years. And, it shows. 

I think the move to the pistol, to take advantage of what he can do, was a very wise move. It showed a flexibility that distinguishes CRN from CBH (until CBH finally bit the bullet and decided to play some zone D.) 

The pistol was the right move for a strong and healthy Prince. He can run. He is fast. He  can make good reads. And, he did it well, until his knee injury.

I was at the WSU game. Yes, Brehaut helped put 42 points on the board, but it was clear that he was not a pistol QB. In fact, we ran many plays out of the shotgun or pro set. When he did run the pistol, he was not capable of the same level of "deception" that we got from Prince. Luckily, he was playing against WSU.

Like CBH, CRN has key position players who are not getting the job done. There is no supporting cast for the few players who are playing hard and playing well. I liken our starting receivers to one of our forwards -- whose name shall not be mentioned on BN again. They are not getting the job done. They are consistently letting us down and putting us in the hole. Yet, they continue to play.

And, therein lies the rub. At this point of the football season, we are at an identical point in which we found ourselves in the basketball season --

3. If we are to have any hope of winning, we need to take some risks. We need to shuffle our line-up, play some younger players, even if they are not ready, to see what they can do and, at worst, to give them experience for next year.

CBH was stubborn throughout most of the season. He would not change his line up or take the risks that would have followed playing very young. 

I can understand the position in which we put a coach. We demand wins for this season. We have expectations for improvement. Standards the coaches must meet. It’s hard, under that pressure, to take a risk.

CBH did not make radical changes.

I’m hoping CRN will.

But, if we want our coaches to make radical mid season-changes,  we have to give them the flexibility to take the risks inherent in changing schemes and talent -- or in taking bigger steps like the immediate firing of position coaches and coordinators. 

You cannot tell CRN to take those risks and then maintain your expectations from the beginning of the season. The changes may well bring about benefits. They may not. But, we have to empower a  coach to make radical mid-season shifts by giving him the freedom to fail. Without the freedom to fail, there will be no progress.

I am all for getting rid of Bullough, now. Enough is enough. But, the risk is that we will get worse. Can a new coach really bring in a new scheme, quickly? Or, is the assumption that we need a new scheme wrong. Maybe, what we need is a new philosophy, one that plays the old scheme aggressively -- like we did against Texas and Houston. Same players, same plays, except no bend and break on 3rd downs. I’m willing to take that risk. I don’t think Bullough deserves to keep his job.

But, I vehemently disagree with those who think Coach Chow is in the same boat. He is not. He has done everything under the sun to create an offense that features the "talent" he has. He is not responsible for the O line. He is not responsible for the receivers (the unit with the most potential and least performance on the team). He cannot help it if Franklin fumbles.

But, he can influence who plays. And, he has to stop playing the brick layers.

It is time for him to take some new risks -- to play young. More of Jones, some of Bell, more of Smith (who isn’t young in the age sense, just new to this team) and less of Embry, Rosario, and Harkey.

There are many more parallels to where we were half way into our basketball season. Embarrassing losses. Lack of discipline. Kids laughing on the bench when we were being blown out. Players seemingly not playing to their potential (or, maybe more likely, players whose potential was over rated). And, a frustrated fan base calling for change.

The question we face now is the same question we faced during basketball season. Are we willing to make some radical changes at the risk of losing the remainder of our games?

During basketball season, I was willing to take that risk -- in part because I believed that we might, in fact, be much better had we made some of those changes.

During this football season, I’m not so sure. The game is more complex. We are talking about changes in 11 positions on each side of the ball and the dynamics that accompany each change.

But, my bottom line is clear: I still trust CRN and CNC. 

Both of these guys are ultra - competitive and neither wants to lose any more than we do. You do not see them laughing on the bench. CRN is direct and honest with us. He calls a turd a turd, not a flower in progress. 

My solution: I want to give each the freedom to fail -- which is the ultimate freedom to take risks and make changes -- NOW. 

CRN and CNC -- let it rip. In my eyes, you have nothing to lose.

sjh

PS. One off topic note: I didn’t have the time to post last week, after the WSU game how much I enjoyed the company of Brit and Mexi. Brit graciously invited us to his tailgate party and made us breakfast. Mexi was my seat mate. Two great guys that I would not have met but for BN.