Here is a link to a great story about Kareem and a movie he is making. I don't know how to import the story so if one of the editors could follow the link there is a front page story for all of Bruin Nation to see. Click here to go to the story, or use the link below

http://jewishnerd.com/2011/07/03/the-rabbi-and-the-basketball-player-an-amazing-story-of-survival/

The story is about a Rabbi in Israel that Kareem's Dad rescued during WWII. The story was given to me by a friend who is a minister.

Another reason to be proud that you are a Bruin.

Got a chance to discuss UCLA football with my son the sports writer at Christmas. My son writes for MaxPrepSports.com and was the prep sports editor for the Oakland Tribune. He's seen a lot of prep sports over the last fifteen years. Although a Wisconsin grad (we have no J-School) he grew up watching Bruin football from section 28.

We always have a lively discussion about football and lately recruiting. Wisconsin is very similar to UCLA in that it's an acedemic school that views football as an extra. The Badgers' goal every year is to vie for the Big 10 title, shoot for the Rose Bowl, play in a decent bowl game, and every so often sniff the scent of the BCS Championship.

This year's discussion centered around what is wrong with UCLA. David grew up in the Inland Empire, knows the area, spent a lot of time in the OC. and knows the power schools for football recruiting in the LA area. His major contention during our discussion is that UCLA is drastically doing something wrong either in recruiting or coaching to be so bad.

UCLA is in a hot bed of high school foorball. There are the traditional football powerhouses that crank out recruits, i.e. Mater Dei, Bishop Amant, Servite, Long Beach Poly etc. There are also hundreds of other high schools that churn out league MVP's, All-League players and other good prospects.

The fact that UCLA can't come up with twenty or so athletes a year and play decent football is baffling. I know that some schools have a pipeline to SUC but there should be enough decent players at other schools. I lived in the Inland Empire for 20 years. During that time Fo-Hi was a power house as was Eisenhower in Fontana. The population of the area has grown as has the number of high school football players. Look at the number of schools in the OC.

CRN has made tremendous inroads in recruiting but the fact remains, we can't put 22 players out on the field that can win more than 4 or 5 games a year. We both found it unbelievable, that we can't find enough Pac !0 caliber players to win football games. We can't find a decent QB who can throw the ball and make plays. Even freakin' Wazzu has a better QB than we do.

What are we doing wrong?

Continue reading this post »

  USA Today had a great story in today's edition in regards to College Football coaches' salaries. I'll include the link because I couldn't figure out how to post the whole story. Here's the link:

www.UsaToday.com/sports/college/football/2010-coaches-contracts-table.htm

What jumped out at me was the fact that Tedford at Cal was making about twice as much in base salary as Neuheisel is making. Why is it that Cal can spend twice as much for a football coach as UCLA? Aren't both schools part of the University system and as such shouldn't they be payinf the same for a coach?

   When CRN was named head coach back in 2008, he faced a unique situation upon assuming his duties. He fac

ed a situation that rarely confronts a new head coach. I think understanding what Rick walked into goes along way as to explaining where our program is and where it is heading.

  When a new head is named one of two situations exists. Either the old coach retires or he is fired. Each of these situations presents a stream of events that plays out for  the coach.

   In most cases, when a coach retires, a successor is named from the assistant coaches to replace the retiring head coach. The program is usually left intact with the new coach retaining the old staff and leaving in place an infrastructure that maintains what the previous coach has built. Over time the new coach either doesn't change anything or slowly puts his imprint over the system.

   An example of that was when Donahue took over when Dick Vermeil left to go to Philly. Donahue was a young assistant who knew the program, knew the school and left things as they were and built the program over twenty years. When it came time for his retirement, our AD looked around for a new coach from the outside and finally settled on Toledo, who was an assistant under Donahue.

   Toledo knew the program and inherited a program that was in place for twenty years. Over time, Toledo but his  stamp on the program and ultimately was blown out by newly appointed AD DG. When it was time to pick a new coach, DG decided to go outside of the UCLA program and picked CTS to head the program. Thus began our problems.

   When a program decides to go outside of it's stable of coaches for a new head coach, two sources, maybe three open up provide a candidate. A current college coach can be named or a coach from the pros can be chosen. In some instances a retired coach is coaxed out retirement to lead the program. Usually that coach has led the program before and is walking back in, i.e. Bill Snyder at K-State.

   Sometimes, a school goes outside the box and gets a JC coach or even a high school coach, like Notre Dame did with Davies. Most of the time this approach doesn't work.

  When an experienced outside coach, either college or from the pro's arrives at a new school, he brings with him his team of coaches. Think Lame at SUC. He arrived with a DC, recruiter and himself. They hit the ground running.  Most of the time a coach from the pros arrives with a core group of coaches already to go.

  When CTS arrived in Westwood, he had no experience as a head coach nor was he familiar with the program he was about to take over. His only familiarity with the program was as a player not as a coach. Since he had been an asst. in the pros, he arrived with a few coaches but nobody had had experience in the college ranks. It was all new to CTS and staff.  We all know how this story ends.

  Enter CRC. Rick enters Westwood fresh from Baltimore, where he was the OC. He had been out of the college ranks for a few years. He arrives with out a staff and walks into a unique situation. A situation so unique that some of our current problems stem from it.

  First, Rick walks in where the DC has been tauted for the head coaches job. Basically, CRN is asked, begged or coerced into keeping Walker because our recruiting class is going to walk if he doesn't keep Walker around. During the selection process, CNC's name is bantered about. A lot of speculation centeres around what a coup it would be to get CNC and rub it in the faces of the Trogans. Rick picks Norm as OC and we all cheer but what did we really get?

  Rick had a few vacancies on his staff that he went outside of the program to fill but for all intent and purposes, he stuck with thecore group of CTS's staff. Over the last three years he's had the opportunity to name staff but has chosen to elevate from within.

   I spoke of what a unique situation Rick walked into. I think of it as if UCLA was an expansion franchise not an intact football program. KD over his five year tenure basically blew up the program that Donahue built and Toledo inherited. Recruiting was spotty at best. Coaching staff sucked. Alumni relationships rocky. All of this befell CRN upn arriving in Westwood.

  Like an expansion franchise, CRN'sfirst priority has been upgrading player personnel.He has built a solid system of recruiting and the dividends are beginning to pay off. He is building a solid infrastructure for our program to thrive in the future. Like most expansion franchises, his on field success hasn't been spectacular but he shows signs of improvement.

  The one area that needs improvement is the coaching staff. When you are trying to rebuild and create a program, some areas are neglected or slighted in favor of top priority areas. CRChas had to make do with a collection of his own guys,mostly selected from the asst.   hold overs from the previous regime. It's now time for Rick to assemble his own staff, one that reflects his philosophy and football style.

  Look at the history of most expansion teams, some take a while to mature while others never do. John McKay while at Tampa Bay said "I had a five year plan..because I had only a five year contract". I hope that Rick is allowed the necessary time rebuilt and recreate our football program. He's on the right track but unfortunately, success is measured in the Wins column. Give him time and I think we will have a program we can all be proud of.

  After Thursday night's debacle there were several comments that UCLA needs to change it culture if we are to win football games. I'd like to toss out some thought to spark debate. These thoughts are my own and my son's. I'm nearly 65 and have followed UCLA football all my life. I'm a UCLA grad, class of 67 and lifetime Alum. My son is a sports writer who has covered prep sports in Cal. and Nevada for over 15 years and currently is a columnist for MaxPrepSports.com. For twenty years I held season tickets to UCLA football and my son grew up in section 28 of the Rose Bowl.

  I can remember during the 60's, when I was in college, it was said in regards to Civil Rights that one could not change the way people think and behave. We changed the laws but even today bigotry prevails. That being said, I'd like to throw out a thought. This I think, is the biggest stumbling block to UCLA having a successful football program. It's not recruiting, coaching or game plans. It's the underlining theme of UCLA football. I've witnessed it as a kid, as a student, as a season ticket holder and as an Alum. I even seen it here on BruinsNation. It's the idea that no matter what we do, we are the anti-USC.

  Every thing we do in our Football Program has to be the opposite of what SUC does. We always want to do what is diametrically opposite of SUC. We are rightly proud of having a squeeky clean program but we go overboard to the point that it hurts us as a football program.

   We do not pay our coaches as well as most programs. Our athletes are academically and morally superior to SUC's. Every measure of our program is measured and has to be the opposite of what SUC does. This is a cultural attitude that has stymied our program for 50 years that I know of.

  Here on BruinsNation, we obsessed more on SUC's sanctions than we did with our program. We patted our selves on the back, rightly so, when CRN disciplined players or dismissed them from the program but it was always in comparison to what SUC would have done.

  I think this attitude is pervasive in Morgan Center and in UCLA's administration. We are always trying to be the anti-SUC. Only in one area is this attitude not pervasive and that is in our Basketball program. During the 50+ years that our football team has taken a backseat to SUC, our BB program set the standard for college hoops. We were blessed with the Coach, the exact opposite of Cheaty Petey and all the football coaches before him.

  The fact that we are known nationally as a basketball school seems to have overshadowed our commitment to our Football program. Since SUC has basically sucked at basketball, our BB sucess has given us another opportunity to shine and be the anti-SUC. We have been successful and have run a clean program at the same time.

   Another aspect of our on going football culture is something I have heard countless times chatting with my son and his sportwriter friends. There is a perception among observers and even recruits that our players are soft. Something happens to a kid once he shows up in Westwood. He embraces that super cool So. Cal. lifestyle and it begins to effect his attitude and game.

   We have a beautiful campus, in a nice part of town near the beach. Compare that to other schools who have great football programs but are located in the armpit of the world. We have a laid back campus atmosphere not conducive to creating a hard nosed football team.

   We can't change how nice our campus is or where it's located .We need to create a toughness in our program that over comes the laid backness that makes for a soft program. CRN and staff along with Morgan Center needs to toughen up the atmosphere that surrounds our program and makes our athletes tougher.

   These will be hard things to change because they have in grained for as long as I can remeber. The cultural atmosphere can be changed but it will be a long hard process. It is a process that will take cooperation from the administration, alumni, and football coaching staff. We have examples of other programs that have been able to do it and now are successful football programs. I only have to look at my son's alma mater, Wisconsin, or my wife's, K-State as shining examples of schools that have shed their old culture and have become winning football programs

I was asked to FanPost this by several people after posting it yesterday after reading about our recent suspensions.

I’ll wait and see the who’s, what’s and why’s and how CRN responds to whatever developes. I’d like to take the time to vent about what I see wrong with the UCLA Football program.

The problem predates CRN. I don’t remember any  player suspensions during the Donahue era. I do recall a player who was on the UCLA football team who was accused of murder and subsequent information came out that he was illiterate and how did he gain admission to our fine school.

Things seemed to get out of hand during Toledo’s regime. We had the handicap parking scandal, a QB with a string of DUI’s and a running back with a new car he didn’t pay for. Toledo was mainly let go because we thought the program was getting out of hand even though Toledo racked up a significant amount of wins.

We got a new AD and like the new sheriff in town he wanted to clean up Dodge. A new football coach was brought in and the program was cleaned up. Unfortunately, we didn’t win football games and out went the coach.

I’ve had an on going discussion about UCLA football with my son who is a sports writer  for MaxPrepSports.com and who was the prep sports editor for the Oakland Tribune. He keeps telling me that high school athletes have changed over the last ten years.

Previously, an athlete would parlay his talents into  a college education. If he was drafted by the Pros then that was an extra. Today kids come to college majoring in Pro football and basketball.

They arrive on campus with a secret plan to turn pro and all they want to do is show case their talents to the scouts in the stands. If they play on a winning team all the more pub they receive and the higher their draft status. These kids aren’t looking to get a college education that will be useful in later life or when they blowout their knee.

Last year for example ,we lost a running back because he wasn’t getting PT and he went elsewhere to showcase his talent. When you have a group of Prima Donnas with individual agendas, it’s hard to build a winning atmosphere.

College football changed with the advent of the BCS. The goal of most college programs use to be to win your conference and play in a Bowl game. For a Pac-10 team it was the Rose Bowl. Other teams the Cotton Bowl, Sugar Bowl or Orange Bowl. That was the highlight of your season. The national champion was crowned by pollsters and while people weren't happy, that's how it was!

Now we have the BCS and conference realignment and super conferences etc and it's killing college athletics. Colleges suffer and college athletes play the game and either take money under the table or leave early to cash in on the $$$$$ being thrown around. Programs invest time, energy and money developing players. A player leaves early and torpedos a program. One-and-dones and football players leaving early have killed programs.

I say a  student leaving early should be required to repay his scholarship. Give him 5 years after leaving to pay back his education. I had to pay back my student loans for college and grad school, why not an athlete who leaves for the pros?

UCLA needs to get back to the values, attitudes and mindset that made us the greatest college athletic program in the country. It’s not about how many 5 star, 4 star players we can recruit. It’s about character and hard work. Rick knows this. He was a walk on and busted his ass to make it to the starting line up and win a Rose Bowl. I applaud him for disciplining players when they have broken the rules. CRN gets UCLA Football. CRN sells UCLA football.

I am proud as hell to say I am a lifetime Alumni of one of the greatest universities in the world. I wear those four letters with pride. I’ve seen the dark side. I was a member of their faculty. I heard their President tell the faculty how their school was funded and how important football wins and NC’s were to maintaining their financial structure. That’s why I proudly donate to the UCLA Fund.

I would just like us to win a decent amount of football games each season, go to a bowl game and maybe compete for a NC. But I want to do it with a clean program and with athletes that represent those four letters with pride, like I do!