SB Nation User Blog: uclahy

No more one and dones

uclahy — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 01:20:49 -0000

I am happy for Kevin Love and his future in the NBA. No criticism or regrets about his effort, spirit or personal contributions. He was great in every way, but the whole concept of these one and doners leaves a sour taste in my mouth even though K Love's situation was the best possible good example of a one and doner. He was classy in every way.

But is this what we want as our program, UCLA? Just keep reloading fantastic one and doners and say, wow, what a great college we have when in fact we're really just a revolving door, minor league player development league for the NBA?

I mean, how many classes does a one and doner have to take before he moves on the pros? Two quarters worth, maybe? How many units is that? 20% of what's needed to graduate? A guy's on campus barely 7 months and he's a "UCLA" legend? I don't know.

I just don't like it. To me, it takes the student out of student athlete. These guys are just marking time, going through the motions. Yeah, I'm gonna finish my degree. Of course, I'm gonna make a few million dollars before I get around to doing it, and yeah, I have over three years of classes to take, part time, and I haven't even picked a major yet, but yeah, I'm gonna do that. Sometime. Someday. Really.

Star Trek teaches us that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. Look what is happening to our "team" and with it the team concept.

Two players are already gone, two more are on the verge and our only salvation is that we hope our new recruits will be so good we can just reload, throw UCLA on ther shirts, and we have another UCLA "team." Of course, if they're really good enough to take us back to the Final Four next year they'll all probably be one and done, too. And we can recruit more "UCLA" one and doners. Great, right?

And then we can hang a banner high, number 12, that says UCLA for sure, and say we're Number 1, but of what? Something we still call "college" basketball when our players don't even stay long enough to get an AA degree?

Funny, in this last tournament, Western Kentucky and Drake and Xavier and all those other mid majors reminded me a lot more of the old John Wooden teams I worshipped than any team that just relies on some big one and doner. And I don't think the Pyramid of Success includes cutting corners, recruiting hot shot one and doners, and doing whatever it takes to get to the pinnacle.

I remember something about success being the self-satisfaction of knowing you've done your best, as a team and as a person, and not just winning at all costs.

Call me old fashioned. Some will call me naive. College sports is Big Business. Fine, but the emphasis should still be more on college than money, right? Can't we win with men that really want a degree? Or even more important, wouldn't we be prouder if we had teams that really were teams and not just a short stop for some guy on the way to his "one and doner's" road to personal riches and fame?

Can BH or any college coach only win the big one by sacrificing the school's integrity? We can only win it all with lottery picks? If so, I'd rather not, thank you.

Just food for thought.

Go Bruins!

Did DG say no to RN for OC when KD asked him to do so?

uclahy — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:12:50 -0000

Just read this claim by a poster on the "Zone" named JRW. He makes the claim as part of his criticism of DG for prior non-support of the football program. Said this happened around the time when DG would not give KD enough money to keep "good" assistant coaches like Cable. Something else I never heard before.

Anybody who can shed light on these claims? Taken together they imply DG had such a tight reign on KD that it made it much harder for KD to succeed. Makes no sense to me at all. Hard to believe. If true, does anyone know if it was Carnesale or DG or both? How could a coach succeed with such non-support and why would an AD ever act like that? Again, makes no sense to me. Hard to believe, but if someone knows the truth I would appreciate it.

Yes, it is ancient history now, but it would shed some more light on whether KD was given a fair opportunity to improve his offense as he saw fit. You all know I love the RN hire. I just want a "handle" on the truth, whatever it is.

Neuheisel [the new little house]; the right choice for the right reasons.

uclahy — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:30:15 -0000

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

While DG and the Chancellor necessarily had to investigate the nature and scope of RN's past NCAA violations and job histories, some are not satisfied. They talk as if RN still has a Scarlet Letter sewn on his suit jacket, like a big C for cheat or F for felon or D for the devil.

I guess they never read the original book, a classic on intolerance. Or maybe they never heard of the words penitence or redemption. Or maybe they understand something about the significance of 51 "secondary" violations or the ramifications of betting in a private, friendly March Madness pool that somehow mark someone as especially evil and incorrigible forever.

And maybe they have a point about RN lying about "talking" with the 49ers. I'm sure when you're thinking of leaving your own swell job and getting another one somewhere else and leaving your company holding the bag,the first thing you should do is to tell your boss, "Hey, boss, I'm trying to get out of here. Do you mind?" But how many of us do, and if we did, how many of us would still be employed as a reward for our honesty?

As someone with some life experience, and who's been a fan of UCLA sports for over 50 years, literally, I think I know RN's biggest problem in the past. Of course, it's my own speculation and nothing more. I think he was the "fast track," smarty-pants, new kid on the block who all the good old boys loved to hate. He was his own worst enemy, making himself the proverbial "lightning rod" who other coaches wanted to get. And they did. And he paid for it, as he should have.

"It was beauty killed the beast," and most likely young hubris that smote RN at Colorado. At Washington they really had no good cause to fire him as proven by the $4.5 million settlement in his favor. But hubris is not evil and it is something that people usually grow out of, particularly after they have suffered indignity as a result. I would say RN has so suffered, both personally and to his reputation, tremendously. And I trust that both DG and the Chancellor who met with him made that judgement already, too.

I don't know RN personally and most likely never will. But as a long-time Bruin fan I know his story well, as all of us do, who followed UCLA football in the early 80's. His tale was almost legendary as a quarterback who came from nowhere to Rose Bowl greatness. He was a "lock" to replace TD until TD chose Bob Toledo over him to replace Homer Smith as the OC. When Rick did the honorable thing and went his own way after that, I believe there were many like me who were sorely disappointed at his tremendous success first at Colorado, then Washington. Because he was supposed to be winning those games at UCLA, not somewhere else. He was Ricky, our guy, not theirs. And when he fell, we fell, too, because he was one of us.

I cannot overemphasize how thrilled I am for RN personally and the for the Bruin family in general, that he is back where he belongs. This is not, as some have falsely claimed, UCLA holding its nose and putting winning ahead of ethics, or worse, copying SUC and PC. This is a classic case of someone doing the right thing, putting RN's transgressions into proper perspective and looking beyond cheap labels and character assassination into the true substance of a person.

Think about it. If RN did not want to live up to the highest standards he could have gone elsewhere, either in the pros or college. SMU of all places supposedly offered him $2 million dollars to be their coach. Whether it's true or not begs the question. RN's dream is to be here at UCLA where he faces the most scrutiny possible from not only the Chancellor and DG but the Pac 10 and the NCAA. What does that tell you?

I am not here to canonize RN. Some, for example, say his teams get weaker over time or he's too "soft" with his players [playing too much guitar] and loses their respect. Maybe that's true. If so, he's certainly older, wiser and humbler now and can avoid those problems with proper focus like any other qualified coach.

In short, in my opinion, RN has been the best candidate for Head Coach at UCLA for many, many years. Many of us have hoped for years this day would come. I believe he can be another Vermeil or Prothro or even, heaven forbid, Red Sanders. Why, I may even see a National Championship at UCLA before I die! [That was not a fumble in Miami in '98, damn those refs! And no, I don't actually remember the one and only in '54. I was only 5.]

Who knows? We all will soon enough. Today, all I can say is, thank goodness RN's time has finally come. AND THERE IS A GOD!

Chow Would Be Great!

uclahy — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:37:59 -0000

[I originally posted this as a comment, but it's so long I made it a diary, if that's OK.]

WHY ALL THE CHOW HATING? HE WOULD BE GREAT!

The guy is obviously a brilliant offensive genius. He has coached at wonderful, successful places, BYU, SC and the Tennessee Titans. He has groomed many of the finest QBs in college football history and has done fabulous with Vince Young who now is an awesome professional passer.

He has been a coach in football for over 30 years, but he's never been a HC so he's not good enough for UCLA because KD was not a HC? WTF kind of non-sequitur is that? KD could not carry Norm Chow's jock strap in terms of football coaching. Jeez.

With Chow, BYU was fabulous with countless great QBs's in a second tier conference. At SC he made Carson Palmer bloom from mediocrity. And what about a guy named Matt Leinart who is a pale image of himself in college without Chow? Are you guys nuts. CHOW IS WHY SC WON ALL THOSE FRICKING GAMES WITH CARROL! GIVE ME A BREAK!

CHOW IS THE BEEF!

Now why is he supposed to be so "bad."

1. He's been passed over by other schools, like Stanford when some AD genius thought Walt Harris of Pitt was a better pick for Stanford. So because others are stupid somehow Chow isn't qualified?

2. There must be something wrong with him b/c he's never been picked as a HC before, a corollary of the first dumb argument. Without getting too personal, I'm 58. I've worked my job almost 30 years and for some dumb-ass reason no one has annointed me to be a top level supervisor in my office. Does that mean I'm no good, or could it be SHIT HAPPENS, that all too often stupid politics or personality issues [wasn't a kiss ass, wasn't a "great" player, is Asian, who knows, who cares?] outweigh promoting the right people?

3. Chow has a bad personality, can't get along with others. Yeah, like fricking Pete Carroll! WTF, I thought KD was bashed for years b/c he was good with birthday cards and got along with everyone but he was incompetent, while Howland has been praised because he's great even though he might be just a little rude to other people. DUH!

Who the F... does the HC have to kiss the ass of anyway?

4. Chow can't recruit! I love this BS. Every top QB prospect in the nation will be begging to come to UCLA if Chow is the HC. This is the most important recruiting factor for any team. How many teams sucked this year after their first string QB went down for a half, let alone a game?
Ben Olson is the only high profile QB prospect we have had in years and of course KD destroyed him with his horrible version of the WCO. With Chow we'll recruit 2-3 Ben Olsons or better every year! For the rest, I think most will be attracted when we keep getting the best QBs. A half-way decent recruiting coordinator can handle the rest.

5. Chow is too old. Right. Maybe Joe Pa and Papa Bowden are now, but at a healthy 62 Chow should have a good ten years in him if he wants. I'd be thrilled with 5 from anybody after what we've been through. But he is too old to go after an NFL job after UCLA, so maybe we'll just get the best the guy has to offer til the end of his great career? I bet he'd give his left you know what to beat little Petey 5 years in a row and show that he was the man behind SUC's success and not smiley boy.

6. Chow will be the shill for a future Walker hire. I doubt that after 30 plus years as an assistant coach that Chow as HC is going to put up with any assistant's BS. Plus, assuming the rumors that DW is going to be the heir apparent, he would have to be a mad man to do anything to upset his relationship with Chow by undermining him b/c Chow could fire him at any time for such BS. The reality is IF CHOW IS NOT SUCCESSFUL, DW WILL NOT BE HIS SUCCESSOR. HE WOULD BE PART OF THE FAILED REGIME AGAIN. And if DW's defense doesn't measure up CHOW WILL FIRE HIM TO GET SOMEONE WHO CAN long before then.

I am sick of these paranoid arguments that are nothing more than mindless mental masturbation that hides the obvious.

OUR MAIN PROBLEM IS A TERRIBLE OFFENSE AND CHOW IS AN OFFENSIVE GENIUS. If he wants to keep DW, that's fine with me. Any reasonable person would have to agree the Bruin defense improved markedly under DW in just a year! And if Chow wants to dump him, that's fine with me. IT'S UP TO CHOW, THE HC.

DG, may of course, pick someone else because he thinks they are better, but if he picks NORM CHOW, genius assistant coach for 30+ years, I WILL BE THRILLED!

It's the record, stupid!

uclahy — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:52:13 -0000

I have been among those who have wanted KD gone for some time, and I still do. 13-9 was a "gutty" win, but it continued the water torture for another year.

I also applaud those who have criticized KD objectively, pointing out the frustrating inconsistency of his record, the poor preparation and the continued pitiful performance against inferior teams.

I am bothered, however, by the personal nastiness and characterizations by some towards KD which insult his intelligence, his demeanor or attitude. If I'm honest, I've probably been guilty of this myself in the past.

Now that the writing is on the wall, we all need to cut it out. No one should be happy with anyone's firing, even when that person deserves it. Particularly in this case, no one can question KD's commitment to UCLA or his heart.

The bottom line is that despite his good points: he has cleaned up the program, shown high integrity and his teams usually, not always, play their best against the toughest teams, his overall winning record is one of mediocrity. In other words, there are three primary reasons to fire KD. His record. His record. His record.

With the exception of the 10-2 season [with it's 2 crushing losses and 3-4 miracle wins based on throwing out the game plan in desperation], he is a .500 coach over a five year span. That's just not good enough, or should not be good enough at UCLA, unless one believes that is the best one can expect here by any coach, a premise I find baseless.

We can argue about the reasons for this average record. And that may help in identifying what qualities we seek in the next coach, but the reasons are secondary to the performance on the field by the team, its wins and its losses.

I think the reasons boil down to one. KD has been inflexible. He has committed himself to the WCO all five years under all circumstances even when his numerous coaches and players have not been able to implement it. Nor has he shown flexibility in identifying players or at least experimenting with them in even trying times.

Instead of making his system fit the players, he has tried to make the players fit his system. Bottom line: the players can't play, they can't just be athletes when the system is too complicated or requires too much finesse.

Is there really any question that the Bruins need a simplified offense that let's the players play? I don't think so. Is there any question that Ben Olson is a misfit in the WCO? Is there any question that at some point in their careers Matthew Slater should have been given a chance as a running back or Osaar Rashan given a chance at QB?

These are but the tips of the iceberg that make the KD's lack of flexibility or imagination or experimentation, so mystifying and frustrating.

This is Terry Donahue football at its best/worst. I suffered for 20 years with that man who, again, despite being True Blue, got less out of his soon-to-be NFL players than any UCLA coach in history.

Think about it. How many of the current UCLA players are going on the NFL? Not nearly as many as Terry had. And no, the lesser talent is not a justification for keeping KD; that's on him, too. And the talent has been more than enough to beat the vast majority of our competition.

We've suffered 5 years with TD's replica. He comes frustratingly close to winning games he shouldn't [ASU with an inexplicably inexperienced OR at QB and a walk-on RB] and loses horribly to inferior competition. My head and my heart can't take it any more. Believe me.

Yes, fire KD, for his record, for his record, for his record. Period.

Don't Give Up on Medlock!

uclahy — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 08:59:32 -0000

Damn! Medlock lost his shot at the Heisman when he kicked two gimme FGs wide right. But don't lose hope. He may still be invited to New York for the final five and that free dinner.

Tedford made the better halftime adjustment when he spread jelly on Marshawn Lynch's jersey at halftime. How else to explain UCLA's gutless, wimpy-ass, second-half, arm-tackling?

Can you blame the coaches when veteran receivers drop TD passes right on the money or your inexperienced QB throws brick picks in the redzone or your Heisman PK whiffs two FGs? Whose playing at the next level? Longshore or PC? Lynch or Markey? Jackson or Taylor? How can't you blame the coaches when the same mistakes are made game after game?

Walker is a brilliant defensive coach who learned from his mistakes. The good news is, that's why he switched from man to man vs WSU to zone vs Cal. The bad news is that he played the man too tight and the zone too soft. So we got burned both times bad deep in both games. Maybe he'll get it just right the next time. Ya' think?

Remember when Matt Moore and a bunch of other UCLA players left early on their own after a year with KD and some people said they were quitters and we were better off without them? Who beat USC last week? Who's visiting us this week? Who beat out Mike Riley to replace Bob Toledo? Are we better off now, or would we better off if we had ... just kept Toledo.

On a night we ran up over 500 plus yards in total offense and had no sacks, the two coaches you can't blame for this loss are Coletto or Svoboda. That leaves ... Of course, it would still be nice if we could run around end just once.

UCLA beats Notre Dame if we use the little swing passes out of the backfield and/or Chase Moline and Pitre to run it three times like we did tonight on our last series of that game. The failure to do either at ND remains even more inexplicable.

I still don't understand why KD opened the playbook up for PC from the beginning and never did it for BO.

William Snead is a beast at TE. Why don't we throw more to him?

Bad teams lose games like this where they outplay the other team overall but never finish their drive, or finish off the other team's drive, or never finish the game. They always come "close," just miss or grab air any time the game is on the line. The devil as always is in the details.

Who do we miss more? DO, ML or MJD? I say MJD. With him and a healthy BO we beat Cal, ND and WU, because we finish.

At this rate we will be lucky to be 5-7 with a win over ASU, maybe. 6-6 would take wins over ASU and OSU. Good grief. Most likely 4-8. Notice how I left SUC out completely?

Was last year's 10-2 an overachieving team? Yes. That's why KD got PAC 10 coach of the year. Is this year's an underachieving team at anything less than 7-5? Absolutely! What should he get for that?

Is UCLA the only school in 1A to win 20 in a row and not win a National Championship? Probably not, but it sure seems that way.

Ever notice how Pete Carrol and Charlie Weiss always go for it on 4th down whenever they're in the "Medlock zone," the other team's 20-40, and they almost always make it, building up almost insurmountable early leads? Didn't they learn to be more conservative on 4th down from their days in the NFL? Oh, college isn't the same as pro?

Greatest coaches in UCLA football history: Red Sanders, the legend. Tommy Prothro, very good but got out before it got bad. Dick Vermeil, very good but left too early. Bob Toledo, very good offensively, but streaky. Terry Donahue, the best mediocre can get, and the father of KD who, unfortunately, has been below average, save last year. So with very few exceptions we've been suffering a long time, Bruin fans.

I know. I've been a fan, honestly, since 1956, when I was seven. I've lived through it all, year by year, decade by decade, and most of it's been, frankly, brutal. This year has been no exception, save for the first 59 1/2 minutes at ND. Never been prouder to be a Bruin, but these f***ing moral victories are no substitute for finishing! We should beat OSU. We should beat ASU. We must beat SUC! This team must finish 7-5 or it's coaches shouldn't!

Go Bruins! Beat SUC!

We can't fire KD now.

uclahy — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 05:41:31 -0000

I am no apologist for KD. I have already voiced my disappointment with his playcalling since Washington. But now is not the time to even think about firing him. Right now, I am more concerned about him saving the team from itself.

I was never more proud of our team in a losing effort than after the last ND game. They played magnificently. After the WSU loss I am not so proud. No question some of our kids quit today. Some on defense, many more on offense.

Of course, it's easy to blame KD. He quit on them by playing not to lose at ND, right? And their morale is his responsibility, right? To be sure. But the worst thing to do would be to give in to the quitters by getting rid of KD now. That would reward the bad players for not being true Bruins. It would do more harm than good to our program and to their character to even think of it now.

Ironically, I think there was more fire in KD today than during any game in his career at UCLA. I think he rightfully called out his players to stand up and make plays at halftime and many of them chose to lay down and hope he gets fired. I'm not saying all, just some. And that's shameful.

This is what got Bob Toledo fired more than anything. It was obvious he had lost control, that the whole team had quit on him. This most likely is what will happen to KD if he can't rally the team.

I hope he can. I hope he does. I hope he sits the quitters and suits up the never-say-diers and whoops the rest of our schedule, especially SUC. But more important than winning is never quitting. And some of our Bruins quit today, early and often. And for that they should never be rewarded.

This is the kind of season when boys learn if they are men or not on the field. Everybody's tough when they're winning, when they're undefeated, when everybody sings their praises. But the men are the ones who'd rather puke than miss a tackle, or a block, or an assignment, or a down, or quit. The men are the one's who sell out on every play even after they're run over in the mud. It's time for KD to sort the wheat from the chaffe and to see if he can be a real coach and turn around this team and get them to play to the limits of their ability and not their fickle fans or press clippings.

It took years for the greatest coach of all time, John Wooden, to become that great coach at UCLA. I'm not saying KD will ever be a JW or even a Ben Howland, but I know he's not a quitter and now he needs to teach his players not to be one's either. And in that process he may take his team and his program to a higher level.

I really think the fire's in KD's gut after today's game. He knows better than anyone that some of the players quit on him today. He should call them out again, and put the fire under them. If he can do that, the results will speak for themselves at the end of the season. If he can't, well, he can't, but let's give him the chance to fight through his first real coaching crisis, a team tainted by quitters. True champions may be beat, but they never quit!

I hope and pray the Bruins end up 8-4 with a victory over SUC and a bowl game. But most of all, I want them to learn to never quit. Yes, I want the Bruins to be football champions, but not just on the field, in the game of life, too.

Stop Whining! It's the Turnovers, Stupid!

uclahy — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:15:22 -0000

If we don't turn the ball over four times, three by BO himself, we win the Rice game 40+ to <10, easy. Against their 3-3-5 it was obvious they were giving us the run and they were covering the pass, ergo, BO was playing into their hands when he threw and we could run at will, which we did. For us to outgain them like 400-200 on a night we turned the ball over four times shows just how much we dominated a feisty, never quit team.

Look at the big picture, Bruins! Our offense is as good or better than last years and our defense is much, much better. They are swarming and attacking the ball constantly. Except for one option play late in the game they absolutely squashed the Owls. There is no question in my mind this defense is for real if you are at all objective. I have not seen a Bruin defense make this kind of attacking, swarming effort in years.

Our linebackers are actually making plays this year. Our angles are great. Our D line puts tremendous pressure the whole game with our talented revolving door of hungry linemen. Brown and Drago and company are just going to get better as everyone fights for playing time.

So, yeah, this was not the Utah game where they stacked the box and goaded BO to beat him. Yeah, we looked stumbling on offense when we didn't run Markey as much as we should have. But without the TO's we gain 600 yards and coast.

There's nothing wrong with our scheme on offense or defense. BO just has to learn to hold on to the damn ball, end of story. We are having and will have a great season, no question in my mind. Stop whining because our domination wasn't pretty and BO had a bad game. This is called growing pains for a new QB. Duh. Before the season is over he will be another Joe Montana. Count on it.

GO BRUINS!

PS: You KD haters should wake up. He is a classy guy who bleeds Bruin blue and gold who deserves your support and not instant criticism when BO screws up a game with stupid fumbles. If you can't see the obvious improvement, despite our turnovers, then your allowing your bile against KD overcome your judgment.