More Rationalizing Mischief At USC

by Menelaus on May 24, 2006 3:23 PM PDT in Football

I shouldn't be surprised. It started as just another column by a so-called neutral college football site, with obvious USC sympathies, seeking to excuse/rationalize the recent spate of misconduct from Pete Carroll's football team.

This isn't the first time. In the beginning, we were told that every team is equal when it comes to off the field problems, and that a "gentlemen's agreement" is all that has kept more misconduct from coming to light.

Then, we were told that we were naïve to think such problems could be prevented, that every "elite team needs at least a handful of kids who are rough around the edges," that coaches who bend the rules are "shrewd," and that "it's simply impossible to run a spotless program and win a national championship."

Not unexpected. Just par for the course. I understand the urge of USC fans to try to rationalize things. It's not their problem, right? Everyone's in the same boat. USC is blameless. Right?

I've already added my two cents. I don't think everyone really does it in the same way as Trojan fans like to suggest. And as I've written, I simply don't believe that the pro-USC commentators reflecting this sentiment have some high-minded purpose in all this. In my opinion, they are angered by all of the negative attention USC has gotten in the press recently, are looking to rationalize it away, and are now engaging in no small amount of schadenfreude over what's happened recently at UCLA. They are writing articles that go to considerable lengths to poke a finger in UCLA's eye. And then they try to veil that motive by cloaking everything in an overarching argument that itself seeks to justify, excuse, and in a way, glorify, the transgressions of USC players and coaches as just the realpolitik of college football. And, for what it's worth, I'm not the only one to point out the flaws in CFR's logic.

But the latest takes the cake. CFR now says (in the comments):

Is it any surprise that UCLA's last basketball title was under one coach Harrick? You think Ben Howland's running a perfectly clean program? Hah. Neither is your rival coach Tim Floyd. That's the sport though. The players come from the suspect AAU and other circuits and all the criminals, thieves, hangers-on, degenerates and con men who make a living in them.

That's quite an allegation. It one thing to wax philosophic about "everyone doing it" or to "blame the system." It's quite another to call out a rival program and suggest that it's dirty based upon no evidence whatsoever. If CFR has evidence to support this claim, let's have it. Otherwise, this kind of tactic smacks of desperation and is a shame.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Classic ...

so this kid is questioning the character of the players in Howland's programs just to make excuses for Carroll's lawless thugs.

Now if that is not a text book example of desperation/reaching ... I am not sure what is.

by Nestor on May 24, 2006 3:30 PM PDT reply actions

HAH

You can feel the desperation coming from these ass-jockeys as they desperately clutch at straws, trying to find someone to take down with them.

I also like how he's willing to throw Floyd under the bus in an effort to smear Howland. I guess that makes sense, since everyone already knows Floyd is morally bankrupt, so why not throw him to the wolves.

Maybe it's just that SUC fans find it so hard to believe that anyone would actually hire a coach that has moral standards.

Whine On, SUCtards!

by scittles on May 24, 2006 3:32 PM PDT reply actions

Somoene ought to link this post ...

to every single UCLA basketball message boards and blogs.

by bluestreet on May 24, 2006 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Smearing Howland

That has to be one of the most pathetic and vile attack without any basis I have ever seen from a college football blogger.

Sure we are are vicious on Chetey Petey ... but Jesus there is an undeniable trail of fact patterns signalling a systamatic problem.

How in the world he can make this kind of allegation without providing any evidence?

I hope all other college bloggers are taking note. If he doesn't provide any basis whatsoever to back this shit up, this will destroy any shred of credibility he might have left pretending to be an objective blogger re. college football.

What a douchebag.

by bluestreet on May 24, 2006 3:38 PM PDT reply actions

Just read over your thorough beatdown...

...of those morons in the comments. I've gotta say, the idiot that thinks profanity and other unsubstantial portions of this blog undermine credibility appears to turn a blind eye to the fact that FALSE ACCUSATIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE will do so much faster. Where's your evidence of Howland's wrongdoing? What? There is none? Credibility - gone.

Cry On, Losers!

by scittles on May 24, 2006 3:47 PM PDT reply actions

Then again ...

Perhaps false accusations/fabricated information is the quickest way to get into the (still looking for WMD in Iraq) New York Times.

Sorry couldn't help it M. Too easy!!!

by Nestor on May 24, 2006 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions

You may have something there

If you're right, then, heads up everyone: I have Osama bin Laden living in my garage.

Mr. Reporter, it's spelled M-E-N-E-L-A-U-S, and I photograph better from the left side.

Oh yeah, I don't give a crab about being quoted in the NYT.... ;)

by Menelaus on May 24, 2006 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Jim Harrick Was Fired -- Pom Pom Pete Hasn't Been

The UCLA Athletic Department fired Jim Harrick, after he won a National Championship.

(Let's see USC do the same thing.)

They fired Harrick instantly, even though it jeapordized an entire season. (As it turns out, with the hiring of Lavin they jeapordized the legacy of our program).

Harrick was not fired for running a dirty program, but for picking up a cheap dinner check for a couple of players who sat down at a table with Harrick and some recruits, and not properly reporting the meal.

There has never been one allegation against the players on that National Championship team. In fact, they were some of the best of the Bruin bunch.

No, we don't all cheat. Speak for yourself and speak for your school.

And, unlike USC, we have integrity. Break our rules, and you get fired. No matter how much success you have had.

Where is USC's integrity? Their coach is now being deeply dipped in Reggie Bush's shit. Not a peep from Garrett. What PPC has done is far worse than what Harrick did. If the stories are half true, he should be fired. If he was involved in picking Reggie's agents, he should be fired. If he had any idea about the house, he should be fired. If he turned away so that he wouldn't know those things, he should be fired.

sjh

by Class of 66 on May 24, 2006 7:29 PM PDT reply actions

One correction ...

It was certainly not a "cheap dinner check."

From what I can recall ... the tab was somewhere around $1200 (at good ole Montys!).

Still though ... your point remains salient.

UCLA's response was swift and decisive.

by Nestor on May 25, 2006 5:36 AM PDT up reply actions

Harrick

His firing was more about his continual lying about the dinner rather than the dinner itself. He was given the opportunity on several occasions and denied it each time. The dinner problem would probably have been a minor NCAA violation.

When someone who works for you is continually lying to you, (when you know the truth) the level of trust is gone and the only choice you have is termination.

by artybruin on May 25, 2006 10:31 AM PDT reply actions

I agree

I agree with both of your posts.

From what I recall, the portion of the bill that got Harrick in trouble was much smaller than the entire bill. As I understand it, two players sat down at a table with Harrick and some recruits, and Harrick put the player's portion of the tab on the bill.

He did not tell the truth about this, and there are allegations he was not forthcoming on other matters.

The point I was making, and I guess not as artfully as I should have --

This is a coach who brought a national championship to a school -- and he was fired, immediately, at great jeapordy to the next season and the program -- as a matter of principle.

To say UCLA does not have a moral compass, or that all successful programs succeed by "looking the other way", is not true.

We are not SC.

sjh

by Class of 66 on May 26, 2006 5:39 AM PDT up reply actions