Tuesday News & Notes

by Nestor on Dec 11, 2007 4:57 AM PST in Football

For all the talk coming out of DyNoMite Walker’s little hype machine made up of UCLA beat reporters and message board shills, the guy didn’t even get an interview with Washington State. Remember how much time Brian Dohns of the world spent on reporting how Walker was a "candidate" for this job. The loser didn’t even get an interview:

The Spokesman-Review reported Washington State officials have interviewed at least three candidates: Eastern Washington coach Paul Wulff, Oklahoma co-offensive coordinator Kevin Sumlin and former Idaho coach and Washington State assistant John L. Smith.

And now Dohn has conceded that WSU looked at the DyNoMite as a ‘second tier’ candidate:

There is a report in the Spokane Spokesman-Review that Eastern Washington coach Paul Wulff agreed to be Washington State's new coach, replacing Bill Doba. One thing I am told is that UCLA interim coach DeWayne Walker's representative was contact, but Walker did not interview. He was a second-tier candidate, in case Wazzu didn't like what it saw with its first wave of interviews.

And yet in the world of certain UCLA fans Walker is seen as a world beater who has to be retained so that we can hold on to our precious little recruiting class, long term health of this program be damned. But no worries. I am sure we will hear rumors soon about how top BCS programs like LSU and Texas will be knocking on Walker’s door to hire him as their DC, as if he is ‘the bestest, most awesomest" ( a Dohn phrase) assistant coach in the country.

Meanwhile, I think I have stumbled into another clue on who just might be some of the "sources" talking to people like Brian Dohn. Yesterday we talked about Bob Field hanging around Spalding field serving as a "liason" between the football program and the Athletic department. Well check this out from John Wilner (Brian Dohn’s predecessor at DN, who now writes for the San Jose Mercury News). Wilner parrots out some of the usual MSM lines about our job search but then pay close attention to his last two paras (emphasis mine):

The Bruins’ next move: The coaching search is picking up steam — Norm Chow was reportedly set to interview today.

Don’t believe newspaper/internet reports that UCLA is considering Texas Tech’s Mike Leach. He’s not a good fit personally, and athletic director Dan Guerrero knows it.

(I’ve been told that the Dorrell hire was out of Guerrero’s hands — that former chancellor Al Carnesale made the call. The Bruins would be wise to stand back and let Guerrero, who hired Ben Howland, do his job this time.)

And don’t believe for a second that Boise State’s Chris Petersen will listen seriously to the Bruins, no matter how many times they call.

As for alum Rick Neuheisel … tough to see that happening for several reasons.

Here’s one (a personal one): UCLA faculty rep Don Morrison is a sharp, stand-up guy who has dealt with numerous NCAA messes over the years.

I’ve known Don for a decade, and I just can’t see him signing off on Slick Rick. Nor can I see UCLA making the move over Morrison’s objections.

Does the name Don Morrison ring a bell? It should. Because this is the same loser who the good guys over at DumpDorrell.com shamed just few weeks ago and forced him to issue an apology for insulting a UCLA football fan like a total pr!ck. This is the kind of jerk DG has to get "sign off" from to hire his next coach?

And these are the kind of people I guess who are serving as informants for reporters like Wilner and I am presuming doing the same thing for Dohn. No wonder we constantly have to read about excuses coming from the traditional media when it comes to UCLA football, giving us the impression of bunch of insulated, self-centered, pencil pushing bureaucrats, who are so comfy in that little bubble of theirs that they have no willingness or desire to stretch their imagination, and actually strive to fulfill the promise and potential of UCLA football. And they are enabled by sedated traditional media and a pathetic segment of our own fan base (See Menelaus’s post on "Dorrellistas") who are always willing to settle for less.

Of course nothing has been determined yet. And I am not going to draw any conclusions on Dan Guerrero until a hire is official. However, that doesn’t mean that I am going to sit down and stay quiet if I sense there is even a chance UCLA is about to the roll the dice again, putting us in the same FUBAR situation that has eaten away at the core of our program for almost two decades. I will never accept that.

GO BRUINS.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Great Stuff

Nestor! It seems like we have to find a coach hired by LAUSD. I hope DG is invested with some power in this search. Just as I have been preaching, let's see all this major interest in Walker before we start hyperventilating about losing him to some super lucky program.

by BruinAl on Dec 11, 2007 6:03 AM PST reply actions

Who is Bill Rees?

he is the one hired to head the search???

by JOHN GRAY on Dec 11, 2007 10:47 AM PST up reply actions

At this point

the only thing more ridiculous than hiring a second-tier Wazzu candidate as head coach would be hiring someone else with the explicit condition that they keep the second-tier Wazzu candidate and groom him, hoping that one day he could potentially be a good head coach. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

By the way, would anything be more fitting than the idiots like Morrison leading the charge to put together a crack coaching squad made up of Stanford and Washington State rejects? I will do my best to be patient and have faith in DG, because my gut tells me he is capable and knows what he is doing, but the last 48 hours or so have been a bit disturbing to say the least.

Go Bruins.

by UCLAnthony on Dec 11, 2007 7:00 AM PST reply actions

Morrison

I've said this before and I hope it's worth repeating:

Academic advisors like Morrison will often operate on a dual standard.

In their own departments, they will only hire the very best and brightest in the land -- and will not retain them unless they satisfy rigorous tenure standards.

It appears, in their roles as "advisors" to the hiring process in the athletic department, they are willing to use a lower standard.

You better believe that they would not hire a second tier WSU reject for an academic position. Why do it for a coaching/teaching position?

Hypocrisy? You bet.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 11, 2007 7:57 AM PST up reply actions

DG

As much as I trust DG, I'm equally suspect about the administration's involvement in the hiring process. There is a reason we've been mired in mediocrity, and seem to be handling the coaching search about as well as the last coaching search (at least based on the rumors coming out). The hiring process needs to be spearheaded by Guerrero and Chancellor Block. Guys like Morrison should not be in a position to veto a candidate. Unless all the rumors coming out this week prove to be totally false, things are not looking good...

Why didn't we have a search firm in place already?
Why haven't the feelers been sent out yet? How many times are we going to hear "No, dammit, UCLA has not contacted me, that's absolute BS..."
Why isn't there a concrete short list with established HC's?
Why are we interviewing assistant coaches?
Why are we so enamored with Walker, who's got a grand total of ONE big win under his belt.

by norcalbruin95 on Dec 11, 2007 10:13 AM PST up reply actions

If Walker

was a "second tier" candidate at perennial doormat WSU, he should be completely off our radar.

Same goes for Chow, who couldn't land a gig at perennial dirt-under-the-doormat Stanford.

"This is not a place for just any coach" Dan Guerrero

by godblesstyus95 on Dec 11, 2007 7:22 AM PST reply actions

Here is the moronic math

one loser + one loser = one winner.

I am hearing another scenario: Walker and Chow as co-coaches, one for defense and one for offense.

Then after a few years, Walker takes over completely.

Somehow, adding two losers together is supposed to produce a winner, and UCLA will soon be in the national championship hunt (as promised by DG).

Is it true that DG is running all candidates by Walker's to get the latter's approval first?

It's ludicrous, but I'm too busy throwing up to laugh.

by bluegold on Dec 11, 2007 7:51 AM PST reply actions

My biggest question/concern

How much weight do these Donahue holdovers still carry? Are guys like Morrison and Field just harmless squawkers now or does DG really need them to be on board with his decision? Can they veto DG choice? Even if they don't have veto power is it possible that their disapproving, rebelous presence discourages a guy like Leach from even taking the job? Or do they have influence of how much money DG can offer?

Hopefully, with the backing of the Chancellor, DG will be able to make the decision on his own. If that's the case, then I really have no worries about us getting a good hire.

DG I totally trust. But the bureaucrats scare me a little.

"Someday we'll look back on this and it will all seem funny" - Boss

by TCbruin32 on Dec 11, 2007 7:55 AM PST reply actions

I Am Very Troubled by

the statement about Leach:

"He's not a good fit personally, and athletic director Dan Guerrero knows it."

What exactly is wrong with Leach, personally? That he dances to the beat of a different drum?

He has run an innovative, clean program, is loved by his players and the people of Lubbock.

What is our personality "litmus test"?

What a bunch of effete crap.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 11, 2007 8:01 AM PST reply actions

The litmus test is

ZERO personality -- you know, like a KD.

by bluegold on Dec 11, 2007 8:06 AM PST up reply actions

Sounds like

They are looking for another "Stepford Coach" ala Karl Dorrell.

by bluestreet on Dec 11, 2007 8:12 AM PST up reply actions

Sounds like a threat to DG.

He doesn't fit and Dan knows it, don't you Dan?! Guerrero doesn't strike me as someone who would appriciate a threat from some pussy pencil pusher. But then again I don't know DG now do I. I really have nothing more that a gut feeling and the relativly little info I've been able to gather from his interviews. I guess I just want to believe that Guerrero is willing to hire a free thinker like Mike Leach.

But again I ask, IF IT IS A THREAT IS THE THREAT CREDIBLE? I guess the only way to know that answer for sure is to see who we hire.

"Someday we'll look back on this and it will all seem funny" - Boss

by TCbruin32 on Dec 11, 2007 8:14 AM PST up reply actions

Guess a DG doesn't kno a good fit?

Leach is a winner and the perfect fit for Bruin nation bar none!

by JOHN GRAY on Dec 11, 2007 11:14 AM PST up reply actions

Why would WSU hire Walker?

They shredded his defense 2 years in a row even though they had a mediocre team. It is better for them to keep Walker at UCLA so they can get at least one win a year!

by bruin7982 on Dec 11, 2007 8:51 AM PST reply actions

Thanks Morrison, Neuheisel's My Choice now

If that idiot would nix RN then I'm all for him to be the guy. Given a choice between Chow, DW and Neuheisel, I'd take Neuheisel in a heartbeat. Besides, he'd die for the job and I think he'd do well.

by SinnerBoy 99 on Dec 11, 2007 9:02 AM PST reply actions

the more I think about it

The more absurd this stuff seems. I just cannot believe the Athletic Director who hired Ben Howland and John Savage and has proven in EVERY OTHER SPORT that he is devoted to excellence and success ON AND OFF the field and keeping UCLA's position as the #1 athletic program in the United States secure will flop around with such boneheaded moves with the biggest program of this or any other school. It literally defies logic.

Also, Guerrero said not more than 8 days ago that HC experience is necessary. So now just over a week later he will back away on that and institute some idiotic "dual-coach" system, pairing up two guys with NO head coach experience? Or letting some guy with NO head coach experience screen candidates? What?

I am just not believing this. Until I see something official out of UCLA I am going to treat this as the flamebait rumors it so obviously seems to be.

by njbruin on Dec 11, 2007 9:06 AM PST reply actions

These

These are all just rumros until proven otherwise.

That said, the more I hear about this circus, the more I'm beginnign to believe that either DG has lost his mind or that UCLA's administration is getting way too involvede

by blinkshot on Dec 11, 2007 9:39 AM PST up reply actions

UCLA's administration

If I had to guess I'd say the underlings are leaking this BS to the media.

If you are a guy in the bowels of Morgan or Murphy and have spent the past 5 years talking about how awesome Karl Dorrell is, how he is getting things done, how the team is on the upswing, the mediocrity was due to stuff out of Karl's control, how next year will be the big one, etc., then right now you look like one big incompetent ignorant dumbass.

If Dan Guerrero is out there looking for the exact opposite of the guy you have been boosting for half a decade, it marginalizes you. So you leak stuff to the media about how awesome Karl Dorrell's successor is, how he is the guy to get things done, how he is the guy the players want.

I am starting to think that is what is going on. If Dan hires Walker you are vindicated.

by njbruin on Dec 11, 2007 9:58 AM PST up reply actions

Personally

I think everything being is just FUD. Like you, I'm waiting for the official word from UCLA.

by JWongUCLA on Dec 11, 2007 2:27 PM PST up reply actions

Coaching Search Laugh of the Day

There is an
AP story running on the Internet regarding Duke's interest in Karl Dorrell. It includes the following statement attributed to Duke's Athletic Director Joe Alleva, (emphasis mine)

Alleva has said he wants to hire someone with head coaching experience in the Football Bowl Subdivision, formerly Division I-A, and with a reputation for developing offenses.

Well, he didn't say they were looking for a coach that could develop a good offense.

I had to read that sentence a couple of times before the true absurdity really set in. Karl Dorrell being consider for a job where the AD's key requirement is hiring a coach that has experience developing offenses. Isn't that the anti-Dorrell?

I hope statement from the Duke AD is not the equivalent of Dan Guerrero saying that UCLA's next coach must have head coaching experience and then all we read about in the MSM is that Dewayne Walker and Norm Chow are high on UCLA's list.

by Bruin77 on Dec 11, 2007 9:39 AM PST reply actions

Very depressing

We have statements from MSM shills and pin-heads. We have statements attributed to an absolute administrative jack-off who is stealing his salary worse than KD ever stole his. And we have absolute silence from DG.

For those evolutionists out there, the morass of rumors and guesses and crapola surrounding the UCLA football program is the primordial soup of billions of years ago. One little spark and up will pop life - a living breathing coach. It will, of course, be a one-celled organism capable of no real thought. But it will be just what Morrison and Field were hoping for: scientific name - badcoachus mediocrous.

Dan Guerrero could relieve a lot of angst by saying anything. Even if it's just to acknowledge that he's still alive. I now nominate Bob Knight for AD. Can you imagine what he would tell Bob "Out of Left" Field and Don "Nowhere Near as Good but Just as Stoned as Jim" Morrison? Look up the Knight sound bite on Jim Healy homage site: "I've forgotten more about this (bleep)ing game that you (bleep)ing guys are ever going to know."

by Fox 71 on Dec 11, 2007 10:28 AM PST reply actions

Please Understand ...

Professors usually aren't big sports fans. I was going to draw the analogy between their apathy towards sports success and our apathy towards band uniforms but I realized that some aren't apathetic towards sports.

A lot of people in academia are hostile to all athletics (maybe they're haunted by memories of wedgies), others are merely hostile to the 'macho' athletics programs. Some of these anti-athlete academians bring UCLA a lot of IDC money from their grants (UCLA is ranked #2 in the nation for grant funding so it is a LOT) - anyone bringing millions of dollars and prestige to the school has the chancellor's ear. Some of these professors probably do not want an elite football program - maybe they see it as a distraction from their prominence. Who knows?

You can say that they encourage mediocrity - but they think they are encouraging mediocrity in a bad thing. It is like encouraging mediocre sexism.

I think that we need to keep emphasizing the Classic Greek ideal of a healthy mind in a healthy body. Also expose the anti-athletic prejudice for what it is. Compare it to UCLA's school of performing arts- would we sit for them stocking it with mediocre talent? Perhaps someone should start a dialog in the Daily Bruin...

by bleubleu on Dec 11, 2007 11:22 AM PST reply actions