Let Walker go to UW

by Odysseus on Dec 27, 2007 8:49 AM PST Comment 19 comments

Bumped. -N

If Walker wants to go to UW, I say let him go. I question the premise that he wants to go to UW in the first place, and here's why: Tyrone Willingham is on the hottest of hot seats up in Seattle and he is exceedingly likely to be gone next year. Indeed the Coaches Hot Seat currently has him ranked #1. The Athletic Director recently resigned in a huff, presumably because the large boosters were urging him to fire Willingham for his less than stellar performance.

If Walker was truly a hot commodity, as many of the Walkeristas claim, couldn't he do better than a lateral move to a down-and-out program in turmoil? Why would a hot commodity want to move to a place where the head coach will likely be fired next year?

Answer: He's not really a hot commodity. He was never a serious candidate for any other head coaching jobs. If he wants to go to UW, let him. He will likely be out of a job next year and if Coach Neuheisel wants to hire him as DC then, he can do so.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Wazzu said it all

Oh yea, Walker is a "top candidate" for the WSU job, he's definitely in Pullman's sights, he's so hot right now.

Yet what happens? WSU hires someone local and we find out later Walker wasn't even in their top tier of candidates.

by njbruin on Dec 27, 2007 9:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Pullman is a redneck town

I'm sure that Pullman is not the most friendly town for one of the few black coaches in NCAA football. The fans in Pullman even beat up their own kids in bars so bad that they transfer to schools in California to get away from the violence. DW made a good call not going after that job, or he lucked out.

by joeb on Dec 27, 2007 4:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

support your assertions,

with evidence please.

The claim that DyNoMite did not go after the job flies in the face of all reported information.

by Odysseus on Dec 27, 2007 5:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

RN shouldn't give him an option

he should cut loose Walker, Norvell, Scott and the rest of KDs clowns immediately.

Retaining Walker will lead to a divisive atmosphere amongst the players and staff, which was all started by anointing Walker as a finalist for the job. That was a huge tactical error by DG.

If the desire was there to keep DW on as DC, DG should have made it clear from the beginning that he was not a candidate for the job. DW is not a candidate for HC anywhere else, so any move for him would be a lateral move at best.

Losing DW would not be detrimental to us in any way. RN will recruit well. He will put together a solid staff. DW only looks good because KD looked so bad. It's too bad people can't see that.

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

by godblesstyus95 on Dec 27, 2007 9:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

The way I look at it

Is that DW probably sees the UDub job as ideal. It fits right in to his now well practiced mold of working under an poorly performing head coach and hoping to grab the job of the dead man walking once he's shown the door. Because, otherwise, DW wouldn't even be considered for either HC job.

But, of course, I agree with your premise. If he wants to go, he should. Particularly because I strongly believe that he would walk out on UCLA to the NFL in a couple years if he had even a scintilla of success.

by Menelaus on Dec 27, 2007 10:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

DMW?

"hoping to grab the job of the dead man walking once he's shown the door."

Would he then become known as Dead Man Walker?

..also, I was never quite sure what the fascination with Willingham was; he never really seemd to be all that consistent at Stanford or ND and now he is clanking big time at Washington.

by whp68 on Dec 27, 2007 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

M -- Your are on the money.

DW's modus operandi will be to undercut TW with an eye toward taking his job.

I don't call him Iago for nothing.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 27, 2007 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I love the reference

And Walker may well have his chance to live up to the moniker at Washington. According to Doh!n, Washington is ready to make an offer:

Washington is talking about giving UCLA interim coach DeWayne Walker a two-year deal to become the defensive coordinator there, plus more money than UCLA is paying him, sources said.

Of course, who knows what "Washington" "is talking about" with respect to DW? At this point, it's just as likely to be true that Dohn just pumped this out to again try to create a sense of urgency for UCLA to act.

Oh no! The Washington's are coming; the Washington's are coming!

by Menelaus on Dec 27, 2007 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not fair

I'm not a Husky fan, but, geez, I don't think foisting DWW on UDub is a very sporting proposition...don't they need a DC over at Condom U?

UCLA - the finest public university in the world

by SecondGenBruin on Dec 27, 2007 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

if Walker goes to UW

It will only open the job up for Ken Norton Jr.

I don't feel as betrayed as others do about Ken going to coach for South Central. Not after I heard how Dorrell stiff armed him out of some jealous spite.

Ken was a ferocious LB in the NFL and is in my eyes a hall of famer.

He has learned all of Cheaty Petey's tricks at Figueroa Tech. He should be primed and ready.

I would imagine he will make a great recruiter as well as coordinator.

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Dec 27, 2007 10:09 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Norton's not ready

As much as I would want Ken Norton, Jr. on the Bruin's coaching staff, he's only been a coach for a few years and he needs a few more years of seasoning before he's ready to take over as DC.

by Herschy on Dec 27, 2007 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Norton/Walker

I agree Norton isn't ready for a DC job. He has been a position coach for all of three years at south central. Let him learn how to be a DC on someone else's watch.

Walker is being offered more money and a two year contract from UW. The fact that Ty will probably be fired isn't a drawback. Walker would again be first in line for the job and still have a year left on his contract. If he was worried about the HC being on the hot seat, he would never have come to UCLA to begin with.

by nikeu on Dec 27, 2007 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This has probably been addressed

but in a brief look-through, I didn't see the proprietors address the assorted violations, 51 in all, that were discovered to have occurred during his tenure. If you haven't...well?

by hyarrr on Dec 27, 2007 11:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Run the Search engine

you'll find some great stuff here on the issue.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 27, 2007 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The famous 51

I spent some time today reading through the NCAA report on the violations at Colorado. You can draw your own conclusions, but I wasn't overwhelmed.

The main finding was that Neu tried to be "creative" in his recruiting practices and "pushed the limits" of the written rules with respect to recruiting contacts (there's also some stuff about free clothes, and some other little things that don't exactly shock the conscience). Here's the sum up:

The vast majority of the findings involved impermissible recruiting contacts beginning with the 1995-96 academic year and concluding in the 1998-99 academic year. There were also findings of NCAA violations involving the provision of clothing items to recruits during official paid visits, contacts with an athletics representative, publicity involving a prospective student-athlete, excessive reimbursement of travel expenses for recruits and improprieties involving recruiting entertainment expenses. The institution was also found to have failed to adequately monitor the recruiting practices of its former football staff.

There is no one allegation that particularly stands out. Just a lot of small things that the NCAA felt added up. In the end, the committee concluded that a bunch of contacts with recruits that the coaches claimed to be inadvertent weren't, in fact, but were instead part of a pattern and practice of pushing the boundaries. It's terribly dry, but it's all there (at least from the NCAA's perspective, that is).

Also, one things struck me as interesting. The committee made a special note to "send a message" to others regarding "bumping," upon which a majority of the findings against Colorado were based. That kind of rationale always troubles me a bit, particularly when they are doing so to make something clear that arguably wasn't so previously. Here's the money 'graf on that:

Of further concern to the committee was an assertion made during the hearing that the purposeful "bumping" of prospects during non-contact periods, particularly on high-school campuses, is a commonly accepted practice by coaches at NCAA member institutions. This case involved more than pushing the rules to their limits. The committee takes this opportunity to send an unequivocal message that the custom of "bumping" prospects during non-contact periods is a violation of NCAA rules no matter how widespread the practice, and coaches who continue to do so will be held accountable for their actions. The committee believes that this is a case in which the "creative" practices of the former head coach and his staff, as typified by the "bumping" of prospects, clearly crossed the boundaries of recruiting legislation beyond the edge of permissibility, resulting in the majority of the findings set forth in this report.

by Menelaus on Dec 27, 2007 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Clear Rule Infractions? Not really.

I haven't read this for a while, but here's what I recall.

RN is a lawyer. He took a look at the rules, found the loopholes, and exploited them. In the legal system, people get paid to do this, all the time.

That might be ok in a court of law, in front of judges trained in the law -- but the NCAA is not a court and is not populated by people with experience in statutory construction. Some feel it rules by fiat not by clear standards or stare decisis. Others feel it has a "political" agenda (Bushgate?).

So they found lots of little "violations" of the "spirit" of the reg's, not direct or express violations of the letter of the reg's. By their own admission, many coaches were doing the same things.

In the legal system, this wouldn't fly. It is a violation of "due process" to punish someone without giving adequate notice of the law -- in this case adequate notice is a clear an unambiguous statement of the standard to be followed. And, the law of equal protection frowns on "selective prosecution" or enforcement. The "lots of coaches do it and we haven't enforced against them, but we will against you to send a message to them" will not fly.

If you sense that I don't respect the NCAA in this case, you're right. I don't like arbitrary, capricious, decisions by a body that does not follow basic precepts of due process.. It's the lawyer in me.

sjh

PS. I don't write as a big RN booster. I'm a Leach/Jones guy. RN is my first, B+ choice. People want to know what some of us think of the "violations" -- I think it was vindictive move against a coach who looked for the loopholes and took advantage of them.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 27, 2007 5:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

DC vs. HC

Supposedly Washington wants him to be their DC. And if you look at the WeWantWalker page, supposedly Miami fans also want him to be their DC. I think I'm missing why this qualifies him to be a head coach.

I'm also wondering why Walker is supposed to get a pay raise to stay as DC after someone else is hired as HC. He'd be doing...exactly the same job as he was before. Fine if somebody else wants to blow their money on him, but why should we pay salaries far out of line to retain a coordinator?

by jaffa on Dec 27, 2007 1:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yes, Walker to Washington...

...or any place. Keeping Walker at UCLA can only cause problems. Any head coach worthy of the title must freely choose his own assistants so that lines of authority and responsibility are clear. That is fundamental.

by Oldguy on Dec 27, 2007 1:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Enjoy the coffee up there!

Have a nice life in Washington. Take Norvell and Scott with you, please!

This reminds me of a used car salesman trying to sell a junker - Hurry, there are lots of other people interested in this particular car. I can't hold it for you if you don't buy it now.

Even retaining him as DC would only cause problems. His propagandists are always trying to split the team in two, saying "Well, the defense played great, it was all the offense's fault" - even in the Las Vegas Bowl, where he was the HEAD COACH, not the DC. We don't have two teams, offense and defense, we have one team - and at the end of the game, that team has either won or lost, period.

If he wants to undermine someone and try to maneuver himself into inheriting a HC job, let him do it at Washington. After all the crap he's pulled, I wouldn't want him representing UCLA as the Head Football Coach.

by Tommy Bruin on Dec 27, 2007 3:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs