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

by uclahy on Jan 5, 2008 10:12 AM PST

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.

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.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I give it 5

minutes til the first poster who bashes this guy for even insinuating that KD wasn't given a fair shake.

/not that it's wrong to do so.

by MrGray on Jan 5, 2008 10:36 AM PST reply actions

kjsfhalsdjh

geez... i just choked... NO!! just dorrelistas finding another fall guy for his failings.

Dustball!

by dustball on Jan 5, 2008 2:22 PM PST reply actions

KD got the support he earned

Thats how the world works. People invest more in you when you are successful. When you start off making dumb mistakes, recruit poorly, and are unsuccessful, generally its hard to convince people to invest more into what you are doing.

KDs lack of success is due primarily to his stubborn allegiance to a failed offense.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Jan 5, 2008 2:35 PM PST reply actions

Not at all

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.

No. No. and No.

Think about this for a minute. You are suggesting that Dorrell did not get a fair shake because UCLA didn't hire someone with more experience than him to "help" him to be a head coach.

Its like saying if Cal would have just hired Steve Spurrier to be Tom Holmoe's OC, Homoe would have had a better chance to succeed.

This line of thinking is absurd on its face.

by Ajax on Jan 5, 2008 4:08 PM PST reply actions

I am not criticizing KD's firing. He deserved it

based on his five year record. As I said, I am a huge supporter of the RN hire and thought KD should have been let go more than a year ago.

That's not my question or issue. I just want to know the facts, not whether or not KD "got the support he earned."

I don't care who the coach was. If a coach wants a hire to improve his program, why would an AD oppose it? See, I don't believe the story myself. I thought I made that clear. I just want to know if it's true or not.

I don't have an agenda here. Are the claims true? I'm just curious. I don't believe so, but I'm willing to know the truth because that's all I care about. That's how I live my life, and that's all BN should care about, too.

IF DG denied RN as OC for KD that was wrong, IMO. IF DG denied him enough money to keep good assistants [within reason, of course], that was wrong, IMO. IF true, these things have nothing to with whether KD should have been fired. He should have been, and he was, IMO. IF true, they imply something about DG, nothing more.

Again, no one has confirmed this guy's claims. That's why I just asked the question. Without evidence, I don't believe it. They don't make sense. Until I hear evidence, I am more than willing to give DG the benefit of the doubt.

by uclahy on Jan 5, 2008 4:17 PM PST reply actions

Then come back to this

when he has something besides hearsay. Until then, no one here should care at all. Otherwise we're subject to every witch hunt conspiracy theory out there. Hey, it "could" happen. Let's investigate it!

No.

Get some evidence. Until then: *YAWN*

by Tydides on Jan 5, 2008 5:37 PM PST up reply actions

KD did want RN

to be his OC and DG said no, but at the time Neu was still locked up in his lawsuit against Washington and the NCAA.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 5, 2008 5:44 PM PST reply actions

So we're talking quite a way back

At least 3 years ago?

by Tydides on Jan 5, 2008 5:50 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah

I believe he wanted RN when he ended up getting Cable, but do;t quote me on that one.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 5, 2008 6:51 PM PST up reply actions

Wait a minute...

Didn't KD say that Norvell was the guy he had been after for a while when he hired him? I never heard that KD was after RN. Besides, would RN have agreed to work for the guy who used to work for him? Anyway, who cares now? If RN is the only guy who could have saved KD, then he is in his right place as the head coach. To put this on DG is such complete BS. Oh, and with all these vacancies, KD didn't get hired anywhere...not even Duke...

by tasser10 on Jan 5, 2008 7:26 PM PST reply actions

One of the Functions of BN

is to do the research that lazy posters all over the blogsphere never bother to do.

If the Dorrelistas are still active, if they are angry at DG -- it's good to know that.

Part of our job, now, is to cover two backs -- RN's and DG's from the people whose personal agendas were frustrated by the hiring firing of KD and the hiring of RN instead of DW.

Thanks, hy, for getting this story over here and thanks to the people in this thread who have answered the charges.

One angle: if this occurred at the time RN was being blackballed, the time when he was coaching HS football, he might have wanted the job -- just to get back to college coaching. And, there are lots of people coaching as coordinators under HC's who once worked for them.

Anyway, yes this has nothing to do with looking forward, but it is good to know what these nattering nabobs of negativism are saying.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Jan 5, 2008 7:51 PM PST reply actions

Ahh, another alliteration a la Agnew

Agnew was veep when I was in law school. We therefore tried to do at least one "nattering nabobs of negativism" in every paper. My claim to fame is the following (and I absolutely don't remember the context). I was happy to describe something as a "Faustian fooferaw of philosophical fantasy." I will put that one up against anything Agnew had. In fact, thinking about it, that might have been in my law review article which actually got published.

by Fox 71 on Jan 5, 2008 8:11 PM PST up reply actions

Fox, I'm so glad you're here

We are probably the only people here who know who Spiro Agnew was.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Jan 5, 2008 8:13 PM PST up reply actions

Well, Prof

Did your students use great stuff like a Faustian fooferaw of philosophical fantasy?

I remember another one. I came up with "an Orwellian nightmare of Big Brotherism." Then years later I saw that this guy named Douglas used it in an opinion he wrote a decade or so before I thought I had invented that one. No one in the world would have believed that I had not read that case before I "invented" my nifty phrase.

by Fox 71 on Jan 5, 2008 8:25 PM PST up reply actions

Come on

give us some credit. While I'm sure you know more about him than those of us younger people, I think some of us do know one of our VP's.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 5, 2008 8:58 PM PST up reply actions

Hey, give us youngsters some credit

Spiro Agnew, Nixon's first VP.

Of course, my folks got married on the Saturday Night Massacre, so I've paid more attention to the Watergate figures than others my age. Not many people under 35 know who Archibald Cox was, but I always remember what day he got fired.

by bruinbabe2000 on Jan 5, 2008 9:01 PM PST up reply actions

Wow the youngsters get no credit

from 66 on Agnew then BB with no credit on Cox. I would hope more people under 35 than I know about Cox. Watergate and the entire Nixon administration are some of the most infamous times in American history. Give us some credit.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 5, 2008 9:06 PM PST up reply actions

I would hope so

Considering the audience here, at least, us younguns' would have some knowledge of Agnew/Cox/Watergate basics.

by bruinhoo on Jan 5, 2008 9:49 PM PST up reply actions

Maybe not at SCJC...

...but we are UCLA graduates, after all.

greg in denver

by gbruin on Jan 6, 2008 2:48 AM PST up reply actions

Ok, I'll rephrase it

Not many people younger than 35 who are not attending or have graduated from UCLA would know the Watergate basics.

by bruinbabe2000 on Jan 6, 2008 8:54 AM PST up reply actions

I knew who he was

but that's only because way back when, I saw that name and I thought it was funny looking so it piqued my curiosity and I had to look it up.

by Tydides on Jan 5, 2008 9:03 PM PST up reply actions

Add my name to the list of old folks who remember

Agnew all too well. I was an undergrad during Watergate. I'll never forget that I was in the Student Store when I heard Alexander Butterfield admit that there was a taping system in the White House. And I remember how happy I was the day Agnew was forced to resign.

by waters96 on Jan 6, 2008 8:48 AM PST up reply actions

All this furor about Agnew and Cox

and no love given at all for "a Faustian fooferaw of philosophical fantasy." That's another problem with the youngsters of today - no appreciation of art for art's sake.

And about Archie Cox - isn't he the guy who always said "Edith, stifle yourself" on All in the Family?

by Fox 71 on Jan 6, 2008 10:43 AM PST up reply actions

One more thing...

I met Archie Cox a few years before he passed. I was touring the Harvard campus and was walking around the law school when I happened by his office. Low and behold, he was in there. So I walked in, introduced myself, shaked his hand, and told him I thought he was an American hero. We chatted for quite a while. He was very humble and polite and almost a little surprised anyone even remembered. I believe he took no joy in what he did, but felt that it was important to discover the truth, whatever it was. A very exciting moment for me to meet such an important part of our American history. What I think is the young ones don't really understand the difference between Watergate and Monicagate (or Travelgate).

by waters96 on Jan 6, 2008 8:59 AM PST reply actions