Dohn's funny 'blogging': is he trying to stir up outrage within UCLA fanbase (re Leach)?

by bluestreet on Nov 3, 2008 10:35 AM PST Comment 30 comments

Looks like Brian Dohn is up to old tricks, selectively filtering out "info" on his "Inside UCLA" blog.

Mike Leach is the toast of college football. Dohn is curiously putting out some revisionist history to give the picture that UCLA dissed Leach before settling for Neuheisel:

Leach would have come for less ($1.7 to $1.8 million) and UCLA offered Mike Bellotti about $2.2 million per year. But none of that mattered because UCLA's administration wanted NOTHING to do with Leach.

UCLA offered Bellotti $2.2 million?

Not according to Dohn's own reporting on December 21:

UCLA's search firm contacted Bellotti shortly after Guerrero fired Karl Dorrell on Dec. 3, but was rebuffed, sources said. However, armed with enough money to pay at least $1.8million, UCLA made another run at Bellotti, who is making $1,055,000 at Oregon. He also has a $350,000 buyout. Bellotti, who turns 57 today, was also the head coach at Chico State for five seasons, and has a 126-77-2 career record.

I got that from Nestor's post who excerpted Dohn's story that day.

Dohn reported last year that UCLA would go up to 1.8 million for Bellotti. 10 months later he is now contradicting his own report upping that amount to 2.2 million?

I get the sense that Dohn is trying to get his readers all riled up along with all the message board posters (who get riled up over anything) to create resentment over Neuheisel. If not why is contradicting himself and based on his own reports and making things up (if we were to go by his own reports from last December)?

Something seems really fishy funny with Dohn's 'reporting'.

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 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

A small thing,

Dohn’s report on December 21 said UCLA would pay at least $1.8 million. Surely $2.2 million would be consistent with at least $1.8 million right?

by Seanny Rotten on Nov 3, 2008 11:16 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

Why did Dohn drop that $2.2 million figure out of the blue? If he knew back then UCLA would offer as much as $2.2 he could have mentioned it then. Something seems off here.

by bluestreet on Nov 3, 2008 11:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Meh

there may be something a little off here, but I don’t doubt the point of the story. We offerred Bellotti a lot more than he currently gets, but he declined. Leach wanted the job, but the administration didn’t want a personality like his. I know for a fact that Leach wanted the job and that DG was basically told no way Leach would get approval from the administration.

I’m not going to get all upset about a few numbers that could possibly, but aren’t for sure, a little bit off. The story sounds exactly the samer as the story I got back in December and what happened during the search is more important to me than a number possibly being a little off.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 3, 2008 11:30 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hiring process

From what I heard (and from good sources) Leach and UCLA did talk. UCLA wasn’t as uninterested as Dohn makes it sound. Leach was asking for ridiculous amount of money.

Dohn got a lot of facts wrong last year. He is off again this time.

by bluestreet on Nov 3, 2008 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

DG and Leach talked

and DG was very high on Leach, but he got word from the adminstration that Leach would have to come at a severely discounted price. While the money was there for someone like Bellotti, the adminstration was not going to okay that type fo money for Leach. Leach wasn’t asking for a ridiculous amount of money, but he wanted to be paid above the Pac 10 average. That’s not so ridiculous considering his track record and the cost of living in LA. If DG had $2.2 million to offer Leach I have no doubt he’d be our coach right now, but the fact is he was not given that type fo money for Leach.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 3, 2008 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We have heard different reports in that case

I have heard DG offered Leach a reasonable amount of $$ but Leach laughed him off.

by bluestreet on Nov 3, 2008 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

From my sources

I heard that DG never made a formal offer. They tossed around numbers, but this was before DG spoke to the administration and knew exactly what he’d be working with. From what I heard, DG didn’t find Leach’s requests to be ridiculous and felt that he had a decent shot at getting Leach until he spoke to the administration. I do know for a fact that Leach wanted the job verrrrrrrrrrrrrry badly.

I guess we just have differing sources. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle of our stories.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 3, 2008 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Close

They did toss around numbers but DG didn’t many any formal offers because Leach was looking for sums way out of UCLA’s ballpark. It looks like Dohn is getting lot of his material from Leach’s people.

Leach is a solid coach but he needs to cash in this season. Texas Tech finally beat Texas after getting worked all these years. Their team is full of upperclassmen, and if Leach doesn’t cash in this year, they will go back to becoming an above average team which is a high scoring novelty in college football.

by bluestreet on Nov 3, 2008 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

important story

I’m glad Dohn confirmed what I — and many of us — suspected all along: that a top-notch coach like Leach BADLY WANTED the (supposedly unattractive) UCLA job, even was willing to take a pay-cut for it, but wasn’t even interviewed thanks to the fuddy-duddy mentality that still dominates our administration. Don’t forget this same mentality is also the reason why many in the admin. resent Ben Howland. So don’t think it’s irrelevant. It’s very relevant, and should be outrageous.

Blaming Dohn for trying to create resentment at CRN is ridiculous — he’s been praising him all year long. And the 2.2 million figure probably came out after Belloti rejected the job (and therefore wasn’t relevant to report). Whatever your hopes are for CRN — and my hopes are certainly high — I think Leach would’ve been a superb hire (his offenses have been amazing from the word go, despite starting with less talent than we have this year) whose unique, innovative style is better suited to helping UCLA overcome its recruiting handicaps against other schools.

The mentality that would ignore him in the search last year (in favor of Belloti, no less) still needs to be extinguished.

by bluebland on Nov 3, 2008 11:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Read my post closely

I wasn’t bad mouthing Leach. Leach is a good coach. Although if Neuheisel played his out of conference schedule, UCLA would be doing ok in his first season.

Your argument that 2.2 million figure wasn’t relevant to report is ridiculous because if that information was available to Dohn after Bellotti turned down UCLA he should have shared it then, instead of posting his usual take of how UCLA is not willing to spend money for coaches.

It certainly seems Dohn has a funny way of reporting “facts” around UCLA football with curious timing.

I find it bush league that Dohn drops this gem about Leach/Bellotti this week, when Leach is riding so high. The timing is funny to say the least and is predictably driving people crazy on message boads.

by bluestreet on Nov 3, 2008 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

can you blame him?

Leach is a super-relevant figure after their last win. Therefore, Dohn is reminded how badly he wanted a job, and is simply bringing up (with greater emphasis) something he reported in the past. The old report also stated that money wasn’t an object. The timing makes sense, and it’s obviously something people care about. Has nothing to do with undermining CRN.

by bluebland on Nov 3, 2008 11:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yes I can blame him

Dohn is not just simply bringing up an old story. He is doing it selectively. He is not giving the whole story. UCLA did show interest in Leach but Leach wanted lot more jack than UCLA was offering. Dohn reports as if UCLA didn’t show Leach any interest. That’s not true.

Dohn has a flawed track record when it comes to reporting on UCLA coaching hires. He misreported lot of facts during Dorrell era, something that might be missed by someone like you who “registered” a new account on BN today to magically defend Dohn.

by bluestreet on Nov 3, 2008 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not a Dohn-defender

Believe me, I was as critical of Dohn as anyone when we was buying Walker’s bill of goods during the coaching search. I happen to know for a fact that Walker was never even considered for the WSU job: it was something put out by his agent, and Dohn swallowed. I’ve been reading BN for years, and Dohn’s flaws are obvious to me. (He can also be quite blinded by his access.) But…he is the only reporter in Los Angeles doing any kind of real reporting on UCLA, so I won’t blame him for dropping some relevant info.

I’m just a recent Bruin grad who’s been going to all the games practically from birth, and is quite passionate about the idiocy of our coaching searches.

by bluebland on Nov 3, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I hear you

I get sucked into the idiocy of our coaching searches too but I think Dohn is not giving the whole picture here (just like he didn’t last December). DG was interested in Leach too but from what I heard Leach showed no desire to work with DG. He was stubborn in what he wanted.

I think Leach at UCLA would have been great but things worked out ok for us with the combination of Neuheisel, Chow and Walker.

I think Dohn is just trying to stir up some commotion on UCLA message boards (and judging by the reaction on BRO he succeeded).

by bluestreet on Nov 3, 2008 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The article was fine.

Leach would have been a good hire, and with Texas Tech’s success this year—who hasn’t wondered about Leach and UCLA. By the way, the same story could have been written about Chris Petersen at Boise St. Boise St. is undefeated and poised to also be in a BCS game. Again, it makes you wonder.

Neu will be fine, and so will UCLA. But given the success of Petersen and Leach, it certainly makes you think . . .

by rfirpo on Nov 3, 2008 12:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but keep in mind

Leach and Petersen are working with talent they have recruited and groomed. CRN was left with practically a bare cupboard. He and his staff are making something out of nothing. It will take time, but we will be fine.

FWIW, I remember hearing that DG and the Texas Tech AD are good friends. Did that have anything to do with the decision, I don’t know.

by bruinbabe2000 on Nov 3, 2008 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeap

Perfect point.

by Nestor on Nov 3, 2008 6:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hold it hold it hold it hold it HOLD IT!!!

It’s a Doh! story. There is a reason he is referred to as Doh! around here. He reasons like Homer Simpson. If I were of a different generation, I would call him a tool, assuming I knew what that meant.

He makes up facts. His “sources” are never ever identified. He gets stuff wrong. Then he re-writes the pseudo-history that he wrote himself. Remember after CTS tossed some guy under the bus by name and was quoted by Doh! as having done so, then only a few minutes later Doh! re-wrote his own quote of CTS and changed it to make it look like CTS did not in fact call out a particular player. That’s what they did in the Ministry of Truth if I recall correctly.

It would be a lot of fun to depose Doh!, because he would be caught time after time in his own contradictions. I believe what Rye says. Rye doesn’t identify his sources, but his statements of fact end up being factual. Doh!‘s don’t. But it would also be a collossal waste of time to depose (or discuss) Doh!, because contrary to what some others think, I believe he is totally irrelevant in the scheme of things.

by Fox 71 on Nov 3, 2008 1:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Thank God For You, Fox.

Honestly, to give any thought whatsoever to what that absolute moron Dohn writes from moment to moment….it is just a monumental waste of energy.

Dohn’s total ignorance is surpassed only by his complete lack of ethics. You’re right, Fox, deposing him would be like going a big candy store where everything is free—fun as hell, but eventually you just get so sick of it you want to leave, and it really doesn’t get you anything you can actually use.

Love My Bruins

by Bruingirl83 on Nov 3, 2008 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Everyone here liked Leach and Johnson

who have both done well for themselves this year, but we are all happy with the current staff. If people think leach of johnson could do anything without an offensive line, they are deluding themselves.

The funny thing about doh! is I criticized his rating Texas Tech so low on his harris poll early in the season behind one loss teams because he didn’t think they were very good, so to see him come out now with this story is just bizarre.

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

by silverlakebruin on Nov 3, 2008 2:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It wouldn't have mattered who our coach was this year

We’d be struggling just the same. I thought CRN was a good hire, but not the best hire and I still don’t think he’s the best guy we could have had. Even if we had gotten Leach, Muschamp or somebody else whose name was thrown around, we’d still be struggling. Coaches are important, but at the end of the day, they don’t put the pads on and step between the white lines.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 3, 2008 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh course,,,,

now Leach’s name is being tossed around as the “leading” candidate for the soon to be vacant Tennesee HC job, now that Fulmer is stepping down.

I disagree with Rye. CRN was a great hire. He is an amazing leader and CEO for this program. He is exactly what this program needed at this juncture. There is no way that Leach or Muschamp or Riely could have come in and injected the same kind of enthusiasm and renewed interest and hope that CRN has this year. Just not possible. In the end, even CRN will be judged by wins and losses and our ability to compete consistently, but for the present, he was absolutely the right hire.

I’m going to Pauley to watch the hoops game tonight and I’ll write something up later re my observations.

by Bald Eagle on Nov 3, 2008 5:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

No doubt CRN has brought enthusiasm and hope

and I never said that anybody could do better than what CRN is doing now. I made it clear that this team just doesn’t have talent and would not be big winners regardless of who the coach was. As you said, at the end of the day CRN will be judged by wins and losses and I think there were a couple other guys who would have done a better job winning games than CRN will do. Not that I don’t think CRN will do well, but I think a couple could do better. I hope he proves me wrong though and is amazingly successful.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Nov 3, 2008 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The timing of this apples to orange's comparsion

The timing of Dohn’s comparsion between a coach who is in his 8th year at Texas Tech v. a coach who is in his first year in midst of massive rebuilding project at UCLA is suspect.

I appreciate the info. Dohn provides on a day to day basis, but when it comes to providing observations/commentary on UCLA coaching searches and our culture, Dohn has known to be off.

Leach is a great coach and would have a had great chance to be successful at UCLA. But we also got a pretty solid one in CRN, who if he had the luxury to play Leach’s cup cake out of conference schedule would be sitting pretty with a shiny, winning record in his rebuilding year at UCLA.

by Nestor on Nov 3, 2008 6:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Here is another tangible sign of relentless optimism

#5 DE verbally commits to UCLA

Give CRN some time. When the talent gets in sync with our awesome coaching staff, I have no doubt the Bruins will be back on the national stage.

Another thing to consider with the Leach “non-hire”… if we had gotten Leach, think Norm Chow would’ve came on board?! Zero chance.

CRN + NC > Leach

by HK Bruin on Nov 3, 2008 6:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think that's a very good point about Coach Chow.

I don’t think Coach Leach would have had the notion to go after him. I still think very highly of Coach Leach, and would have welcomed him had he elected to come aboard.

by Fox 71 on Nov 3, 2008 7:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Great point, HK

(and good to see some math here, instead of legalese, for a change – ha).

greg in denver

by gbruin on Nov 3, 2008 10:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Let Doh! run his mouth

At the end of the day, despite what the curmudgeons at Murphy Hall and the sycophants who are still at Morgan Center (excepting DG, CBH, CRN of course), we have the two men who are right for UCLA, for restoring confidence, success, and glory to our two big-revenue programs: CRN and CBH.

I know N will disagree with me on this, but even if Pauley takes years longer than expected (and let’s be realistic: it will because, guys, we’re a UC campus . . . when does construction on any UC campus actually run on schedule . . . there’s a reason some folks call us “Under Construction, Like Always.”), I’ll always remember DG as the guy who brought in CBH, the mastermind behind the revival of UCLA basketball, and who brought in both CRN and NC (DW is okay, but I’m still not sold on a guy who has yet to learn to stop the spread).

Anyway, let Doh! run his trap. We know all too well the only use he has is providing nuggets of information. His “analysis” and “commentary” are well, juvenile at best.

by Bellerophon on Nov 3, 2008 8:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

hits the mark

he is good at getting information and has broken news about ucla athletics pretty regularly.

however, i think he doesn’t really have the experience or knowledge to talk in detail about coaching changes and the politics behind it. I don’t think his backing of Dorrell (IIRC) was because of some evil master plan, he just didn’t know any better. If you need any his commentary about the new regime, he has been very complementary (almost to his own surprise).

All in all, I don’t think really meant anything by posting his thoughts, the same thoughts went through my head as well. Sometimes I wonder what if? because its fun to do.

by kidro2001 on Nov 4, 2008 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs