Hating on Neuheisel

by Menelaus on Jun 13, 2008 2:03 PM PDT

Just the other day, bluestreet pointed out one example of the Lame Pettiness of Neuheisel Haters.

In that case, we saw how Seattle Times writers with an ax to grind against Neuheisel jumped at the opportunity to take a joke at an alumni auction out of context.

Well, those guys aren't alone. Now, our friends at SMQ are taking their turn:

The New Guy(s): Rick Neuheisel has a long way to go to escape the long shadow of charlatanism: he left Colorado with more than 50 rules violations and two years’ probation in 1998, was investigated for illegal recruiting visits, reprimanded by the board of the American Football Coaches’ Association and compared to Al Capone in Slate (the NCAA got him, but only for a technicality – gambling on basketball. like Capone got nailed for tax evasion – instead of the meat of his transgressions).

This kind of jab isn't unexpected, at least from the Bill Plaschke's of the world (I can just see the Capone reference in one of his patented single sentence paragraphs).

But, it's not what one would expect from SMQ. You see, despite apparently OMG holdingz a grudge, SMQ is a pretty thoughtful guy, known for in-depth analysis and doing his homework.

So why would SMQ be so cavalier with the facts about Neuheisel? Surely, before branding Neuheisel a "charlatan," he'd cite to more than a couple five year old articles that tell only part of the story. Surely, SMQ's above-average Google skills gave light to the many, many articles which show the other side of the equation.

Funny thing, though. The points in those articles weren't mentioned. Maybe SMQ didn't have the time.

Or, maybe, he's trying to advance the easy narrative and stir the pot like any other non-affiliated "pundit" we'd expect to see on the WWL. Who knows?

GO BRUINS.

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.

1 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

he's just lazy

like most media types. They pass on conventional wisdom because they don’t actually want to do any research…

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

by silverlakebruin on Jun 13, 2008 2:29 PM PDT 0 recs

He is lazy

He tries to come across as some kind of “pundit” but ends up sounding like just another moron we see bloviating on tv.

by bluestreet on Jun 13, 2008 2:31 PM PDT up 0 recs

Research

That’s what I don’t understand. SMQ does a great job much of the time. And his posts usually are the pinnacle of research. Again, which is why I find his recent post surprising.

by Menelaus on Jun 13, 2008 2:33 PM PDT up 0 recs

May be he is bitter

I just poked around his site via the search function and stumbled into this the day after Dorrell got fired. He predicted this site would become dead or something after the firing of Dorrell:

I’m a little worried about Nestor and his boys at BN, though, who have poured so much time, energy and bandwidth into getting Dorrell fired that, with the moment of blissful truth finally upon them, they find the future without their nemesis empty and devoid of meaning. They like Peterson, Mariucci and Leach there. What are they going to write about and bump from the diaries if not venomous (yet usually very true) rants exposing the Doofus for the milquetoast underachiever he is? Be careful what you wish for, BN…

Is he just bitter about this community thriving since it didn’t fit into his neat little box of being some kind one trick pony?

by bluestreet on Jun 13, 2008 2:38 PM PDT up 0 recs

I read it as a joke when he first wrote it

SMQ generally does great work. During football season his site is must read material and his off season posts are generally incredibly well researched including (one of my favorites) a big post on the single wing offense.

Why we are seeing this kind of a shot at Neuheisel in this post, I do not know. I understand he is evaluating CRN’s record as a coach in an attempt to predict the future for UCLA football, but some balance and a look at the other side of the story would be nice. What happens is that he ends up looking like he either doesn’t care to look at the whole story, or that he wrote the post already knowing that he wanted to take a swipe at Neuheisel.

by Rhapsode on Jun 13, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

These kinds of cheap shots have an impact

Menelaus linked to my post re. the lame attacks on Neuheisel from a joke he made at the True Blue celebration. Wizard of Odds did a really dumb post on it. Jim Rome picked it up and today the LAT’s Trojan blogger linked it on “What’s Bruin”.

by bluestreet on Jun 13, 2008 2:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

May be

SMQ is auditioning hard to become the new generation of gas bag, blowhard on WWL’s studios?

What a pompous conceited jerk this guy is.

by bluestreet on Jun 13, 2008 2:30 PM PDT 0 recs

yeah, SMQ didn't go into much depth

but i don’t think that was the point. on the whole, i thought the article was generous and even-handed; yeah, it was a quick and dirty overview, obviously leaving things out, but SMQ certainly didn’t make any assertions that aren’t true, and his concluding paragraph about Neuheisel is pretty kind:

But this is much too brief and too mixed of a record to draw any certain conclusions, other than that he can be good – three ten-plus-win seasons in eight years and a Rose Bowl is proof of that. And he has no record of producing a worse product than Dorrell. For his recruit-friendly charisma and Trojan-baiting chutzpah alone (hello, Norm Chow), Rick’s an upgrade. He’s more confident, he’s at a job he can make his own for a long time, and at least it looks like he’s trying.

Besides, when SMQ speaks of Neu escaping “the long shadow of charlatanism”, he’s got a point; whatever the truth may be, Neuheisel’s got a national reputation as ‘Slick Rick’, and it’s going to take time and hard work to change that perception nationally.

Could SMQ have done more research? Sure. Would said research have altered the main thrust of his article? I doubt it.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Jun 13, 2008 3:31 PM PDT 0 recs

Maybe, maybe not

You’re right, it wasn’t the main point of his post. And, his conclusion may have been the same after more even-handed consideration of the issue. But, if you search Neuheisel on SMQ, you won’t find many kind words or “on the other hands.” I honestly don’t know why he treated it this way. What it might show you, though, is that even the most well-respected, thorough, diligent writers still fall into these narratives now and again.

by Menelaus on Jun 13, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

What it might show you, though, is that even the most well-respected, thorough, diligent writers still fall into these narratives now and again.

That wouldn’t surprise me at all. I’d be lying if I said that all of my blogging was of the ‘well-written, diligently-researched’ variety, and though I can’t claim to be as talented as SMQ, I’d imagine every writer has off-days now and again.

Especially those trying to write about college football in the middle of June.

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Jun 13, 2008 4:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

Let me add to that

SMQ is often held up as a shining example of what distinguishes the so called best of the blogosphere compared to the pundits in the MSM (who bluestreet referenced to in his comments above). Here at SBN, the network goes out of its way to promote him as an analyst who thrives on detail, offering well researched and thought out takes. Yet in repeated occasions he has now taken shots against RN (not to mention the writers on this blog) without offering the other side of the story. So it’s natural for us to give him a little pushback.

PS: Ragnarok … you know I like you guys and your blog. You commenting here made me look over at CGB today and was amused to find the party you guys having obsessing over UCLA, our fan base, and all the potshots towards BN in the comment threads. I read below you guys were having problem filling content this summer, but sure the graduates of such an elite academic institution such as Cal can come up w something more original than obsessing over UCLA and the folks in LA? Just sayin. Have a great weekend.

by Nestor on Jun 13, 2008 4:30 PM PDT up 0 recs

ouch!

no, in fact, we can’t come up with anything more original! you guys have more experience at this, obviously, but coming up with new content every day in June is hard!

seriously, i thought the post itself was an interesting discussion, and actually stemmed from a question you asked me in the comments section of some post from way back in March. I gave an honest answer at the time, but I had trouble generalizing towards the rest of the fanbase, and was generally curious to see what people had to say. You don’t often see a fanbase as divided on an opinion of their rival as the results of our poll seem to indicate that Cal fans are.

Then, of course, the accompanying comments thread veered off into a ‘hate bruins’ party, which is probably old news for you, but is something we don’t write about very often (if at all). Never fun to be on the other side of that, I’m sure, but irrational hatred of the enemy is one of the things that makes sports so much fun (and so obsessive), now isn’t it?

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Jun 13, 2008 4:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

Guess it's a one sided thing

I don’t think of Cal as an “enemy.” It’s a great school with lot of smart kids. It’s just odd to see so many people up there getting worked up over UCLA (especially if they believe they are sooo superior to us). I have never bothered writing about Cal as much because they are not on my radar. Your blog was the first one that I visited a lot last two years, because I really enjoy reading your even handed takes re. Tedford and rest of your program. But the post today and the subsequent discussion … was pretty amusing. I will leave it at that. Looking forward to game week. I think we will have some fun (good natured) back and forth despite some of the craziness (guess it’s a Cal thing) in your comment thread. GO BRUINS.

by Nestor on Jun 13, 2008 5:01 PM PDT up 0 recs

commenter craziness

don’t for a second believe that Cal has some sort of exclusive reserve of crazy internet commenters. frankly, you’ll find them on any blog good enough to warrant a passionate following, and though i wouldn’t agree with all of our commenters or necessarily endorse their views, i heartily encourage the sort of passion that inspires them to comment.

definitely looking forward to the season, though. i’m optimistic about the bruins’ chances this year, though at some point you’re going to need a healthy QB. good luck attempting to make Tennessee 0-2 on the West Coast!

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!

by ragnarok on Jun 13, 2008 5:17 PM PDT up 0 recs

Fair point about commenter craziness

As always thanks for the civil and respectful exchange R. Good luck to the Bears as well.

by Nestor on Jun 14, 2008 5:55 AM PDT up 0 recs

I didn't have a problem w/ the article

The part about Neuheisel starts with:

Rick Neuheisel has a long way to go to escape the long shadow of charlatanism

I’m excited about the new direction the football program is heading in, but how is that characterization inaccurate in any way? Let’s not kid ourselves: the “long shadow of charlatanism” is certainly the perception Neuheisel has across the nation, and only time, ethical work, and consistent, improved results will remove that perception.

Rather than trying to excuse or minimize the mistakes of Neuheisel’s past (and regardless of the actual number, there were mistakes), let’s focus on the rebuilding at hand.

The Rick Neuheisel Story is as yet unfinished, and I hope will ultimately be one of redemption and triumph. While I and other Bruins maintain that optimism, I can’t fault those on the outside looking in for expressing their skepticism.

by insomniacslounge on Jun 13, 2008 4:34 PM PDT 0 recs

Perception of the nation?

Perception of the nation was Dorrell did a great job in his 10-2 season. Does that make that mean we had to accept it?

What this perception and narrative doesn’t take into account was how Neuheisel was railroaded at UDub. So we should absolutely rebut any attempt to paint Neuheisel with a broad brush without giving all sides of the story. Especially by folks who hold themselves out as some kind nuanced pundit/opinion maker in the wacky world of college blogosphere.

It might be ok with you but not with us.

by Nestor on Jun 13, 2008 4:41 PM PDT up 0 recs

What a second

I wasn’t for a second excusing any mistakes Neuheisel’s made in the past.

That said, I think that some of the allegations are overstated, and disagree that he’s any Capone. I also think that charlatan, though somewhat fancy language, is pretty harsh (“A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.”)

You have to be careful with this kind of thing. Oft repeated things, which might be incomplete or untrue, fairly quickly become part of the public perception. That’s not right.

Finally, if you’ve read any of my posts on dozens of other subjects, you can be sure that I’ll be one of the first to hold RN accountable if he runs astray. But, how ever it shakes out, the guy deserves to be treated fairly.

by Menelaus on Jun 13, 2008 4:53 PM PDT up 0 recs

Fair enough, Menelaus

So if the article had instead said, “Neuheisel has made some well-publicized mistakes in past tenures at Washington and Colorado. UCLA may very well be his last opportunity to prove he has learned from those mistakes”, you would have been OK w/ that?

If that’s the case, then I apologize for misinterpreting your initial criticism of the SMQ article.

by insomniacslounge on Jun 13, 2008 5:04 PM PDT up 0 recs

He made mistakes in Colorado

He made some early mistakes in Washington. But he didn’t have any recruiting issues in his last few years. He was vindicated during the litigation process which was evident in how the UDub admin was so quick to reach settlement re his dismissal. Moreover, as we have written here since he left UDub he showed clear remorse and regret for the actions during his early years in the way he dedicated himself to his local community (Read the article on his time at Rainier Beach). So if someone wants to discuss RN in an even handed way, they should provide the full picture.

by Nestor on Jun 13, 2008 5:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

No need to apologize

I’m not offended or anything.

To answer your question, that, or something similar, would probably be fine, though I would probably tweak it somewhat (sorry, I’m a lawyer, I’ve never seen a document I wouldn’t edit :) ).

You write (very well, I might add). As you know, subtle differences in how something is presented make a difference. If you’re talking about Neuheisel and its all about 50 violations, Capone, and being chased out because of scandal (ignoring that he quit voluntarily at UW before the sanctions issue even came up (if I recall), for example), it can significantly color perception. And when you do that, again, without presenting some balance, the effect is accentuated.

Finally, and I know this will sound lame, but someone like SMQ, who is so well respected for his balance, etc. in most things has a responsibility, imo, to get this kind of thing right. Otherwise, as you can see in the comments, folks are included to just take his word for it.

by Menelaus on Jun 13, 2008 5:18 PM PDT up 0 recs

Better get used to it

Until we start winning, it’s pretty much all we are going to hear from the mostly lazy sports journalists out there. The thing it misses above all however, are all the things he’s done since leaving UW. The HS coaching, and the NFL coaching to be precise. Those are the things that kind of won over my initial skepticism about him, but I fear very few neutral observers are going to take notice of them.

Actually, the same holds true for Chow, to an extent. Everyone talks about what he did at BYU, NCSU, and USC, but few mention that he got a ton of experience at the Titans since then. He won’t be the same guy who worked for Petey, he’s going to be even better! ;)

by smokeybruin on Jun 13, 2008 5:11 PM PDT 0 recs

Great point

About what he has been doing since leaving UDub. I mentioned it above.

The thing is we expect this kind of cheap shots from “lazy sports journalists,” but not from a well respected blogger who has earned his cache based on his detailed/researched takes. In this case this blogger ended up writing like a lazy sports journalist. And M is rightfully calling him out.

by Nestor on Jun 13, 2008 5:14 PM PDT up 0 recs

What Bothers Me Most

Is that the “folklore” about CRN’s “charges” is consistently passed on as fact even though much of it has been discredited by those of us who actually looked at the documents and proceedings.

One would think that after all the research done at the time of the hiring, writers would respect that work product and at least mention it even if they insist on publishing the folklore.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Jun 13, 2008 6:48 PM PDT 0 recs

Great point

I alluded to something like this above, but you make the point much better and more directly.

This would probably be a good subject to go back and compile all the data on in one place, just to set the record straight (both good and bad). I’d do it, but am working on a much bigger project along similar lines which hopefully will be done in a decade or two.

by Menelaus on Jun 13, 2008 7:44 PM PDT up 0 recs