Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N
Just saw this in the LA Times blog. Just as CRN handled the Carroll-twitter incident, it appears that he is handling this situation well. Here is the statement from CRN:
"We studied the tape, and I talked with Norm, and we decided that Kevin would be the starter this week," Neuheisel said. "But I asked that Richard get some playing time the final five weeks. He has merited getting playing time."
Adding some fuel to those who see CNC (not me) as one of the problems our uninspired offense, it appears that the decision to stick with Prince has been from CNC.
As for the decision to start Prince, Neuheisel said, "Norm has been in the meetings with those kids, and he believes Kevin is the best bet for us as it stands currently. I don’t disagree."
I remember in the summer there was a quote from CNC alluding to his belief that Prince could challenge for a Heisman by the time he is done at UCLA. I know CNC prides himself and his built his reputation on grooming high quality quarterbacks, but I hope his commitment to Prince is truly because Prince is, in Chow's eyes, significantly better than Brehaut and not because Chow doesn't want to look wrong on his prediction. Meanwhile, it looks like CRN is going to look for using Brehaut during the game next week. More after the jump.
I couldn't agree more with CRN's view of the situation.
Yet Neuheisel said he is locked into using Brehaut during the game. Chow’s philosophy has been against multiple-quarterback situations.
"We have two young quarterbacks, and we’d like to see them both develop," Neuheisel said. "It’s time Richard gets some chances."
I understand the whole arguments against using multiple quarterbacks, but if one of your boats is sinking, it is foolish to just ride it down to the bottom because you think that jumping into another boat might be marginally worse.
Here's hoping that both Prince and Brehaut play well in practice this week and perform against OSU this Saturday. I think we would all love to have a quarterback controversy as the result of their mutual success than their mutual failure.