"The most influential person in UCLA basketball wants Pauley to be renovated"
by gobias83 on May 29, 2009 9:24 AM PDT
19 comments
Saw this on Dohn's blog today:
Did UCLA investigate building a new arena? If so, what factors went against building a new arena (other than can't get rid of Pauley). Too costly to teardown Pauley, no viable location?
Yes, UCLA looked into a new arena, but at the end of the day the most influential person in UCLA basketball wants Pauley to be renovated and not knocked down, so athletic director Dan Guerrero is going to adhere to that request.
This is the second time he's mentioned a powerful figure in UCLA basketball being the reason for the decision to renovate rather than rebuild, and that figure is obviously not Guerrero. Is he talking about Coach Wooden? Howland? Bruin legend Michael Fey? If it is coming from Wooden, is there really anything left to debate?
Discuss.
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 |
19 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Well if it is coming from Wooden
it makes sense because he had a large imput on the original design of Pauley, so obviously he like it the way it is. After all, he was the one who believed that there should be separation between the players and the fans and pushed for the baseline seating to be placed a mile away from the court.
That being said, using anyone’s wishes, even Coach Wooden’s, as the sole reasoning for renovation is chickenshit on the part of the Athletic Department. The only person who I think is in a position to make this kind of call is CBH because he is the current coach, and even if he did veto a new arena I’m sure he was expecting more than just a lobby and film room.
Of course, per Doh!‘s usual standards he doesn’t name the source of this response, so for all we know it could be the invention of the guy that changes the water cooler. I think that the Athletic Department was going to renovate all along because they wanted to keep it simple, and they wanted to keep it cheap (news flash 185M is not cheap). Now, in light of all the criticism (HT sIlverlakebruin), the department is grasping at thin air in an attempt to justify their decision.
Count me in as someone who's rather unimpressed by the renovations/cost ratio
It really seems like just tearing it down and building anew is probably the economically sensible thing to do. At the same time, if Wooden himself really does want to keep the current building, that creates quite a dilemma. He’s obviously revered by everyone in and around the program, including Ben Howland, and part of the push to get the upgrades done ASAP is so that Coach Wooden can be there when the new building opens. If this is indeed the case, then I can see the Athletic Department’s dilemma.
Then again, you could be right about this being largely a fabrication to justify a crappy proposal. Wooden seems like a sensible enough man to know that the Athletic Department has to do what’s best for the program and I don’t think he’d let his personal preferences interfere to this extent. But speculation is what the internets for, right?
Really?
Do any of you believe that Coach Wooden would impose his preference on this issue? I always thought he was hands-off when it came to how the program is being run. It would seem out of character for him to comment about this.
My guess would have been the biggest donor, but Doh! says the most influential person “in UCLA basketball”…so perhaps it’s CBH? In any case, it doesn’t matter. This is what is happening and we won’t have a choice other than to accept it, even though we can let it be known that it is not the ideal solution.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I hope you are right.
I love CJRW like we all do, but decisions about the future are generally best left out of the hands of 98 year olds, regardless of how awesome they are.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on May 29, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with Tasser
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
Remember he is the honorary chairman of the committtee
So he probably attended what meetings he was able to and gave his opinion when asked. Considering who was on the committee, I am sure they did ask his opinion. Just because the man is 98 doesn’t mean he is out of touch with today’s world. He probably told them why Pauley is designed the way it is and why he thinks those reasons still apply today. I can only speculate on what he said but I’m sure that many of us would be very interested in what Coach had to say on the matter.
A Chicken Shit "Reporter" and the Name Game
Since Doh! didn’t name the “influential” person, I think it quite unfair to go on a guessing expedition, try to figure out who he means, and then criticize that person for being the reason we are getting a renovation not a rebuild.
To give any credence to a hack “reporter” who never names sources, and then to criticize Coach — because you somehow have guessed it is Coach — is total Bull Shit.
I can’t for the life of me grasp why anyone gives any credence to these “unnamed source” or “unnamed subject” stories Doh! drops so often.
Doh! if you want to point at Coach, have the courage to point at Coach. And, if it’s not Coach, say who it is so that others don’t make a false connection between “most influential person” and Coach.
sjh
PS. And, if Doh! steps up and names Coach, there will be many of us who stand up and make clear why a “98 year old man’s” advice should be followed. This is not just any man. He is the best Coach in history — a man with integrity and vision, whose values and ideas about college basketball I trust over anyone, no matter his or her age.
sjh
by Class of 66 on May 29, 2009 2:22 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
So many people drinking Doh!'s Kool-Aid.
There were six or seven comments before sjh pointed out the obvious. Doh! has once again written a story based on what he was told by someone who you don’t get to know about. “Trust me, readers. This story is true 100%. My source is impeccable, honest, hard-working, and has no agenda of his own. His word is Holy Writ. But you’ll have to trust me. I know better than you. You don’t have to know the source of the information which I’m telling you is true.”
Sjh used some technical journalistic terminology – bull something or other. I agree. That’s exactly what it is. I don’t trust Doh!, because I have first hand experience at his cataclymically wrong reports, such as Coach Walker becoming head coach at Washington. Any of you play poker? Do you let someone claim the pot without showing his hole cards? That’s what Doh! asks you to do. Bruins, if you fall for that, you’re guzzling the Kool-Aid.
Doh!‘s reports are worth no more than the source of the facts in those reports, and if he won’t name them then he shouldn’t write the article. I am absolutely, positively convinced that he has no sources at least some of the time, and just makes this stuff up.
OK, all you staunch defenders of the need for anonymous sources in cutting edge reporting, go ahead. But as you defend Doh!, please explain why we should accept his word that he has a source and why we should accept his word that his source has knowledge of the facts, and why we should accept his words that his source accurately related the facts, and why we should accept his word that his source wasn’t trying to further an agenda. There’s no hint that Doh! undertook to cross-examine his source about any of this stuff. So go ahead and explain why we should accept that something is true simply because Doh! reports it. Go to the grocery store and find the outrageous tabloid the name of which I can’t remember. It once had a story about a small UFO which landed in Mexico, and which is being used to this date as a sombrero. We laugh at that as being outrageous to the point of being funny. So class, please articulate the reasons why we should give Doh! and his history of inaccuracy and of citing no sources when there is anything even remotely controversial any greater credibility than we give the author of the UFO Sombrero story.
The Bruizers rattle their sabres!
Yes, Doh! is a chickenshit for not naming his source, yet again.
No, I don’t see anyone here criticizing Coach for his recommendation, if he was indeed the aforementioned influential person. He apparently had his reasons for having Pauley designed the way it was, essentially wanting a buffer between the noisy crowd and the teaching he was doing on the court, and I don’t see why he would change his mind today. If, however, the committee stopped looking at all the options available just because of Coach’s opinion, then I would have a problem. It would be a shortcoming in due diligence and in the fiduciary responsibility between the school and the fans and donors.
And again, Doh!‘s piece is not an article, it’s a blog posting, and he is not obligated to provide sources’ names, and unfortunately it is the only place where we can get certain information because of the access he is granted. Do with the info what you will.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Blog, schmog
He’s publishing in a paper. If it’s a blog, it should still be accurate. If someone writes something that is inaccurate here, that person deservedly gets called on it. When Doh! writes something that’s pure opinion, we can agree or disagree and maybe call him foolish or childish or naive for holding such an opinion. I have no problem with that.
We’re not talking about letters to the editor, for crying out loud. Doh!‘s blog or whatever he wants to call it is written for profit and published in a newspaper and published on the internet on a regular basis. I don’t remember any disclaimers on his stuff (“Hey, this is just a blog, so I’m not bound by any rules which might apply to journalists”). He holds himself out to be an informed person, worthy of having his words consumed by the public. To me, that makes him subject to the rules just like anyone else whose words regularly appears in print.
And he abuses those rules more often than he follows them. Tasser, please trust me on this. The Kool Aid looks good. It’s grape, which is your favorite flavor. People on your right and on your left are guzzling it down. DON"T DO IT. Until Doh! writes like a grown-up, he doesn’t deserve to be treated like a grown-up. So leave the Kool Aid alone.
Agree with Fox on this one...
Doh! himself says, “I treat the blog as an extension of the paper.”
by truebluebruin on Jun 1, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Criticizing Coach
Did I misunderstand this?
“I love CJRW like we all do, but decisions about the future are generally best left out of the hands of 98 year olds, regardless of how awesome they are.”
sjh
Doh! Dances the Chicken Shit Two -Step
“Yes, Doh! is a chickenshit for not naming his source, yet again.” Tasser10
Actually, it’s worse than that. This isn’t an article in which he says I’m relying on an influential source to let you know that Coach is responsible for what is wrong with the renovation plans.
Instead he says that “…the most influential person in UCLA basketball wants Pauley to be renovated and not knocked down ….”.
And, then, tells us that DG will adhere to that request.
The fact that there is no source whatsoever to support the allegation that DG is “going along” is troubling — and typical Doh!
But, what’s worse — as gobias83 makes clear — Doh! leaves it to the readers to speculate as to who that “most influential person in UCLA basketball” is.
I think most will assume he is referring to Coach.
There is absolutely no reason he cannot come out and say John Wooden opposes a rebuild. None, whatsoever. Instead, he makes it a guarded secret.
So, this time, Doh dances the chicken shit two step. No source when alleging that DG is going along with the mystery man, and no ID of who that mystery man or woman might be — but with a heavy implication it is our beloved Coach.
Down here in Texas we have a saying for people like Doh! “Cowboy up.”
sjh
BTW — I have no problem with anyone directly naming Coach, establishing that he is involved in the renovation plan, accurately reporting his position on the issues, and disagreeing with him. And, I have no problem with someone accurately portraying DG’s position — hey, here’s a new thought, by asking him directly and quoting him. That would be the Cowboy way of doing things.
sjh
Henhouse ways
A long time ago, I had a boss who used the phrase, “That may not be CS, but it’s sure got those henhouse ways.”
Doh! really extended the envelope of poor writing. Laying aside the whole issue of refusing to name a source, he doesn’t even reveal who he’s talking about. He is critical of “the most influential person in UCLA basketball” but he doesn’t say who the most influential person is. Just what is the definition of “the most influential person in UCLA basketball.” There are lots of potential candidates depending on what the definition is – Edwin Pauley, Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor, Jr., Coach, Coach Howland, Sam Gilbert, Pete Dalis, Gene Block, Diane Pucin, Nestor, et al. You can make a case for any of those people being “the most influential,” and you might still be leaving out some good candidates. In fact, by leaving out the name, Doh! seems to me to be telling the world that he himself is “the most influential person in UCLA basketball” because he is revealing news that no one else has. (There is a key word in that last sentence which Doh! invariably elects not to use. There will be a quiz at the end of this rant.)
Doh! also omits another important piece of the analysis. He says that Mr. Guerrero “is going to adhere to that request.” Are we to interpret that as “so in my opinion, Mr. Guerrero is going to adhere to that request?” Did Doh! leave out the phrase “so Dan Guerrero told me he is going to adhere to that request.” Why should we accept Doh!‘s conclusion as to what Mr. Guerrero is going to do? And now here’s the answer to the quiz. The reason we should hold Doh!‘s journalistic feet to the fire is his failure to use the word “because.” “Folks,” says Doh!, “you should believe me BECAUSE of these facts: blah, blah, blah.” The word “because” precedes the rationale behind the argument. An argument without the word “because” may not be CS, but it’s sure got those henhouse ways.
This particular writer has been given the monicker “Doh!” because (there’s that word again) his thought processes and analytical skills seem to be identical to those of Homer Simpson. He is a poor writer and a poor journalist. He’s not even a good blogger, if being a just a blogger instead of a reporter is supposed to be a defense to something. His writing isn’t worthy of all the attention it’s getting.
Honestly
I’m just tired of the ranting against Doh!. You guys have made it perfectly clear that you don’t trust him. You really don’t need to rehash it every time he writes something. For those of us who would rather discuss the issue, you should let us do so. It’s really not worth your outrage, he’s writing about sports, not human rights, for crying out loud.
You may not have a problem with Coach Wooden being named as the source and the influential person, but I would have a huge problem with it. I wouldn’t want boosters and fans to start criticizing and hounding Coach for his opinion. I doubt he would impose it on anyone. Even if it wasn’t Coach, what if Doh! was asked to respect that person’s privacy? If he divulges it, no one at UCLA will talk to him anymore. You may be happy with him being fired, but the next person would have the same problem. He is far from perfect, but he offers information that I am not able to acquire anywhere else, and I can decide for myself how valuable/accurate that info is. Regardless, it’s not like I will be needing it in a life or death situation…he’s like a search engine…you can kind of figure out which links are correct and which ones are lame.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Jun 2, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Come on, Tas
Why should Doh! get a pass when he says something stupid? We excoriated Bill and Ted every time they said something stupid. And Doh!’s disdain for intellectual honesty and journalistic responsibility has its downside. Two examples of how a person gets infected.
First, ytou said “You may not have a problem with Coach Wooden being named as the source and the influential person, but I would have a huge problem with it.” That’s a problem, because Doh! didn’t say that Coach was the “most influential person.” He just let each reader name the source. It’s as if he said, “Hey, reader, name the person you think is the most trusted source out there. OK, got him? Well, he’s the guy who gave me this info.”
Second, you said “If he divulges it, no one at UCLA will talk to him anymore.” You assume that Doh! actually talked to someone at UCLA and was given information. Why should you draw that conclusion? There is nothing in the ostensible quote which self-authenticates the information given, or which in the slightest way suggests that the information is true. We really, truly have to take Doh!’s word for things. What has he done to suggest that he is to be trusted in this context?
There are plenty of people whose track record suggests that there is a valid basis to accept their honesty in this sort of situation. Nestor, for example, made it clear that he had inside information which he couldn’t and didn’t reveal on a couple of topics. The fact that his “predictions” proved to be correct validated our accepting his word on these things. The same with Rye. Doh!’s track record cannot compare. In fact, his predictions based on his unimpeachable sources often turn out to be just the opposite of reality.
Why do I focus on Doh!? Why does it appear to be a cause celebre for me? A couple of reasons. First, he’s quoted so much here. I don’t go elsewhere to find what he says, but our moderators and contributors quote him a lot. And just about every one of his quotes has something which requires us to accept that he spoke to someone with knowledge, asked the right questions, got the right answers, transcribed those questions and answers accurately, filtered out anything which showed a bias or hidden agenda, and then gave us the actual scoop. Sorry, I’m not ready to give him the benefit of that doubt.
Second, Doh! is only one of the subjects I rant about. Others include the fishwrap and overindulging in alcohol (or just indulging a little). Those are big things, and I speak out a lot. Sports announcers also catch my ire. Opera too, but from the other perspective. Consider yourself lucky. If Doh! weren’t quoted here so much, and if those quotes didn’t lend themselves so easily to criticism, then you would be swamped with lengthy, although extremely interesting, stories about opera.
I just don't care
about Doh! and the things he says. It really has no bearing on my life.
On the first point, it is a hypothetical, i.e. IF Coach was the source, I wouldn’t want him to be named. I use the conditional tense, which I was taught was for hypothetical situations.
On the second point, no, you don’t have to take Doh!‘s word for things. Who said you did? All I am trying to do is figure out why the committee went with an expensive renovation over a new stadium. Doh!’s statement is a drop in the bucket of info that I have available.
I don’t understand why Doh! would make up stories (like DW going to UW) when he KNOWS that events could easily prove him wrong. I don’t assume anything with his stories, but your first instinct is to assume that he is wrong and that he is lying. Well enjoy yourself with that. I just doubt that he is another Stephen Glass.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
This is the important part, of course
“All I am trying to do is figure out why the committee went with an expensive renovation over a new stadium.”
I would like to know that, too. I don’t think Doh!’s article contributed much to the overall fund of knowledge about that issue.
Is he a Stephen Glass? I think he is, based on what I’ve seen. You come to the opposite conclusion, based on what you’ve seen. I forgive you for being incorrect. (JUST KIDDING!!! Don’t send the goon squad after me!)
LOL!
Well he might be a Stephen Glass, but his stories are nowhere as interesting!
His article definitely didn’t contribute much…just a drop in the bucket.
ps: the goon squad is currently on hire to U$C and I just don’t have the funds to compete.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
