Neuheisel Takes Decisive Action: Dismisses 3 Incoming Freshmen From UCLA Football Team
by Nestor on Jun 29, 2010 10:51 AM PDT
in Football
Email
Print
Just came out from UCLA:
UCLA head football coach Rick Neuheisel has dismissed three incoming freshman from the football squad for violation of team rules, it was announced today. The players were informed of the discipline this morning.
Paul Richardson, Shaquille Richardson and Josh Shirley will not be allowed to continue summer school and will not be permitted to enroll at UCLA for Fall Quarter. If they meet certain requirements set by Neuheisel, they may be allowed to enroll in January. Additional discipline may be imposed by the Office of the Dean of Students.
The three players were arrested on campus last week (June 23) by University Police. They were charged with suspicion of felony theft.
"The three young men know they made a terrible mistake," said Neuheisel. "We expect our players to behave a certain way and there are consequences when they don't. Paul, Shaquille and Josh are paying a steep price for their lapse in judgment. They will not be allowed to enroll in school this fall and will not have the opportunity to begin their UCLA academic and athletic careers.
"Whether they are allowed to enroll for Winter Quarter will be determined at a later date. That decision will be based on several factors, including their behavior."
Calling this decisive would be an understatement (it's a little different than running laps and dismissing it as "kids being kids.". CRN couldn't handle this in better way IMO. More after the jump.
IMHO this is a pitch-perfect, appropriate and measured response. It is appropriate because it takes away from these three young adults (they are just not kids any more) one of the things they probably cherish most at this point of their lives: the privilege to play football on a scholarship at the greatest university (at least in our minds) in the country. It sends a message to these guys and rest of the team that representing those four letters is not something they are entitled to because of their God given talents. It's a privilege.
The response is also measured because it gives them an opportunity to come back to UCLA, provided they show in tangible ways they have learned from their mistakes and are worthy of being Bruins. If they don't put in the work, they will be gone forever ala EJ Woods. If they put in the work and prove themselves, they can earn their way back into UCLA and represent those four letters.
We hope these guys learn from their terrible mistakes even if they don't end up making their way back to Westwood. If they make their way back they should understand that they will be subject to a zero tolerance policy at UCLA.
Additionally, I really appreciate how CRN didn't wait for the resolution of legal proceedings to take this action. Once again he differentiated himself from the way Ben Howland dealt with a player I am not going to bother naming any more on BN.
You don't get to eff around if you put on those four letters. Thanks to Coach Neuheisel for sending a clear and unmistakable message to rest of UCLA community.
GO BRUINS.
98 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’m not sure I follow. Is this action being taken because they are guilty of felony theft or because they put themselves in a position of being arrested for felony theft?
Presumably, if they plead out or are convicted, they will be dismissed permanently (felony theft not being a mere lapse in judgment)?
This is an action being taken
for 3 kids effing around while representing those 4 letters. The legal proceedings can resolve on their own but you don’t get to be on a scholarship and drag our school’s name in mud. Period.
I don't think it's that cut and dry
meaning that if guilty, no re-enrollment in winter. If innocent, then they re-enroll for winter. I would imagine coming back is a possibility if they plead guilty and owned their mistakes and did everything they possibly can and then some to prove that it won’t happen again and that they’re deserving of being at UCLA. The way I’m reading that is the door isn’t shut on any of them, but it’s going to take a LOT of work and some smart decision making to have a shot at coming back.
yup
You read it correct:
The way I’m reading that is the door isn’t shut on any of them, but it’s going to take a LOT of work and some smart decision making to have a shot at coming back.
They are going to have to prove themselves of worthy of being Bruins. If they aren’t, they will end up somewhere else (just like EJ Woods).
Tend to agree
Seems like the exact right response by CRN at this stage. Future enrollment to me would be contingent first upon not being guilty of felony theft. To me, there is no place in our program and school for that type of student athlete, period. Secondarily contingent on things like behavior in the interim, etc.
What if
they admit to their mistakes, plead guilty and get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor. Then do everything being asked of them between now and January? I don’t think the scenario in which this goes to a trial and they’re found not guilty is very likely.
That's a good "what if" Chris
they should enjoy long and fruitful lives, but not as members of the UCLA football team. I would have no compunctions at all about releasing them from their obligations and letting them go to whatever school would take a convicted criminal.
I don’t think this crime was a mistake in the sense that it was a momentary lapse of judgment, like thinking you can make the signal but being wrong. This was a case where mistake was that the guys were wrong about being caught. I’m not going to say that I have never had that sort of lapse of judgment. I know better than most the consequences of a moral lapse. There can be forgiveness (for which I am grateful), but there are surely consequences. I think there is a larger lesson here. Coach Neuheisel is setting the standard for conduct for all our players, not just these three. He has made it clear that he won’t have this sort of thing, and I support him totally.
If these guys earn their way back, I would forgive them and welcome them, But not now. It’s time for them to man up, admit what they did, and take their punishment. Or if they really didn’t do it, then they should accept the suspension and move for an early trial and win their case and their vindication.
by Fox 71 on Jun 29, 2010 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed. Running a class act program will always be more important than any one player (or 3 in this case). We will possibly miss their talents, if they dont come back, but what they did was incredibly stupid and it was by no means an accident. Hopefully the rest of the team (and the student body) realize that they are adults now, and will be held accountable as such.
great job coach
lets hope this sends a message to the rest of the team! They need to understand especially in this day what a privilege it is to get a chance to play at UCLA and even more important get an education from the best school in the country…
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's"
John Wooden.....
Today
Should officially mark the non-sense guitar strummin, river boat gamblin “Coach Rick.” The message CRN sent to recruits and their parents around Southern California and all around the country should be loud and clear. I couldn’t be prouder of CRN today than I have been at any point since he came back home.
Right on CRN!
Compare this to our “neighbors” to the south…Get caught, either deny or spin and then file an appeal.
I’m very sorry these kids messed up so badly, but CRN is sending a very clear message here.
I may work with the Waves, but I'm still a Bruin!
(Formerly "HoozierDaddy")
Agree
This just shows that CRN isn’t effn’ around….
Playing this sport, at this school, in this conference is a privilege. Now they have time to think about what they have done, and work their way back into good standing.
by LoveMyBruins on Jun 29, 2010 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions
just talked to a friend of mine who's on the team
CRN is making them enroll in a JC this semester, and if they stay out of trouble, get a certain GPA and complete some other tasks that CRN asks of them, they’ll be permitted to rejoin the team and re-enroll for the spring – depending on the outcome of the case of course
Has there ever been a player better than Detlef Schrempf?
by bucknellbruin on Jun 29, 2010 11:11 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Very logical
It’s no wonder he’s a lawyer.
BTW – There has never been a player (with a name) better than Detef Schrempf.
by C.T. in Boston on Jun 29, 2010 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
A couple of comments
First, and most important, Coach Neuheisel demonstrated perfectly the difference between UCLA and that other place. In addition to being the right thing to do under these particular circumstances, it sends a message that moms and dads of high school athletes will read loud and clear. Coach Neuheisel teaches life lessons at UCLA. At the other place, well, let’s just say they’re not taught that particular lesson. Once again, it comes down to a character issue – what kind of parent would allow their kid, whether a star athlete or just another schlump, to go to that place?
Second, I have to give a personal comment to Nestor. You mentioned “a player I am not going to bother naming any more on BN.” I understand perfectly. There are a couple of people whose name I can’t mention, namely, CHP and CTS. Alas, I don’t have a ready couple of letters to suggest that you use. Believe me, I feel your pain.
Video
My guess is that the police showed DG and CRN the surveillance video and the guys were guilty as charged. I’m just glad we don’t have a win at all costs mentality at UCLA and I am thankful that our AD doesn’t make excuses and claim that everyone is out to get us just because they are envious.
Just a thought, perhaps we should have a summer course for all incoming freshman called Wooden 101: learn all the principles of the Pyramid and how to carry yourself as a man/woman.
by UCLA Championships Made Here on Jun 29, 2010 11:22 AM PDT reply actions
A class on Coach Wooden should be more than a summer course
Frankly it should be part of the GE requirement for UCLA undergrads.
That would be the perfect
way to honor Coach
Visiting professors
Wilkes, Jabbar, Walton, etc.
by UCLA Championships Made Here on Jun 29, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
It'd have to be held in Pauley
to meet the enrollment demand!
Who can we talk to at Murphy Hall
or wherever else on campus to suggest this great idea?
Someone should write it up in detail first
And post it here … if they are interested in getting the ball rolling.
I would add
that such a class should be mandatory for all incoming Bruins, whether Freshman, JC transfers, Internationals, or Grad Students.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Amen, brother.
It should be pass fail, and if you don’t pass, you should have to justify your continued existence as a UCLA student.
I think this would be interesting as a Fiat Lux course
the 1 unit seminars, 20 student enrollment, restricted to Freshmen. It would be an interesting route for it to get approval.
Quick, stern, and decisive!
With the possibility for redemption and forgiveness with the right attitude and behavior bt the players. Just pefect.
Absolutely, 100% Perfect Response
Gone from our campus.
Gentlemen, you don’t represent UCLA, in any capacity.
Coach Neuheisel, you have definitely done the right thing here—for our school, for UCLA football, and for these young men, too. Thank you.
Love My Bruins
Wise Decision
Kuddos to CRN for quick, decisive and just punishment. Permits a road back and saves the scollies. I also love the Coach Wooden class idea. This must happen!
Once again
UCLA will never be comparable with u$c.
Great Decision
So glad to see yet another example of our school being one of ethics and pride while the exact opposite culture thrives across town. I of course got an email from a law school classmate when this happened (he is the biggest SC hack you have EVER met) celebrating over this and suggesting we had “lost institutional control.” Nothing could be further from the truth!
LOL
at Trogan hacks talking about “institutional control.” He should note that UCLA in this case took pre-emptive measures even before legal proceedings were resolved. There was no way around it because it was a student/student issue. Dean of Students at UCLA would have also taken their own measures (and they still might do in this case).
In contrast Ray Ray gets to beat Trogan students into pulp and still face no disciplinary measures from neither the football coaches or the “University.”
E Mail The Article Back,
and point out,
“This is what “Institutional Control” looks like.(So maybe he’d recognize it, if he ever witnessed any.)
Love My Bruins
by Bruingirl83 on Jun 29, 2010 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Dumb question
What does this mean for recruiting? Does this mean we have 3 new scholarships available for the class of 2011? Help please.
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Jun 29, 2010 12:15 PM PDT reply actions
Rec'd for Nestor's closing paragraphs
but even more for CRN showing that the buck stops with him. No waiting around – if law enforcement thinks they’ve got a strong enough case to arrest these three and charge them with a felony, they shouldn’t be associated with the program as long as there’s an air of (reasonable) suspicion. I’m also impressed that rather than completely tossing them, he’s set conditions under which they can possibly earn their way back on to the team. Bucknellbruin, you mentioned the terms CRN set that your friend on the team told you about. Is any part of it conditional on the team accepting them back, or at least the team captains? Just wondering.
In the immortal words of the pin I got while an undergrad: Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
CRN makes me proud to be a Bruin
some *$¢ hack emailed me when this story broke saying ha ha this stuff happens to everybody. my response quite simply, “we’ll see how CRN handles it, and then maybe you’ll be singing a different tune.”
as expected – swift, decisive judgment, with the possibility of reconciliation. maybe CBH should have consulted CRN about N’s favorite player…?
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." --John Wooden
I think many of us
are wondering the same thing.
A big difference
I respect the position Nestor took from the very beginning on the Dragovich caper. Others such as me said let’s trust Coach Howland. And in my mind, I always come back to the Duke lacrosse disaster.
But in the Dragovich case, which has big self-defense implications (the one where the criminal case actually was filed, not the domestic violence arrest), as far as I know there is no video. Here there is by all accounts a video and Coach Neuheisel could see for himself what happened.
A coach imposing discipline has lot of discretion how he or she will handle it. I like the way Coach Neuheisel has handled it. But I remain comfortable with the way Coach Howland has walked the difficult thin line between guilt and innocence. Given what happened at Duke, I respect his cautiousness.
And I readily admit Coach Howland could be wrong on this.
+1
I was going to write up a separate response very similar to yours.
It is not fair to compare CBH’s treatment of Dragovich with CRN’s treatment of these 3 players. The circumstances are far different.
I, too, think there must be a video tape showing these three taking the backpack. Stealing, under these facts, is plain wrong and there are likely no defenses unless one of the three thought it was his backpack. And, the decision to take another’s property is not made under the heat of emotion or in circumstances that require split second decisions.
Drago was arrested for physical contact with another person. However, in the context of his act, there is a recognized defense; if one is acting in defense of one’s self or another, one may use appropriate force — and it is not a crime. Under attack, the decision as to how to react must be made in a split second. There is a judgment call here as to whether to act and as to how much force is appropriate that is far different than that involved is taking a backpack.
CBH most likely did exactly what CRN did — he probably investigated the facts and circumstances on his own and decided that there was sufficient evidence that Drago properly defended his friend and, therefore, would not be found guilty.
IIRC — ultimately the charges against Drago were dropped.
I think a proper analysis must divorce the bad judgment CBH showed in allowing Drago to play the number of minutes he played from the way he handled the arrest.
He handled the arrest properly. Just as it appears that CRN handled this latest set of arrests correctly.
The different facts justify the different results.
sjh
Ragovic
His body of work which included acting like an entitled asshole off the court, warranted more severe penalties from Howland. He is a clear black mark on Howland’s resume at UCLA.
by Nestor on Jun 29, 2010 3:24 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Body of Work v. Criminal Charges
My point is that we cannot fault CBH for the way he handled the criminal charges and/or compare him unfavorably to CRN in this case.
However, I do agree with you that given Drago’s “body of work” he should not have been given so much playing time.
My point is that we have to separate the two basis upon which we are evaluating our coaches.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Jun 29, 2010 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
when I was referring to his "body of work"
I wasn’t talking about his game. I was talking about his assholishness off the court in a consistent manner. Once he managed to get himself on police blotter twice, he should not have seen the court until his legal proceedings were resolved. Howland blew it and it also negatively impacted the morale of the program.
I hope we never see this Ragovic clown anywhere near UCLA. He is an embarrassment and Howland’s handling of the situation was very Trogan like. I am done w this topic bc don’t want to waste any more time on this disgrace.
by Nestor on Jun 29, 2010 4:26 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
+1
Right on about his off the court conduct. Not a nice polite young man. (I have just been convicted of first degree understatement.)
Indeed 'stuff' does happen to everyone...
…that’s not the issue. The core nugget is how ‘everyone’ reacts to the ‘stuff.’ And CRN and UCLA has set the standard for decisive action with the opportunity for redemption.
by C.T. in Boston on Jun 29, 2010 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed. Perfect response by CRN
This shows that it’s not just about the football team but the university as a whole, and that it’s larger than the athletes.
Question about redeeming themselves
If they have video that shows these kids committing the crime, even if they plea to a misdemeanor, they are still guilty, so why is there room for redemption in this case? This sort of behavior should not be tolerated. Period. Yes, they should get the chance to go to JC and get an education (and if someone else will allow them to play football, that’s ok, too), but they don’t belong in our program. They committed a crime, regardless of whether they get convicted or not.
John Wooden often said:
“Forgiveness sets the soul free.”
I think he was quoting or paraphrasing Mother Theresa (who he considered one of his heroes and mentors.).
Though I don't agree with there actions
all three had a clean record and this was just an isolated incident. The punishment had both a strictness and an open way of redemption.
RESCUING DANCE MUSIC FROM THE BLAHS
Yeah, but
There are different kinds of forgiveness. Forgiving someone and assuming they make restitution is one thing. Yes, these kids deserve another chance in life, but do they deserve another chance in our football program? That’s my only question. They are obviously guilty, regardless of the legalities, but they should get their chance (and scholarship) elsewhere. I sound more hard-ass than I really am, but I think our athletic programs should be more zero-tolerance than life itself. These kids had an amazing opportunity and they blew it.
Prior comments
In the initial post on this subject, many commenters spoke of the wisdom of awaiting the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
Today’s prompt action shows there is another approach, investigate the matter and take corrective action before the criminal court system even gets its hands on the dispute. We do not want the disaster which befell the Duke lacrosse team to occur in Westwood. But on the the hand, this a recurring problem, athletes who commit crimes, and nothing prohibits the school from protecting other students and maintaining discipline in the football program.
But as to the criminal courts aspect, the students are presumed innocent. But playing football is not a court proceeding. They have been given the bum’s rush because of their conduct, not because of a conviction. And therein is a real difference between the criminal justice system and UCLA.
Go Bruins!
Agree with the presumption of innocence
But they have these guys on video, which isn’t the same as the Duke incident. In this case, they could plea-bargain, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t commit the crime, and the program has to look out for itself, so I agree with you.
Two Most Misunderstood Words...
From Nestor’s excellent article: “…entitled to because of their God given talents. It’s a privilege.”
I have an 18 year old daughter and I thought teaching her long division a decade ago was my greatest challenge as a parent.
No - it’s to continually instill the difference between “entitled,” which all teens think is God given, and privilege, which is earned. The only other word that young adults misunderstand is “disrespect,” which they seem to mentally substitute for entitled.
The fact that the Richardson’s are connected to UCLA through their dad/uncle could bode well that they stick it out, in spite of the psychological and spiritual pain, to learn a major life lesson to go on and become the men they are probably capable of being. The fact that Shirley was not a perpetrator (assuming from release w/out bail) means he could be whistling past the graveyard on this beef.
Lastly, I hope the victim of this crime can go about the remainder of her years on campus without having to be paranoid or cynical about her fellow students.
Good response
I think. It will be interesting to see what the conditions turn out to be. I don’t think it’s necessary to say that if it turns out they were guilty, they should be gone completely. I think there is a chance for redemption, especially considering they had just begun their careers. This could be an opportunity, if we are in the business of building character, to build the right kind of young man. If they are innocent, the path is much easier to redemption, but I don’t think it closes if they are guilty. I think it gets harder, certainly. In the end, it should be about the lives of these kids and creating the sort of people who get to be at UCLA.
by Captain Leebeard on Jun 29, 2010 2:32 PM PDT reply actions
Yay CRN!!
So glad he did this-lots of coaches at other programs would choose to let the kids in anyway. CRN just demonstrated to the country that our football program has class and if you mess up, it doesn’t matter how good of a player you are-you will pay the price.
About the stolen backpack
Most of the time students don’t even bother locking up their backpacks in the lockers in front of the dining halls. In Covel dining hall, they even put out a rack for people to just leave their stuff on! Some students just put stuff their bags in there, not bother with locking it, and assume nothing will happen.
I don’t know all the details, but I doubt the players busted the lock while students were walking in and out of the dining hall. Very poor judgment on both parties.
It is a sad statement that one should expect theft in one's home (dorm).
At the UCSD parent/student orientation I just attended, dorm security was a major topic. I felt bad, for Jen, that she will have to live a life in which she must take everything with her, lock everything up, and have a good insurance policy.
Back in the old days, we’d leave stuff all over without fear that it would not be there when we got back. No, we did not have computers, iPads, iPhones, digital cameras, iPods, or anything of great value — but we did have book bags full of stuff that was important to us.
It is really a shame that we cannot trust those on our campus.
And, more of a shame that we cannot trust our fellow Bruins.
Although I am by trade a defense lawyer, I can tell you that the student who suffered the theft lost more than stuff. She lost a sense of security that will take a long time to return. Her world was violated.
I am all in favor of rehabilitation and redemption — but I’m not sure that carries with it the right to attend UCLA or the right to play ball for us. I think it carries with it the right to move on — but where I’m not sure.
C.T. has hit a major point on the head. All of us who are the parents of teenagers have come up hard against the wall of “entitlement”. Even good kids, on their way off to college, think it is all about them and that they are “entitled” to many things that we always felt we had to earn. Nowhere is that entitlement more clear than with athletes who are recruited and chased.
I think CRN is making a clear statement, in C.T.’s terms, that no one is entitled to attend UCLA or play for us. It is a privilege that must be earned.
I, too, have deep respect for Chip Kelly and the way he handled last year. I think keeping the door open, to see whether one can earn the way back in is good for all.
But, before I’d let them take one step on that path, I’d tell them they had to sit down with the victim, understand the pain they caused her, apologize sincerely, and take some action in the community to pay it back for the damage they did to it.
sjh
Offering a potential scenario with a guilty plea
When I was in Viet Nam (Navy), one of my buddies was a ‘drop out’ from Notre Dame.
Meaning, he was forced to drop out because he stole a record from the student store. In those days there was a quaint idea for ALL students called the Honor Code. He was asked to leave, with the caveat that he could return and finish his degree if he proved he was worthy of readmission.
His answer to that challenge was to sign up for a hitch in VN, survive and return to ND. He did so, became a teacher, artist and a family man heavily involved in community activities through the state in which he now lives
All right, I realize I named a school that isn’t buddy-buddy with ours, but you get the point. He did the crime, paid an exorbitant price (even by coming home unscathed after being on river patrol), but had a goal to get that degree from that school (which shall not be named again).
Not that these three have to join the service, but hopefully they can really learn how to “man-up” and go above and beyond the path laid out by school and team for readmission. Otherwise, they’ll be afterthoughts in BruinNation, brought up only when that DB Dufresne brings up one more reason to dis UCLA.
Notre Dame
Any school that despises Southern Cal, is all right with me. I like the Irish (the exception is Digger Phelps who is a clown).
by Nestor on Jun 29, 2010 3:03 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I used to be neutral until...
…those two football games during Dorrell’s regime:
1) KD’s fault (Smargin in the end zone with 45 seconds - who didn’t know that was where the ball was going???)
2) The next year when the team was still in it while relying on our 4th (5th- What was that dude’s name McKenzie McKown Boylston III?) string QB and ND needed their defense to win the game.
Now I just can’t stomache the claims the ‘beat’ UCLA.
by C.T. in Boston on Jun 29, 2010 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
My condolences...
I knew there was a hy[phen in there somewhere.
Didn’t he leave us for a bench with his nameplate on a Div 1AA team? Or was that the Forcier who couldn’t pay QB?
by C.T. in Boston on Jun 30, 2010 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Both of them transferred to D 1-AA IIRC
As for Mcleod Bethel-Thompson, he is simply known as the Law Firm here on BN.
He's 'grown" into one of the biggest DBs...
…in college basketball ‘reporting.’
While I’m slouching towards leaving middle age myself, I just don’t understand why the networks have geriatric DBs (especially that flaming douche Vitale) espousing their ‘knowledge’ about the game, which they coached in the 20th Century!!! (baby!)
What a douche!
by C.T. in Boston on Jun 30, 2010 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Are they released from their scholarship?
I have a question. If the three freshman are dismissed from the team and aren’t allowed to enroll, does that automatically mean that they’re released from their scholarships?
by BlackandOldGold on Jun 29, 2010 3:03 PM PDT reply actions
The future
CRN did what needed to be done. Quick, decisive, and provided a road map to redemption. If these three young men complete the steps outlined for them including classwwork from a JC then they should be permitted to reenroll and be accepted back into the Bruin family understanding that zero tolerance is now the rule. Good call coach,
But are they released from their scholarships? I ask that because if they are and can sign anywhere else, then this might be the last we hear from them. If they aren’t, then I think they have a chance to come back.
I ask that because when Chip Kelly dismissed Blount, he made a point to keep him in school. I think he did the same Masoli (sp?) before he messed up again.
by BlackandOldGold on Jun 29, 2010 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Reading this blog today makes me so glad to part of the bruin community.
I was just trying to imagine the response at the the other “school” if one, let alone 3 players had been given this punishment. I think the discussion would have been very different. But here, I read ethical, concerned, thinking people…who also care deeply about sports, but even more deeply about community and the world.
I teach in downtown L.A. in a really neat place where kids from really difficult neighborhoods and not so difficult ones come. Like 66 said, it is like a home for them and for all of us. Every now and then, however, the trust of the community will be broken, usually just like what happened in the dorm, someone taking someone’s cool stuff. What always shocks me though, even though the discussion has happened many times over, is the group of students who will blame the victim. Not just stuff like needing to be careful, bad things do happen. But blame in a much more aggressive way. I’ll hear, well if you’re going to leave your stuff out someone should take it. Or it’s not the person’s fault for taking something when you leave it out, what do you expect. It’s so sad to me to think that so many are growing up with that idea and with no sympathy for the wronged and that if this is how the world is, well then, what are you going to do about it? Too many lay no responsibility on the takers of the objects. Others will also speak up, saying that our community is different and when people do that sort of thing it hurts the whole community.
I bring this up because this whole thing really reminds me of these discussions. I’ve always thought of ucla as a different kind of world that one got to be in. One where people are free and responsible (to themselves and to others). That’s why I’m so glad that CRN is making a point of that to these young men. I don’t know what mentality these young men have about these sorts of things. But hopefully, if it’s anything like the ones of some of my students, they might get to see a different way of seeing things. I do hope so.
And I am so glad that the discussion here has taken the path it has, rather than what this means for wins. I love it when we win, but not at any price.
Go Bruins!
I hear you, uclaluv
I grew up in Lynwood, albeit a slightly different Lynwood than exists now. We locked our door when we went on vacation, but that was it. Nobody broke in. When the Watts Riots happened (and remember that Watts Avenue is in Lynwood), there was some concern, but not much. I still drove to school all the way down Imperial Blvd to the 405 (there was no Santa Monica Freeway then – can you imagine that?), and when I went through the “bad section” of town, I was mindful of the fact, but not concerned, because things were different then.
What changed? It was the sense of entitlement, in my opinion. And it’s worse now, of course. Many people believe that they are “entitled” to instant gratification NOW. If you can’t afford something, put it on your credit card and then don’t pay. Or just take it. I live in Geezerville (that’s gated Geezerville) with a bunch of other Geezers who grew up in Beaver Cleaver’s neighborhood, but now I lock my door. I am a little dismayed at the notion that it’s old-fashioned and whatever else it is to be upset at the anarchy that exists in the minds of teenagers now. Let’s go, sociology majors – explain why things are so different now, and how these times will qualify as the “good old days” when the teenagers progress into geezerdom.
It's been said
But I wholeheartedly support this move. If they do decide to work and try to regain acceptance, then best of luck to them but they need to act like true Bruins
Nice Comments by Neuheisel at the UCLA - South Carolina game interview...
“I would’ve been here earlier but I had some stuff to take care of on campus.” Good for Neuheisel, setting a precedent. If Erin Andrews had interviewed Pete Carroll or Lane Kiffin on a similar situation, “taking care of stuff on campus” would likely mean paying off the police?
Ouch!
…or ensuring the “United States South China” marketing company was making the delivery in a timely manner.
by C.T. in Boston on Jun 29, 2010 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay...
I found the answer to my question about whether or not the three are still on scholarship. According to the LA Times, the three are still bound by their LOI. That’s fine if they want to come back. But since they’re not allowed to go to enroll at UCLA for both the summer and fall, I can see a parent saying, ‘hey, I want my kid to have the freedom to go wherever, instead of missing a full season.’
It may not be right, but for players who haven’t stepped on the field for the Bruins, if you’re going to dismiss them from the team, then you should also release them from their LOI. If they want to come back, meet requirements for both the school and the Deans, then fine. Do so. But if they want to go play for UNLV or Fresno State (who’ll always take ’em), then they should have that right. If not, it seems like a bit of window dressing for players who would (at least for the Richardsons) have redshirted their first year anyway.
by BlackandOldGold on Jun 29, 2010 7:08 PM PDT reply actions
Lot more than a window dressing
These guys are going to miss out 6 months of development, practice with the team. It will effect their growth as student athletes. If they even make it back in January (provided they have satisfied UCLA’s conditions) they are going to get back into seamlessly.
Moreover, if they don’t satisfy UCLA’s conditions by the end of first quarters, they will most likely be allowed to transfer somewhere else. UCLA did pretty much the same thing with EJ Woods, an extremely talented and highly recruited DB. He never made it back. So it is inaccurate to describe this as window dressing, given the precedence that Neuheisel had already set with previous examples.
We know you are a Cal fan. So you might have different perspective. Thanks for sharing it and don’t want this to get reduced to a flame war. Thanks.
East Arizona College Gila Monsters
EJ Woods played 6 games in 2009 25 tackles, 1 INT, 1 sack [13 players had more tackles, including Gary “Dreamweaver” Wright] according to the JR college stats.
On the Gila Monster site, Mr. Woods is not listed on the 2009 roster. Can we assume the 6 games played were at the beginning of the season and he had to leave a second school?
I hope the three leaving the UCLA program early learn the lesson—-it’s a long way down from having once been in the rarified atmosphere of being a top national HS football player, when you live life without humility and in a constant state of entitlement.
by C.T. in Boston on Jun 29, 2010 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Speaking of UNLV
Breaking news: they just had a star Bkb player arrested on “strangulation” and grand larceny
Easy money and faithless women, red-eye whiskey for the pain...
I think when you break the law, as it appears they did, you lose certain rights.
They made a commitment, and to me, ucla did nothing wrong so they ucla should not have to let them out of that commitment. On the other hand, these young men, by breaking the law, if they did, do lose rights, at least for now and shouldn’t gain the ability to go play somewhere else. Then, in their minds, where would the punishment really be. (Of course to me not getting to wear the 4 letters and attend ucla would be huge, but it might not seem like that to them. )
Go Bruins!
Thanks for the response. Just one correction: Both Cal (undergrad) and UCLA (grad and my entire childhood) have my loyalties. But you’re right, not trying to start a flame war. Just adding a perspective.
by BlackandOldGold on Jun 29, 2010 8:00 PM PDT reply actions
Hammer was dropped
And yet, I get the feeling that those idiots at some local “media” will spin it in a way to bash CRN or use it to negatively recruit against the school.
If CRN wanted to send a message, it doesn’t get louder than the one he dropped.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
