Right now huge chunks of traditional media outlet are just filled with ignorant gossips and often downright idiotic observations and concerning news related UCLA football coaching search. That is why we are seeing constant rumors and names of candidates that are often being fabricated by suspect sources. My suggestion stop listening to talk radio nonsense (it kills your brain cells) and more importantly pay very close attention to writers of articles (often the concern trolling is hot and heavy coming from alums of rival schools).
That tip aside, I thought maybe it could be a good idea to start a new blogging "feature" on BruinsNation which will zero in on specific instances of stupidity that may be worth highlighting in a standalone post to embarrass the culprit. Tonight we will start with an amusing case involving ESPNLA's Ramona Shelburne.
77Bruin flagged an interesting "roundtable" on ESPNLA discussing "what's next for UCLA football." In the roundtable Peter Yoon (who has done a pretty decent job over all as the main UCLA beat writer) and Blair Angulo (Bruin alum, former Daily Bruin Sports Editor) provides observations that are all fairly on point. Even Mark Saxon, USC's beat writer for ESPN provides some decent observations on whether UCLA can compete in the Pac-12, the pitch it can offer to top recruits and also the challenges we face as a program.
Then there was Ramona Shellburn, who served as the poster child of utter ignorance and uninformed opinion that often runs rampant in Southern California's traditional media. Let's start with the following drivel from Ramona on UCLA's biggest challenge in reestablishing our football program:
Shelburne: UCLA's biggest problem the last decade or so has been in recruiting, specifically in Los Angeles. The best players in this town have been consistently going to USC or other schools in the conference. Only a few have found their way to Westwood. Karl Dorrell's last few classes at UCLA had started to stem that tide with players like Brian Price (Crenshaw) and Rahim Moore (Dorsey) but the last couple of seasons that's fallen off again. The next coach needs to own L.A., or at least do a lot better.
Get that? She is suggesting our problem has been recruiting since departure of Karl Dorrell. When you read answers like that you have to wonder if someone like her ever attended college. If she had some sort of basic awareness in recruiting she would have know how Rick Neuheisel lit up the recruiting trail in his first three years hauling in classes that were ranked 8th (2010), 5th (2009), and 10th (2008). Of course after last year's downturn the recruiting trajectory trended downward which necessitated the termination of Neuheisel. But for Shellburne to suggest that recruiting has been an issue in recent years is either misinformed or downright moronic. Oh it gets worse. Follow me after the jump.
Shelburne also dropped the following gem when asked whether Chris Petersen should take the UCLA gig:
Shelburne: It really depends on what he wants out of life. Everything I've heard about Chris Petersen is that he loves it in Boise, values the stability he has there and enjoys the small-town charms of the place. Other schools have tried to lure him away and he's said no. The difference this time is that the school is moving to the Big East Conference soon, he's graduating quarterback Kellen Moore and a majority of the starters off this year's team. The time might be right. If it's not, I'd like to see UCLA step back and find a young, hungry coach with something to prove, such as former defensive coordinator DeWayne Walker or University of San Diego's Ron Caragher.
Really there is not much else to say when you read that bolded sentence. That tells you pretty much all you need to know how about her acumen and understanding when it comes to UCLA athletics. So after almost almost 15 years of hiring either inexperienced or retread coaches that have driven our program to this point, she wants UCLA to pursue former retreads connected to previous failed regimes in Westwood to get this program going? Really? Seriously? This passes for "journalism" on tWWL?
How do these people get to opine as "experts." Oh I guess I shouldn't be too surprised given it's being offered up on the platform of the same network that has given us Craig James.