Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Celtics Vs. Heat Game 1: Game Time, TV Schedule And More

UCLA Coaching Hot Stove: Rumors of a Jim Tressel Sellout In The Lull

So yesterday was a brief lull in the storm for U.C.L.A. football. Things were quiet around Spaulding with the players having this week off to concentrate on finals before resuming practice and preparations next week for the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl on December 31. Things were quiet from a news standpoint around Morgan Center as Chianti Dan spent the day at the IMG Intercollegiate Athletics Forum in New York. He is scheduled to return to Westwood later today and resume his well-planned, thoughful, and out-of-the-box search for our next football coach. Oh, wait...

But even with no official news coming from Westwood, the widespread ruminations on the future of the Bruins football program still didn't miss a beat. Since our not so media-savvy athletic director is not providing any information, or even attempting to demonstrate some control over the discussions, the rumors and speculation surrounding the already bungled coaching search picked up speed. With Jim Mora Jr's (who, btw, isn't really a Junior) name continuing to be bandied about for the head coaching job, seemingly to the exclusion of about 30 or more better qualified options, the nearly unanimous anger at Chianti Dan and his mishandling of his 3rd head coaching hunt marched on.

tasser10 provided an in depth look at Mora's decidedly unimpressive career 2 days ago, and Patroclus laid out a strong case in yesterday's Roundup why Mora has no business being U.C.L.A.'s next coach. These were followed by a pair of great posts by Odysseus that reviewed some objective criteria backed by data that could be used to stratify coaches, and then applied those criteria to many of the coaches being mentioned across the country for jobs right now. By objective criteria, Mora is nowhere close to being a top candidate. When Chianti said in the Monday press conference that U.C.L.A. is able and willing to spend the money necessary to get a top coach, I had a glimpse of hope. I also figured it revealed that the big time boosters were heavily involved in the process, since Guerrero's actions on Monday were completely inconsistent with his words the previous Saturday night. However, that promise of going after a big name coach appears to have only applied to Chris Petersen. Since then, it's been clear Guerrerror had no Plan B, and he has not shown any indication of pursuing the other top tier coaches. I guess I should have known better than to believe him. After all, his lips were moving at the time.

It could be that the increasing buzz around Mora is coming from his camp which is desperate to find a job, any job, which will offer him. No one else is knocking on Mora's door, and that should tell you all you need to know right there. As such, there is no reason at all to not to take the time to meet with other candidates. Mora, a guy who lasted an entire year at his last coaching job, and has been available for two years since, will be available in February. As of Wednesday night, no offer had been made to Mora, according to the LA Times.

Star-divide

From Gold's blog, Inside UCLA, June Jones may be back in the mix. Talks between Jones and ASU fell apart last evening, after earlier reports said the two sides had reached a deal. While there is more than enough controversy whether Jones represents the kind of fresh blood and new direction that UCLA football desperately needs, he at least appears markedly more qualified than Mora for the job. Meanwhile, Mullen, Malzahn, Chryst, Patterson, Dantonio, Calhoun, Briles, etc are all busy with their respective jobs getting ready for their bowl games, when we ought to be creating an environemtnt that would have them competing for our coaching spot.

The most disturbing of the rumors being passed around online last evening, just to stir up a shitstorm, includes the combination of...wait for it...Jim Mora Jr and Jim Tressel. The reports earlier in the week of an alleged Tressel sighting in Los Angeles were largely debunked on Gold's site (but fanned by Petros) which I hoped would put an end to the desperate hopes of those who are so beaten down by circumstance that they would compromise all integrity and applaud a Tressel hiring. Well, this is even worse. Some rumors now have Mora being hired as head coach and Tressel coming on as a member of his staff. From a purely practical standpoint, it is unclear to me if the potential show-cause penalties that would likely follow Tressel to a new job apply if he is not a head coach but merely an assistant. How that even matters at all, though, is beyond me. While other front pagers may disagree with this, there is no way in hell this is an acceptable proposal to me. Mora is already not a viable candidate in my eyes. To add a disgraced cheater and liar to his staff does not improve his candidacy. Two wrongs don't make a right. They just make U.C.L.A. look completely hypocritical and they make Chianti look dumber, if that is even possible.

Despite his collection of minor recruiting violations from early in his career, we were willing to take a chance on Neuheisel due to the time since those transgressions, his history with U.C.L.A., and his presumed sincerity to do right by his alma mater. Tressel's actions by comparison make Rick an acolyte. Sure, things are rotten with the football program, but I haven't yet reached the point where I'm trading integrity for wins. How Guerrero could come up with something this potentially far out of the box is befuddling, which make the optimist in me refuse to believe this could be true. The realist in me is dreading this, though. And then there is the cynic in me that thinks that Tressel's willingness to take the fall for tOSU's admin, which knew all about the cheating there, to avoid an enormous scandal at one of the NCAA's pet institutions is now being rewarded by allowing him to ease back into the coaching ranks via one the NCAA's biggest lap pet in Westwood - allegedly. But that smoke-filled room scheme doesn't account for Tressel's Youngstown days. If there is any truth to this pursuit, U.C.L.A. loses all credibility an d license to call out the cheaters across town. But I don't. Tressel to Westwood, is an awful idea, especially with so many better alternatives still available, and the so called Bruins around the interwebs who support this ought to be ashamed of themselves.

As always, BN will keep you updated.

A final thought: Chancellor Block has authority over the operations at U.C.L.A. As Guerrero bilks the state out of over $600,000 a year, Block's silence and inaction during this particular time, as well as over the last few years during Chianti's screwups, is essentially negligent. He is not the right man to lead U.C.L.A.

Poll
Do you think UCLA should hire a disgraced cheater such as Jim Tressel - facing possible show cause penalty from NCAA - in any capacity to coach or consult the Bruin football program?
No
109 votes
HELL NO
338 votes
Unsure
139 votes
Yes
1130 votes

1716 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 190 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

No Commits Contact by AD

I just live the fact that this AD has made no effort to contact any of the verbal commits to provide some type of reassurance that UCLA has some type of plan. This article just confirms the suspicion that this AD has NO CLUE what’s going to happen with this program!

by JRSettles on Dec 8, 2011 8:41 AM PST via mobile reply actions  

I believe CRN reached out

to all of the incoming recruits. Doesnt mean that our sorry excuse for an AD shouldnt have as well, but the program has been in contact…

by WestlakeVillage Bruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:09 AM PST up reply actions  

How about this guy ?

Ron Caragher

Seems like a good fit to me.

Powder to the People

by bruinski on Dec 8, 2011 9:10 AM PST reply actions  

No

He was a terrible recruiter under Toledo and let’s say it again, no more UCLA connections, Donahue pets, etc. It’s time for wholesale regime change. How did the last 2 hires of “loyal Bruins” pan out. Take that garbage elsewhere

by Odysseus on Dec 8, 2011 9:15 AM PST up reply actions  

Poor Poor Sevor

Douchebag Ron Carragher left a 17 yr old kid, who was on here to start his official visit, sitting at the airport for hours. Kid tried calling the coach about 25 times… got no answer… got tired of waiting for HOURS… and booked a return flight and went home.

by beanandcheeseburrito on Dec 8, 2011 10:21 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Well

All of our parents did that once, right? … Right??

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 10:23 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

The Mora/Tressell combo

Would be considered finding a loophole in the system. In my opinion, this is not acceptable. In any aspect of life. our football program is already in shambles, then to cut corners to try to get it back on track? Absolutely not!!

by 0725brui on Dec 8, 2011 9:12 AM PST via mobile reply actions  

We need help from Jerry Dipoto

Angels know how to get their man

Louisville, KY for UCLA class of '87

by kingslook on Dec 8, 2011 9:21 AM PST reply actions  

Dipoto for AD!

Just need to come up with a few million probably.

by Bruin on Dec 8, 2011 10:16 AM PST up reply actions  

they also know

how to overpay for him and leave themselves no out when their man is too old. No Thanks!

Go Bruins!

by King J77 on Dec 8, 2011 10:18 AM PST up reply actions  

actually I think 10 years is smart

He’ll transition to DH when needed. Off topic, I know, but I wanted to say this

by Bruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:08 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions  

Dipoto is a go getter

The old GM was Dan Guerrero – throwing money at Vernon Wells

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:11 AM PST up reply actions  

I dont think so..

This only makes sense in the AL, but his numbers have declined every year over the last 4. They could be on the hook for 25M in years 6,7,8,9,10 for a guy who is htting .270 and 20 homers per year. But you have got to hand it to the Angel organization. No one can accuse them of not wanting to win…

by WestlakeVillage Bruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:12 AM PST up reply actions  

As a Dodgers fan

The pain continues (though we can now see light at the end of the tunnel)

by nickramz on Dec 8, 2011 11:34 AM PST up reply actions  

Tressel

I believe in 2nd chances but with stringent monitoring. I think with Tressel on staff, if Mora does not work out, Tressel will always be promoted. I think this is DG’s plan. As long as he does not cheat at UCLA. There’s no better solution out there. All the coaches you guys have listed either have no interest or are contractually unable to get out. I hate losing. I hope this will give a boost to our football program. We all know DG is not doing what exactly we are expecting but under the circumstances, I believe this package will work out.

by UCLA12NC on Dec 8, 2011 9:32 AM PST reply actions  

I agree. For Danny, this is more creative than I ever thought possible for him. Like having 2 HC

He gets to stash Tressel for awhile until he cools down. Tressel won’t be dumb enough to do any more crap since that will end his career. With him there, NO ONE will beat the sh_t out of us anymore at like 50 t0 zip or the AZ thing. Mora has to take it since no one wants him anyway. He is like a figurehead leader with JT calling the shots. Desperate times (and AD) demand desperate measures. His name alone will attract good players. He is bigger than Leach.

by 1970 on Dec 8, 2011 9:51 AM PST up reply actions  

this is a recipe for disaster

complete chaos. Who is in charge? Remember Chianti Dan’s “Dream Team” of Walker, Neuheisel and Chow? How did that work out? LOL. I can’t believe some of our so-called fans are buying Chianti Dan’s last desperate attempt to save his job.

by Odysseus on Dec 8, 2011 9:55 AM PST up reply actions  

Ummm...wrong.
There’s no better solution out there.

Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.

by KSBruin on Dec 8, 2011 10:02 AM PST up reply actions  

rec'd!

It’s like a ’Bama fan in Bruin blue. So good!

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 12:14 PM PST up reply actions  

Tressel can coach

but his situation is similar to cheaty petey .. his players took stuff they weren’t supposed to take and both pretended not to know about it ..

We cant go there …

by uclarry on Dec 8, 2011 9:39 AM PST reply actions  

I agree with all of this, except ...

The part about the Chancellor. I’ve said it an insane amount of times — just because he’s apathetic/incompetent in athletics, does not mean he’s apathetic/incompetent in every regard. You can’t ask for his resignation because our football team is a mess — that’s beyond shallow.

He’s doing a decent job in other respects. This is a school, after all, and it should be run like one, not like a sports entertainment business. He is not a GM or a VP of athletics — he’s a chancellor.

I know it’s frustrating, and yes, I know athletics are meant to have a harmonious relationship with academics, but am I going to ask for heads to roll at the top because my teams are doing awful? I wouldn’t say so. When something like PSU happens and Block covers it up, then he needs to go. This is obviously not happening.

Instead, our efforts need to be focused on DG. His resignation/termination is the one that’s going to change the athletics program.

We are a top-25 university first, a solid athletics program second. When

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 9:47 AM PST via mobile reply actions   1 recs

cont'd

my degree says UCLA on it, I don’t expect anyone to say, “Wow, hell of a football program. And decent academics from what I hear.”

That said, we need to can DG. If you want to go after the president of some third-rate school like Oklahoma State, be my guest, but I’ll voraciously oppose you.

That is all. You can now clap.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 9:50 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Of course, Dan is the larger problem

but I think the point you’re missing is that it appears Block is entirely too satisfied with DG’s incompetence, as long as he runs the AD in the black. Since Block is the only one who can fire Guerrero, if he won’t do it, pressure needs to get moved up the ladder.

by Chris09 on Dec 8, 2011 9:55 AM PST up reply actions  

Not so fast

Remember, the university, under Block’s “leadership” recruits 85+ student/athletes to play football. The uinversity’s obligation is to provide each of those student/athletes with, as I have penned many times here on BN, “The highlight reel of their lives” just as you and I have a similar reel about our time at UCLA.

While most other students don’t compete against other schools and represent UCLA in front of large crowds, the football/basketball teams do and they generate, in the process, lots of $$ for the university. In the process, these crowds, full of alums who are $$ off enough to donate, become a funnel for money to UCLA to fund, oh say, a new wing of the hospital, or other new buildings on campus. All of this is directly the job of any Chancellor at UCLA to manage in a world class manner, to support the reputation of the university to be a world class educational institution.

The current chancellor acts as the typical bureaucrat who has lots of departments, lots of committees, and, by the way, the football facilities are way over there on the other side of the hospital. Charles Young knew where things were, Franklin Murphy knew. The whole must come together for UCLA to be the place it can be. Stanford does it, and they are right in our backyard. While our Chancellor knows some of what happens at UCLA, he lacks the whole picture. Relying on our current AD is a waste of the Chancellor’s time and effort.

Mensgym

by Mensgym on Dec 8, 2011 10:39 AM PST up reply actions  

We are actually both

UCLA has established it’s identity by being one of the greatest combination of athletics and academics. Perhaps you don’t remember this and weren’t around. When we came into school in the early 90s UCLA was a top 20 school (not just scraping into top 25). We were firmly in the top-20s and our football program was competing for the Rose Bowl and hoops were regularly winning the Pac-10 title.

Since Young left both Chancellors have done a poor job maintaining that combination and it’s not like our academics have risen. We can absolutely do both and Block is going to feel the heat if we our football/basketball programs, which do present one of the key strands of Bruin core, do not perform up to our standards.

In this community we have always established athletics and academics are intertwined. They cannot be separated. Period.

by Nestor on Dec 8, 2011 9:53 AM PST up reply actions  

Who is saying they are separate?

I’m saying I’m not going to be upset. But are we going to cut him because our football program is doing poorly? That’s on the AD. If it’s intertwined, then we’re going to intertwine our medical program, Engineering program, top-5 graduate psychology program, our top-10 business school, etc. When any of those start flailing, then I’ll back up the “get rid of our chancellor” talk.

Sorry, but “good football program” does not show up on your degree nor will it in mine. This is true of any school. 1/100th of our school is “intertwined” with football and 1/25th athletics. (Math is shoddy, but I’m considering 100s of our programs.) Are we going to can the chancellor because 1/25th of the school — the part of our school that isn’t even considered (and shouldn’t be considered) when students decide to come here? I don’t know about you, but I came here to 1) chew bubble gum and kick ass, and 2) to grab a hell of an education. If I came here for the athletics, I am an idiot and a state-school inbred because I don’t play sports too well.

So yeah, they’re intertwined, but our football program is one of many. Let’s focus on the area of weakness (our athletics) and launch initiative to can Guerrero, instead of gauging the state of the entire school because one of our many intertwined programs isn’t doing well.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 10:05 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

We are focused on Guerrero enough

But we will also put pressure wherever is necessary. And football program is not just “one of many.” We have done detailed posts over the summer establishing how football is king when it comes to athletics. You can read them up. Thanks.

by Nestor on Dec 8, 2011 10:16 AM PST up reply actions  

Sure, football is king

“One of many” though, refers to one of many programs. At UCLA, the medical program is king. There are posts and raves everywhere. Read them up. Thanks.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 10:19 AM PST via mobile up reply actions   1 recs

The day

90k show up to watch a surgery you can say the medical program is king.

Oh, BTW, if the medical program is king then why am I seeing so many $C medical center ads all over town and even in Dodger stadium but only a couple of santa monica busses with UCLA medical on them?

Whether you like it or not, UCLA FB and Hoops are the face of UCLA. It’s what the average person associates with the university.

Go Bruins!

by King J77 on Dec 8, 2011 10:39 AM PST up reply actions  

UCLA just got an infusion of $$$...

from expansion of Pac 12 tv contract. No where does the programming include ANY shows that include medical procedures at UCLA’s vaunted medical facility.Sure in the over all scheme of things UCLA is and should be proud of its medical program. To somehow ignore the reality of how a top notch FB program can and is a blessing financially and a source of pride that transcends $$$ is just looney!!!
You don’t need a degree or even be a chancellor to see this do you???

by GogetemBruins on Dec 8, 2011 10:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Talk to Block.

If he even showed signs that he cared about our major programs like football and basketball it wouldn’t have to come down to this.

by Bruin'96 on Dec 8, 2011 10:17 AM PST up reply actions  

He is Chancellor of all of UCLA....

….not just a program here and there. Most of those academic programs are great because of their leadership at the level of the Deans and Chair-people – not Block.

Block is responsible for both academics and athletics and he is failing miserably at 50% of his job that brings in a massive amount of revenue.

When you are CEO – you are CEO of the whole company – not just the areas you prefer. Block’s lack of leadership and attention to the athletic programs is an epic fail.

by tazmiami on Dec 8, 2011 10:49 AM PST up reply actions  

your "50%" number is laughable

UCLA budget is $4.9billion.

Academics – which all athletes also participate in – dwarfs athletics in the big picture of the university budget.

Block should appoint a decent AD because a subset of alumni care a lot about it. I have no way of judging how Block is performing as Chancellor overall. The idea that the UC Regents would kick him out based purely on the performance of the football and basketball teams is just ridiculous.

Pressure on Block to see how appointing someone good as AD could help the university = a good thing. Threatening that we will get him kicked out of his job if he doesn’t meet our demands is totally unrealistic.

by VeniceBruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:01 AM PST up reply actions  

You have no way of judging Block?

Sorry – but the UCLA brand is his job. Making sure the University performs at the highest levels in academics and athletics is his job. He has not been stellar at either. In academics – his Deans, Chairs and program leaders have driven the excellence. Block likes to take credit – but the innovators and true academicians are busy moving UCLA to the front rather than taking the back slaps.
As for athletics – Block’s lack of attention has been documented here many times.

As for kicking him out of a job – not my focus. However – he isn’t doing his job now.

by tazmiami on Dec 8, 2011 11:08 AM PST up reply actions  

I have no way of judging how well he is making the academic side of the university work

the failures of the revenue sports are apparent; but beyond your claim that he has no part in the university’s academic success, I am yet to see much evidence either way on how well he is doing on those aspects, fundraising etc.

by VeniceBruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:13 AM PST up reply actions  

Block is the CEO

who oversees the f—- up VP who is bringing the whole company down. Time to cut losses or at least be held accountable.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:15 AM PST up reply actions  

Block isnt the main issue...

That would be like trying to get Obama to resign because Hillary or Holder needed to go.

Even if he never fires DG, which would be very painful, the academics at the University are still top notch and if my memory serves fundraising has increased under his watch as well.

Very hard to imagine that any activity (that isnt criminal…..Penn State) coming out of an athletic program should cost a Chancellor at a top 25 university his job.

by WestlakeVillage Bruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:25 AM PST up reply actions  

we definitely have had some large high-profile donations

but I think it’s hard to attribute causality precisely here.

It would actually be interesting to get a survey of Bruin donors asking why they give money. I’m sure a large number would put athletics pretty high up the list, but it would be interesting to quantify.

by VeniceBruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:27 AM PST up reply actions  

here is where you apparently don't have perspective

“who is bringing the whole company down”

He is the CEO who oversees a number of divisions, one of which is publically underperforming. (as I say, I don’t know if the other divisions are doing better or worse under him than they would under someone else)

by VeniceBruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:25 AM PST up reply actions  

Disagree and Agree

Disagree that the whole company is coming down…

Agree that it is DG who is doing whatever you want to call it to the University…

by WestlakeVillage Bruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:28 AM PST up reply actions  

Think what you want

IMO Block is playing the fiddle while Chianti Dan is burning the athletic dept. down. I’ll think that until I see Block take action.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:31 AM PST up reply actions  

Your most public department is a national laughingstock

Action needs to be taken whether you feel it’s the most important department or not…it’s the most public. It might not be the most important department because it isn’t directly related to UCLA’s core mission which is education. The point is that UCLA should strive to excel at everything it does. Ignoring the complete mess one of your VP’s has created is failure by the CEO.

Go Bruins!

by King J77 on Dec 8, 2011 11:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Well, that works

Academics are awesome, but you know what, that’s not Block’s doing.

Athletics are awful but, guess what, that’s all on Block, you guys.

Good reasoning.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:16 AM PST up reply actions  

Who hires the AD?

Block. It is his responsibility to manage the AD and his/her performance.

He needs to step up as the current AD is not performing.

That is what the CEO does.

by tazmiami on Dec 8, 2011 11:18 AM PST up reply actions  

+1

The boss’s boss should be held accountable. The boss is incompetent? Then the boss’s boss is too, for keeping him around. Simple as that.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:20 AM PST up reply actions  

He is not the CEO -- CEOs would have scrapped academics altogether to focus on the athletics

We are not the school that pays no attention to academics and want a complete upheaval because of our athletics. That’s horrific logic. Go after the AD and put pressure on Block to fire him. Good luck getting the UC system to scrap him.

“Hey Gene, you know, we’re going to have to let you go. The athletics department, well, that sucks. It doesn’t really matter that your academics and medical program are doing just fine. Your football team is atrocious. Bye.”

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:22 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

He is exactly the CEO of the University

That said, I am not advocating any effort to remove him – just pointing out that he is neglecting the blatant mismanagement of an important part of his charge by an employee who makes well over half a mil per year.

Replacing Guerrerror is the key.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:25 AM PST up reply actions  

+1

I’m not against replacing Block, just making sure Chianti is accountable for his mismanagement of UCLA Athletics, a division of the company that is UCLA.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:27 AM PST up reply actions  

Not saying that

Think about it on a larger scale. Brand management.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:26 AM PST up reply actions  

Ha! 50%?

Our medical programs and other graduate programs dwarf the revenue our athletics program does. If you throw in athletics with the other programs we have, that’s not 50% — that’s like, 12%. Remember, they are intertwined? Can’t cop out.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:18 AM PST up reply actions  

Ask yourself this.....

….which diminishes the UCLA brand more….a bad engineering program or a bad football program?
If you want to know what is getting press for UCLA right now – google it.

Maybe you sit around the water cooler discussing how the english department is really pulling it together this week?

That said – I have no issues with UCLA becoming an academics only school. As long as they strive for excellence.
If they want to have athletics – don’t be mediocre – it diminishes the school and the brand.

by tazmiami on Dec 8, 2011 11:24 AM PST up reply actions  

What's the point of the UCLA brand?

To attract students, no? Does our athletics program attract students? I didn’t come here because of the football or basketball teams. The brand is strong nationwide — we are a top-25 (or 15, even) school and that has nothing to do with our athletics.

The UCLA football team may make the headlines in the local paper, but our academic programs are what makes us, well, us. Ask any student who 1) applies to UCLA or 2) is currently attending UCLA: The brand is fine irrespective of our athletics program. No one says, “Well I came here for football.” Our athletics program makes money for our athletics, not our school. If anything is a financial strain on UCLA, it’s the undergraduate programs. (Please don’t kick me out!)

I love football and I love basketball. I want to see them do well and I want to make changes that relate to the school. But I don’t want us to go full-on overboard with the athletics to the point where we forget that being a Bruin means being part of a school that created the Internet and creepy-ass hearts that beat in plastic boxes.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:31 AM PST up reply actions  

Athletics has played a huge role in the UCLA brand

The UCLA greats have put UCLA on the map. Can you name professors and department heads from every department that put UCLA on the map, on a national level? More people know Rick Neuheisel/Ben Howland than Chancellor Block.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:34 AM PST up reply actions  

True

But more people in academia and in the world outside of sports know that UCLA is a good school primarily. That’s why we are on the national map. We are not some state school with great athletics.

But you’re positing that UCLA athletics is what makes UCLA, which is incredible.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:35 AM PST up reply actions  

That's not my intent at all

UCLA Athletics contributes to the UCLA brand and puts on a national scale. Don’t misconstrue what I’m saying. Academics is the foundation of our university but outside of the university, and besides the average American who knows UCLA as a good school, its the combination of athletics/academics. UCLA is UCLA because of academics/athletics, Rice is Rice because of academics, Duke is Duke because of basketball

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Just go poll UCLA students and UCLA hopefuls

Go poll them now.

Also, more people would rather study at Harvard or Yale because it’s Harvard or Yale. Their athletics are nonexistent. People come to UCLA because we have strong academic foundations not because of football or basketball (unless they play).

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:41 AM PST up reply actions  

No need to be confrontational

I have better things to do with my time but if you want to poll them, go right ahead. I came to UCLA because of the rare combination of good academics AND good sports programs and I know I’m not in the minority. Other wise I would’ve gone to Rice or Vanderbilt.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:42 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Athletic Programs are a factor

and all else being equal were a strong reason why I ended up going to UCLA over Berkeley. But I started out undeclared and grad schools weren’t really a concern coming out of high school.

by sdbruin07 on Dec 8, 2011 11:51 AM PST up reply actions  

Same here

UCLA was a name brand with a top ranked basketball team and I liked the color blue. I like LA too. Simple as that. No algorithms necessary.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 12:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Athletics is part of what makes U.C.L.A.

There is a reason I didn’t go to Cal Tech.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:39 AM PST up reply actions  

Academics hold more weight

That’s a reason I didn’t go to Berkeley for Psychology.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:41 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm not arguing which holds more weight

We are simply saying that both contribute.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:46 AM PST up reply actions  

That's what I've been saying

johnvely is misconstruing my interpretations and saying I care only about sports. I’m saying academics/athletics is what makes UCLA great…elite…whatever dood.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:49 AM PST up reply actions  

Everything contributes

Absolutely everything. I see people on here saying idiotic things like, “This is making me feel ashamed to be a UCLA alum.” The hell is that, man? I came to this school for SO MANY THINGS. The college experience is one of them, and yeah, football’s upsetting me, but that’s just a small reason to come here, just like our other programs are small reasons to come here.

(In Samuel Jackson voice)

Screw this “our athletics program sucks so UCLA sucks” crap. You bleed blue and gold regardless, dammit!

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:50 AM PST up reply actions  

That's why we are here

Because we bleed Blue and Gold! And part of our school is getting trashed by a guy making >$600K.

An analogy: I love my kids more than anything in the world. But when my son (a great student and kid all a round) he made a rude remark to a teach at school, I was ashamed and dealt with it so it never happened again. I didn’t just say that because he’s a good student and a good hockey player and he’s good to his sister, we’ll just let it go. It was something in an otherwise awesome kid that needed to be corrected. (so far, so good)

Anyone who says "our athletics program sucks so UCLA sucks" is generalizing. I wouldn’t say that, and those that do don’t really think that.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:57 AM PST up reply actions  

I never said that

I would never say UCLA sucks so I’m not sure if you’re implying that I’m one of the guys who’s insulting the university but my opinion of UCLA as elite, great, excellent, sexy and sassy, will NEVER change…even if we cut football/basketball, so please don’t think I’m insulting the university because I’m not using tiers or the best adjectives….

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 12:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Football and basketball

played a huge role in my decision to attend UCLA

by Odysseus on Dec 8, 2011 11:37 AM PST up reply actions  

Cool

Did you play in either?

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:38 AM PST up reply actions  

not in college

Attending football and basketball games and being a part that atmosphere is a huge part of the college experience.

by Odysseus on Dec 8, 2011 11:40 AM PST up reply actions  

Once you're there

But when you apply, it isn’t normally a factor. If it is, it’s because your pedigree shows you have UCLA in your blood — literally. (Your father went to UCLA, etc.)

I’ll push UCLA on my future kid because I went there. So he’ll obviously care more about the college experience. But to pick the school based on wanting to watch teams win? I don’t know about that.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:44 AM PST up reply actions  

It is a factor.

A big part of why I chose U.C.L.A. is from sitting on a plane listening to an Iowa fan trash talk U.C.L.A. for 3 hours when he was flying to the 1986 Rose Bowl. We know how that ended and I felt an immense pride thinking about that fan flying back to Iowa.

I’m not saying anyone is choosing U.C.L.A. exclusively due to athletics. I can’t think any Bruin would ignore the incredible academics. But athletics is a great addition to an already great academic opportunity.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:50 AM PST up reply actions  

Like I said

Once you’re there, it matters more.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:54 AM PST up reply actions  

How is that a relevant question?

I’m pretty sure O spent Saturdays at the Rose Bowl and lots of time in Pauley.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:40 AM PST up reply actions  

I submitted my SIR

after watching UCLA beat Adam Morrison’s Gonzaga. That’s just me though. I’m sure there are others who came primarily because of an outstanding department head or professor.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Academics + Athletics = Elite School

Few schools can ride the title of an elite school purely on Academics (namely the Ivy Leagues, who have a pedigree and history beyond ours). But a combination of Academics and Athletics? UCLA is one of those rare schools that can have both and be considered elite.

Without the athletics portion, we merely become a great school.

As for saying athletics don’t matter..

Berkeley is consistently ranked higher than UCLA academically. It gets fewer applicants than UCLA despite UCLA having arguably tougher requirements to enter. Please tell me why that is, if academics is all that matters?

Clearly our brand is BEYOND just academics, and we’re failing miserably there

by nickramz on Dec 8, 2011 11:41 AM PST up reply actions  

As for Block's handling of academics

There’s room to argue this as well. We haven’t really gone anywhere ranking wise, and you can ask students and recent alumni how they feel about how the school’s culture and environment has changed in recent years. As a recent alum, it’s definitely noticeable

by nickramz on Dec 8, 2011 11:42 AM PST up reply actions  

+1

Absolutely. Great post – its not an issue of black and white. Academics OR Athletics. UCLA is the rare combination of both. That’s why we’re unique and that’s why we’re UCLA, not just another good academic school.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:43 AM PST up reply actions  

Without athletics

We’re just a “great” school rather than elite? OK, so our top-5 graduate programs in Psych, business, or world-renowned medical school has nothing to say about that? Really?

This is where sports becomes detrimental, when you’re willing to insult your own institution because of football.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:46 AM PST up reply actions  

Is it that time of month for you?

I’m sorry great means top 25 in my lexicon. Elite to me is Ivy League status. I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings but never did I “insult my own institution” I’m proud of UCLA as my alma mater but to insinuate that I insulted it? You are way too sensitive…

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:48 AM PST up reply actions  

Really?

We’re going to move into the direction of an Internet flame war?

Elite is Ivy League stats. You’re right. Want to know what we are? A public Ivy. We’re in the league of Ivy League schools. We don’t get top-15 ranks because we’re just “great” and because our football program is awesome.

I love this damn school. So yes, I’m sensitive when someone wants to insult it by undermining our academic prestige and dropping it down from Tier A (elite) to Tier B (great) because of our athletics.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:53 AM PST up reply actions  

You're the only person here

UCLA without its athletics is more UVA and less Harvard or Stanford. Let’s not beat around the bush on this or be delusional alright?

I love UCLA but I’m also honest in my assessment and am not so delusional as to believe that we are on the level of a Harvard or MIT

by nickramz on Dec 8, 2011 11:57 AM PST up reply actions  

*

meant to write you’re the only person here thinking elite/great suddenly means A vs B (whatever that scale means)

by nickramz on Dec 8, 2011 11:57 AM PST up reply actions  

My wife went to MIT

She reminds me of this daily.

I ask her how her Film School is doing.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:59 AM PST up reply actions  

We're using tiers now?

Look, UCLA is the best university in the world IMO, so yes, I am offended by your insinuation that I am insulting it. To me, it is the best university because of the combination of athletics/academics (don’t care about rankings they won’t change my mind or perspective). That’s MY opinion, you are entitled to yours. There are no tiers. To me, its UCLA >>>>>>the rest, so chill out, take a deep breath and consider the fact that people are allowed to have their reasons for thinking UCLA is great, elite, tier-1, excellent, superb or other sexy adjectives you want to use. Be my guest.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 11:57 AM PST up reply actions  

Talk of "Straw Man" arguements...

No one is talking about undermining UCLA’s precious “academic” standing except you! How you connect Ahtletic demise or ascendency to UCLA’s academic performance is a non starter for me.They simply are two seperate and distinct entities.
There was a time when UCLA had a better standing atheltically…and at NO EXPENSE to this academic institution.

The difference then as to now is that…someone had a vision and plan to acheive that harmony. SOMEONE Chancellor,Athletic Director or booster!!! No one seems to be upholding the fine Athletic traditions that helped define the non “Poindexter” aspect of college life.To aspire to these ends does in no way detract from the academic side to UCLA.

What’s bugging me and a whole lot of other BRUINS is this LACK of Vision by those in power to maintain that BRUIN excellence on the FB field,Basketball court etc…

by GogetemBruins on Dec 8, 2011 12:16 PM PST up reply actions  

Fair point by johnvely

Let’s keep this mature. No PMS blasts needed.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:58 AM PST up reply actions  

Apologize for the implication

Resent the implications that I insult my university.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 12:00 PM PST up reply actions  

First off..

Nitpicking here, but we’re not top 5 in business, so don’t make a blanket statement like that please.

And second, there are many other schools in the top-5 to top-10 in graduate ranks. Does that make them ‘elite’ by having a top 5 in psych? Or medical? Those are great within those fields. But you don’t see having UCSF having that name brand for the general populace despite clearly being a world leader in medicine.

How many schools have that rare combination of both athletics and academics?

As much as we’d like to think it, we aren’t Harvard or Yale or MIT despite having great academics and thus we aren’t banking it based on academics (and if we really think that, we’d be labeled delusional by any objective outsidre). But we are elite on the national stage because we have great academics AND great athletics history.

They aren’t mutually exclusive

by nickramz on Dec 8, 2011 11:55 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

-1

We don’t specialize in one thing. We rank highly in other areas, too.

If you take away our athletics, we don’t drop a tier and it’s pretty bold to say that we do. I’m going to keep the idea that athletics are important after you get in here, not before.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 12:04 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd also like to think

We 1) are right on par with Haas, if not better, and 2) are on the level of Harvard or Yale in terms of academics. We are banking it based on academics. And if that makes me delusional, then dammit, I’m delusional.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 12:06 PM PST up reply actions  

+1

Someone get this guy a drink

by Trojanswearskirts on Dec 8, 2011 12:08 PM PST up reply actions  

Let's all get each other a drink.

As long as it isn’t Chianti. That crap has to go.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 12:15 PM PST up reply actions  

You'd like to think?

Like to think is great, but where are the numbers? Where are the facts?

I don’t believe we should use what we like to think to make decisions here, esp. when it comes to the direction of the school

As for all your other arguments about academics… guess what, they are intertwined in one important way: great athletics can attract great students which can bolster our academics. And not just attract to apply – but attract to commit to our school for 4 years.

Guess what our student tours like to highlight? Yeah, we have great academics, but a walk through our sports heritage sells a lot of people that their admission here is the right choice

by nickramz on Dec 8, 2011 12:26 PM PST up reply actions  

When are they gonna start

selling UCLA Medical Program shirts at Foot Locker?

Go Bruins!

by King J77 on Dec 8, 2011 12:03 PM PST up reply actions  

When are they gonna start

Creating the Internet at the Rose Bowl?

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 12:05 PM PST up reply actions  

Didn't you know

that the idea of the internet began at the Rose Bowl? Al Gore was at a game and wanted to let his friends back home how awesome the atmosphere was. That’s when the idea of the internet came to him.

Go Bruins!

by King J77 on Dec 8, 2011 12:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Please don' compare PSU to this

I would sooner suffer years of mediocrity than to see what happened at PSU happen here (where they should all be prosecuted)

by nickramz on Dec 8, 2011 11:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Only one group of folks would be ecstatic about a Tressel hire...

…and I don’t think I am allowed to say it on here…but it would take the media scrutiny (and NCAA scrutiny) off of them for a bit.

UnderArmour might be happy too – they would need to design a blue and gold heat gear vest he could wear.

Don’t compromise Bruins – your great rep does not rest on the gridiron as was well said above.

by HSridge on Dec 8, 2011 9:52 AM PST reply actions  

No More Package Deals -- Pick a Real HC and Let Him Pick a Staff

DG has proved a failure at putting together packages.

When he hired RN, he forced NC and Walker on him.

Although I am a Chow fan, obviously neither coordinator worked for Rick.

Do not anchor the new HC.

He should be able to pick his own staff — after all, he has to sink or swim with them.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 8, 2011 9:54 AM PST reply actions  

we should always allow the great football mind... like Flounder Guerrerror...

to craft his headcoach’s football staff. lol, what a joke.

frankly, i know why flounder likes to dictate shit like this to his hires… he’s done it to dorrell, neu ans soon to mora… it lets him know that they are desperate to the job and will agree to anything so he knows that he has the power.

Flounder is afraid of powerful coaches.

by beanandcheeseburrito on Dec 8, 2011 10:25 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

+ 1

And now with the Pac 12 money, DG better provide the necessary financial resources and collateral support to allow the new HC the chance to succeed.

But based on DG’s record, he will probably squander the incoming Pac 12 riches and pay Tier 1 money for a Tier bottom coach or retread. And sip chianti while the facilities deteriorate further.

For the damages he has inflicted on our beloved UCLA, DG is fast approaching Ken Norton Jr on that infamous ex-Bruin scale.

by kerchkoffBR31 on Dec 8, 2011 10:46 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

tressel

Right now tressel looks like the best choice we have got… Mora is a proven looser, bellotti and jones are retreads. I would be much happier to see Manny Diaz’s name being tossed around more though…

by bruinpilot on Dec 8, 2011 9:57 AM PST via iPhone app reply actions  

Leach

Guy means business, just hired mastro, getting wazzu poised to gut the PAC. Guerrero is in NYC looking for a pair of manolo blahniks. We are so f’ed.

by Strathmore&Gayley on Dec 8, 2011 9:57 AM PST via iPhone app reply actions  

Mike was my horse in this race from the gate. BIG mistake. We will pay for it.

And why not? His old boss is DG’s buddy. Old boy network instead of hiring the best man. So Mora and Tressel are better?

by 1970 on Dec 8, 2011 10:06 AM PST up reply actions  

That's it. Rub it in.

How in the world was Leach a more inappropriate hire than Tressel?

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 8, 2011 10:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Tressel and Mora

Why all the talk about these guys? I felt more optomistic talking about Mullen and Malzahn!

by NorCalBruin on Dec 8, 2011 10:08 AM PST reply actions  

Tressel

Im not opposed to Tressel, but I’m surely opposed to Mora Jr. Does Tressel carry some baggage with him, yes. Tressel is a proven coach and he’s not a terrible hire! Now Mora would be an awful hire and would ultimately be worse for UCLA. Let’s just hope this debacle of a coaching search ends up great in the long wrong’and let’s hope UCLA doesn’t have the same problem when they fire CBH at the end of the year!

by Trojanswearskirts on Dec 8, 2011 10:16 AM PST reply actions  

Is a cheating liar better than an incompetent failure with no NCAA experience?

I would have to agree with you, yes. But that doesn’t mean we should all be clamoring for Tressell. Hiring Tressell would be a very trogan-esque move, sacrificing integrity for wins.

I’m not saying I don’t want to win, but I have a hard time swallowing that pill, especially when several other qualified and promising candidates are still out there.

by BruinMW on Dec 8, 2011 10:22 AM PST up reply actions  

Lol

“Tressel is a liar. That said, anyone but Mora.” That’s basically what you said and that’s genius!

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 10:27 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

The poll

says Tressel. Crazy stuff. So it comes to this: BN editors want not-Tressel and a good majority of readers want him. He is separating the BN community starts to cry and tearing us apart.

I want to see if we can somehow speed up the ncaa’s slow-ass process so we can see if he’ll be greenlit. If so, I say we go after him.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 10:16 AM PST via mobile reply actions  

And remember how everyone wanted Sumlin?

Until he layed an egg against Fedora and then everyone wanted Fedora!

by Trojanswearskirts on Dec 8, 2011 11:55 AM PST up reply actions  

BN never wanted Sumlin

The egg against USM was just further proof.

by Seahawcla on Dec 8, 2011 11:57 AM PST up reply actions  

You guys are falling for Chianti Dan's tricks

he is floating this to try to get traction for Mora Jr. You guys are buying into it. This is all about Chianti Dan saving his own job. Don’t buy it.

by Odysseus on Dec 8, 2011 10:19 AM PST reply actions  

Holy crap

I did not expect the poll results to look like that….

by Chris09 on Dec 8, 2011 10:19 AM PST reply actions  

Nearly 60% in favor of Tressel

Only 30% in favor of not-Tressel. Amazing.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:23 AM PST up reply actions  

The numbers are suspicious.

100 posts, large majority against Tressel.

Over 600 votes, 2/3rds for Tressel. Doesn’t fit.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:27 AM PST up reply actions  

I tend to think

You guys are pushing the non-Tressel deal on us. Not that that’s a bad thing — it’s just like a father who doesn’t want his daughter dating the dude who just got out of jail. If you read the comments, there’s an overwhelming number of people who want Tressel, or are even minutely considering him (including myself).

(Although, every time someone posts about favoring Tressel, they are told not to, so that could have to something to do with it.)

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Note:

I would love to date a girl who is coming straight out of jail. So bad-ass.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:34 AM PST up reply actions  

+250

Someone get this guy a drink!

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 11:36 AM PST up reply actions  

my thoughts exactly

they doth protest too much on tressel. they convinced me on Mora but I am yet to buy in to the anti-Tressel sentiment until i hear more.

definitely like the father who doesn’t want his daughter dating the dude out of jail.

except in this case, the daughter is a 350 pound heffer who nobody wants to take to the dance….

by Uclabrians on Dec 8, 2011 11:37 AM PST up reply actions  

you're wrong

there is plenty of interest from better coaches, but Chianti Dan ignores him for retreads, Donahue pets, NFL washouts, basically anyone who he can micromanage.

This loser’s mentality from some Bruins is part of the reason we’re in the worst 10 year period of UCLA football.

by Odysseus on Dec 8, 2011 11:42 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm not pushing anything on you

Just writing my opinion here. I have more pride in my school’s reputation and integrity than to stoop to hiring him.

“Overwhelming number” of people who want Tressel in the comments? Wrong.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:43 AM PST up reply actions  

The votes dont lie

Looks like BN is in favor of this hire – or at least comparitively speaking against the other “candidates”

There are cheaters (Carroll) and there are the highly unethical (Chip Kelly, Lane Kiffin) and there is Jim Tressel, who’s transgressions are nowhere near this level of douchebaggery which is omnipresent among NCAA football coaches. I am still undecided but this is the best option, if it’s even an option, i have seen so far.

by Uclabrians on Dec 8, 2011 10:19 AM PST reply actions  

there are plenty of better options out there

we’ve blogged them. You guys are falling for Chianti Dan’s tricks because his incompetence has you so used to losing. Don’t buy into it. Read up on Tressel. Scumbag.

by Odysseus on Dec 8, 2011 10:21 AM PST up reply actions  

I read upon him

He covered up for his kids exchanging memorabilia for tattoos. I resever “scumbag” for guys like Sandusky and, well …

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 10:25 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Tressel's Serial Cheating

Goes back to his days at Youngstown St. resulting in NCAA sanctions for lack of institutional control after his departure.

But putting that aside (and I don’t see how anybody could), he’s not even that good of a coach. He excels at scheduling and beating up on inferior opponents then failing against the top tier teams in the big games. And his record vs. USC? 0-2. He’s even 0-1 against us. Big 10 football does not fly in the PAC.

by snorkeldorf on Dec 8, 2011 11:52 AM PST up reply actions  

Keep Mora Out!

I don’t want to see Mora at all!

by Trojanswearskirts on Dec 8, 2011 10:22 AM PST reply actions  

Other options

Until there’s further reporting on Tressel, I think we should focus some discussion on other options like Mullen, Malzahn, Diaz, etc.

Any word if worthless DG is still in NYC? Has he come back to LA?

by NorCalBruin on Dec 8, 2011 10:25 AM PST reply actions   1 recs

yet another completely 150% unsubstantiated rumor

but this one, I could fall in love with. Briles IMO is exactly the kind of guy we need.

by BruinMW on Dec 8, 2011 10:28 AM PST up reply actions  

Yep

That’s much better. :-)

by Nestor on Dec 8, 2011 10:28 AM PST up reply actions  

All aboard the Briles train!

Count me in!

A much better rumor to get excited about!

by NorCalBruin on Dec 8, 2011 10:29 AM PST up reply actions  

Agreed

Lets go after Mullen and Briles first (and I mean us personally; sorry guys, we’re gonna have to undercut DG) and then we’ll deal with Tressel.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 10:31 AM PST via mobile up reply actions   1 recs

at last a good rumor

Finally, a rumor that does not my blood pressure soaring and my spirit sinking.

I could live with Briles if the rumor crystallizes into truth, especially since my first choice, Leach, is long gone.

Please, sports god, strike DG with a lightning of reality and wake him up from his stupor.

by kerchkoffBR31 on Dec 8, 2011 10:58 AM PST up reply actions  

Would be legit ...

but I refuse to believe anything with “rumor mill” in its name.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 10:29 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Briles

Could turn Hundley into a Heisman contender like Robert Griffin…. That would be my selling point if i was dan

by donacciani on Dec 8, 2011 10:30 AM PST up reply actions  

Now I'd respect Dan

If he hired Art Briles. 179 wins in high school, turned around 2 college programs. This could be our football coach. Would there be a period of rebuilding? Yes. Bold hire for Dan if he does and it could pay off in the long run.

by bruin95 on Dec 8, 2011 11:17 AM PST up reply actions  

They take their football seriously in Texas

And he’s only coached in that State. We had to grab Wooden from basketball popular Indiana and looked what happened.

by bruin95 on Dec 8, 2011 11:22 AM PST up reply actions  

Neuheisel/Chow 2.0

Isn’t this similar? Dan needed to find one competent guy and he’s going for these marketing strategies/ coaching bundles. I can’t even say we’d beat Kiffin and his dad for sure with this duo. There’s no guarantee recruits would see this that much different and Tressel’s reputation could even hurt it. Dan needed a tough coach from back east or the south who is a football coach in college.

by bruin95 on Dec 8, 2011 10:32 AM PST reply actions  

from a recruiting pov

tressel should attract more recruits — free tattoos? Come on!

I’m kidding, but still.

I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...

http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com

by johnvely on Dec 8, 2011 10:36 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

I don't know how much longer I can wake up to this.

Every morning I open my computer and see Urban Meyer here, Rich Rod there, Mike Leach to Wazzu….Then I turn the page and read about Albert Pujols, Dwight Howard, and Chris Paul being dealt to teams are doing something for their fans. Meanwhile the manager for the only team I care about tells me to “exercise a measure of patience” while he tries to cover up the fact that he royally screwed up the most important hire he’s had in years, and I have to slowly suffer to get the bad news. This is not a coaching search, it’s damage control. Just shoot me already.

by bruin_2K on Dec 8, 2011 10:36 AM PST reply actions  

did I read it correctly

250 million for Pujuls? That’s absurd. Pro. sports is absurd paying that much for a player who will be a designated hitter in a few years? Hope he has plenty of foundations set up.

by bruin95 on Dec 8, 2011 10:50 AM PST up reply actions  

$250M for 10 years with a full no trade clause

LOL….LMAO…ROFLMAO…Go Dodgers!!

Seriously though, Pujols is a great player and will have a phenomal two or three year stretch with the Anaheim Angels..the problem is that they’ll be paying a guy $25M per year at 38-42 years of age.

Go Bruins!

by King J77 on Dec 8, 2011 10:55 AM PST up reply actions  

he'll sell tickets

especially if he sniffs some of the records out there. plus AL + DH helps him out

by nickramz on Dec 8, 2011 11:44 AM PST up reply actions  

In ten years they will be paying someone like Jim Thome $20 mil a year. Crazy. $320 mil on two players in their thirties signed in one day.

by bruin_2K on Dec 8, 2011 12:20 PM PST up reply actions  

You have to admit one thing

Tressel would sell tickets.

But Briles is a muuuuch better choice. Not going to happen though. We’re getting Mora.

by BruinCuz on Dec 8, 2011 10:54 AM PST reply actions  

Winning will sell more tickets than any big name hire

All the “big names” are already hired (Leach, Meyer, RichRod). We need to go after the best coach at this sad point in our HC search.

Go Bruins!

by King J77 on Dec 8, 2011 11:03 AM PST up reply actions  

From the NY Times
The next target is Jim Mora Jr., who has interviewed, but there is no offer yet on the table. Bloggers, such as Bruins Nation, are lambasting the pace, and lack of results, by Guerrero and U.C.L.A.

Let’s keep it up everyone!

by NorCalBruin on Dec 8, 2011 10:55 AM PST reply actions  

Nice!

First, VetoSeto and now no mora Mora! Time to Dump Dan in full force! Glad to see that BN is influential and proactive.

Dump Dan!

by bruinclassof10 on Dec 8, 2011 10:57 AM PST up reply actions  

Incredible

I want to think someone is making this up…. but how can you make this stuff up?

by scotty256 on Dec 8, 2011 11:00 AM PST reply actions   1 recs

WHY Would People Fall For Tressel???

As a Bruin living in B1G territory, you DO NOT want this guy. Period.

1. Chianti Dan needs to GO
2. Chancellor Gene Block needs to GO

Even though I’m a U of Iowa grad, UCLA is BOTH academics AND athletics and should excel on both fronts. Chianti Dan and Blockhead are failing miserably on both fronts. This has just got so bad over the last few days I almost dread getting on this site anymore; fearing what I might see for headlines.

Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!

by Minnesota Bruinfan on Dec 8, 2011 11:01 AM PST reply actions  

I'd like to see a statistical breakdown

of how many people are voting “yes”, compared with BN membership tenure, number of comments or something. I don’t understand how anyone who has been participating in this community can seriously consider Tressel as a good hire.

by VeniceBruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:07 AM PST reply actions  

And reading the comments doesn't jibe with the results either

And a total of 600+ votes in a couple hours? Something seems fishy.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:20 AM PST up reply actions  

I don't understand going after Tressel

What does he bring to the table?

a) a big name
b) a good coach
c) a need for a Geiger counter

But if Dan is set on going after a big name (and why else would he go for Tressel?) then why is he picking the absoulte WORST option for a big name? It seems he never made an attempt at Meyer, the biggest name, nor Leach, a coach whose asterisk needs an asterisk.

When there are still several “name” guys out there who are both good coaches and are not polarizing figures, why settle for an almost unhirable guy, especially when Dan’s already overtly stated that money will not be an inhibitor?

by palafox on Dec 8, 2011 11:14 AM PST reply actions  

Would you want to work for Dan?

Maybe they are just too smart and have figured out that as long as DG is at UCLA – its not worth it to them.

by tazmiami on Dec 8, 2011 11:15 AM PST up reply actions  

Note about chancellors

A detached chancellor can be a good thing — if he hires a competent AD staff, and gives him the green light and support.

Chancellor Young was a very passionate sports fan who I liked very much personally — but he was also the architect of the Donahue mafia (they were pals), the one who established the nepotistic, arrogant insular environment of UCLA sports, and had an intramural director as his AD so he could control him.

Fun to watch stalking refs at the sidelines, but also the cause of everything wrong with UCLA athletics, however good his intentions.

by bluebland on Dec 8, 2011 11:41 AM PST reply actions  

Kinda how I feel

Block needs to hire a bad-ass AD who will take care of athletics so he never has to deal with it. It would be perfect for him.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Dec 8, 2011 11:45 AM PST up reply actions  

Hire Tressel and the NCAA

will be all over our ass. He got fired because he knew his players got free tats for gear and didn’t report it.

Why does guerreror even give him a thought? He didnt give Leach a chance because he thinks he’s risky? Leach doesn’t have NCAA violations.

by PUSC on Dec 8, 2011 11:41 AM PST reply actions  

New thread up

on the front page. This one is filling up.

by Odysseus on Dec 8, 2011 11:49 AM PST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Bruins Nation, an unofficial daily online scrap book covering the greatest collegiate athletic program in the nation. Established June 16, 2005. GO BRUINS.

Managers

Uclabear1_small Nestor

Arron_afflalo1_small Tydides

Brad_pitt_as_achilles_small Achilles

377011_2642084725867_1068030137_32302525_1166539782_n_small Ryan Rosenblatt

Telemachus_small Telemachus

Licenseplate_small gbruin

2761_small tasser10

Blue_bellerophon_small Bellerophon

Img_0052_2_small Patroclus

Small DCBruins

Of Counsels

094_small Ajax

Menelaus2_small Menelaus

Small Meriones

Small Odysseus

Associates

Eee_small freesia39

Uclabruins_small AHMB