What Price To Win? Integrity, Hypocrisy, and The Gray Area
by gbruin on Aug 19, 2011 12:43 PM PDT
in UCLA Athletics
Email
Print
Which is more important? Doing the right thing? Or winning? And how much of each are you willing to sacrifice for the other?
There is a spectrum of right and wrong with an awful lot of gray between the absolutes on the ends. I really really want to start winning football games again. But I also really really like looking in U.C.L.A.'s mirror and being proud of the reflection. And it's hard to know how to apportion these two.
I was thinking about these things after reading a recent article in the Denver Post sports section on CU wide receiver Paul Richardson, which got me to thinking about Coach Neuheisel's past and present, laptops, the internet, hypocritical fan bases, Jerime Andersen, winning versus ethics, and how it all affects the struggles that are U.C.L.A. football now. Yes, it was a bit of a schizophrenic morning
The article reviewed Richardson's surprise freshman year when he improved dramatically and put up great numbers as the season ended. He is the Buffs' big play threat and may become one of the top receivers in the country.
Buried in the last half of the article on an inside page is the part of the story that may ring a bell for many of us. Richardson used to be a Bruin. That was until he and fellow new recruits Josh Shirley and Shaquille Richardson were arrested for stealing a backpack during summer school, just before the start of fall football camp.
Rick Neuheisel faced a dilemma. These were three prized recruits who looked to be valuable pieces of his football program going forward. But facing a felony, some sort of punishment was necessary. These cases are rarely black and white, and we wondered where in the gray area Neu would draw the line. After all, these were newcomers making a big mistake. Shouldn't they get a shot at a second chance?
Neuheisel's punishent was fair. All 3 players were barred from school for the fall, which meant no football for them. But, all 3 were given a clear avenue to return to U.C.L.A. and the football program. Punishment with second chance.
Disappointingly, all three took the easy road and left U.C.L.A. for good, then quickly found other schools who welcomed them with open arms. Ironically, Neuheisel's two previous schools, CU and UW were 2 of the 3 (UofA being the third) willing to bend ethics and sweep up these players who couldn't behave well enough to be in Neuheisel's program. And all 3 players are currently doing well and are praised by their fanbases. Paul Richardson was discussed above. Shirley will be a promising speed rusher in his first playing time UW this season. Shaquillle Richardson played in all 13 games last year, forced a fumble against us, and may be their starting CB this year.
Neuheisel did the right thing. His integrity, and by extension ours, was intact. And it's easy to project that his ethical stand hurt our team and helped our opponents going forward. I hope those extra losses look okay to us when we study our face in the mirror. And I wonder how CU and UW see themselves in the mirror. Hell, I wonder how Oregon and *$c and tOSU and Miami look in the mirror without breaking it these days.
I do think those 3 kids deserve a second chance, and I hope they continue to make the most of their opportunity. I also wish they had shown some real courage and taken the harder road back to U.C.L.A, not for football's sake, but for character's sake. But what really got to me was reading the praises for these kids, and then reading insults and profanities for our coach from the same fanbases. This example shows how myopic and hypocritical fans are. It's crap when CU fans and UW fans rip Neuheisel while praising Richardson and Shirley. If you praise the kids for overcoming adversity you should do the same for Neu. If you still crucify Neu, then you can't let the kids off the hook either.
This isn't a "Poor Rick" essay. Neu bears much of the blame for this. He had numerous secondary recruiting violations at Colorado, and looked the other way when numerous players ran afoul of the law at UW. He has have to live with that. When his programs were winning, the fan bases overlooked his behavior. When his programs stopped winning as much, he was suddenly a cheater and unethical. In 2002, Neu disappeared from the college scene for 6 years.
His chance at redemption came in 2008 when he returned to his alma mater. Bearing the scars of his stints at Boulder and Seattle and with the lessons of his past well learned, Neu came to Westwood intent on doing things the right way. And he has. Despite continued snarks from his detractors, Neu has run a squeaky clean program at U.C.L.A., with the Richardson/Shirley/Richardson theft as a clear example. Now I'm not saying that U.C.L.A. is doing every single thing by the book. We are still a BCS division program. But we certainly aren't destroying the rulebook the way Southern Cal, Ohio State, Oregon, and Miami have (allegedly), just to name a few. You aren't seeing any suspended-against-Toledo moments, or suspended-for-the-first-drive moments, or suspended-but-still-practicing moments. Neu's treatment of players violating team rules supports that. The absence of NCAA investigators in the Morgan Center, while Heritage Hall is swarming with them, supports that.
But you can still see and hear derision for Neuheisel from many college football fans around the country, and from most Buff and Huskie fans. Simply type the name Neuheisel in a comment at RalphieReport, or UWDawgPound, both great blogs with great mods, and the fan sentiment is clear (actually, this was just an example - please don't go troll, and the CU fans I chatted with yesterday were much classier than most I have crossed in the past). Yet you can read praise for those players who comitted a crime by those same fans. And it shows the hypocrisy of fans. If the players deserve not just a second chance, but praise for overcoming their errors, and I would argue that they do, then so does Neuheisel.
And it's not just CU and UW. Ole Miss bent over backwards for felon Jeramiah Masoli. Oregon is challenging *$c in more fields than the scoreboard. tOSU wants to honor Jim Tressel. Miami went nuclear with cheating for nearly a decade. Is anyone still sorry we didn't bring in Randy Shannon now? Or are we now breathing a huge sigh of relief?
And in another crazy twist of fate, we currently have ourselves a basketball player facing legal issues over the theft of a laptop. Haven't we been here before? Well, at least our wayward student-athletes are both rare and consistent. And now the Bruin fanbase must find a place in the gray area for Jerime Andersen. So far, I am proud of the response on BN, which has clearly put ethics ahead of depth at the 1. But I wonder if our position, mine included, will drift one way if the scores start going the other way.
We can always pick our spot on that spectrum of right and wrong, but we have to realize that those ends really do pull in opposite ways where the scoreboard is concerned. It's naive to say that we can have the best of both worlds, that we can be completely clean and ethical and still be a football and basketball powerhouse every year. I'll bet Harvard plays it pretty clean. I'll bet Harvard will not dominate any SEC opponents this season.
So who would you rather be? Tressel, Caroll, Calipari, Harrick, UNC, BSU, Cam Newton, John Wall, everyone at Miami? Or the 2011 version of Rick Neuheisel? Would you rather that the two Richardsons and Shirley were practicing on Spaulding today? Or would you trade wins for a better reflection in the mirror?
Where should we draw the line?
84 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I prefer integrity
We don’t have to make any excuses. The kids we get while following the recruiting rules play as well as they can. I don’t want to have to come up with an explanation about why a kid who was kicked off some other team is welcome on our team.
The money can’t be that important, or can it? I’ve kidded a lot about selling advertising space on the field. Who really would care if the home field looked like an Indy race car driver’s uniform.
I can’t think of a way to make money less important, so I think the other side of the line is where the focus must be. I think the burden of proof should switch to the institution or the player. Shapiro named many players, and within 24 hours, each had been declared to be eligible. That’s fast adjudication. I would run it the other way. If there is a credible allegation, then it’s up to the player or the team to show actual innocence (not a showing that the NCAA can’t prove a case.) Miami, for example, would not have to forfeit its opener, but they just couldn’t play any scholarship players until everything was completely resolved. I don’t think it would take quite so long for investigations to be completed.
Just$c* says that bu$h’s ineligibility didn’t affect the outcomes of those games, and maybe they’re right. What should have been done, of course, is if there had been an allegation of impropriety when he was still occupying space on the campus, then declaring him ineligible might have saved their championship claim.
That will never happen, of course, Too much money going too many places. This is another reason I wish Coach were still around. I’m pretty confident that he would have a once sentence solution that would be the right one.
by Fox 71 on Aug 19, 2011 12:58 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I may be old-fashioned
or it may be due to my progress toward geezerdom, but I’d rather win the right way if we’re going to win. I wasn’t around to see Coach’s teams, but I want to see his values upheld: the best student-athletes we can find, giving their all in every practice and every game. If given the choice between Kevin Craft, Terelle Pryor, or Jeremiah Masoli, give me Kevin Craft in a Bruin uniform each and every time. True, he was nowhere near the athlete of the others (or compared to many D-1 QBs), but he gave his all every play and showed pride in doing so. I hope in a year we can see Brett Hundley representing UCLA football with class, excelling in the classroom, being an upstanding person…and excelling on the field, as well. I’d apply the same standards to every student-athlete to wear the four letters: be the best person you can be and give your all when representing UCLA. If that’s what happens and we lose, I have no problem with that.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
by KSBruin on Aug 19, 2011 12:59 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I've pondered this myself
A little after the handicap parking incident, I’d rather be associated with ethical behavior (or be dissociated from unethical behavior, which is more likely the result) than a winning football/basketball program. I love my Bruins and love watching the games, but I’m prouder of the moments of doing the right thing.
Wooden isn’t “Coach” because he won a lot of games or championships, it’s how he did it and the message he preached and lived by that gives him that title. My favorite modern moment of UCLA sports was AA picking up Adam Morrison from the floor after the Gonzaga game, because it was the noble thing to do.
The right way is always greater than the winning way to me. I don’t think it has to be an either/or. But looking at the names of on field “winners” above, I wonder if I’m right in that belief.
by Harsha on Aug 19, 2011 1:05 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Good point about Afflalo
I’ve not heard his actions described as noble before, but they were. He demonstrated nobility in that situation, and I’m sure it was not contrived. He’s human, and therefore has his faults like everyone else, but he also has a nobility that I would like in a son or a brother or in myself.
I prefer that to having to answer integrity questions about my alma mater.
Agree wholeheartedly
about AA. Thats the kind of player I want representing my university.
AA is the quintessential Bruin.
A competitor until the end.
A gentleman.
A warrior.
Offense and defense.
One of a Bruin kind.
Coach was and would continue to be proud of him.
We were lucky to be fans when AA wore the letters.
by orlandobruin on Aug 19, 2011 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions
+1
The AA-Adam Morrison moment was a defining one, a true “Coach” moment. I will never forget it, and I will always be more proud of that one act than I am of the win.
Love My Bruins
When I saw AA do that
I though he was the quintessential Sportsman. The ideal Wooden player. A great model for all kids.
Be prepared and be honest.
The AA image will forever be etched in our minds ...
… but not the first classic image of Bruin class. Don’t forget this:
That is Bruin legend Matt Darby offering a helping hand after sacking Todd Marinovich. Look at Marinovich’s reaction. I don’t think there is a better image that distinguishes UCLA from that other school.
God Bless You, Nestor
I now have my screensaver image for this FB season!!
by KnudsenRockne on Aug 21, 2011 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions
The bottom line
At the proverbial end of the day, I continue to follow UCLA sports teams because I believe they will win. As much as I agree with all above, I want the teams to win. When we do win, the other guys (SC for example), will always have something to say, as in “handicap placards”, or some other tripe. Those who lose, and SC gets this all the time from Bruins and others, is a poke because of how they run their program, entrance standards, or lack thereof, etc.
Winner win and all the rest talk. I am tired of talk and want the football team to win. If they win, and win often enough, there will be lots of jaw-flapping from the other programs, especially those guys across town. If we get investigated, we get investigated. UCLA has been investigated many times in my lifetime, penalized some, and those discussions become small talk against the score of last year’s SC game. If RN doesn’t win this year, he should go, regardless.
Bill
Mensgym
The day after the end of the day it's all talk - win or lose
The transient thrill of a Bruin Football victory is wonderful but the next Monday I have to get up and go to work just the same. I can’t even brag about it to many co-workers because they were schooled over-seas where Universities don’t run multi-million dollar sports franchises.
Not only does winning a game only have a temporary effect my life, winning a national championship doesn’t change anything for us fans. OK. We get to brag about it for a few months and then another sport is in season and everyone else gets bored with it. It’s like having your kid bring home one of those ‘Student of the Month’ bumper stickers.
But there is a difference between doing good and doing bad: people remember the bad you do longer than the good. E.g. Reggie Bush will go down as a cheater instead of as a gifted athlete. That will be his legacy.
by KnudsenRockne on Aug 19, 2011 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
Aren't there plenty of successful programs that meet ethical standards?
or are they just really good at avoiding being caught?
Hate to say it, but Stanford comes to mind…
It's not the only one
Penn State, Kansas State under Snyder, Oklahoma under Stoops, Texas under Brown, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska, Tennessee (pre-Kitten), TCU.
Even Oklahoma had a scandal, but it’s about the way you handle it, not what happens. The common thread in those programs seems to be that they all had or have an iconic leader, a man of authority and integrity who doesn’t eff around and whom you wouldn’t cross, someone with a firm grip on his program.
Things are not perfect in college football. Temptations are all around the players, and once in a while a kid will screw up or an assistant will bend the rules or a coach will look the other way. But the key is to have people of integrity, in positions that matter, who will treat any incident swiftly and justly. That is what I think UCLA has done well over the years.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I don't think Texas belongs on the list
there was a joke going around the last year or so:
What do you call 11 UT football players standing in a circle?
A huddle?
No, a line up.
They had an inordinate number of players arrested.
sjh
I wasn't aware
and actually hesitated before putting him on there. The question is, what was down about the arrests? Was the right discipline handed down? That was my measure.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I'm gonna go with Joe Pa...
“win with honor”!!! But that doesn’t mean i suscribe to “Lose with ethics” either. NCAA better get a grip on this stuff though. Too much cheatin going on.
It’s clear to me that some programs are willing to win at all cost without regard to consequences. This obviously is not UCLA’s path because we don’t win all that much.
Great Post
One thing to add is I could not agree more with this line
Is anyone still sorry we didn’t bring in Randy Shannon now?
I felt queasy about him at the time as someone from Miami. Everyone knows Miami is “dirty.”
Integrity > winning
I want to win, but I would never be happy with winning the way the trogans did under cheatie. Besides the cheating, the way he handled “punishment” was just deplorable. I don’t want to win with characters like rey rey on the team either. I don’t ever want a thug, dirty, entitled attitude associated with our program, no matter the benefit on the field.
the trogans
have been cheating since looooong before Cheatie…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
My earliest sports recollections are about the trogans cheating
Back when Steve “Big Boy” Bilko was hitting lots of homers at Wrigley Field (the one on Vernon, not in Chicago), I was aware that the trogans cheated. It was a known and accepted fact. I knew that the trogans cheated before I became smitten by UCLA, which was well before the Dodgers matriculated to LA. There were things you accepted. Ralphie Valedares would somehow get out on the jam and score the winning points for the LA T-Birds in the last seconds. Sgt. Friday would say something to the bad guy at the end of Dragnet, and then they would all look at each other and nod, because there was nothing that you could say once Sgt. Friday said what he had to say. It was a very good day if you could get your mom and dad to take you to Olvera (invariably pronounced “Ollavera”) Street. And just$c* cheated.
They always have cheated and always will cheat. Pretty much the way Miami always has cheated, and always will, no matter what the NCAA might have to say.
Fox? You make me feel really old.
Ralphie Valedares would somehow get out on the jam and score the winning points for the LA T-Birds
And remember Dick Lane?
I was reading something that said that the T-birds actually out drew the Lakers a couple of seasons.
by LongtimeBru on Aug 19, 2011 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Early infractions
The first NCAA penalties I knew about involved SC, UCLA, and WU I believe. The story was that Stanford and maybe Cal reported infractions (they ganged up on the southern schools) and the affected schools seniors were only able to play 1/2 the next season.
As a note to FOX71, I have a painting in my house of Wrigley field, 23rd and Avalon (?) where I pitched 3 innings on a Saturday morning during tryouts for some minor leaguers and local “talent”. The mound was at least 10 feet high (or seemed so), and it was a lifelong memory. Did pretty well too against other wannabes and some minor leaguers.
NCAA infractions have been around as long as the NCAA has been around. Of course, I remember the SC/Bush lasting legacy, and that is inexcusable, and taints all that Pete Carroll touches and the school. I still expect UCLA to field a winning team. Hopefully the NCAA or whatever comes after that institution falls apart will have a more realistic plan for the member schools and find some way to level the playing field as to benefits to athletes across all the schools.
Mensgym
Sort of related to this
Colin Cowherd yesterday said about Texas A&M [and I’m parapgrasing from what I remember] “they have this UCLA feel about them in the sense of ‘why aren’t these guys better?’”
So, why aren’t we better? I don’t want to do it the U$C way or the Miami way. But I’d like to do it the Stanford way. I think we have been trying to do it on the cheap especially when it comes to coaching for the last 10 years. Norrell was the wrong guy and I am not yet convinced Neuheisel is the right guy. I do want to stay on the right side of the ethics line in fact as well as in appearance. I would also like to win. When I was at UCLA we won the Rose Bowl 3 out of 4 years. It can be done.
Powder to the People
Why hasn't UCLA been better?
1. Cheatie
2. Dorrell et al coaching
3. Dorrell’s recruiting
4. CRN et al coaching
5. Injuries
It ain’t a mystery! We’ll partially see this year, if the “et al” was at fault or CRN.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I would also add...
6) too much turn over with assistants or no continuity or stability in that regard.
by GogetemBruins on Aug 19, 2011 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
I would add
-no support by the administration for the football program including:
-lowered academic restrictions
-hiring budget for legitimate football coaches
-unwillingness to improve facilities/halfhearted attempts to do so, e.g. Spaulding.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Well, if you can figure out how to get UCLA's finances in the same shape as Stanford's
please share. There are a lot of students and staff who’d love you forever.
by KnudsenRockne on Aug 19, 2011 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Since you asked...
Get drilling off the coast of california. (Safely of course!!!) With those oil profits and new jobs…breath life into the real estate market. With more home ownership. Take those additional property taxes give them to the State who in turn be able to support collges and Universities all over the golden State in a more generous way.
Let the central Valley have more water so they can lower their unemployment rate from (what?) 40 % to just the National average of 10%.
Then they can sell more food creating even more revenue. That will also lower our food costs so if and when RN and the BRUINS start winning we will be able to afford season tickets.Which will in turn give UCLA more revenue.
Get serious about Illegal Immigration. That will free untold millions of state revenue.
If I think of anything else …I’ll let you know.
by GogetemBruins on Aug 19, 2011 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions
While you make a good argument.
I will argue that UCLA does a piss poor job of creating a network that graduates can tap into which leads to more financial success and hence donations. Speaking purely from personal experience, I know plenty of my class mates that are disillusioned and bitter by the lack of support from the school when it comes to real world help in the business world.
When I was in the film school, I had to go out and dig up every little lead for internships because the office that is in charge of this does nothing but hand out forms. There is NO outreach. I worked for an established film director who graduated from UCLA Film. And when I came to him he exclaimed, “finally! I get a Bruin! I’ve been waiting for a Bruin to come intern for me, for a long time. All I get is Trojans.” I told him the internship office had no listing of his production company at all, or the fact that he was a Bruin grad. I had to find that out on my own.
Another big mistake UCLA makes (and we discussed this at great length during the SFAT Pauley campaign) is doing a piss poor job of creating the kind of team/school spirit that gets alumni motivated to donate or get involved with their school after they graduate. Two Guys I dormed with are doing very well right now. One of them was making 6 figures right after graduation in an investment firm. The other went to med school and is now a brain surgeon. Neither are huge ‘fans’ and both are ambivalent about their school, much less donating any amount.
true story, bro.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
LOL - or how about legalizing Marijuana and taxing it?
Oh, I forgot, Cal claims first right to all drug-based revenue ;)
by KnudsenRockne on Aug 19, 2011 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I draw the line there...
Have a very nice weekend everyone!!!
by GogetemBruins on Aug 19, 2011 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Cal should...
most of “it” is grown and tested there.
by GogetemBruins on Aug 20, 2011 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions
If we don't win, CRN may be gone, but
I have enormous respect for CRN.
And the biggest reason is he has clearly learned from his mistakes. He acted poorly at Colorado and UWub. Poorly. He was not “Slick Rick” nor “Tricky Rick.” He was a cheat who spoke and acted out of both sides of his mouth. When DG hired him, my heart (True Blue in color) was troubled. I was hopeful he would win (he has not), but I feared a coach whose ethical guru seemed to be the likes of Bugsy Malone would only dishonor UCLA. I was clearly wrong on this latter count. He has in fact honored our school with his teaching and leadership. And a woman or man who learns from her or his mistakes, well, they are special folks in my book.
Three last points, the first for which I will receive unmitigated heat from some worshipers at this beloved site. The first final point, Dan Guerrero gets much of the credit for the ethical side of the CRN hiring decision. DG must accept responsibility for: bureaucrats who try to foist weak minded misleading press releases ala, the students preferred to sit in lousy seats rather than the best ones in the house, on some of the smartest fans on the face of the Earth; the loss of a top of the line women’s hoops coach to Baton Rouge, the ultimate backwoods vacation destination for swamp aficionados (Nikki, what were you thinking?); and hiring Karl Dorrell, who it turns out could not recruit at all. But one thing is clear—since the December 2002 hiring of Coach Dorrell by Dan Guerrero, unlike southern cal, Miami, Ohio State, Auburn, Ole Miss, Tennessee, and Oregon, to name but a few, UCLA has run a by the book ethical football program and the athletic director must get some of the credit. (I am pleased to take the heat on this point. A kid down the street just got back from Afghanistan, and he is willing to let me wear his Kevlar, so fire away.)
Next final point. It takes a lot of Courage to admit you have behaved unethically. That’s right, Courage, with a capital C. CRN obviously possesses that kind of Courage; it has become part of his character. I admire him for many reasons and one of them is his willingness to address the fans after the games; even ones where we have performed poorly. It takes a lot of guts to stand up and speak your piece when you know you will be booed. CRN is willing to take the heat. The Courage to admit you are wrong and to change on one hand, and, on the other hand, to step up after that southern cal disaster last fall and admit failure involve different issues, character traits and fears, but they are related—they a born of Courage.
Last final point. The people who rag on CRN for what happened in what amounts to another life, well, they: are more morally flawed than most of us; lack the motivation to get the facts, that is learn the truth; or they are consumed by partisan fan driven myopia.
Rick, let’s fight the fight and win. Go Bruins!
In my hypothetical world
If CRN turns out to not be the coach we need at the head of the program, I’d love for him to somehow “fail upwards” and supplant DG as AD. Given his tenure here, it would appear, as you mentioned, that he has learned from his mistakes and is doing all he can to keep things on the up and up, which would put him on par with DG ethically. We know the man understands football and its importance, which gives him a leg up on DG, and it’s highly unlikely that he’d roll over and be the NCAA’s lapdog like DG which puts him far ahead. Hell, CRN put his law degree to use and took the NCAA to the cleaners on wrongful termination. CRN says that his current gig is his dream job, but should it not work out, I’m sure he’d have plenty of enthusiasm to be at the head of all of Bruin athletics given his undeniable love of the school itself.
by Tydides on Aug 19, 2011 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I had the same thought.
He’d be a natural in that position. He’s excellent with boosters and alums, and desperately cares about UCLA athletics.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
+1
I’ve met both RN and DG. In my humble opinion both truly love UCLA, but Rick is much more passionate and ready to go to war for the school than Dan. Whether or not he becomes a coaching success for us, I have no doubt that he would be a fantastic AD.
Be prepared and be honest.
The way I see it
What’s the point of winning if it’s going to be vacated? =D
I would hate having the title go something along like:
UCLA BCS National Champions 2012*
- denotes vacated title
Do we want to win or do the right thing?
Coach has an answer to that.
And if you do the right thing it should lead to winning. And winning in life.
There is a theme running through these comments
and I don’t think that it is coincidental that fans of Coach’s school share this idea:
It isn’t an either-or proposition – you can have integrity and win.
In fact he taught that having integrity is the surest way to sustain winning. Cutting
corners (and isn’t that what cheating is all about?) will come back to haunt you.
For what will it profit a man...
if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?
I’m not a particularly religious person but having been born into a particularly religious family I did glean most of my guiding philosophies from the fundamental principals of my Christian grandparents. So while I’m not sure that there’s a greater force watching us and judging our actions I do believe that honor and integrity outweigh glory gained and prizes won.
Absolutely
And what you say is an absolute truth in a world where absolutes are often not there at all or are impossible to clearly discern.
Great Thread But -- It May Be A False Dichotomy
I do not think we have been losing football games because we have taken the high road in recruiting and discipline. As mentioned above, other teams have taken the high road and won football games - Stanford being, in my mind, the best example.
We have been losing football games not because CRN has been running a clean program but because of all the reasons we have discussed around here for years — he inherited empty cupboards, he had terrible injuries at key positions, he hired and kept questionable coaches and coordinators, and he has had to operate in a culture that makes it difficult to recruit the best players and attract and hire the best coaches.
In addition, CRN takes some of the blame for tactical/strategic/game day decisions that have shown a lack of guts and imagination.
Like everyone here, I admire CRN’s integrity and am proud that he is running a clean program. And, unlike some here, I don’t think he was that tarnished at CU or UW. When we first hired him, I read the primary documents that contained the “charges” against him; many were bogus as was the Washington firing.
But, I don’t see having to choose between a clean but losing program and having to cheat to win. I expect to win with integrity.
Without cheating, we have put the talent in place to be competitive. That talent is maturing so that the benefit of our recruiting should pay off this year.
If we do not pass the “eye” test, or achieve Success as defined by Coach, I will not be able to feel good because we have a clean program. If we do not meet those standards, I will want a coach and staff who can meet them while running a clean program.
I hope that coach is CRN and am really looking forward to this year.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Aug 19, 2011 5:49 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
One quick thought re "tactical/strategic/game day decisions"
When Coach Prothro was in charge, our players neither as good nor as skilled as most of our opponents, but you never ever knew what Coach Prothro was going to do. We punted on third down, and we went for it on fourth down. We opened the Rose Bowl in 66 with a Beban run around Bubba Smith’s end, which was something that no one ever did. After we got the opening touchdown, we immediately did an on-sides kick.
That sort of imagination has been missing for decades. I hereby declare in advance to the world in general and Coach Neuheisel in particular that it’s OK with me if he wants to go for it on fourth down, or do an on-sides kick, or do something else that’s unconventional, and it’s OK even if it doesn’t work,
by Fox 71 on Aug 19, 2011 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I Join Geezer Brother Fox
Tommy Prothro is my “football heritage”. That’s why to my group of Bruins there is no question, we are both a football and basketball school.
Tommy Prothro did more with less because he had two things — guts and trust. He was not afraid to take risks and he trusted his players to execute when he did. And, they did.
When we kick on 4th and short on the other team’s turf, we show neither. That has notthing to do with running a clean program. Tommy Prothro did that, too.
Fox, thanks for stirring the memory bucket. It is the source of my passion.
sjh
UCLA vs. Stanford with Prothro
In 1965, IIRC the year, two of my fraternity brothers played football for Prothro. During the week of the Stanford game, after practice one day they related to me the coaching talk about preparations for Stanford. “We aren’t as talented as Stanford and we are playing at their place, but we are going to beat them The reason is because UCLA has better coaching”. Both of these players believed every word, although Prothro may have been blowing all kinds of smoke with the comment. That weekend UCLA beat Stanford good.
I would say Prothro was an outstanding psychologist, but of the practical kind (not Psych 1A class). He could talk his teams into just about anything because they were rapt listeners. In the Coliseum, for those of us at the games, during warmups, he purposely stood in the middle of the field, cigarette after cigarette smoked, with his briefcase as if he owned the place. He would look at the opponents as if he were going to buy them. Then he would stare at the UCLA side and he had everyone’s attention, including the fans. What a man!!!!
Mensgym
Unpredictability is fine
as long as the players execute the play correctly. A big issue has been the players not executing fundamentals or committing needless penalties.
At This Point -- Failure to Execute Is On the Coaches
I understand that they do not take the field but:
1. They recruited these players — they are not left overs from a previous regime; the ability to understand and execute a scheme is something considered in recruiting; and if they have sloppy fundamentals, why were they recruited?
2. They have had them long enough to teach them the scheme and fundamentals (which partially explains above); there were some interesting comments coming out of fall practice that leave the impression that our coaches did not fully understand the Pistol and tried to implement it without a grasp of its fundamentals; this year they have Mastro and a year of experience — so I don’t expect the mistakes and confusion that were a product of a new scheme; if they remain, it’s on the coaches;
3. Confusion that leads to busted plays and stupid penalties, including substitution and clock violations, is on the coaches, now; repeating my refrain — CRN recruited these players and has had the starters long enough to teach them to do things correctly.
I’m not saying that players won’t make mistakes, bonehead plays, get penalties in the heat of the moment — but if we systematically fail to execute — I think it will be on the coaches. If we continue to give up first downs on 3rd and very long situations, that will be on the scheme. If we continue to run routes on third down that don’t cross the first down line, that will be on the coaches. If we continue to give up first downs on defensive 3rd downs because of penalties, that will be on the coaches. If we continue to turn 3rd and short into forth and long on offensive 3rd downs, that will be on the coaches.
Bottom Line: Kids will make mistakes; that’s understandable. But, many of the mistakes we’ve been making, continuously, have been systemic; that is on the coaches.
sjh
+1 - especially your bottom line
I’ll add:
- Kids make mistakes – that isn’t new
- Players get injured – that isn’t new
- Players get disqualified (for academic or other reasons) – that isn’t new
- Players don’t arrive knowing everything you want them to know – that isn’t new
- Players can have unproductive attitudes (over or under confident)- that isn’t new
- Sometimes you play more talented teams – that isn’t new
The coaches have been in this long enough to have seen all of these problems and they should have solutions. If they cannot fix these problems that is on the coaches.
by KnudsenRockne on Aug 20, 2011 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
In A Perfect World It Is A False Dichotomy
The problem is that it is our dichotomy. CRN’s decision to hold the line and in effect cashier the Richardsons and Mr. Shirley has cost us.
Shaquille Richardson hurt us badly in the Arizona game. He forced a fumble and later IIRC we were down by 8 with less than 2 minutes to go and trying to move the ball up the field. On a 4th and whatever, guess who knocked the ball to the ground for an incomplete pass—that’s correct— disgraced former UCLA recruit Shaquille Richardson.
Did it cost us the game? Doubtful. We were awful last year. But we had a chance and he made us pay the price for rectitude.
A price I am proud to pay.
Forced Fumble v. Player Fumbled
We put the ball on the ground a lot the last few years. I tend to blame the runners for not holding onto the ball. All D players hit and try to strip. That play was within our control if our backs had learned how to hold onto the ball.
Our fumbles were recovered by lots of people — none of whom stole backpacks or were disciplined by CRN.
Sorry, I like your post a lot, and believe in a program with integrity, but cannot attribute that fumble to the fact that CRN threw a thief off the team. To me, it’s a stretch. Hold onto the ball and we control our own destiny.
sjh
Point well taken
Your point about my imprecise use of the term “cost us” which melded into the reference to fumble is correct.
My point, not well stated, is that we have and will pay a price for losing three physically but not ethically capable players. But you are right, hold onto the ball or complete the pass, Mr. Shirley and his cohorts will become less or entirely irrelevant.
But I think CRN’s decision cost us and will and that is fine with me.
Go Bruins!
by peggysue69 on Aug 21, 2011 1:21 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Excellent read.
I had never read all that together, wow! I also love the picture of bu$h on the side.
Go Bruins!
That letter is 16 years old!!!
What would he write now?!
It makes even U$C look like boy scouts. OK maybe petty thieves.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I know
I read 1-1/2 pages and kept thinking why is he only referring to events pre-2000? Then I checked the date more carefully.
Now, I wonder if he’d recommend that the Chancellor put his FB team on trial for war crimes.
by KnudsenRockne on Aug 20, 2011 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Ethics only matter...
…when you’re winning. It’s sad that we have to make a choice between the two. Why can’t success and ethics come together in peaceful harmony?
It all depends on how you define success
My definition of success includes “no asterisks”
by KnudsenRockne on Aug 20, 2011 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
My best friend is a North Carolian Fan, through and through.
He has repeatedly said that he’d rather the FB team be 5-7 than 9-3, as long as they were clean. I agree wholeheartedly. Is this happening evertwhere and just certain schools are being caught? The alternative is close to being enough for me to forsake “amateur” sporrts altogether.
Character is its own reward
but, as we like to say here “there are no moral victories.” I find the subject sort of irksome because I believe that doing right (i.e. with integrity, character, humility) will lead to victory. We know this to be true—we have only look to Coach.
A kernel of doubt has been planted in many people’s minds that makes them equate those who play by the rules with losing to those who cheat. I don’t think that necessarily follows. Stanford, Nebraska, and ND have strict academic and personal conduct policies but still have been able to win.
Lastly, I don’t question CRN’s character. I do not believe he would hurt his alma mater. I don’t blame him for lapses in his player’s character IF it is a rare occurrence. If not, you have to question if character is part of his recruitment calculus.
EGO TROIORUM MALLEUS SUM
I'm sure it is. Character, being part of his process!
There’s something else troubling me though. It seems we keep hiring assistant coaches who will never be Head coaches. This is concerning because, in any winning program, you should be losing coaches every year and replacing them, creating an institution of hire coaching in the process. Walsh did this for years. I’ve seen too many Businessman and Women hire people they know they can control, as to reap the rewards themselves! This bankrupts many companies. CRN had a difficult time hiring assistants we were high on! Which means CRN will take complete responsibility for the outcome. Do these qualified asst’s “Not” want to come here? Or is there a fear of hiring them, because they may end up getting our Head coach job? All in all: CRN will bear the brunt of whatever happens. Clever? We’ll see………………I’m for a clean program, but a qualified staff of coaches too!!!
wasn't the point of the Neuheisel hire to go beyond from 'losing with integrity'?
Before hiring CRN, we fired CTS. CTS had been hired to be a good guy and upstanding representative of UCLA after the previous ‘issues’. By all accounts he ran a clean program and was a good guy, but that wasn’t good enough for a school with a proud tradition like UCLA.
In hiring CRN, we were taking a chance – aside from the perception of wrongdoing he brought with him, which may not be fair, he had overseen programs that were hardly a paragon of virtue. We were taking a chance that he had learned his lessons and would be true to his word about never damaging the reputation of his beloved alma mater. We were hoping that he would bring his previous on-field success with him, and hoping that he would combine that with a stellar off-the-field representation of UCLA.
3 years in, 3 losing records in conference play. CRN appears to have behaved impeccably, and the contrast between the UCLA way and the behavior of our rivals is significant. But we had that with CTS as well, facing an even dirtier $c program (though perhaps a less dirty Oregon program?). If CRN doesn’t turn it around on the field, then people defending him on the grounds of superior ethics compared with rivals will need their own moniker – Neuheizealots?
CRN was brought in to win; ethics should assumed to be a prerequisite for any UCLA coach in any sport, a necessary but far from sufficient condition for coaching in the greatest athletic program on the planet.
I betcha CRN would agree with every word
He didn’t come here to be a ‘good loser’ – look at him after the 1984 Rosebowl: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2210565760118162374
by KnudsenRockne on Aug 20, 2011 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
hopefully he'll have more opportunities to display that kind of swagger
if the new coaching staff can translate the good recruiting classes into a formidable team.
by VeniceBruin on Aug 20, 2011 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I hopre so, too.
I like Coach Rick: he has swagger but he isn’t arrogant or a total jerk about it.
A lot of winners are jerks – it doesn’t matter what field: athletics, entertainment, research, business or politics – they may be great at what they do but they’re lousy at being a person.
I just hope he gets a chance to coach uninjured Bruins.
by KnudsenRockne on Aug 20, 2011 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
amen to that
for all the pontificating on who is to blame for what, I think we’re due a little more luck on the health front.
The encouraging alumni support would be nice
I remember all the pretty crappy ways I was treated as an undergraduate by the University and I remember thinking “and these guys want me to be a loyal alum in a few years”.
1. At the freshman Chancellor’s Reception which included a receiving line, I was told “there are too many people here so you can’t meet the Chancellor”.
2. I asked a question at the reference desk at URL and the librarian told me “I’m not paid to help undergraduates”.
3. One quarter when I never received my reg card in the mail and I went to Murphy Hall to get a new one they charged me for losing my reg card. When I said I didn’t lose it since I never got it, their reply was “too bad”.
4. I attended a meeting with some Dean regarding the ban on theme parties. Someone pointed out that they thought that having an Oktoberfest was in fact free speech and proected by the 1st Amendment. The Dean replied, “the consitution doesn’t appy to UCLA.”
So of course within weeks of graduating a get a call from a cheerful UCLA Alumni Assoc telemarketer asking for money. Of course her pitch was based on “giving back to the UCLA for all it had given to me….warm fuzzy memories….blah blah blah”.
Then when I went to grad school at a different place I was shocked how well I was treated. It was like the university was actually glad to have me there. I wasn’t used to that. Pretty amazing.
Powder to the People
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
