UCLA Vital Signs and the Chianti Cancer
by BruinAlum2011 on Feb 5, 2012 5:30 AM PST
Email
PrintBumped. As mentioned in the thread if you can read this and not want to see Chianti get the boot then there is no help for you. Go Bruins. - BN Eds.
When describing why I love UCLA so fervently, I often refer to an analogy I heard back during my orientation week that likens UCLA to the human body - I was a North Campus major, so it made little sense to me at the time...
UCLA as an entity works as just that, a single body, with the individual parts not only serving their proper functions, but working together with one another in a way that animates the entire campus and brings the school to life. UCLA is steeped in a rich academic tradition of excellence- our mind. We interact with and give back to the community - our hands. The faculty and student body consistently innovate and make advancements in their fields, moving society forward - our feet. And we boast one of the proudest athletic traditions in existence - our heart... (he went on, but I will stop here).
Having graduated, as I look back on my tenure at UCLA, I can preceive the truth in this statement. However, I can also clearly see a cause for alarm, as the Bruin body has undoubtedly contracted cardiovascular disease. The name of the virus responsible- Chianti Donut Dan Guerror. More after the jump. (Always wanted to write that)
After doing a bit of digging, I have thrown together some data which re-affirms that which can already be felt without looking at any numbers - that UCLA Athletics is in on the verge of total cardiac arrest. One too many donuts perhaps? And here I thought Chianti was good for heart. Regardless, consider the following:
| MEN'S SPORTS WINNING PERCENTAGE | ||||||||||
| MEN'S SPORTS | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 |
| Total | 67% | 59% | 67% | 73% | 69% | 68% | 64% | 62% | 61% | 64% |
| Revenue Sports | 63% | 40% | 45% | 73% | 68% | 65% | 62% | 64% | 39% | 55% |
| Non-Revenue Sports | 69% | 67% | 76% | 73% | 69% | 69% | 65% | 62% | 70% | 67% |
| *Includes Basketball, Football, Baseball, Soccer, Tennis, Volleyball, and Water Polo records | ||||||||||
I feel that the most damning trends are as follows:
The unchecked delcine from 2005 onward: Just as you can't evaluate a recruiting class until year 3, I would argue that we shouldn't being evaluating Chianti Dan's impact on the overall winning percentage until at least year 3 ('05 as Chianti was hired in '02). We all know the man makes little to no immediate splash unless he's jumping into a pool after all. From 2005 through 2011, UCLA has experienced a decline in overall winning percentage in every year except the last, and no, I don't believe he's "turning things around."
The disparity between Revenue and Non-Revenue sports: In all but one year, non-revenue sports outperformed revenue-generating sports. If your job were in sales and you were #1 at pushing non-profitable product but dead last at moving money-making assets, you would be fired. I fail to see how this is any different. Donut Dan completely fails to see the big picture from a management standpoint. Donut Dan, you are fired. How can Dan allow the most public facing aspects of his department to falter so badly while hiding behind the success of teams which suceede most likely in spite of him?
With Regard to Men's NCAA Titles: UCLA has garnered 5 NCAA titles under the now 10 year long Reign of Error. Not bad right? Wrong, this is down from 11 men's titles in the 10 years preceding Guerrero's hiring.
If UCLA is a body where every piece must work together to keep the school we all love so deeply functioning properly, how can we possibly allow this cancer lodged deep within our heart to go unchecked? How can anyone continue to ignore the deteriorating vital signs on top of all the self diagnosed, anecdotal symptoms? Blowing the Pauley project, screwing the students out of their seats, being forced to veto Seto, letting Nikki Caldwell go, forcings assistants on Neu, and playing blind date with Mora since the girls he asked didn't want to dance with him... these are but a drop in the bucket of aches and pains that we as members of the UCLA body have been made to endure in the last two years alone!
In summation - we all know that Guerrero must go, but I know that I for one had no idea that the vitals of our athletic department itself supported our sentiments to soundly. Be it winning percentage, national titles, revenue generation, ticket sales, or simply fanbase morale - every measureable vital sign is on the verge of flat-lining.
Cue the paddles! Bring this body back to life! FIRE DAN GUERRERO!
Below is the data utilized in the above averages in case you find yourself interested in taking a further look:
| MEN'S SPORTS WINNING PERCENTAGE | ||||||||||
| MEN'S SPORTS | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 |
| Total | 67% | 59% | 67% | 73% | 69% | 68% | 64% | 62% | 61% | 64% |
| Revenue Sports | 63% | 40% | 45% | 73% | 68% | 65% | 62% | 64% | 39% | 55% |
| Non-Revenue Sports | 69% | 67% | 76% | 73% | 69% | 69% | 65% | 62% | 70% | 67% |
| Basketball | 64% | 34% | 39% | 62% | 82% | 83% | 90% | 74% | 44% | 68% |
| Football | 62% | 46% | 50% | 83% | 54% | 46% | 33% | 54% | 33% | 43% |
| Baseball | 43% | 47% | 55% | 27% | 57% | 54% | 55% | 48% | 75% | 59% |
| Soccer | 63% | 86% | 91% | 78% | 71% | 70% | 50% | 67% | 75% | 76% |
| Tennis | 83% | 86% | 79% | 90% | 77% | 85% | 93% | 81% | 71% | 72% |
| Volleyball | 78% | 52% | 80% | 81% | 68% | 63% | 55% | 47% | 53% | 52% |
| Water Polo | 76% | 65% | 74% | 89% | 72% | 74% | 75% | 67% | 77% | 76% |
| = MEN'S NCAA TITLE YEAR | ||||||||||
Of note is that football has only performed above the all-men's sports average once under Dan (2005).
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
53 comments
|
10 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Absolutely fantastic work
If you can read this and not want to see Chianti get the boot then there is no help for you.
Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 4, 2012 10:10 PM PST reply actions
Great job
It is very hard to believe that no men’s team has a title since the 06 volleyball team. Thi has to end now. Again, great job with this post.
I hate to break it to you...
…but facts and reason have little to no value to a huge segment of the UCLA fan base, people who are too strung up on emotion and suffer from a total lack of testicular fortitude to demand better of their university.
That said, I applaud your post. This is excellent stuff and proof that at least some Bruins “get it” when it comes to the complete and total failure that is Chianti Dan’s “leadership” at Morgan Center.
Fantastic Analysis
I can already see the Guerrerophiles preparing their lines of defense. What about women’s sports? What about sports like golf where there are not dual competitions with a win-loss?
The easiest way to cut through all that is the Directors’ Cup, which aggregates results across all sports, to determine the most successful athletic programs across the board.
As quite a few know, Stanford dominates this cup. They have finished 1st for the last 17 years. It is certainly possible to combine academics and athletics. It is no coincidence that John Hennessy, Stanford’s president, is the self-described No. 1 fan of Cardinal athletics.
Turning to Guerrero’s reign of error, here are the results. As a baseline, from 1998-2002, the five years before Guerrero was hired, UCLA’s average standing was 3.6. UCLA finished 2nd in 2 of those 5 years, and never lower than 5th. In short, a well balanced program with success across many sports.
Since Guerrero took over, UCLA’s average standing has dropped to 5.4 (50% decrease). We have finished 2nd 3 times (2006-2008, the Final 4 years) in 9 years, and have finished out of the top 10 two of the last three seasons. So including women’s sports and non win-loss sports, as per the Director’s Cup standings, supports your excellent analysis that Chianti Donut is not good for our health.
For those (like Block possibly) who think it is unfair to compare us to a private school with the facilities and endowment of Stanford, two responses-
First, Stanford has the facilities and endowment because they are successful- success breeds success. Meanwhile, Chianti Dan has turned off supporters through his arrogance and mismanagement.
Second, here are the schools which finished ahead of UCLA in last year’s rankings- Stanford, Ohio St, Cal, Florida, Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas A&M, Florida St and Oklahoma. The prior year, Stanford, Florida and Virginia finished ahead of UCLA.
Basically, what we have here are a lot of public schools (other than Stanford and Duke) who were more successful last year than UCLA.
For those who say it is unfair to judge Dan Guerrero on last year, here is the average ranking for 2009, 2010, and 2011- 10.3 !!! We can’t even finish in the top 10, with the inherent advantages we have as the best university in the 2nd largest city in the country with a 12 month playing season.
Thanks again for the great work here 2011. Further proof that BN is the place for fact-based analysis which shows where change is needed, and needed NOW.
by islandbruin on Feb 5, 2012 8:03 AM PST reply actions 7 recs
These are some great numbers Island.
Where did you dig these up? I would like to see more numbers going back 20, 30 years, and even further back.
I think your take on the Reign of Error is the most damning; the most compelling argument yet made.
BRAVO.
Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. ~ Vince Lombardi
interesting response but...
You used the term “Guerrerophiles.” That implies that there exists members of Bruins Nation that actually like and/or support Dan Guerrero. Do such people actually live and breathe amongst us?
I'm sure there are
There are a few on other Bruin forums. The Guerrerophiles are lurking, waiting for the next UCLA Co-ed Underwater Basket Weaving national championship or Word from Westwood rollout, so they can parade him around. Gene and Rhea have got to be either completely ignorant/oblivious of the college athletics atmosphere, or they must be closet Guerrerophiles too.
Dump Dan!
by bruinclassof10 on Feb 8, 2012 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
Very nice use of data to prove a point but...
I suggest you stop using negative comments about Dan’s weight like “donut” or making a splash by jumping into a pool. It only serves to lessen the magnitude of your point, which should be the real focus of your post, as it is a very valid argument and clearly demonstrates that DG needs to be replaced. Many people outside of this website, including those who actually are in positions of power to enact the change you’re looking for, are more likely to overlook or dismiss the validity of your argument if you (and others who post here) continue to embed these types of insulting comments in your message. Plus, I imagine you’re insulting a lot of readers of this site who have problems with their own weight. Again, though, very nice use of data to back up what we all know! More of this is needed.
lol
we were thinking the same thing, but came to different conlcusions
by UCLA_beer&mathematics on Feb 5, 2012 11:37 AM PST up reply actions
Hold it a second, brohan
I coined “Doughnut Dan.” I still like Doughnut Dan as a monicker, because I think Guerrerror looks remarkably like Homer Simpson. I’m not talking about anything from the neck down. From the neck up, they look the same. The comparison is compelling, because the thought processes of the two appear to be identical. If you watch the Simpsons at all, you will understand that Homer loves doughnuts. (He also loves beer, but “Beer Dan” doestn’t have the same alliterative ring.) That’s how “Doughnut Dan” came to be, not because of anyone’s weight or waistline.
I take seriously your suggestion that people outside the website, “including those who actually are in positions of poser to enact the chage you’re looking for, are more likely to overlook or dismiss the validity of your argument if you (and others who post here) continue to embed these types of insulting comments in your message.” Who are these people? Is it Chancellor Block? I’ve sent many, many messages to the Chancellor. I have never referred to our athletic director (or to anyone else) without using a proper honorific. Chancellor Block has not responded. I think it’s unlikely in the extreme that he’s saving my message (or those of the rest of the community) to use at some future time. But laying that aside, why do you believe that someone’s use of a term which you dislike is keeping our athletic director in office? Isn’t it more likely that the person with the power to fire the athletic director doesn’t think his job performance warrants his termination? Do your really think that our chancellor is so shallow that he would summarily fire Doughnut Dan, but for the fact that someone used a nickname that he didn’t like? Sorry, brohan, but that doesn’t sell.
Your last reason has to do with weight. Obesity is a problem shared by many, including me. I am five weeks into a diet and have done well. My diet does not include high calorie foods. Our athletic director, however, is going on a Chianti tasting trip, as you undoubtedly know. An 8 ounce glass of chianti, according to my source, has 186 calories, 12 grams of carbs, 4 fats and zero protein. That’s not a nourishing meal, at least if you’re making an attempt to lose weight. Doughnut Dan is obviously content about his weight, because it’s obvious that he is doing nothing to lose any pounds. If he doesn’t care, why should you?
I have taken to referring to him as Chianti Dan, because that is clearly something that he brought on directly. Nonetheless, I stand by my description of our athletic director as Doughnut Dan, and it is not weight related. It is Homer Simpson related.
excellent work!
i wish you posted the percentages for the previous 10 years before Chianti Dan…but I also understand that it took a lot of work to post what you did, so thanks!!
a tangent follows:
you know, every now and then I read some of the other bruin blogs and hear about how BN is so negative, tasteless, blah blah and uses unprofessional name calling like ‘donut dan’ ‘neubs’ ‘howlers’ etc etc
&
I have myself thinking…"man, some of these posts are excellent! well written, fact-based, but if only they edited out the slurs like ‘chianti’ and ‘donut dan’ when making their points. it would like totally make more people sympathetic to their arguments’
BUT
after reading about all the mishandling (to put it lightly) that the AD has subjected us (the fan base) to, you know, they deserve it! Respect is earned.
Done ranting now, thanks
by UCLA_beer&mathematics on Feb 5, 2012 11:35 AM PST reply actions
I have no problem with...
certain nicknames being used. I have no problem with “Chianti,” whatsoever, as it frames Dan as someone who is completely out-of-touch with the Bruin community. I also have no problem with the nicknames that descibed those who continued to blindly and ardently support certain coaches who clearly deserved to be let go (e.g., “neubs”) . The key is that these types of nicknames don’t attack anything personal. However, using the nickname “Donut Dan” does do this, as it targets his physical characteristics and I’m sure is offensive to others who also have similar characteristics. Not all nicknames are the same. This one falls in the category of inappropriate and offensive IMHO, and we don’t need to use it to convey the message most of us seem to agree with, and that is that DG needs to be replaced. I suggest using some discretion. That’s all I’m saying.
I get the brohan
That is why I have been using the term chianti. If you comb through my post I never have used the term. As for the post above, sure perhaps the term should not have been used and I have no doubt your feedback will be taken seriously. However, that doesn’t take away anything from the overwhelming argument presented against Chianti. Also, don’t assume we are not communciating w folks who are in position of power. We get plenty of feedback from uber donors from which its evident to us that sentiments here are in generally in sync w the hardcore base of Bruin Nation.
by Nestor on Feb 5, 2012 1:26 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
You want to know something more fun?
We have been getting threats of physical assaults – demanding that we stop speaking the truth about UCLA sports. These threats of physical assault are not coming from Trojans but UCLA “fans” who are not comfortable with our commentary on major revenue programs.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg in terms of intimidation we have been subjected to. Something tells us what we have been saying and the way we are using the lay out the arguments is hitting a nerve. We are going to only turn up the heat especially if our hoops team miss the tourney.
by Nestor on Feb 5, 2012 1:22 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yep
And notice no one has really responded back to this comment. All hush – while we have to constantly read about people being treated roughly because their poor arguments are taken apart.
I legitamately cannot believe that
anyone calling themselves a Bruin could be capable of such Trogan-esque behavior. Keep on fighting the good fight. BN’s points are only galvanized by such childish behavior.
by BruinAlum2011 on Feb 6, 2012 8:42 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, it is pretty surreal
That UCLA “fans” will threaten physical violence on other alums of the school who blog about the sports program. Stunning because we haven’t seen that even from Trojans. And we have gotten these messages specifically during time we were speaking up against the AD and it’s handling of the major revenue programs.
That is why we get amused when we read about people complaining about getting
“assaulted” simply because their arguments are being taken apart.
Sad but true
And though it’s usually aimed at N and the other front pagers, other BN community members have been targeted, too. It’s too easy to say reprehensible stuff anonymously on the internet. Even worse when you figure that ultimately, we all agree that wejust want to see our teams do as well as they can.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Tough situation
First, thanks, as I didn’t realize that you folks were being threatened with physical assault. Makes me appreciate you even more.
The scumbags may hide in anonymity, but maybe there is some way to publicize the threats, themselves, and let them be subjected to sunlight? Maybe we could even have fun with them, dissecting them in the same way we do irrational arguments.
Small-town police logs, often printed weekly in the town’s newspaper, are a hoot. They’re full of entries like “2:13 am Answered complaint about a neighbor’s barking chihuahua. Complainant said that the neighbor deliberately kept the dog in the back yard just to annoy him. Turned down complainant’s request for officers to bring him burgers and fries from the all-night Jack-in-the-Box. Complainant said he was too drunk to drive. He seemed to want us to commend him for not driving drunk.”
Maybe something like an occasional BN log of backstage goings-on? Just a thought.
Nah, we wouldn't do anything like that.
It’s more just following on N’s comment above when we hear people complaining about being assaulted. We argue and debate opinions all the time, but it’s nothing personal from our standpoint. Unfortunately, it does get personal the other way sometimes.
We want to keep the content here related to the topics and not waste everyone’s time with the nonsense.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
in case it wasn't clear from my original post
I was not criticizing BN for the name-calling. I added an important ‘BUT’ and concluded that I am OK with the name-calling since—as has been explained above by Fox and others—it doesn’t take jabs at DG in a superficial way, but on an rational level (and brought upon DG by none other than himself!). My conclusion was: I’M FOR IT!
Since I am quite new to the blog (<1 year reading/a few months posting), I was only outlining my thought process through the post….
Carry on good people of BN =)
by UCLA_beer&mathematics on Feb 6, 2012 9:51 AM PST up reply actions
Some "fans" take the fun out of everything
Thanks for standing your ground and keeping us all sane here while simultaneously keeping things respectful and PG-13 rated. When put in perspective, sports, opinions, coaching preferences and even Chianti Dan should take a back seat to things like respecting others opinions, being an American and enjoying all of our rights and privileges, and learning life lessons from Coach. I, too was personally stalked by a “Neub donor” on another forum who tried to find my season seat so that he could fight me and I’ve been called various female bodyparts. Crazy people exist everywhere and sadly, some of them call themselves Bruins.
Dump Dan!
by bruinclassof10 on Feb 8, 2012 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
Great work Alum!
You make a great case, and you laid it out very well.
Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. ~ Vince Lombardi
Let's take a step back
DG has already given us a name for us to call him by, remember he wanted it to be known that he straps it on? I call him strap on Dan not because of any sexual innuendo the name implies but rather because it is so indicative of his complete TONE DEAF ATTITUDE and lack of any SELF AWARENESS! I do not attack his weight because I do not like to attack people with issues that may be beyond their control, who knows maybe he has a slow metabolism or his weight is an issue he has always struggled with. I do attack the things he can control like running an athletic department or overseeing a coaching search. I call him strap on because he is a victim of his own incompetence and lack of regard for the community he serves.
I reiterate - "Doughnut Dan" has nothing to do with weight
I don’t know what the rest of you think. I coined that term, and I did so because (a) Dan Guerrerror’s face (face only – nothing more) looks, at least to me, like Homer Simpson’s face, (b) Homer Simpson loves doughnuts, and © I like alliteration when it comes to nicknames.
I took a step back, as you suggest, because Doughnut Dan gave us a better nickname when he decided to tour Italy sipping Chianti while the rest of us tried to figure out exactly what he does to get $27,000 every two weeks. If he had decided to go on a Grappa sipping tour, I would have gone happily with Grappa Guerrerror. That’s what happen when you’re in law school when Agnew was VP and was saying things like “nattering nabobs of negativism.” I used “a Faustian fooferaw of philosophical fantasy” in a paper – if the VP could do it, so could I.
Doughnut Dan is still my preferred appellation, because our athletic director looks like Homer Simpson and his thought processes are strikingly similar. I really can’t look at Guerrerror without having my mind immediately shift to Simpsons highlights. If Homer had been identified with donkey dung, I would have gone with that for a nickname. The thing is, it has nothing to do with weight. Nothing. If you think it has to do with anything other than Homer Simpson, then I suggest you take a look at a picture of Doughnut Dan and then take a look at a picture of Doughnut Homer. You can’t really tell them apart.
I meant lets take a step back as a joke
I totally get calling him doughnut for the reasons you mentioned, I never thought it was a reference to him being heavy set, I thought it was because homer is a dopey guy the fact that he’s heavy set is just incidental. But I mean DG gave us gold when he gave his strap on speech, the guy is just so oblivious and that line typifies his obliviousness. Point is the guys behavior, especially the way he interacts with the Bruin community, shows me that he doesn’t deserve to be called Mr. Guerrero.
DG's 10 years compared to prior 10 years
Just to springboard from BruinAlum2011’s fantastic analysis, in the 10 years of DG’s reign of error, the men’s teams shown have an average winning percentage of 65%, broken down into 57% for the revenue sports and 69% for non-revenue sports. That 57% is pretty ugly. That translates to a 7-5 record in football or a 19-15 record in basketball- certainly nothing that comes close to expectations.
In the 10 years prior to DG’s reign, the men’s teams in the same sports had an average winning percentage of 72%, broken down into 68% for the revenue sports and 73% for non-revenue sports. So in the 10 years prior to DG’s arrival, the teams on an overall basis had a winning percentage which was over 10% higher than we have experienced under DG (72/65=1.11). And the high visibility football and basketball programs combined had a winning percentage which was almost 20% higher than DG’s results (68/57=1.19).
And, as BruinAlum2011 points out, the trend only gets worse in recent years. It is certainly easy to suggest that one year in one sport can be an isolated occurence. But 10 years in 7 sports? No way that is coincidence.
Thanks again BruinAlum2011 for backing our sense of discontent with cold hard facts.
wonderful addition, island!
just what we all wanted!
the numbers are pretty damning and completely quantify the drop-off in ‘excellence’ under Doughnut-Chianti-Stap-on Dan (sorry, couldn’t help myself :P). Indeed, a 72% winning percentage is quite stellar!
by UCLA_beer&mathematics on Feb 6, 2012 5:55 AM PST up reply actions
While this analysis is a good efforrt..
..I don’t see the dramatic drop-off in the trends here. I am NOT a Guerrerophile and agree that he has been a pathetic AD, but at a cursory glance the won-lost percentage appear to be more of an up-and-down proposition with a slight trend downward.
Forgive me for my ignorance and, still in all, I would not want to defend what Guerrero has “accomplished”. I am open to being educated here. (Caveat: bus ad graduate and not terribly good in statistics anyway.)
Also, I’d tread lightly on the “previous 10-year” thing — particularly in roundball because you-know-who preceded Howland and I just know how well he was beloved among BN’ers (and others).
Absolutely love
that this post has had the intended effect of getting people to not only realize how blatently terrible of a job Dan is doing, but to also to dig deeper (thanks island for the stellar insights) to unearth all the other damning facts and statistics about the current course of our athletic program. Hopefully these arguments see the light of day in an office that has the power to do something about it.
On the other hand, I want to speak to the use of terminology such as Chianti Dan and Donut Dan. First of all, I want to apologize if any of my phrasing offended any reader, as that was never and will never be even tangential to my intentions. I, as well as everyone who posts here – specifically the front pagers, would never mean deride anyone for their weight. We are a fact driven community and while the fan in all of us occasionally leaks out via emotional coloring, such degradation has no place here. I believe the front pagers have stated this themselves and execute this policy well.
As Fox noted, his coining of the phrase stemmed from a comparison of Dan to Homer Simpson, not in weight, but in facial appearance and general laziness. For me personally, the phrase conjures up the stereotyped image of a lazy bureaucrat who sits idly by eating Donuts than properly doing his job – again, nothing to do with weight, but rather work ethic, ability, and general competence.
I will reiterate, I apologize to those who have a varying interpretation of the phrase, and I will most certainly be more cognizant of how terminology may be dissimilarly interpreted by different readers. However, I do not apologize for any of my analysis, arguments, or data interpretation. I vehemently believe that Dan is the clear root of our athletic slide and should be dealt with accordingly.
Summarily, thank you to those who support my argument and especially to those who have taken up the charge to expound upon it. Look for more in this mold to keep on coming until Dan is relieved of his duties. I had always hoped my first post wouldn’t be one that was torn apart by the editorial wit of BN. Guess I dodged that bullet.
Your post
was brilliant and is the reason why this community has a lot more depth than most other outlets. Thanks for taking the time to put this together. It is a lot harder to write this way, with evidence, than in a stream of consciousness based on emotions, and all the people who whine about being criticized should take this to heart: their posts are easily trumped by this kind of writing.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
This was your first post?
Wow. Of course, you have now set a very high standard. It’s like getting a birdie on the first hole – it’s almost impossible to sustain that level of play. Anyway, great job, 2011. Chancellor Block should look already know these facts. Someone on his staff should bring this post to his attention. Neither of those things will happen, because the bureaucracy doesn’t want to do anything. Ever.
We need a little anarchy on campus to stir things up a little, but I’ve always wondered how an Anarchists’ Club would work. Would it follow Roberts Rules of Order?
My first post was torn apart pretty good.
Nice work, 11!
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
At least yours was a post
Mine was a comment about attendance at the Rose Bowl. I almost cried :)
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
pretty sure
mine was Tydides. Luckily at some point, Nestor realized he knew me LOL! Let’s just call it what it was: we got hazed!
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Haha. It wasn't you, N, but I'm can't remember who it was
I caught some grief, but there was a good discussion over it. I wasn’t permanently scarred, and I stuck around.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Great post Bruin Alum and great points all around.
I had knew that Dan was not doing our program any good, and this post provides good solid numbers that really validate why we need someone new and soon.
Personally, I noticed one big difference between Rick and Dan is that even though we knew Rick’s time had come, it was tough because Rick made himself easy to like. Dan, however, only seems to be making press conferences at times he absolutely needs to. As a fan, I don’t feel any sort of connection with him. While he has things like his “blog” to communicate with fans, I don’t feel like he’s really represented the face of our University. Unlike AD’s at other schools which I need not name who are consistently putting themselves out there working to improve their school’s image and battle any negativity, Dan has just sat in the background and waited (which has been well documented on BNation).
+1- I would go one step further
It would be unacceptable if Guerrero actually did just sit in the background passively, and let our coaches and players succeed or fail on their own terms.
But he actually takes positive actions to screw them. Like you, I like RN. I wish it had worked out better for him (and for us). But Guerrero saddled RN with Guerrero’s chosen staff, then Morgan Center put out the “end of the monopoly” campaign without RN’s input which racheted up the pressure, and then when things had definitely turned for the worse, Guerrero left RN hanging in the wind. This goes beyond unacceptable, and shows Guerrero’s tone-deaf disregard.
It is like when Morgan Center used Josh Smith as the poster child to get donations for conditioning programs. All this did was subject one of our players to ridicule. No player wearing the Blue and Gold should be subject to Guerrero’s ineptitude in this fashion.
I wish Dan would sit in the background and wait. We would all be better off. When Dan tries to take action, the coaches, the players and the fanbase pay the price. The only action I would like Dan to take is to find another job, and allow us to have a fresh start.
What's the evidence that Guerrerror stuck Coach Neuheisel with coaches he didn't pick?
I know that’s the conventional wisdom, but I don’t know what the actual evidence to support that. There are plenty of reasons why Guerrerror should be fired, but unless we have actual evidence that he stuck Coach Neuheisel with people he didn’t want, I don’t think we should assert this as fact.
I’m not singling you out, Island. You happened to be the person I noticed saying it. What’s our evidence here?
We have discussed it with cited reports
And have heard it from other reputable sources beyond BN.
by Nestor on Feb 7, 2012 4:53 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I believe it, but I don't remember reading it
I stuck out on the BN search function (I kept running into some glitch that I think is an SBN issue). If you can refer me to something without doing more than two seconds of research, great. If not, I’ll live without it.
The search function has had issues for last few weeks
Not pulling up content beyond this past year. We have notified the SBN guys about it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
