Spurrier In Westwood

by Nestor on Oct 15, 2007 4:47 AM PDT in Football Comment 93 comments

I loved the discussion Bruin Blue and ryebreadraz's posts generated last week on a coaching search, which Dan Guerrero should be conducting right now through back channels.

Lot of interesting names have come up. I think there is a lot of merit to a point Bruin Blue made little more than two weeks ago when he talked about the urgency of making a "home run" hire. The five names Bruin Blue brought up were: Urban Meyer, Mark Richt, Bill Cowher, Jon Gruden, and Jimmy Johnson as "homerun hire"

I would like to amend that list by striking out Meyer (because I simply do not believe it is practical at this point of time to pry Meyer lose from Florida), and inserting another big name. I can see how one can make the arguments for other four coaches at UCLA.

However, I believe the "home run" hire out there who could be the right fit for UCLA is none other than this guy.

Photo Credit: G. Fouste Photography's photostream (flickr)

No not Marc Richt. Bruin Blue already has him in his list. I am talking about the Ol' Ball coach who beat Richt after that picture was taken, and who has his USC program down in Columbia sitting pretty this year with a top-10 ranking in major polls. He has them positioned well and set up for a historic BCS run in a conference that has been dominated by Florida (a program he built - more on it below), LSU, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn etc.

Things are going well for the Bawl coach now, but he hasn't been exactly happy at USC. Right before the season there was a story out reporting how Coach Spurrier has not been happy with USC:

Spurrier opened his media-day news conference by attacking the university's decision to deny admission to players who were qualified under minimum NCAA standards.

"As long as I'm the coach here, we're going to take guys that qualify," Spurrier said Sunday. "If not, then I have to go somewhere else because I can't tell a young man, 'You're coming to school here,' he qualifies and not do that. And we did that this year."

I know what the naysayers will immediately say. The easy, lazy point usually by "The Risk Averse" bunch (no. 7) will be well how can an academic oriented institution such as UCLA will ever work with a coach like Spurrier who is having admission related problems at a place like USC? Uhm, the easy and logical answer is that if Spurrier were the head coach at UCLA, he wouldn't be scrapping for bottom of the barrel type of recruits he has to fight for at USC, in a recruiting landscape dominated by aforementioned schools and others.

If Spurrier came to UCLA and had the access to same level of talent pool where a former high school assistant coach or a Redskins secondary coach (Spurrier if you have forgotten already actually was a head coach for the Redskins) can have decent enough success to put together a top-3 class, something tells me in 2-3 years, he would be in a position where he would be picking and choosing recruits like Coach Howland does with our basketball program.

Anyway, this was not the first time stories surfaced about Spurrier not enjoying himself at USC. Back in June of 2006, Spurrier also expressed his reservations with what is going on at USC:

We told you last week about South Carolina's Steve Spurrier citing eight to 10 "so-called players" who were failing to show the proper commitment to summer workouts. Well, Spurrier was just getting started. "We got some real sorry, lazy guys; they won't go to class; they'll flunk out or fall by the wayside at some point, but we have to deal with them in the meantime." There's more. "Not attending class, that's something you run into everywhere, but usually, even those guys will show up for workouts -- not this group." Spurrier made the comments to Bart Wright of the Greenville News.

Well I am not sure if those issues are going to be at play at a place like Westwood. Coach Spurrier if he came to Westwood will have our total and complete support just like we provided Howland during his early years, when he had to do what needed to be done, to completely change the mentality of the previous regime which left Howland with bunch of players who were poorly conditioned, lazy, and did not have an ounce of winners mentality. Coach Howland changed all of that and I have no doubt Spurrier can do the same with his brand of coach at UCLA.

Now why would a coach like Spurrier be interested in a place like UCLA? Well allow me to repost these excerpts from an AP story Odysseus put up almost four years ago when talks started surfacing about Spurrier wanting to come back to college game:

Spurrier said he would prefer to coach in a warm-weather climate. South Carolina? North Carolina? How about Texas?

He declined to say whether he has spoken to any schools.

"I can't answer all that. I can't answer all your questions. In the next two or three weeks, once the season is over, we'll see what happens," he told The Sun.

"I think I've made it clear now that if I go back into coaching, it'll be at a good state university, a college job. Hopefully it will be in the South. I'd rather not get up there in the North."

Well Spurrier has done his deal at USC. He is built a program, putting it in contention in his third year. However, the admissions issue mentioned above could be just tip of the iceberg in terms of the obstacle in building and maintaining a powerhouse at a place like Columbia. Obviously UNC and Texas are now out of the question. Michigan will probably be looking at either Les Miles or Jeff Tedford. Plus from what I have heard over the years he likes being place where it is nice, sunny with pitch perfect golfing weather (and nothing wrong with golfing when you are so damn good at coaching).

Yeah, so I cannot think of a more pitch perfect set up for Spurrier at UCLA, while Pom Pom and his fun loving (alleged) criminals seem to be on their way down.

Once again for a quick refresher on what Spurrier did at University of Florida:

When Steve Spurrier was named head football coach at the University of Florida on Dec. 31, 1989, none of us ever expected what would happen over the next 12 seasons.

After 58 years of SEC participation and competition, no previous Florida team had ever won an official league championship in football (1984 was stripped after cheating). Spurrier-led Gators have accomplished this six times (1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 2000) dominating the SEC, its title game, and rising to national dominance by always finishing in the top 10.

He is the first coach in SEC history to win three outright conference championships in his first five years in the league. Florida's 86-14 SEC record during this period is the best in history for any head coach with a minimum of five years at a league school. Spurrier has guided the Gator to ten straight bowl appearances including two BCS appearances in the Orange Bowl.

From 1906 to 1989, only seven Gator teams won as many as nine games in one season. In twelve seasons, Spurrier teams have won nine or more each year, including 10 in 1991 and 1994, 11 in 1993 and 12 in 1995 and 1996. UF has been ranked in The Associated Press' national poll in all but one week during his tenure at Florida (160 of 161 weeks). The Gators have appeared in the AP Top 10 in each of the last 123 weeks. Spurrier has been named SEC Coach of the Year five times and won the SEC's Eastern Division championship in the first five years of conference divisional play winning the four title games in a row (1993-96).

Spurrier became the first UF coach to beat Georgia in eight consecutive years (1990-97). The 1996 season was the greatest in school history, as the squad posted a superb 12-1 regular season record and chopped the Seminoles 52-20 in the 1997 national championship game - The 1997 Nokia Sugar Bowl.

At Duke his teams reached heights no Blue Devil squad had seen in nearly three decades. The offense set records and shredded Atlantic Coast Conference standards and resulted in a 1989 bowl appearance and an ACC conference championship - Duke's first bowl showing since 1960 and first conference title since 1962.

And now the man has an also ran program like USC which doesn't really have long term prospect of staying competitive with other big boys in the SEC. Again also worth noting that he built a program at Duke. Duke! Just keep that fact in mind when against some risk-averse Dorrellista try to convince you academics issue at UCLA will be a hurdle for him.

As for salary issues, I do believe if a coach like Spurrier expresses interest, UCLA will be able to raise the necessary resources to put a package together that will work.

It's just a matter of having of a vision that pictures Coach Spurrier in his UCLA visor (up by 10 points) stomping around the Rose Bowl, drawing up a little fun and gun play for Olson or Cowan or Forcier (whoever is at QB), and set up few rocket throws, merciless bombing Pom Pom's confused defense.

I like the sound of that kind of movie a lot.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 93 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

My problem with Spurrier

He complained about getting kids academically qualified at S. Carolina. He said the admissions department needed to be more flexible and lower their standards. If he's complaining about that at USC, what will he do at UCLA? To bring Spurrier in he'd have to know the academic issues and know there isn't flexibility and at that point, I think he'd balk at the offer.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 15, 2007 9:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Counterargument

N's post specifically counters that argument saying at a place like UCLA, Spurrier would be in position to pick and chose from recruits.

Spurrier has to stretch everything he can at a place like USC because he has to fight for scraps in a region dominated by big boys of the SEC and the ACC. He will not have those problems at a place like UCLA.

I don't see academics being an issue for Spurrier's recruiting efforts at UCLA.

by bluestreet on Oct 15, 2007 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It don't mean he'd have trouble recruiting

I just don't think he'd want to deal with having to get kids admitted all the time. I think we sometime underestimate how much work you have to put in to get kids who can qualify academically. The recruiting advantages of UCLA more than make up for it, but UCLA isn't a dream place for Spurrier that I think he'd want to deal with something like tht. Plus, he's got USC on the way up.

I think all the big names, Spurrier, Richt, Meyer, Cowher, and Johnson are unrealistic. We don't need a big name anyways, we can make a good coach a big name at UCLA. The key is finding the little guy to turn into a big name like Florida did with Meyer, OSU did with Tressel and Oklahoma did with Stoops. None of the guys were huge names before they took their current guys. We just need to make sure that we have capable people leading the next coaching search so they can evaluate and decide who will be the next big name.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 15, 2007 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Taking the easy way out

Sure UCLA doesn't necessarily need a "big name" to revitalize its football program. However, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't exercise due diligence by not sending feelers out to a coach like Spurrier who just might intrigued with the possibility of coaching at UCLA.

USC may be on the way up. But given where it is situated at, there is no guarantee that Spurrier will be able to keep them at top. He doesn't have the access to recruiting pool in Columbia like he did at Gainseville or he could potentially have in Westwood.

I do not believe all big names coaches are unrealistic. That is the mentality of a bygone era when risk-averse UCLA fans didn't want to think big.

We should leave that to the Dorrell losers in the message board.

If UCLA played risk-averse with its hoops search it would have ended up with B list coaches such as Mark Few, Tom Crean or Mike Brey, instead of executing the hire of Ben Howland, who made his interest well known through back channels.

If a coach like Butch Davis can end up at a basketball only school like UNC, we as UCLA alums have every right to expect a football coaching search, that will be deliberate, methodical and pursue possible options from coaches from all tiers.

And it would be malpractice on DG's part if we find out years later that Spurrier had interest in the UCLA job, but he wasn't even approached becase UCLA wanted to take the risk-averse approach.

That approach should be left for losers like Dorrell lovers, not for us here on BN.

by bluestreet on Oct 15, 2007 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously

you put out feelers to see if they are interested, but I don't see them having sincere itnerest. If we could get one of those guys it'd be great, but when I look at this coaching search I am not expecting to get a Spurrier or someone like that. Plus, a big name doesn't make him the best fit. I'd love Spurrier or Jimmy Johnson, but I'd rather have Chris Peterson than Mark Richt or Jon Gruden. Yes, you find out if the Spurriers of the coaching world are interested, but do you honestly believe that is who we will end up with? Big names are overrated. How'd Lou Holtz pan out at South Carolina?

The key is finding the right fit, whether or not he's a big name or not. Plus, it's veeeeeeeeeeery tough to nab a big name from another BCS school. When was the last time a big name left one BCS school for another? It just doesn't happen. Florida went to the MWC, OSU to D-1AA, The big names that got hired (Spurrier and Davis) were unemployed at the time. It doesn't look like we'll have the unemployed, big name to get this offseason. It's bad timing. If we had fired KD after last season, we could have gone after Davis, but this year it won't work. We don't need the big name, we need the right fit.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 15, 2007 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uhm

You are mixing up a lot of things here. Nowhere in the comment thread did I write that I want Richt or Gruden in Westwood. That was in Bruin Blue post N linked above.

I think Spurrier at UCLA could make sense based on some of the reasons N articulated above. I don't see the same rationale applicable to Richt given he now has a powerhouse built in Georgia which always had a natural powerbase in terms of recruiting in the SEC. USC is not Georgia and will never have the recruiting powerbase or traditional Georgia has.

I am not sure about Gruden.

I just think the idea of Spurrier at UCLA is not as far fetched as some of the risk-averse crowd would like to think it is.

And no its not all that touch to nab a coach from low profile BCS school (which is what USC is) to a high profile one like UCLA.

Tom O'Brian went from BC to NCState (to get himself in a higher profile conference)
Fracionne went from Alabama to Texas ATM
Mack Brown went from UNC to Texas (one BCS conference to another)
Les Miles went from Oklahoma State to LSU (again a low profile BCS team to a higher profile one)

And I am sure those will not be the last examples.

It is a matter having willpower. If DG has it, he will explore it. And that is all folks are suggesting.

by bluestreet on Oct 15, 2007 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

one nitpick

BC was already in the ACC when Tom O' Brien left for NC State. It was an in-conference move (one ACC team to another), but given the lack of respect that Boston College has in the conference, may have been considered a slight move up.

by bruinhoo on Oct 15, 2007 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My bad

You are right.

I still keep thinking BC is in the Big Least conference. But you are right around the East Coast NCState is seen as a program with more upside than BC. BC is the often the third or fourth draw in a pro sports crazy town, while NC State along with UNC are the two premier draws in terms of football in state of Carolina (yeah I know its a hoops crazy state) with a much bigger fan and recruiting bases that support their programs.

by bluestreet on Oct 15, 2007 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't mean

you specifically wanted Richt or Gruden or anything like that. I was just responding to many UCLA fans who clamor for a big name coach. I think some of us at BN overestimate the allure of UCLA at this moment. Should we have a top notch football program and compete for national titles? Absolutely, but we haven't done that. A big name coach is great, but usually employed big named coaches are getting a hefty sum of money and aren't going to leave their job for another rebuilding project. Right now UCLA is a rebuilding project. The last couple years of Toledo and 5 years of Dorrell have left it as such. A rebuilding project takes a lot of energy and time to build up. Spurrier has begun his rebuilding project at USC and is a southern boy...why would he want to come here and start from scratch? Not that we shouldn't contact him because we should.

I completely agree with you that we need to see if they're interested, I just don't see them being interested unless we're willing to shell out $2M-$2.5M, something that administration would never sign off on at UCLA for a new coach, especially while paying a buy out to Dorrell. Our new coach has a major task ahead of him. He has to take what will be a young team missing a lot of talent. A team that hasn't been coached in their college careers. They'll have to compete with SC for all the local recruits and they have to work with different academic restrictions than SC. Does this mean the task is impossible? Hell no. With all the advantages UCLA offers, it is more than possible, but it will take A LOT of work and A LOT of energy.

Coaches know this and I think it makes some of the big name guys who are employed unrealistic. We need a hungry guy and I because of the challenges a new coach will face, I think the best fit will be a young guy who's full of energy and itching to make his mark on the national scene. Miami did it in the mid 90's with Butch Davis and while the situation isn't nearly as extreme, I think they're coaching search should be the model we follow (for more info on how that search went check out Cane Mutiny by Bruce Feldman. There's a chapter in there on his hiring). I think Peterson is that guy. The last couple years of Toledo and 5 years of Dorrell has ravaged this program. It is not in a good state right now. It's a big job to take and while the potential is certainly there, it will take not just any good coach to turn this around. It will take the right coach.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 15, 2007 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good discussion here

I think you are both right. I agree that we need to be realistic when we are conducting the search (which should be going through background channels right now). However, I do believe we need to exercise due diligence and find out certain first tier coaches may be interested in UCLA. And time you are filling a position (and I have been in that situation) ideally you always make sure you have a game plan in place in which you have identified two-three sets of candidates (Group A, B and C) who would all fit the bill for the position in need.

All this post was meant to do is raise the possibility. And I maintain the possibility is there.

What I do not appreciate here though (and this is meant for some of the posters who do not have allegiances to UCLA) is for outsiders lecturing us what should be our expectations at UCLA. I don't care for that kind of concern trolling on BN, and will not tolerate it.

by Nestor on Oct 16, 2007 5:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst.

I agree completely with the ABC level plan.

Why not assume we can hire at the A level and have a contingency in case we can't?

Anything less is self-defeating.

After this thread on Spurrier, I am convinced he would be a great fit and hire.

Until he says "no" we should consider him.

sjh

PS: Fox loves his parables. This isn't one: I was a part of a team raising money for a documentary we wanted to make. One of our guys went out to interview a prospect. His report on return:

"He's not not in." Optimism rules!

sjh

by Class of 66 on Oct 16, 2007 6:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Meyer

If Notre Dame is firing its coach to try to hire you, I think you're a name coach. If you've created a new type of offense which has everyone buzzing, and trying to copy you, you're a name coach. If you've led a non-BCS team to the Fiesta Bowl under the old regulations (finishing the regular season in the top six), I think you're a name coach. Urban Meyer became a name coach before he left for Florida, even if it wasn't certain he'd succeed there.

by jaffa on Oct 15, 2007 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Meyer was a big name

The year Florida hired him he was the biggest name on the market. When both Florida and Notre Dame are trying their hardest to get someone, they aren't a diamond in the rough.

There isn't really anyone from a non-BCS conference who has matched what Urban Meyer had done as of two years ago, but I think Peterson i the best choice.

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 15, 2007 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Spurrier is in the right place.

Spurrier chose USC for several reasons. One point he made was that he wanted to stay in the (SEC) East. Bama threw some serious money at him last year and if he's unwilling to move that far west, yall can keep dreaming about pulling him into Pac 10 land. As for "scraping the bottom of the barrel," we have a top 5 recruiting class this year. I guess that barrel has a pretty high bottom.

Gaaaaammmmmeeeee!!! cooocccccckkkkkss!!!

by cofcgamecock on Oct 16, 2007 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's weird is that

many in the BN actually root for a team called USC. CofC, you have to understand, USC has a little different connotation on the left coast than it has on the right coast. Out here, and in Westwood in particular, the term "justsc" is synomymous with "heaping pile of dog crap."

I would love to see USC - the good USC, not justsc - against USF in the NC game, just to hear gnashing of teeth in those elite institutions that think they belong in the NC game just because.

by Fox 71 on Oct 16, 2007 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If a coach like Spurrier

was at UCLA, it wouldn't take him 3 years to put together a top-5 class.

by bluestreet on Oct 16, 2007 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's a heck of a coach

South Carolina has been a doormat forever, but not now. He is a good teacher, especially of quarterbacks. Can you imagine what he would have done with our three guys?

The knock on him that I've always had was passing on first and goal at the one with 3 seconds to go in the game and a 63-3 lead. I can live with that, though. Let's get him.

BUT LET'S NOT GET JOHN GRUDEN. One WCO coach is enough.

by Fox 71 on Oct 15, 2007 9:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I used to think he was a punk for doing that

but the idea of scoring touchdowns inside the red zone is kind of interesting.

Blowing someone out? Mind boggling.

sjh

PS. I do not think he will have trouble living within our requirements. As I read the quote, he was upset because he promised someone a scholarship and the university wouldn't accept him. Easily cured. Learn the school's academic standards and don't promise anything until the university has cleared him.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Oct 15, 2007 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Spurrier would be great

I doubt it's very realistic, but Spurrier would be great. He's a fantastic "elite" coach.

I think he'd love the challenge of coming to UCLA and sticking it to Pete Carroll.

He'd probably want many millions more than UCLA pays, however, and I respectfully disagree with N's argument that he won't have academic issues with recruits because he'll have a larger recruiting pool. Even if that's true, he'll almost certainly want recruits who pass NCAA standards but not UCLA standards and it will be a big issue.

by RealisticBruinFan on Oct 15, 2007 9:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Spurrier is one great coach!

Let's say that Tedford maybe leaves to Michigan wouldn't Cal go after Spurrier too; and wouldn't they offer him more money than us?

Also the biggest problem is Spurrier received a contract extension through 2012 and a raise from $1.25 million to $1.75 million annually.

by abby8065 on Oct 15, 2007 10:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Berkeley is cloudy and cold

Spurrier wants a sunny climate. Plus we are the # 2 media market, play at the Rose Bowl, and the cross-town rivalry is much more appealing than the rivalry with Stanfurd. UCLA >>>> Cal.

by bruinliv on Oct 15, 2007 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not worried about those concerns

We can pay as much if not more than Cal when push comes to shub. We paid up for Howland (even though some may say $1.5 is not enough, that's his base salary which combined with his incentive based bonuses and other promotional efforts, gives him a very good package). We also paid up for Dorrell's mediocre assistants.

If Spurrier shows interest in UCLA, the money will be there this time. It was also there last time when UCLA could have forked over $1 million for Mariucci (from what I hear through grapevine) in 2002.

And as far as Spurrier signing a contraction extension, I am not too worried about that. Coaches always sign these extensions before moving on or getting fired.

by bluestreet on Oct 15, 2007 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Michigan

It's gonna be Les Miles.

by njbruin on Oct 15, 2007 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Spurrier at UCLA is realistic

We are a big-time program and deserve a big-time coach. And, if you want my opinion, it's either a big name or Duh-rell next year.

After this weekend's games, I started to have a sinking feeling that we may be stuck with Duh-rell. Remember DG just extended Duh-rell's contract last Winter. And everyone is losing silly games this year plus Duh-rell was playing MBT. Not that I excuse these excuses, but Duh-rell is getting all of the lucky breaks to continue at UCLA. Plus I seem to recall reading that while we were willing to go big time with bball (thus Howland), we were willing to give a fellow Bruin a chance (Duh-rell).

If DG can land a Spurrier type deal, then Duh-rell is toast. If not, I hate to say it, then I think we are stuck with Duh-rell next year (not that I want this, I am just being realistic).

by bruinliv on Oct 15, 2007 10:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

sad ...

but true ... but keep in mind Lavin was extended right before he was canned too. It's basically put up or shut up time for DG after this season and he'll make a statement either way. Either we're for real about football or we're not and we'll just accept mediocrity.

BTW, what's the status on this billboard? Was that just blowing smoke or are people going to get this done. I'm a law student and am broke but I'll throw in what I can ... I think if done properly it will be unreal if the billboard happens ...

F-CK $c

by royobruin on Oct 15, 2007 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree and disagree

I don't think any rational person will give credit to KD for having to play MBT. MBT had been #2 on the depth chart for something like 4 weeks, so KD had plenty of time to come up with alternatives to avoid needing to put in MBT.
Even if one of the reasons KD was hired was to give a fellow Bruin a chance, I doubt anyone would think that these FIVE years hasn't been enough of an opportunity.
Extending KD's contract means nothing.
I also don't think DG feels he needs a "deal" with someone else before firing KD.

by bornagainbruin on Oct 15, 2007 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

DG will not fire Duh-rell until DG has another coach ready to go. And to be honest, I stand behind DG on this one. If Duh-rell is still our coach next year, I will not attack DG because I firmly believe there are other factors involved.

Look at what happened to the Chargers this year - fire a great coach to get a mediocre one? Norv Turner stinks. Or a better analogy (since Duh-rell is not so great, whereas Marty is) would be firing Toledo. Toledo and Duh-rell are pretty much the same, Toledo may have the edge in terms of coaching and Duh-rell may have the edge in terms of ethics (though this is somewhat questionnable). I mean, do you think football would have been different if we had let Toledo finish his contract?

by bruinliv on Oct 15, 2007 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you have inside data

"I stand behind DG on this one. If [I can't type the name - CTS] is still our coach next yer, I will not attack DG because I firmly believe there are other factors involved."

What other factors? Do you know something we don't? If CTS is still our coach next year, I am going to start a "DumpDan.com" website. If DG won't fire CTS, then he does not have the mental acumen to be the athletic director and he has to go. If he can't fire CTS, he should have the honesty to say why he can't and either resign with dignity or force whomever is tying his hands to say something. Either way, if CTS is still the coach, DG has some 'splainin' to do.

by Fox 71 on Oct 15, 2007 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No inside scoop

I just don't see DG firing CTS(as you put it and I agree) unless DG has someone waiting in the wings to hire the moment he fires CTS. I also don't see DG hiring a lower profile coach in place of Duh-rell. And this is due to so many reasons including the fact that I don't think DG wants another Toledo/Duh-rell situation, where DG is paying both salaries and UCLA football is still the same as it ever was and maybe worse - no BCS game, no talk of a national title, no Pac-10 titles, no 20 game win streak, etc.

I also don't think the Dump Dorrell movement has hit some of our top donors and I can speak to this. Last year at the Final 4 I had the pleasure of conversing with some of our top donors at one of the Fan Travel events. Their sentiment is that DG should not have fired Toledo and they are still waiting for Duh-rell to prove himself. But they are not calling for DG to fire Duh-rell and I specifically asked them about this. In fact, that's why we started talking about Toledo. This specific group really liked Toledo for whatever reason.

And finally, I like DG and what he has done with the rest of our sports programs. I have faith he will do the best he can with what he has. If there is not another good coach on the market, then wouldn't you agree that DG may be forced to stick with KD? What if Spurrier, Peterson, Gruden, Mooch, Chow, etc all say no? Then what do you think DG should do? hire someone else or stay with Duh-rell? Sometimes the grass seems greener.

Now I will criticize DG if he isn't doing something now to bring a new coach to Westwood. Problem is, how can we measure if DG is working on this or not?

by bruinliv on Oct 15, 2007 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would be some pretty faulty logic

"I don't want another Dorrell - so I'm going to stick with the one I have."

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 15, 2007 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Marty is so great

Why did he lose in the second round of the playoffs with what was clearly the best team in the league (in terms of players)?

The Chargers made a huge mistake in hiring Norv Turner, but that doesn't mean getting rid of Schottenheimer was the wrong decision.

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 15, 2007 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is the Athletic Department

willing to pay over $1.75 million per year for Spurrier?

Howland turned down more money to come here because it was his dream jump...I know this isn't Spurrier's dream job.

by abby8065 on Oct 15, 2007 10:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Spurrier is my #1 choice if he is interested

There's two obvious hurdles though

He'd have to be interested
UCLA would have to be willing to pay him.

Sadly, I think #2 is less likely. If Spurrier does leave South Carolina, he's going to get a ton of money wherever he goes. A ton of money.

by gilbert on Oct 15, 2007 10:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Money

Spurrier is at the stage of his career in which money is not the issue any more. He has made his share.

He may be looking for a place where he can create a legacy like he did at UF. And there is not that many places in college football like the situation he will have at UCLA.

Spurrier can come here, probably get a package somewhere around 1.5-2 million bucks a year, but he would have total access to one of the richest talentpool int he nation in the number 2 media market in America.

He will be star of stars. And when UCLA takes off under him, it could become the focal point of college football like SuC is under Pom Pom. Except Spurrier is better than Pom Pom.

There are something that money can't buy, which Spurrier will get in Westwood.

by bluestreet on Oct 15, 2007 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm

There can never be enough money.

by bruin8uclap on Oct 15, 2007 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not convinced we wouldn't pay for a Spurier

Afterall, if we are paying 1MM+ for this crap, imagine what we would be willing to pay for a real coach!

by bornagainbruin on Oct 15, 2007 10:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Spurrier

would be a catch, if we could get him, but there's a catch: the West Coast is not the South. The cultural differences are enormous. I think this applies to a number of desirable coaches, who really would be very hard to persuade that this is the place for them and their families. Not impossible, but difficult.

by Oldguy on Oct 15, 2007 11:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

This is a difficult proposition, but not impossible.

by bluestreet on Oct 15, 2007 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A key question

Does the guy like Mexican food?

I once went to a Mexican food place years ago in Columbia, SC and I can remember it to this day as one of the worst meals I have ever had in my life.

Plus isn't Spurrier a big golf guy? Lots of very good private clubs within a very short distance of Westwood.

by Free the 16 on Oct 15, 2007 11:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Rumor I heard

when he took the South Carolina job Hootie was still the Chairman of Augusta National (just a few miles from Columbia) and was a big booster and previous admin at South Carolina. I don't know if taking the Head Coach position would result in Augusta membership quid pro quo, but it is an interesting coincidence. BTW LA does not have an equal to Augusta National.

by MOlson on Oct 15, 2007 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Brookside?

You're telling me that Brookside doesn't measure up to Augusta National?

by Fox 71 on Oct 16, 2007 4:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Though not Augusta

The PGA has been trying for years to use the LA Country Club North course for a tourney, only to be turned down by the members.

When you consider LA, Riv. and Bel-Air to name but a couple, are world class golf courses a very short drive from campus, seems to me that would make us very attractive to a coach who loves to golf.

by Free the 16 on Oct 16, 2007 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A few things to add

it's always about the money
don't under estimate how hard it is to recruit here at UCLA due to academia
still have to be able to pay top OC/DC and assistants
Spur will not be given full reign of the program
traffic, traffic, traffic

by ChaffeyBruin on Oct 15, 2007 1:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I applaud your optimism

but there is no way he's coming to L.A. Yes he does like golf, but L.A. is a different beast. He's a Southern boy. Yes you can take the boy out of the South, but you can't take the South out of the boy, but the real problem for us is that the boy won't leave the South. The cost of living is attrocious, the smog sucks, toooooo many people in L.A. for a smaller town guy like the ball coach, and the pace in general is faster than anywhere in the South.

I'd LOVE TO HAVE HIM!!! But I don't see it happening. I do hope we can go after a big name coach. I see no problem asking permission to speak with him in regards to our heach coaching vacancy (that will happen). Give it a shot, why not!?

The old 8 Ball, if it were shaken, would probably say "Not looking good", or something pessimistic, it's been a while since I shook one of those.

by TheStick on Oct 15, 2007 1:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My Simpsons Magic 8 Ball say:

"Well Duh."

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 15, 2007 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just don't see it

The old ball coach is at So Carolina to retire, after he wins the SEC of course, he isn't going to move all the way across the country to start over. He has a good thing building somewhere he wants to live. Don't think for a minute that the Gamecocks won't get into a bidding war to keep him either. The guy has already turned down better offers than where he is, so why would UCLA be any different.

I agree with those who say he would look at the admission issues with UCLA in a negative light. Yes he would have a larger pool to draw from, however only for student athletes, That is not what he is looking for at South Carolina, he wants athlete students. Big difference.

by nikeu on Oct 15, 2007 1:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Feel free to disagree

But why advance to baseless arguments to support your assertion?

That is one of more stupid line of arguments I have seen in this thread. I don't thjink Spurrier will have any problem with having access to the same level of NFL talent that Donahue and Toledo brought over the years. Last time I checked I think a school like USC can only dream of landing "student athletes" such as Troy Aikman or Cade McNowne. Og by the way Spurrier recruited Ben Olson heavily. He called him the day after he got hired at USC. But Ben turned him down so he could play at UCLA. I don't think Spurrier would have problems with dealing with "student athletes" such as Ben Olson. That is absolutely just asinine line of argument.

And as far as USC matching any offer UCLA can throw, if I recall correctly Pitt threw hordes of cash at a coach named Ben Howland.

The only thing we need to find out whether Spurrier would be interested in coaching at a place like UCLA with a competitive salary package. That is all. We are asking and exploring a possibility.

If you have reservations about Spurrier as a coach that is fine. But I am not going to allow any more attacks on the potential of UCLA football program by advancing ridiculous arguments that somehow powdunk programs like USC has a better chance of sustaining long term success than a place like UCLA.

Take that kind of chickenshit excuse making attitude somewhere else.

by Nestor on Oct 15, 2007 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why should UCLA be any different?

Because we are UCLA!!!!!!! Is there any other point?! F!ck me ... why is it people just assume that we are out of the national picture forever because of our recent past?! There is NO REASON why we shouldn't be in the elite in football. None!

editor, DumpDorrell.com ... formerly posted as DumpDorrell

by BruinCore on Oct 15, 2007 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

we should be in the national title picture. The one thing I think a lot of people are forgetting when looking at a new coach though is the difficulties a new coach here would face. He has the last couple years of Toledo and 5 years if Dorrell to fix. It's going to take A LOT of energy and A LOT of work. We can't just get any good coach. We need the right coach ready for such an undertaking.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 15, 2007 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why a big name?

A big name like Spurrier (who wouldn't go to Westwood...stop dreaming) would cost big bucks. Go the CAL route and hire a hungry up-and-comer...that could get you out of your Emerald Bowl Slump and perhaps the Holiday Bowl.

Go Bears

by oski4u on Oct 15, 2007 3:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Oski4u -- Welcome...

... to target practice. Oh boy...

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Oct 15, 2007 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why a big name?

We tried the up and comer. How do you think that worked out?

by hbruin84 on Oct 15, 2007 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe because

Going the Cal route also means not making a Rose Bowl in a half century. Cal isn't a blueprint for athletic success. We should go the UCLA Basketball route instead.

by Tydides on Oct 15, 2007 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Big Name, Up-and-Comer...

it all works for me. By the way, Spurrier would have NO problem working with the academic requiremets at UCLA. He coached at Duke for crying out loud! DUKE! That aside, I think one of you was onto something about when you mentioned that Spurrier is not looking for big money contracts anymore. Just as you said, he's past that. He's got plenty of money. Personally, I think he's looking to build a program and establish his legacy. Why else would he go to USC and turn down other major schools (as one of you said). The guy wants to go end his career with a grand finale. What better place to do it than at UCLA? The guy would go down in history for turning UCLA football into a powerhouse! Not to mention, the revenue generated by the football team (once it started winning) would be INSANE. Come on DG, get on the phone and lets make this happen!

by OutOThsWrld on Oct 15, 2007 5:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Been There Done That

We are trying an "up and comer".

He couldn't get it up and no one is coming.

Case closed.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Oct 16, 2007 6:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How exactly do you type a rim-shot?

by Fox 71 on Oct 16, 2007 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Years of Bad Practice

sjh

by Class of 66 on Oct 16, 2007 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

BA-dum-CHING!

Or something like that.

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Oct 16, 2007 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Spurrier should have been hired after '04

When Spurrier was looking for another college coaching job after the 2004 season, I think we should have hired him then (no shit, really?). Imagine:

11-1, no way he loses to Arizona and especially in a 52-14 blowout
11-2, no way we lose to UW, WSU, ND, and FSU if he's coaching
We'd be 6-0 for sure

He's got to be the one this time. I can only imagine how good he can make some of our young quarterbacks be.

by BeavertonBruin on Oct 15, 2007 7:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yup

if he were unemployed we might have a shot, but I can't see us prying him away from another school.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 15, 2007 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thinking more about Spurrier

I still believe it would be a very, very tough sell. He has no connection to Westwood at all, and, from living in Texas for four years, I can tell you what people in other regions think of UCLA. They don't think of us at all, except as, sorry to say it, a basketball school. The only thing that could lure Spurrier or others like him to UCLA, assuming the money is at least decent, would be the competitive challenge of taking on and defeating the Carroll program, IMHO. That might work. Unless he's thinking retirement after his current gig. But I certainly hope that DG goes after him or some other truly top-notch candidate. Enough experiments, already!

by Oldguy on Oct 15, 2007 7:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Steve Spurrier would be my DREAM COACH

but I think we're dreaming on this one. But what the hell why not give it a shot? We just don't have the money to pay him, he adores the south too much and he has finally turned USC around but other than that we have a shot

by Dorrellian on Oct 15, 2007 10:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Reality Check

It is time to get out of Westwood once in a while! That was the funniest thing I have read in a long time, Spurrier, Gruden, Meyer, Jimmy Johnson, Reicht. Where do we start, you see here in the South, UCLA football is a joke. The Pac 10 is made up of USC and 9 "others", it (Pac 10) is also a joke. The SEC is football mecca, and you don't leave mecca to coach at pop warner. I can not emphasize this enough, outside of the West Coast they truly believe the worst team in the SEC is 50 times greater than anything in the Pac 10. Spurrier is not going to take his notoriously lazy self to a horribly underpaid job in an "embarrisment" of a league where no one cares about football. Not in this or any other lifetime. Gruden is never going to miss out on either the Philadelphia Eagle job or the Notre Dame job, if the Glazers let him go, and last I looked he was back to his winning ways. Meyer, is going to leave the top job in the SEC? for what? 10 million a year? He turned down ND to coach in the SEC, please we are the gutless little Bruins, we are going to have to overpay for someone like that. Richt? You guys in California are so asleep at the wheel you have not noticed this guy is stealing your recruits out from under Dorell? He shows them that Georgia gives a hoot, what it is like to be a Dawg... shows them everything we are not, last I saw we had lost one or two commitments to this guy you think he is going to jump ship to UCLA think again. Jimmy Johnson, I have no words for how silly this is, but I don't think he has passed up countless NFL jobs to stay on his fishing boat waiting for us to call. You need to get a winner, someone who can change a program and shake the establishment. Think outside the box! Go get Mike Martz! He wants to be a head coach, maybe only in the NFL, but maybe it the money was right he would come to LA. That would be High Profile, Recruits would love his NFL pedigree, high powered offense, and at the very worst it would be fun to watch.

Paul Wexler 91

by overlordvader on Oct 15, 2007 10:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Missing the point

I don't think anyone here believes that landing Spurrier is anything more than a longshot, but what is being highlighted here is that it's not impossible. Because it's not impossible, we must be diligent and thorough in our coaching search, and leave no avenue unexplored, including coaches like Spurrier. What's the worst that could happen? He politely declines and says he likes where he is now. But I guarantee that if we go out and do a REAL search, like a school that is serious about its football program, that we won't end up with the same kind of pathetic shortlist like last time.

It is baffling that some people don't want us to talk to the big names. I believe "fear of success" was one of the categories of the Dorrelistas. Let us stay as far away from that label as possible, shall we?

by Tydides on Oct 15, 2007 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We should be talking to everyone. However;

now that I've moved out of LA and to the south for my job, he has a good point about how we (Ucla) is percieved outside of the state. Heck, I hardly get 10 people in Dallas to watch a Bruin game and almost everyother Pac 10 school has an alumni association here. Wonder why they get kids from the fertile recruiting grounds of Texas and we don't?

I've gone to 7 SEC games since I moved out here, it is spectacular and unreal! Imagine all my hardcore Bruin fans here on BN and multiply that by 90,000 at game! It is another world. I remain faithful and hopeful to getting a real coach and changing nationwide perception. I disagree with the SC comment, other than SC, Cal's starting to get some respect and more nationwide attention.

GO BRUINS!

by chavez1271 on Oct 16, 2007 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't care

if 99.99% of the south doesn't know who we are or what we do. We only need to convince one person that this is a great place to be. I don't think it's likely to happen, but don't make it seem like we have to convince an entire region that we are worthy of consideration. And just like in Basketball, we would do perfectly well if we improved recruiting on the west coast. There is more than enough talent out here.

by Tydides on Oct 16, 2007 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why did the up and comer work at cal then?

We all make bad choices. Perhaps UCLA is just a basketball school...it's easy to be bitter at defending Pac-10 champion cal right now. I'll take our recent blueprint of success...compared to your last and only shared nat'l championship (1954?wtf?)

by oski4u on Oct 16, 2007 10:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps

Berkeley should stick to things unrelated to sports.

Cal's last championships in football (1920s) or basketball (1959) occurred so far back, I'm fairly certain almost no one presently alive can remember them. Did they have color TV back then?

Why would we be bitter about Cal? Your team just choked to barely mediocre OSU. Poor saps...

by Barnes2JJ on Oct 16, 2007 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

BTW...

there wasn't color tv in 1954 either...

by oski4u on Oct 16, 2007 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't you have anything

better to do than to snipe at UCLA's sports history? Don't you have some trees to cut down outside your stadium? Or are the hippies still living in them?

At least we've won numerous national championships in basketball within the last 30 years.

Too bad Cal can't say the same.

by Barnes2JJ on Oct 16, 2007 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was pretty funny

How you defined success earlier as making Holiday bowl appearances. That's cute. Bash on a "shared" national championship all you want, your half Pac 10 championship is also shared. Bash on 1954 all you want, it's still almost 2 decades more recent than your last Rose Bowl win. The whole point of us demanding a new coach is that we don't want to be perpetual also-rans like cal. I doubt you even knew how to find your way to your own stadium before a few years ago. I can see why a cal fan would want to live in the now; you have no past to speak of.

Typical cal: Champions made elsewhere.

by Tydides on Oct 16, 2007 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha - Yeah

Holiday Bowl = Steve 16

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 16, 2007 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hee

Emerald Bowl loss = Go home and scrap it.

by oski4u on Oct 16, 2007 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No RB wins since before WW2

= Go home and shut it.

by Tydides on Oct 16, 2007 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wrong on all counts...here's your cal history

Three nat'l titles in the 20s. One basketball championship. (I know I know..all the way back in the 50s! But more recent than your football trophy).

by oski4u on Oct 16, 2007 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Says the guy who is "living in the now"

The 20's? Was it even called football back then? All of my facts are still correct: Your pac 10 championship is shared, and your most recent RB win precedes our national title by almost 2 decades. LOL @ One basketball championship too. It is in your best interest to not even bring up basketball when we have ELEVEN championships.

But don't worry, you "live in the now" right? Except for the fact our football championship is more recent than yours. Our last RB appearance AND last RB win is WAY more recent than yours. Our last (ELEVEN!!!) basketball championships are more recent than yours.

The only thing more ridiculous than a cal fan trying to compare sporting accomplishments is a cal fan telling others where to find the deodorant aisle.

by Tydides on Oct 16, 2007 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously

What's up with these Bezerkley freaks? Despite having OMG the greatest coach in Cal's history ever, the dude is only 3-3, against the worst coach we have ever had to lead our program. What does that tell us about our two schools?

Your best ever is tied with our worst ever.

by bluestreet on Oct 16, 2007 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL

"Just" a Basketball school. We are THE Basketball school. And cal is a nothing school. Maybe a hippie school. A hairy-pit girls school. Certainly nothing related to sports or other athletic activities though. When November rolls around, we pile into Pauley to watch greatness unfold, while cal students retreat to some crappy dorm and try to figure out which of their neighbors has the worst body odor.

by Tydides on Oct 16, 2007 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let's live in the now...

DEFENDING PAC-10 CHAMPS.

by oski4u on Oct 16, 2007 11:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The "now"

is "CAL CHOKES TO OSU."

by Barnes2JJ on Oct 16, 2007 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You mean the one

that can't beat Pom Pom while we can beat up Pom Pom despite being handicapped with a joker like Dorrell?

by bluestreet on Oct 16, 2007 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK that hurts...

But hey, it's cal's backup qb...who's better than slowshore!

by oski4u on Oct 16, 2007 11:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Spurrier isn't coming to UCLA

Sigh. Here we go again.

He turned down (in all likelihood) Miami and buckets of money. He turned down (I'm almost certain) Alabama and buckets of money.

He has stated over and over again that he plans on serving out his contract at South Carolina -- and has even alluded to possibly extending it -- and has made it sound, for all intents and purposes, like coaching the Gamecocks is going to be his curtain call.

And now UCLA and its buckets of money are going to lure Head Ball Coach to the other side of the country over programs much closer to where he lives now and the region where he has lived all his life.

Okay.

First of all, I thought this was an interesting quote:

And now the man has an also ran program like USC which doesn't really have long term prospect of staying competitive with other big boys in the SEC. Again also worth noting that he built a program at Duke.

So he built a respectable program at Duke, but can't build a competitive one at South Carolina. Yes, that's logically consistent.

The problem with players at summer workouts? Spurrier's solution to that is just to not play those who aren't ready when they show up in the fall, not to leave the program.

And in case you haven't heard, the admissions dust-up has been resolved. The post, coincidentally, doesn't have Spurrier's reaction, because it came out the next day, when he said he was satisfied with the changes and everybody could move forward, etc.

Best of luck in getting rid of Dorrell. But please look elsewhere for a head coach. Not that, of all the places that could come offering Spurrier, UCLA is in the vicinity of the ones that scare me.

by cocknfire on Oct 16, 2007 3:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Aaah

All I meant was he was actually able to build a better than average football program in Duke, which is a miracle on its own right. He didn't see any long term future at Duke that is why he jumped at the chance of going to Florida.

He has now built a decent program at USC. But I just don't see him having sustained success at Colombia, given the fact that it simply doesn't have the same powerbase as more high profile SEC and ACC programs out East.

Thanks for visiting BN, but please save the lecture on where we should look to for a head coach.

by Nestor on Oct 16, 2007 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not trying to lecture...

Just noting that we like our HBC and would prefer if other schools don't come trying to lure him away all the time. We spent two or three months last year dealing with insane Alabama fans who were just absolutely convinced that Spurrier was coming to Tuscaloosa, and it got tiresome.

South Carolina has found its last two coaches without trying to poach somebody else's.

There's no reason why South Carolina can't be successful under Spurrier, and the reason is this: He can recruit (contrary to popular belief), and the era where one team can dominate the SEC East is over. Both South Carolina and Kentucky are on the upswing, and that creates a much more volatile race, with five of the six teams starting out each season as serious contenders. I'd be surprised to see anybody win the East more than two years in a row anytime in the near future.

And "he jumped at the chance of going to Florida" because it was his alma mater -- it wasn't seen as a place with great tradition when he got there. I don't think anybody can blame someone for going home.

by cocknfire on Oct 16, 2007 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kentucky ...

is having once in a life time season in football. And once their QB season they will sink back in Brook's mediocrity. Kentucky's football success this year tells us nothing wrt to long term trends in the SEC.

And the HBC is having a very good year this year. But there is no way he will replicate the same success he had at UF at USC, because he will not have access to the same pipeline he had in Florida.

And I understand your concern about being worried about your coach being poached. If you werent worried, you wouldn't take the time to post on a blog of another college team thousands of miles away. We heard the same kind of BS from Pitt hoops fan back in the day, when we heard all the argument about how Howland was never going to leave Pitt for UCLA.

I am not saying that UCLA will come after Spurrier or that there will be mutual interest.

I am just speculating based on the stories we have heard before, and given the reaction we have gotten based on this one piddly post and all the visits from USC fans, it is kind of obvious that you are feeling a little insecure about your HBC.

Otherwise if you were all that confident, I wouldn't bother.

I have seen post on other boards about our basketball coach during offseason, but I never felt an ounce of insecurity, that I had to go over and make the case that our head coach would be actually interested in going and coaching over at some powdunk town.

It is amusing to see the defensive reaction to this one post. It tells me all I need to know.

by Nestor on Oct 16, 2007 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey cocknfire

You need to be nice and you need to be respectful. There are lots of lawyers and politicians and used car salespeople in the Bruins Nation. If you start getting nasty, we will figure out a way to have our coach go to USC, and Spurrier will come here. Let's see how you like showing up every Saturday and watching this guy stuff his plays down the front of his pants.

So be nice.

by Fox 71 on Oct 16, 2007 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again...

I wasn't trying to be disrespectful or mean. Just saying that I don't think Spurrier will bolt South Carolina, and I do think he'll be successful there.

BTW, our athletic director is waaaaay too smart to hire Dorrell, no matter who tries to convince him.

by cocknfire on Oct 16, 2007 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was just teasing.

I wouldn't wish CTS on anyone (except maybe justsc.)

What's the latest with Stephen Garcia? (I watched him play a lot of high school ball at Jefferson High in Tampa?) Has he done enough penance for being a teenager away from home for the first time? From what I saw in the paper here, it looked like he had hired a good PR firm to show him how to act. Or maybe a few seniors showed him the ropes.

He's a heck of a player, and I hope he goes with Spurrier when Steve jumps to UCLA.

by Fox 71 on Oct 16, 2007 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's in a secure and undisclosed location

When the brainwashing is complete, he will lead us to seven consecutive national titles. At least that seems to be what some of the fans think.

by cocknfire on Oct 16, 2007 9:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

^Reference to the Garcia question

by cocknfire on Oct 16, 2007 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

From what I've seen

in the local Tampa papers, he seems to have gotten his act together. I hope so, for both his sake and ours (when he comes to UCLA along with Spurrier - sorry couldn't resist one last tweak.)

by Fox 71 on Oct 16, 2007 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No matter what Spurrier does

this discussion is FAR more interesting and civilized than any discourse we have about Karl Dorrell. So excuse us for taking our mind off of the KD misery for a while! Right now I am a little relieved that we don't have to keep demonstrating to people how bad of a coach he is. Everyone knows it now!

by tasser10 on Oct 17, 2007 11:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs