Serious Trouble For Karl Dorrell

by Nestor on Jul 26, 2007 4:43 AM PDT in Football Comment 41 comments

So more details are emerging regarding an ugly day for Karl Dorrell’s mediocre football program. I will share with you Scott’s version of the story first. From Dohn:

"From my preliminary investigation, it appears that a mistake was made by the Los Angeles Sheriff Deputies that should be cleared up within a few days," Scott's lawyer, Milton Grimes, said. "There is no evidence that any crime was committed by Eric Scott or anyone with him."

We will withhold judgment on whether or not Scott committed a crime in this instance. And we are hearing rumors percolating around various Bruin boards that the situation will be resolved in Scott’s favor.

However, some of the reports I am reading this morning are troubling to say the least. From the LA Times (emphasis mine throughout):

Authorities said Scott was arrested with Jesus DeAlba, 23, and Timothy Williams, 23, Tuesday afternoon after deputies received a 911 call about a possible burglary in the 11600 block of Pioneer Blvd. in Norwalk, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. Sgt. Craig Harmon said.

"A neighbor saw the three suspects on the porch of a single-family home, then saw them force their way in," Harmon said. "When deputies arrived, the three were seen walking from the location, and were found with property from the house they admitted to taking."

More from the Daily News zeroing in on who lived at that house and where Scott was while the arrests took place:

Sources said DeAlba's cousin lives at the house, and when the group stopped by to pay a visit, DeAlba walked around the property in search of him. Sources added Scott remained in the car until police arrived, and was arrested only when he exited the car in an attempt to learn what was happening with DeAlba, 23, and Williams, 23.

"We're actually still trying to figure this thing out ourselves," Rivas said. "We have no victim. They're charged with burglary, but it's still an ongoing investigation. We're still trying to figure it out ourselves."

Now if you were wondering just what kind of crowd a UCLA assistant coach was hanging out with during day time of a work week (when he should have been on campus either having lunch or looking at football tapes) here is the skinny from the LA Times:

DeAlba is a 6-foot-2, 290-pound former offensive lineman who played at West Los Angeles College and last season at New Mexico Highlands in Las Vegas, N.M. DeAlba was expelled from the New Mexico school for breaking into and burglarizing campus dorm rooms, according to a school spokesman.

"He's really a nice guy to talk to … but he obviously has some problems," Highlands sports information director Gavino Archuleta said, adding that school officials suspected that DeAlba also was involved in a break-in at the football team's fieldhouse.

There are no details wrt to Williams, the other guy who was with Scott and DeAlba.

Now I am sure the facts will come out in the coming days wrt to Scott. But already from the stories troubling questions regarding exactly how Dorrell went about in hiring Eric Scott. We are getting two different stories.

From Dohn’s account the news of Scott’s prior problems came as "a surprise" to UCLA:

While sources said UCLA is optimistic the charges against Scott will be dropped, likely clearing the way for him to be reinstated, news of prior run-ins with the law came as a surprise. Scott was arrested four times between 1994 and 2005, and twice was convicted and placed on probation. In 1994, he was charged with resisting arrest, and in 1996 he was charged with carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle and carrying a loaded firearm in public. Those charges were all dismissed, according to court documents.

While the LAT reports Dorrell "knew" about Scott’s criminal background:

UCLA put Scott, 32, on paid administrative leave Wednesday, one day after his arrest. Coach Karl Dorrell also acknowledged in a statement that the school knew about the former Crenshaw High player and coach's criminal background when it hired him.

And here are some more details on Scott’s criminal background (from the LAT):

His late-2004 concealed-weapon arrest triggered a four-count felony complaint by the Los Angeles County District Attorney in 2005 that charged Scott with carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm after a prior conviction on the same charge.

Court records show Scott was stopped by police while carrying a Ruger handgun with a 9-mm magazine clip and five rounds of ammunition. After his attorney challenged the police search, Scott pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of carrying the concealed weapon in the car and was sentenced to 240 hours of community service and probation that lasted until this year, a law enforcement source said.

"He never brandished or pointed that gun," Hernandez said. "He lives by Crenshaw High School. As a coach, you have to go to different homes at night. He told me his brother was shot and killed."

Culver City Police arrested Scott in February 2002 and he was charged with misdemeanor unlawful obstruction of a police officer. When a judge amended the charge to misdemeanor disturbing the peace, Scott pleaded no contest and was sentenced to one year of probation.

There are just so many troubling questions here. Dump Dorrell lists few here:

How did Dorrell’s hiring process miss Scott’s prior convictions, if what Dohn said is true??
Did Dorrell hire Scott KNOWING his criminal past, KNOWING that his application contained lies by omission?
Did Dorrell hire Scott despite knowing his criminal past because he knew Scott could bring in recruits Dorrell desperately needed?
How did Scott get an opportunity of a lifetime, position coach at a marquee program, without any experience?
How was Scott, who spent not a second on a UCLA sideline as a coach, able to recruit so successfully so early in his tenure and so quickly??
What influence did Scott have on the recruits that they would name him as a reason for committing to UCLA?

We also have to wonder why was this news of Scott's prior record a "surprise" to UCLA (some folks were obviously surprised. Who were they?) while Dorrell knew about it.

We have to wonder while Scott was filing out his various employment forms whether or not he indicated in those forms that he had a criminal background.

And more importantly why did UCLA allow Dorrell to hire a guy with this kind of questionable character, just a year after he hired another assistant coach who was convicted for domestic violence?

I am not sure how this kind of personnel decisions helps to create a "healthy environment" at UCLA.

I sympathize with the notion that everyone deserves a second chance. I believe in it. However, I do believe people have to earn that chance. I would have been more sympathetic to Scott and Dorrell’s plight in this scenario, had Scott showed beyond a shadow of doubt that he had changed his ways. It shouldn’t make anyone feel comfortable with the notion that Karl Dorell is turning the UCLA football program into a rehab program for former criminals where they can come and work on putting their lives back together. Surely there are lots of other community colleges and lesser universities that can offer that kind of opportunities.

Anyway you look at it, right now even though Dorrell took a good first step in immediately putting Scott on administrative leave, it doesn’t look good for him. I don’t care how this turns out for Scott, but he shouldn’t be allowed back on UCLA sidelines.

Just based on his prior record, I don’t want a former gun totting criminal roaming around UCLA football sidelines. The fact that it almost happened or that it can still happen (if Scott’s current problem resolve in his favor) under Dorrell’s leadership, is yet another indictment against his program, and will further cement the perception that the environment around Dorrell’s program is not healthy both on and off the field.

Anyway you look at it this is serious trouble for Karl Dorrell and we haven't started practice yet.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 41 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Pure Speculation

A quick Google search will show that Scott's lawyer, Milton Grimes, is a big-name in trial lawyer circles. He represented Rodney King and also two of the genius jurors in the OJ case. http://www.triallawyerscollege.com/tlc/board.html

Unless Scott had a pre-existing relationship with Grimes before the arrest, it is my theory that, after the arrest, someone told Grimes, "Son, you are in a world of trouble and you need a big-time, high profile attorney. It will cost you a lot of money, but if you want to save your job and your a*s, it will be worth it."

This is pure speculation on my part, but the fact that Scott hired Grimes suggests to me that there is some trouble here for our troubled coach. If it was all a big misunderstanding, mistaken identity, whatever, I am not sure he would have had to go out and get the kind of legal counsel he did.

I suppose one could argue that, with the seriousness of the charges, it was in Scott's best interests to get the best legal help money could buy, whether he is innocent or not. That is a fair possibility, too.

I hope he is cleared of everything and that the cops made a mistake, which does happen. But I smell trouble here.

Just my two cents.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 26, 2007 6:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Apparently

Grimes also represented Justin Medlock.

by bluestreet on Jul 26, 2007 6:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have also heard of Grimes

I hope I'm wrong, but -- given what I know of Grimes -- it would not surprise me if down the road the issue of race entered into the picture.

by bluegold on Jul 26, 2007 7:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

race card

They are already playing the race card on BRO.

by bluestreet on Jul 26, 2007 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They beat Grimes to the punch?

How pathetic. I mean really pathetic. I am cancelling my BRO subscription immediately.

by bluegold on Jul 26, 2007 7:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh

It was fairly immediate.

by bluestreet on Jul 26, 2007 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair

It wasn't in a story written by a BRO staffer, rather in a post by "ourtvandily," who is all over the place if you read only a couple of his posts.

by Free the 16 on Jul 26, 2007 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In all fairness

These are Scott's criminal acts:

1994 - resisting arrest (dismissed)

1996 - carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle and carrying a loaded firearm in public (dismissed)

2002 - misdemeanor unlawful obstruction of a police officer, amended to misdemeanor disturbing the peace (one year probation)

Although these are undoubtedly criminal acts, and I am not defending the behavior, you can understand it considering where he is from, the fact that he lost three of his brothers to violence, and the reputation of LA's finest.

You have to wonder why these charges were dismissed or amended, particularly the "carrying a loaded firearm in public". Having brushes with the law is not the same as being a criminal. Be that as it may, they are still troubling and far from the standard that should be set at UCLA.

As for some of DumpDorrell's questions, they are quite valid and to the point, however

2. Do you have to list arrests if charges are dismissed?

3 and 4. These questions are contradictory. High school coaches are hired as position coaches at the college level all the time. Furthermore, if KD knew that Scott could bring in top recruits, then you have your answer as to how and why he was hired...

5 and 6. I'm not sure about this and have my own doubts, but I don't want to dismiss Scott's charisma and ability to connect with young men because of his brushes with the law. I don't see what he could have possibly done that was out of the ordinary or illegal in getting these recruits, and how it relates to his record.

Anyway, as I've said, not condoning or defending Scott, just want to make sure we stay level-headed. And as far as hiring Grimes, why wouldn't you get the best representation possible when your livelihood is on the line? Better to hit a homerun than just a base hit.

by tasser10 on Jul 26, 2007 7:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

His charges/arrests

may or may not have been "serious"

But the bottom line is someone with record of four arrests should not have been hired at UCLA.

If KD really wanted to help out his friend he should have set him up w a gig at some community college or D-11 school where he could have proven himself. But not at UCLA.

I'd like to know whether rest of Morgan Center knew he had 4 prior arrests.

by bluestreet on Jul 26, 2007 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No doubt

And I say as much when I say "far from the standard that should be set at UCLA"...

by tasser10 on Jul 26, 2007 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You left out a 2005 conviction for

carrying an unlicensed loaded handgun.

by McCloskey on Jul 26, 2007 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Something I'd like to know

Would UCLA admit a student, either undergrad or post grad or professional with this type of record?

I don't think so.

by Ajax on Jul 26, 2007 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whoa, big fella, whoa

Let's let the facts come out a bit more . . I'm hearing two stories.

Moreover, with arrests dating back to his playing years (95 - 97) it would appear that the entire athletic dept and/or the two prior Coaching regimes should have known about the "troubles" - if that's even a fair characterization for things that didn't go very far in the process.

Distractions? Anyone for distractions? How did placardgate help the 99 season? How about the twin Paus DWI concealment - how'd that help the '01 season? Everybody please take a breath and let the facts come out; let's not let be overwhelemed by any sense of schadenfraudeorell.

The Mad Bruin

by lostnacfgop on Jul 26, 2007 7:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Another way to look at this

The fact that Scott has a checkered past is precisely the reason why the entire UCLA football community has to stop in its tracks to address his current issues.

We don't really need this.

by bluegold on Jul 26, 2007 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And

you have to seriously the questioned judgment of folks who thought somehow this past would never become public.

There were few BRO posters who hinted at Scott's prior issues but were effectively dismissed by blindos.

by bluestreet on Jul 26, 2007 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Come on guys!

I can't believe what I am hearing.

Now I know most of you don't like KD for a number of reasons, but I think you are making a bigger deal out of this then it is. To say that KD is in big trouble no matter how this turns out is stupid.

The last time Scott was introuble with the law was in 2002! Come on guys, 2002! Five years ago! I think he has proven that he is walking the straight and narrow and that he is turning his life around.

Besides, a government institution hired him before he got to UCLA, Crenshaw High School, so why would UCLA, another government institution have any reason to blink in hiring him themselves.

In my opinion, none of this reflects bad at all on KD in fact I think KD was smart in hiring a guy from the inner city who could identify with many of the key recruits we need in our program to get us to the next level.

Come on guys! I know you don't like KD but aren't you putting a little to much into this. Gimme a break!

ro3

by raulortiz3 on Jul 26, 2007 8:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

A Dorrellista

playing fast and lose with facts. Last time he was in trouble was in 2002? Can you read?

His late-2004 concealed-weapon arrest triggered a four-count felony complaint by the Los Angeles County District Attorney in 2005 that charged Scott with carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm after a prior conviction on the same charge.

Thanks for showing up.

by bluestreet on Jul 26, 2007 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmmmmmmm . . .

must be why all those job applications always say "have you ever been arrested for anything?"

Convictions matter - well, unless you're connected to the VEEP. Everything else is meaningless. Allow for the possibility that there's another side to this thing - even if it does at least mean that Scott needs to reassess the crowd he hangs with socially . . .

And, no, not a Dorrellista, either. Conference title and 2 inarow over $C or buh-bye, Mr. Passion - bring Skippy home. Skippy's paid dues and learned his lessons.

The Mad Bruin

by lostnacfgop on Jul 26, 2007 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There could be "other side" of the story

And I am hoping there is a good one and that Scott gets exonerated.

However, that said it will be the fifth arrest on his resume.

A man with FIVE arrests should not be roaming the sidelines of UCLA football. Period.

by bluestreet on Jul 26, 2007 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

KD and Scott make a fine sideline pair

One with zero HC experience when hired; one with extensive arrest records when hired.

by bluegold on Jul 26, 2007 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

"must be why all those job applications always say "have you ever been arrested for anything?""

I've never filled out a job application that read, quote, "have you ever been arrested for anything?" I HAVE filled out many job applications that read, quote, "have you ever been convicted of a felony?" If Eric Scott filled out a similar job application, he could have truthfully answered "No."

"bring Skippy home. Skippy's paid dues and learned his lessons."

If Skippy'd really learned his lessons, he could demonstrate it by taking responsiblity (and expressing remorse) for lying to his employers' faces twice: once when he said he'd never gambled on basketball, and again when he said he didn't interview for the 'Niners job.

I've heard folks defend Skippy by saying, "Oh, he was ambushed," or "Oh, he got an email from the compliance folks saying office pools were okay to participate in." Both of those things may be true. But neither explain why he lied, flat out, straight to his boss's face. Twice. And, again, he's never once taken the blame for it and said he was sorry. Some lesson.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

by patsweetpat on Jul 26, 2007 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree

I want no part of Skippy.

by Free the 16 on Jul 26, 2007 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

At least Skippy

hasn't been arrested five times in 10 years and have been going around carrying concealed weapons.

Also you do realize UDub ended up entering into a huge settlement with Skippy basically implicitly admitting that it was they who screwed up.

But keep on defending some guy who has been arrested 5 times just because he is getting us some good recruits.

You are no different than a worthless Trojan.

by bluestreet on Jul 26, 2007 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hate to be critical, Blue

But in fact you waste words. You're being redundant when you say "worthless trOJan."

by Fox 71 on Jul 26, 2007 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, Rick lied. Twice.

"Also you do realize UDub ended up entering into a huge settlement with Skippy basically implicitly admitting that it was they who screwed up."

The settlement was due to the fact that an email had gone out from UDub's compliance office prior to Skippy's entry into a hoops pool, declaring that hoops pools were acceptable. Had no email been sent, UDub never would've ended up on the hook for said settlement.

That said, when Skippy was asked, directly and specifically, if he'd entered a hoops pool, he said no, he hadn't. He lied right to his boss's face. It was only after he'd been confronted with the evidence of his lie that he fell back to the response that he had, in fact, bet on hoops, but only 'cause that email said it was okay. That email changed the circumstances surrounding the proper cause (or lack thereof) of Rick's dismissal, but it didn't change the fact that he lied, lied, lied.

And then (as mentioned above), he lied again when he was asked, directly, if he'd gone to Frisco to speak to the 'Niners.

He's never apologized for either lie.

I don't think I could ever trust a word out of Rick's mouth in the future. If he'd lie to his boss's face, twice, and never apologize, why should I believe he wouldn't do it again?

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

by patsweetpat on Jul 26, 2007 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know.

Wouldn't it depend on the circumstances?

by Fox 71 on Jul 26, 2007 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lying is a hot-button one for me...

You get caught lying to someone's face once, in pursuit of nothing more than your own selfish interests, it'd be hard for me to trust you.

You get caught lying to someone's face twice, and for the same selfish aim, well, for me, trust is gone, and probably irretrievable.

Maybe you're more okay with baldfaced lies than I am, or maybe you're just being arch.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

by patsweetpat on Jul 26, 2007 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again, Pat, wouldn't it depend

I have it on good authority that even hiring an assistant coach with multiple arrests may well be OK. It all depends on the circumstances.

For example, suppose the bald faced lie were "No honey, those pants don't make your rear end look fat." And the selfish aim is to not make your wife feel bad, because that will in turn affect you. Does that mean that trust is gone and probably irretrievable.

Or suppose an assistant coach applicant says, "No, Mr. Dorrell, I have never been arrested for anything anytime anywhere. No sirree bob." And then suppose that assistant has a few arrests (for non-violent misdemeanors, for example.) I guess that assistant coach should be summarily fired if that turned out to be the case.

by Fox 71 on Jul 26, 2007 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Were these questions intended to be answered?

Assuming (perhaps foolishly) that the answer is yes, here're your answers:

"I have it on good authority that even hiring an assistant coach with multiple arrests may well be OK. It all depends on the circumstances."

Indeed, hiring, say, Martin Luther King, Jr. (who, as I'm sure you know, had multiple arrests and convictions) as an assistant coach may well be okay. It all depends on, yup, the circumstances. For example, were Martin Luther King, Jr.'s arrests for violent crimes? (No, they weren't). Could Martin Luther King, Jr.'s arrests be viewed within the prism of mitigating factors, such as a biased/slanted justice system? (Yes, they can).

Hey checkit out!, we're looking at circumstances! Turns out that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s criminal record is not, in and of itself, enough to evaluate his suitability to be around minors, or to represent a university, or to coach football! [And, of course, we haven't even gotten into the issue of whether or not MLK has coaching experience, or can recruit.]

"For example, suppose the bald faced lie were "No honey, those pants don't make your rear end look fat." And the selfish aim is to not make your wife feel bad, because that will in turn affect you. Does that mean that trust is gone and probably irretrievable."

Whenever I lie to my wife and get caught (the lies are rare, but they happen, and I ALWAYS get caught), you better believe the trust is gone, and it's a major pain to try and earn it back, and it takes a long time, and involves, as a prerequisite, contrition on my part (something, again, not in evidence from Skippy), in addition to a cold-eyed determination of my motives. If my wife determines that I lied to try to keep her from feeling bad, maybe I get that trust back sooner.

"Or suppose an assistant coach applicant says, "No, Mr. Dorrell, I have never been arrested for anything anytime anywhere. No sirree bob." And then suppose that assistant has a few arrests (for non-violent misdemeanors, for example.) I guess that assistant coach should be summarily fired if that turned out to be the case."

As I've said before, to my mind, the first lie, if it's followed by contrition, should get a firm reprimand and a suspension. The second lie, no matter how trivial, and contrite or no, should result in summary firing.

That's where I am. Them's my standards. I'd hold any coach to them. Skippy, for his part, lied twice, and hasn't apologized for either. So I couldn't trust him. Your mileage may differ.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

by patsweetpat on Jul 26, 2007 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sweet Pat

I appreciate your thorough answers...but goodness gracious, please shorten them! I like the points you make, I just wish it wouldn't take me so long to read them.

And please stop comparing Eric Scott to MLK. Eric Scott carries a gun. One day, he might be in a bad mood and someone might piss him off, and he might shoot that person and it would not be self-defense. I don't know if he is that kind of person, and in fact from the accounts I have read in the media he seems to be a caring person who helps out young people. Be that as it may, the mere act of carrying a gun greatly increases the risk of something bad happening.

by tasser10 on Jul 27, 2007 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh my

[A] government institution hired him before he got to UCLA, Crenshaw High School, so why would UCLA, another government institution have any reason to blink in hiring him themselves.

Oh, well now. I hadn't thought of that. Of course, if Crenshaw High hired him, that's quite the stamp of approval. Hell, let's make the guy Attorney General.

Joking aside, I must say that I'm sensitive to the idea of redemption and second chances. And I can see how some folks will say that KD actually did the laudable thing by giving a hard-knock-life guy an opportunity. But, I agree with the others who say that you just don't do that with a position like Scott was given at UCLA. And, in context, it sure looks a lot more like KD taking a chance on someone with a troubled past to get a leg up in recruiting, rather than a story of a guy who had really changed his life. Of course, we'll learn more as this story unfolds....

by Menelaus on Jul 26, 2007 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hey...

If his record of conduct is good enough for Crenshaw High, I'm surprised that Morgan Center beat out the FBI and CIA for Scott's services, since it would seem that all government institutions have similar hiring standards re. background.

by bruinhoo on Jul 26, 2007 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

KD & Scott

Taser 10; Are we to believe that he had a St. Paul road to Damascus revelation? Really now! It's hard to change life styles, look at Vick,Pac-Man, the NBA. Please it is not about race. It is about the environment that you live in & grow up in. Young people,tons of money & fame. In Scott's case, why not stay so far from the past that it never catches you. He had a GREAT job at a prestigious University. Be thankful for those blessings. Go figure.
I'm not calling you out Taser. I appreciate the fact that I'm allowed on this board.

by jim masterson on Jul 26, 2007 9:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It's Tasser, not Taser

I am not sure what you are saying. I never brought up race. As for Scott, how can he stay far from the past when he is being asked to go into the inner city to recruit kids? And he doesn't have tons of money or fame.

Sorry, I'm confused, you're not really making sense, but you are right in saying that he should be thankful for his blessings.

by tasser10 on Jul 26, 2007 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You don't have to be thankful

In fact, I think I speak for all of us when I say that we appreciate well thought out takes and perspective from other fanbases.

by Tydides on Jul 26, 2007 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

KD & Scott

Tasser; Mea cupa. My apology for misspelling your name. Yes you're right I'm not from the Socratic methodology of debate. I kind of just let my thoughts out. Sometimes they're not cogent. Heck, all of the time.
Jim Masterson

by jim masterson on Jul 26, 2007 9:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

KD & Scott

Tydides; Thanks for your comments. Greatly appreciated. A ton of ND fans are clamoring for Dr. White to dump Stanford, the learning tree, & replace them home v. home with UCLA. Here is hoping.
On another note the PSU v. ND game is a sell out & the tix are starting at $1200 for the lower end-zone. I am planning on coming out for the game with ND & UCLA & guess I will ante up. I told everyone I would bring the Dom for the BN tailgate,if they promise to bring In&Out burgers.
Sincerely, JM

by jim masterson on Jul 26, 2007 9:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You seem to be well versed on ND, so let me ask

After the "performance" of the Stanford band years ago (and we both know which one I am talking about) how in the world does Stanford stay on the ND schedule?

Does ND recruit a lot in the SF area, because that's all that makes sense.

by Free the 16 on Jul 26, 2007 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

KD & Scott.

Free; They do recruit the kids from De La Salle, but that has been the extent of it. It not as though Stanford is a long way from Westwood. It would seem to make sense to have a game every year in the LA area. especially since CW & ND have had some success in LA the past few years. i.e Ruland, Yeatman, Fauria, Crist, Mc Donald, three te's, a qb, & lb. All with 4stars+.

by jim masterson on Jul 26, 2007 11:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not Jim, but an SF-area native

as to #2, ND does seem to recruit a bit out here, but by no means seems to be the most successful recruiter of non-CA schools.

Coming from my east bay (Alameda-Contra Costa counties) perspective, ND has some catching up to do in securing commits in relation to other national powers; they had a player drafted this spring that came out of De La Salle-Concord, but do not recall any of the big time recruits out of the East Bay going to ND (even the DLS-catholic school kids), dating from my time in High School in the area (late 90's). For some reason, it seems like Miami does really well in recuiting this area, and Michigan has at least equaled ND over the past several years.

by bruinhoo on Jul 26, 2007 12:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs