I wanted to give Bruins in the NY area, or those who might be visiting this summer, the heads up on this outstanding show coming to off-Broadway very soon.
 
It opens June 26th for previews at New World Stages and it stars fellow Bruin Don Reed in an amazing one-man show called "East 14th--True Tales of a Reluctant Player."
 
It is his story of growing up in the '70's in Oakland where his stepfather forced him to go door to door preaching the word, when one day he gets fed up and moves cross-town to live with his real father.  Only thing is, he doesn't know his real dad is a pimp.  It is very funny and moving in spots as well.
 
He recreates the family and friends from the neighborhood who made him who is he today.  Over 20 different people, (men, women and children) all without a single costume change of any kind.
 
UCLA played a key roll in Don leaving his situation and is mentioned in the play.  While at UCLA, Don was very active in both Speech & Debate competitions and in the UCLA Comedy Club in the early to mid '80's.
 
The show has received great notices in L.A. and Don has received two NAACP Theatre Award nominations for Best Actor and Best Playwright.
 
I have had the honor to work as a Creative Consultant on the show, doing everything from punching up spots to helping with the design of the poster. 

 

For more info go to the website…
 

http://www.east14th.com/

 

And you can get a discount on tickets (through July 19th) by calling 212-947-8844 and using the code DEBBOX608.

 

 

Was checking out the PE Bruin blog and found this...

http://www.qbforce.com/chris/Offers/Offers.htm

 

It is a link to Chris Forcier's website and on it he has copies of the scholi letters he received from several schools, including UCLA.  Interesting to see how they differ.

Plus he has some other interesting stuff on his site as well.  Don't know if I remember a current player having such a site.

http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=773443

Has us as a #1 seed.

Interesting notes:
1-6 Pac 10 teams in, but not the "standard."  I think if Arizona wins one pac 10 tourney game, they're in.  Ironic that they need the tourney now since Lute was so adamant against the Pac 10 tourney when it was reinstated.

2-They are projecting Morgan State to receive their first ever bid.  Why should we care?  They are coached by Todd Bozeman.  What do you want to bet we see them in round one?

3-The 2 seeds are Kansas, Duke, Texas and Georgetown.  Let's assume we stay out west. I think Georgetown stays in the east.  And they will move Duke from NC's bracket (another of their #1s). My guess, Duke will be the #2 in our bracket.  

4-They are projecting UCSB in the field as well.  Again, watch for the NCAA to get cute and try to pair them close to us.  Granted, they will be the lower seed, but watch for them if they win to be on the same path as us.

5-They have the 5 seeds as Indiana, Michigan State, Washington State and Butler.  Seems to me that is a pretty damn good group of 5 seeds.

6-They have the Pac 10 with 6 bids, tied with the Big 12.  They also have the Big East with 8 bids. Are they really deserving of that many?

Wasn't all that long ago when we could have been considered to have one of the worst combos in the Pac 10 with Toledo & Lavin.  Now, with the hiring of Neuheisel, I think we are near the top.  Some random thoughts on the Pac 10 pairings:

Arizona:  Rates high with Olson, but very low with Stoops.

Arizona State:  With Sendek as their new hoops coach, coupled with Erickson in football, they are a strong contender for best coaching in the Pac.  Both coaches are bringing back teams that were horrible last year to being contenders this year.

Cal:  After this year, might have one of the most over-rated combos with Tedford's season imploding, largely because he stubbornly went with seriously dinged Longshore over the other QB that forgot the game clock when they were ranked #2. He still has to get some credit for even getting Cal football to be somewhere on the map. Braun to me has always been vastly over-rated.

Stanford:  Could be an up in comer in football with Harbaugh doing considerably better than the previous coach, but hoops is still well below the level set by Montgomery.

Oregon:  Belotti is a top tier football coach, but Kent is very inconsistent.

Oregon State:  Riley gets a lot out of his players but the hoop side is still a mess.

Washington:  In Willingham & Romar, another very over-rated duo.  Similar to Cal in that aspect.

Washington State:  Bennett I would put in the top three for hoop coaches, but hard to know how successful the new football guy will be.

USC: Without some of his previous outstanding support staff, Carroll's star has waned some, but he is still has to be considered the #1 guy on the football side (with Erickson as #2).  Floyd to me is a middle of the Pac guy at best on the hoop side.

Finally UCLA, with Howland we have the #1 hoop coach (I put him slightly ahead of Lute based on the most recent success he has had).  

As for Neuheisel, it remains to be seen, but I think he definately has the potential to be one of the top 4 guys right out of the gate.

Now Tom Dienhart is weighing in with these possibles:

Rick Neuheisel-

"How about UCLA alum Rick Neuheisel? Those close to Neuheisel have told me that he is very interested in coaching in college again. He currently is the offensive coordinator of the Baltimore Ravens. Neuheisel had success as head coach of Colorado and Washington. I also have learned that at least one A.D. has checked out Neuheisel through the NCAA, and all is clear. His magnetism and offensive mind could be a boost to many programs."

NO. Brought down both Wasington and Colorado programs and had a slew of NCAA violations at both schools.  Yes, he won vs the NCAA re the Basketball pool, but that was just the latest of many slip ups along the way.

Norm Chow-

NO.  No experience as a head guy and I believe too old to coach maybe a few years.  Those of you into him, back away from the "beat SC with one of their own guys--oh the irony" kool-aid, okay?

Steve Mariucci-He's my maybe on the list.  Other guys I like better, but wouldn't be too upset if he got the gig.  

The first two though, no way, please DG, don't do it!

Full article is here:
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=302258

Regarding the infamous 4th & 1 play.  First, a take from Walker...

Walker said Coach Karl Dorrell decided to be "conservative" because a fourth-down play backfired against Notre Dame.

"We did put it on the defense," Walker said, "and I told them, 'We better stop them.' " Then from KD himself: Dorrell also defended the call.

"I just didn't want to make a mistake and put us in a bad situation," he said, adding that he thought the subsequent punt would have been better executed, pinning Cal inside the 10. "We were only down by one point."

Added quote: "It was more about protecting ourselves," said Dorrell And the reaction from the players? "We have players who want the ball," said Breazell, speaking for the players who were willing to express themselves. "We didn't want to turn it back over to them. That's why we were upset."

Guard Shannon Tevaga just shook his head and held his tongue. "Coaches' decision," he said.

"We were a little disappointed," admitted Bell, but defended the coach's call. "We thought they'd be antsy, and jump, and we'd get the first down."

Also some very insightful commentary from the author: The call that might have followed them around like a garlicky smell (if they had lost) came late in the third quarter. Trailing, 21-20, and facing a fourth-and-1 at the Cal 37, the Bruins, who had moved the ball equally well on the ground and with short pass patterns, burned a timeout to come up with a doozy of a strategy -- the old "Let's get them to jump offsides" play.

When it became apparent quarterback Pat Cowan wasn't going to get the ball, that he would just shout sham signals at Cal's defense (Snap count: On never), the crowd began booing.

Smart crowd.

A must read. To read the entire story click here.

With apologies to both Rotary and Interact clubs everywhere, I have devised a simple four way test to determine if you have a good coach.

1-Do other schools want him?

Does your coach come up on list after list when a coaching availability comes up?  If so, chances are you have a good coach.

2-Would you be pissed if someone else hired your coach?

Consider this a back-up for question number one, as on a rare occasion your coach might make a short list of someone else and you know he isn't qualified for the job.  

A good test to prove how well you have it with your current coach is to judge how you would feel if he left.  If you would be pissed, then you know you have a good coach.

3-Is he respected by his national peers?

Many coaches can luck out and win a Conference Coach of the Year.  In fact, it is speculated that sometimes other coaches in the league will vote for your coach as Conference Coach of the Year just to keep him around for awhile longer(see Lavin, Steve).  

The real test is if a national voting body selects your coach as a Coach of the Year, then you have yourself a terrific coach.

If you can answer yes to the three above questions, you are in good shape.

For question four, you want the answer to be no.

4-Do the rivals in your league plead for you to keep your coach?

Do they try to convince you in person to give your coach more time?  Attempt to persuade you online that your coach is merely a victim of bad luck and not to be so hasty to fire your guy?  

This might be the most damning of tests, as if fans of other teams in your conference want you to stay the course on YOUR site, and yet clown your guy on THEIR site, then you have a coach that sucks.

Looks like the Press Enterprise and their beat writer (Kevin Pearson) are getting into the blog act. I don't see it listed, so I wasn't sure if people were aware of it.

PE.com's UCLA Blog

He generally does a pretty decent job covering us, and his take is usually not the same old company line.

This particular entry stood out to me:

August 15, 2007

Typical UCLA....
A year ago, the facilities people at UCLA managed to water the grass on the IM field every morning just before the football team went to practice. The result was a muddy field, and an unhappy team.

Well, UCLA is having its first night practice, and guess what? The sprinklers just came on over at the grass portion of Spaulding Field. Not going to say its a fitting scenario, but....

Dohn's blog if you haven't been checking recently is great and he has been taking questions once a week.  If not for the Nestor impersonator it would be close to perfect.

The LA Times What's Bruin blog has been a good addition with lots of good Bruin related material.

One thing I learned from his site is the creation of the new Bruin Kids Club for kids under 13.  Lots of cool UCLA stuff for the young ones and they will have a sign up at the scrimmage on Saturday.

After getting back from a volunteer day today, I looked down at my windpants and noticed the Nike logo.  I got these as a gift and realized they are the only Nike thing I own.  Why?  Because I have always bought Reebok when they sponsored UCLA, and now more recently I buy Adidas.

I not only don't buy Nike because they don't sponsor UCLA, but also because they do sponsor USC. And Oregon, who's football team has more outfits than my daughter's Polly Pocket. And I do believe they sponsor Oregon State as well, which is just plain odd as the Nike founder is an alum of Oregon. Why, it would be like if we wanted to auction off some former Trojan's gear at a UCLA fundraiser! But I digress...

I won't even buy the Nike golf stuff, which was easier when they first introduced it, because it was crap, but now their stuff is fairly decent.  

All of this bring me to my key question...Am I alone in Bruin Nation in my "boycotting" of Nike? Seems to me Nike would have to realize they are alienating half of the second largest market in the U.S., but maybe they don't see it the way I do.  Or maybe the rest of Bruin Nation has no problem buying Nike stuff, but I would intested in finding out.

It wasn't all that many seasons ago where all Bruin fans were trying to see if our Bruins could somehow reach the magical number of 20 wins during the season to qualify for the tourney.  Then failing that, if somehow given we were in a strong conference, that maybe, just maybe, 18 wins might get us in.  

Now we have how many wins to date?  How many left to play? Not to mention the extra games of the Pac 10 tournament.

No question at WSU will be a beast of a game.  I think potentially we could lose the conference and if we win the Pac 10 tourney we could still be a #1 seed.

Yes, Westbrook got thrown into the fire earlier that coach Howland would have liked, but that experience could pay dividends down the road.

The bigger questions are the health of Collison, Mata and Shipp.  While we had a ton of injuries throughout last year, during the NCAA tourney itself, not only were we 100% (save Shipp, of course, who was pretty much out for the season and we knew he wasn't going to play in the NCAAs) but the light had gone on for Hollins.  I see a somewhat similar light going on for Aboya and he could be a real key for having a deep run in the big dance.