Brian, when does the UCLA Camp start? When are it's hours going to be? Is it open to the public? Are UCLA football players practicing at all right now?

Thanks and, as I've been saying for months now, keep up the fantastic work.

The players have been working out on their won for the last month, and it is common to give them a few days off from the "voluntary'' workouts the week before camp starts.
Along those lines, camp starts Monday, and the times vary. Here is what is open to the public.
Monday, August 6 - 3:00-5:00 p.m.

Tuesday, August 7 - 3:00-5:00 p.m.

Wednesday, August 8 - 3:00-5:00 p.m.

Thursday, August 9 - 3:00-5:00 p.m.

Friday, August 10 - 9:45-Noon (First day of full pads)

Saturday, August 11 - 9:15-11:30 a.m. and 3:30-5:30 p.m.

Sunday, August 12 - 9:15-11:30 a.m.

Monday, August 13 - 9:00-11:15 a.m. and 3:30-5:30 p.m.

Tuesday, August 14 - 9:00 -11:15 a.m.

Wednesday, August 15 - 9:15-11:30 a.m. and 7:30-9:00 p.m.

Thursday, August 16 - 9:45-Noon

Friday, August 17 - 9:15-11:30 a.m. and 3:30-5:30 p.m.

Saturday, August 18 - 11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. (Scrimmage at Drake Stadium)

who cares. Keep E-SCott. He didnt molest kids or deal drugs.

Hey Brian, great job on this. So, what is your sense here? Despite what your sources are saying, is it possible that Dorrell and Guerrero just messed up here? That somebody told them about the arrests, but just decided to conveniently ignore them? And now that the spit has hit the fan, it sounds like the blame game is in full swing.

Is it really possible that nobody ever, never, ever heard that Scott had been previously arrested a few times? And wouldn't Dorrell have been remiss NOT to ask Scott if he had a criminal record before hiring him to his coaching staff?

You'd figure if Dorrell asked and Scott said "no," that would be reason enough for an immediate dismissal from UCLA at this stage. Nobody should be allowed to lie to their employer. Also, wouldn't Scott be required - as job applicants are required in all fields and all walks of life - to sign a statement that states they have NEVER been arrested for a crime? Don't all jobs require that?

Also, as a follow-up: If UCLA holds to its story that there was an error in the checking procedure, do you think they will require ALL members of the coaching staff to go through a new, updated, improved background check in order to retain their coaching positions? Might not the parents of recruits who have committed to UCLA for the next signing period be somewhat afraid that there could be another skeleton in UCLA's closet, and might make them change their minds about allowing their sons to actually play football for UCLA? I'm trying to think as a parent here.

If nothing else, this should all result in things getting better in the future. You agree?

Brian,

I have a similar question to Ex-Sportwriter's. In your observation of recruiting, do think think that recruits' parents see the possibility of getting a fat deal like Bush's parents did at SC?

Or, do you think the USC is further enhanced in the eyes of recruit's parents since USC has gone unpunished even though one of their player's parents received substantial amount of monetary gifts while the player was still playing for the Trojans?

Since the loophole exists and really no one seems to be held accountable, or has taken responsibility, it would seem likely that this could easily happen again.

I'm not an HR person, but I am in a position where I interview and hire people for my company. I know there is a long list of subjects you cannot discuss with a candidate, including their religion, sexual orientation, even where they live. All of it is designed to prevent the employer from making a decision based on bias or prejudice.

I'm not sure, so don't flame me if this is wrong, but I suspect that asking about a criminal background might be off limits for Dorrell. That might be something that only HR is supposed to do. I know they are the only ones who can conduct background checks and it would be illegal for Dorrell to conduct one himself. It is a confidentiality and personal privacy thing.

I'll tell you this much. I have interviewed literally hundreds of people and hired dozens more and I have never once asked a candidate if they have a criminal background.

Brian, I agree with Woodward and Bernstein.

If Reggie Bush received illegal help at USC, and it can be proven or he can be prosecuted, he should be punished appropriately, whatever the NCAA or law enforcement decide.

In the case of Eric Scott, the NCAA is not (yet) involved. One would think that not only the Los Angeles Police Department is looking into this, but UCLA's department of NCAA compliance, along with the UCLA athletic hierarchy. When a convicted criminal such as Scott is allowed to coach at a university supported by public funding (our tax money), then this is an issue that can not and should not be swept under the rug. Won't this be an issue that will follow the Bruin football team around the rest of this season if it is not addressed properly?

Like Woodward and Bernstein, I would like to get some reaction from Brian Dohn on our questions and concerns. So far, Brian, you have not even issued any reaction to any of this. Isn't that the purpose of writing a blog?

iam a senior manager who has hired many people over the years. every potential employee fills out an application on which it asks for any criminal record,arrests, or convictions.It is the responsibility of the applicant to disclose any information that may be problematic. If disclosed and deemed to be unimportant no problem. If not disclosed and subsequently surfaces thru a background check immediate no hire or dismissal. the issue is not who conducted the check it is the truthfulness of the candidate to disclose up front. In this case Mr scott is at fault for not being truthful from the start. At my firm he would be gone no questions asked

My Friend Just got hired in the athletic dept at USD they asked him to fill out a release for permission for them to do a background check. It was from a private firm and they checked everywhere he had lived in 4 different states,(he requested a copy) so i find this hard to believe that a smaller d-1 school would check more thoroughly then UCLA...go figure!

Was Scott on probation from the Jan05 gun arrest whenKarl brought him in as an intern in Mar05, and do you know if the gun arrest figured into his leaving Crenshaw High and LAUSD? The timeline here raises some questions.

Brian,

Ex-Sportswriter brings up an excellent point. If Reggie Bush is punished, his street cred should go up. Plus, he got his $$$, his Heisman, and he through his parents, he got paid while he was in college. This will be very attractive to many recruits and their PARENTS which will make SC even a more formidable recruiting opponent.

And it will give a SC a near insurmountable lead in street cred/criminality due to their association with hiphop mogul/drug user/firearms collector/constrolled substance trafficker/amateur pornographer/musician Snoop Dogg who is often arrested wearing Trojan gear. I don't think there is anything UCLA can do to make a dent into SC's enormous advantage here.

Do you think UCLA offers enough in terms of academics and the opportunity to play to offset the possibility of monetary gain by circumventing NCAA rules and the hiphop/criminal street cred established reputation by the Trojan football program?

Don't think USD is a legit D1 school but your point is well taken. However, Jim Harbaugh was arrested for druken driving while the HC for USD which was plead down to misdemeanor reckless driving.

His next gig was a big jump in prestige and salary at Stanford. I wonder if Stanford did a background check? Or better yet, would those who wanted Dorrell fired last year, accepted Jim Harbaugh as a possible candidate for HC at UCLA? Probably.

Wood-head and Bird-brain, you won't be able to bait me into some stupid argument here. Looks like you have a hopeless case of Trojan Envy. Fight on!