allow me to translate for those bruins who have never worked in a big institution before: Eric Scott is being terminated.

I, as a UCLA Bruin Alumnus agree with the forthcoming decision to terminate Scott.

This won't hurt our recruiting regardless of what CAL Bears think.

I agree with Anonymous. One follow-up question, and I am NOT trying to stir the pot here Bruins fans, just asking the obvious question:

Should Karl Dorrell NOT be held accountable for NOT knowing about Eric Scott's past transgressions? I mean, they are all a part of the public record, and can easily be discovered with a background check.

Your thoughts?

UCLA conducted a background that didn't turn this up. That means that the background check must be improved. Dorrell doesn't have control over background checks. I am the same Anonymous that put the first post, I am responding to Ex-Sportswriter.

So the answer is no. Dorrell is no more responsible for the background check then you or I. He is responsible for firing Scott which he will do once the legal system wraps up with Scott.

In the meanwhile Dorrell will be interim WR coach and we will hire the #2 on the national WR coach search list.

Let's set the record straight for the last time. Eric Scott is a friend of mine. There's no way I'll ever let him go. I quit beeeeforeeee, ahhhh what's that Dan? Never mind. I never new anything, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Background checks are the responsibility of human resources department not the hiring manager (head coach). I'm a manager at a large corporation. If I did background checks on prospective hires beyond checking references I'd probably be fired. Yes, there's lot's of information available in cyberspace but not all of it is reliable. That's why we use a 3rd party to do checks.

I can see your points. Understand, I am not trying to get Dorrell fired (though there are many out there who would like nothing better).

I guess the flip side of the coin is, Scott seems to have a long track record. A reputation, you might say. Seems like that "rep" would be pretty well known if Dorrell just made a few calls to some of his friends in the coaching community who new Scott and could possibly have heard about Scott's priors. You would hope somebody on Dorrell's own coaching/recruiting staff would have met Scott before and would know about Scott and tell Dorrell, hey, this guy's got some stuff on his record, just wanted you to know so that you are totally sure about hiring him.

For Dorrell to say "I didn't know" and then to get off scott-free, that seems to be giving him too much benefit of the doubt here.

Again, not stirring the pot - I just feel like there's more to Dorrell and what he knew, than what he is saying on the record.

Then again, I am a cynical Ex-Sportswriter!

You can feel whatever you like. But the fact is that UCLA/Guerrero/Dorrell did not know about the arrests.

It wasn't Dorrell's job to do the background check.

Don't know how to dumb that down for you anymore ex-sportswriter.

while I think Scott should be fired immediately for:

1. Apparently lying on his application about priors,
2. Having 4 arrests and 2 prior convictions as recent as less than 2 years ago.
3. Exhibiting extremely poor judgment that led to his arrest

Im not convinced that Dorrell will necessarily fire him. It's not clear in Dorrell or Guerrero's statements that dismissal is a given.

I know Eric Scott personally,his record dors not relect the kind of person he is,he has not been convicted of a felony,but i understand the position of the university.Eric started coaching football on the pop warner level given his time and energy to kids that need father figuers.Eric lead Crenshaw football out of the dumps and lead them to being a city powerI It is evident by the players at UCLA,other universities,and the NFL.Eric has always preached to his kids to stay out of trouble,and to keep their academics in order,that is why I believe there is something more to the story.As far as his past jobs hire people that have misdemeanor offenses.

What am I missing here? What are we missing here? Dorrell's quote indicates he knew about some of Scott's arrests and convictions. Are we not reading right? Dorrell says it himself. "I knew he had some issues with his background." He goes on to say, "Eric was placed on probation and fulfilled his obligations for those issues." As far as I know, you only get placed on probation when convicted of a crime. Am I wrong?

Anonymous. You sound like an insider. Am I right?

Therefore, that quote indicates that there were issues with Scott's background that Dorrell knew about and some he didn't. Dorrell says it himself. I don't believe that UCLA did not know about these issues, at least some of them. I think UCLA decided to give this guy a shot, in spite of his past. A simple $49.95 internet background check would have uncovered his priors. Please! This is Spin City folks, Pure amd Simple. What they feared might eventually surface, has and now they must handle this embarrassment as politically as possible. WAKE UP EVERYBODY!

On Thursday night's SportsCentral (on KCAL 9), it was reported that UCLA wide receivers coach Eric Scott was arrested and charged with armed robbery. In fact, he was charged with residential (first degree) burglary. Armed robbery is a much more serious offense, and any false reporting is potentially libelous. Because of this false reporting, Eric Scott's reputation, in the eyes of those whose only source for sports news is SportsCentral, may be irreparably tarnished. Even if charges are dropped, many viewers may continue to believe Eric Scott is guilty. Because of this, it is important that this report be corrected as soon as possible.

So what does his record reflect? Poor judgment? A knack for getting in trouble and arrested.

The guy is a habitual arrestee and needs to be gone so we can get on with our season.

If he stays he will get in trouble again.

I am glad that he does all those good things, but one arrest is one too many when your a position coach at UCLA.

It is Eric's own fault that he is getting fired

I'll be honest, as an SC fan, I'm willing to attribute this as a shady hire gone bad, but I don't think it should stick to DG or KD. I certainly don't believe Guerrero knew about his background, he seems like a guy who wouldn't sacrifice integrity for a couple recruiting wins. But you bruin fans are beyond hypocritical; it's not Dorrell nor anyone else's job to do background checks, but it's Pete Carroll's job to monitor every person attending practice, hanging around the program, and the living situation of parents 100 miles away. It can't go both ways.

Life is full of decisions. Unfortunately, Eric Scott has made some very bad ones. If Dorrell is dumb enough not to check the character and background of the people whom he hires, that is what dumb is, Anonymous.

Here you go, straight from the L.A. Times story about Scott:

"Scott has a criminal record. He has admitted guilt to separate misdemeanor concealed weapons charges in 1996 and 2005, and a misdemeanor disturbing-the-peace charge in 2002."

For you to say he is a "father figure" to kids, for you to say he "always preached to kids to stay out of trouble" - well, what you are doing is what is just plain "dumb," as you yourself put it. Quit sugarcoating reality - this guy is NO father figure if he carries a concealed weapon and disturbs the peace. This is called being a criminal in our society, and somebody who repeatedly breaks the law is not deserving of a well-paid job as an assistant coach at a public institution such as UCLA, whose aim is to turn out students and athletes it can be proud of, a public institution that uses our tax money to pay for things.

Apparently, they are not hiring quality people any more at UCLA. It's not Dorrell's job to do the background check, but the person who did the IMPORTANT background check on this individual did not do a very good job here. Eric Scott did not do a very good job here. The people you hire are a reflection on your character and abilities. I guess Dorrell's feet should be held to the fire here, too. How many times can a person say, "It's not my job," and you still believe him? This is the guy in charge of the program, the one who is running things. He should come out and say, "I did not know about these arrests, but I should have, and I will make sure this never happens again in the future." Instead, there's just a game of guilt-dodging going on here.

It's time for you to face the reality of the situation - Dorrell is dumb, Scott is dumb, and you, Anonymous, are even dumber.

What's the story on Scott? He lives in LA and carries a gun. That is crazy!!! He's lost 3 family members to gang violence. I would have thought Scott was either foolhardy or stupid if he didn't carry a gun.

His only problem was not getting a lawyer that was well connected into the DA's office like SC attorney Carmen A. Trutanich. He would have had all those other cases dismissed like Sanchez, Dennis, Pinkard, etc.

If you read on, the back ground check is done by
an outside company.
UCLA does not review it's own.

Hey Ex-Sportswriter,

I don’t know Eric Scott but your starting to make me like the guy. When is the last time you volunteered to jump into the trenches and drive your high and mighty ass from whatever white suburb you live in, to coach kids in South Central? Hell, you probably fled the state just to get away from those elements. So how can you question Coach Scott’s personal relationships with these kids and the good that may have come from him? How many kids has he kept from using drugs and help guide to a post LA City high school education?

Being a person that was raised in the City of LA, many of us as kids relied on the Boys Club, Pop Warner and high school coaches and administration to teach and guide us. If Coach Scott was one of these people, unless you know him personally, lets not question the work he has done in the inner city.

I have a picture of you in my mind. In the picture you have red hair and freckles, was journalism major from Long Beach State and never played a lick of sports in your life.

Are you a Fan of UCLA or is it you need somewhere to spill?

This novel is over.

Bruin4Life nailed it above. Dorrell gave it away in his quotes that he knew Scott had issues with the law and hired him any way. While I'm sure Karl was trying to give the guy a break (he's a horrible coach but seems like a decent guy). Bottom line, if you are going to take the risk you need to step up and take responsibility when it hits the fan.