What do you think Brian? If ES is absolved of any wrongdoing in this matter, is he still gone?

And more importantly, will Scott be hired by SC at twice the pay or another Pac 10 team since he has been kicking their butts in recruiting?

Snippet from the LA Times:

"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."

So which is correct? Your version or the LA Times' version?

Ok - but Dorrell did say he knew about his past record (except for one, IIRC), so it's obvious he was not trying to hide it from UCLA.

Unless you have a copy of the application, no one knows what was asked or how he responded. Dorrell knew - end of story.

Dorrell did not know. Guerrero did not know. The background check system "didn't work right" and will be improved.

Bottem line Eric Scott is getting fired and this is the bureaucratic-speak-language that precedes a public firing.

This is as close as a bureaucracy will get to telling you that "yes he is getting fired based on his past arrests and the current arrest." As a Bruin I applaud Guerrero/Dorrell for not letting us slip down to the low level of other CFB programs.

Firing Scott is the right decision.

I don't believe their three blind mice story for one second. If this story is true, then somebody besides Eric Scott is being fired. They need some HR person fired as a scape goat. Otherwise, this story holds no credibility. Either, somebody new or they expect us to believe that their own internal background checks are more incompetent than a $49.95 internet check. I think they knew about the convictions, but not the arrests. Arrests don't always come out in criminal background checks. In fact, most of the time they don't. I think if you read Dorrell's quotes carefully, you will see that.

Bruins are too smart for this bull crap. We're not going to fall for this. The wool will not be pulled over our eyes. Somebody high up knew and now there is a cover up. I would really really like to see those background checks, who performed them, and when. Since UCLA is a public institution, do we have a right to those documents?

Again, I think they knew about the convictions, but not the arrests. Dorrell says it himself, "Eric was placed on probation and fulfilled his obligations for those issues." Hello o. Dorrell said he knew, before he hired Scott, that he was on probation for his issues and that he knew Scott had fulfilled his obligations for those issues. Are we deaf or blind here? The only thing people get put on probation for in this country, that I know of, is committing and being convicted of a crime. If I am wrong here, let me know.

Since Dorrell already stated that he knew of the arrests and probation when they hired him, you know Guerrero had to know also. You don't keep that kind of info from your boss if you want to keep your own job. Dorrell's admission was obviously before he was pulled into a meeting to discuss spin control. Now nobody knew, and before taking criticism for not knowing, they state that a background was done. And before taking criticism for doing a lousy job on the background, they say it was done by a third party and they're investigating it. No dirt on us, we had no idea.