Great for Scott ... not so much for UCLA. The damage is now compounded. Bring us your 5-time arrestee and 3-time convicted coaches, recent convictions are fine ... as long as they have tight connections to prized recruits they have a place on our sidelines. Remember Dorrell keeps telling us UCLA football is about Character and Integrity.

What is Scott going to tell a UCLA player when he sees him take a gun to a party?? To the Rose Bowl in his car? Hey, I am all for giving people a second chance but that doesn't mean giving him a job at the FBI or in the Oval Office. Whatever ... Dorrell can't fly his Character and Integrity flag anymore which of course really doesn't matter to Dorrell cultists. They will move onto the "great recruiting class" argument from the only strong argument they had in the past, when "Clean program, Character, Integrity" was so important to them. Sad.

for the record, I was referring to Scott's reinstatement, not the DA's decision to not file charges.

DumpDorrell - It sounds like you have all of the answers. For the record, Dorrell does not have the final say whether Scott is retained or not. If you read Brian Dohn's blog it says a meeting between Scott, Dorrell, and the athletic administration will occur to decide his fate. This means it will be a join decision and last time I checked Dorrell was not the Athletic Director for UCLA. Also, Dorrell indicated that he knew Scott had a rough past but I doubt he knew the details of his criminal arrests.

You have the right to attack Dorrell for his on the field decisions as a coach, but unless you know all of the facts in this case (which is sketchy at best) you should stick to your day job!

DumpDorrell is perfect. He's never done anything wrong. Whatever. He wouldn't know character if it kicked him in the a$$ like the bigger kids did to him during his childhood.

I cant figure out who's a bigger black eye to the university, Steve Lavin or a jerk like DumpDorrell/BruinsNation/DCBrewin (since its all the same guy.)

From the guy who had to have Lavin hire boydguards in D.C., this is richly ironic.

I apologize DumpDorrell. My post was out of line. I am having a bad day, and your post pissed me off.

I don't know if you are all three the same guy, but your posts have long been similar.

So I apologize for my rant. FWIW, I am not a Karl Dorrell fan. Not at all. I just feel that your constant negativity to a fellow UCLA alum, who really, other than losing a few too many games for the Bruins, shouldnt inspire the pure hatred you have for him and many other Bruins, (save the hate for Steve Lavin).

But I do apologize to you for my rant.

Brian, please delete my last post as well as my question to you. They were out of line.

"Remember Dorrell keeps telling us UCLA football is about Character and Integrity... Dorrell can't fly his Character and Integrity flag anymore which of course really doesn't matter to Dorrell cultists. They will move onto the "great recruiting class" argument from the only strong argument they had in the past, when "Clean program, Character, Integrity" was so important to them. Sad."

For whatever it's worth (and for the umpteenth time), I happen to be a UCLA alum who also happens to be a Karl Dorrell supporter, and I still feel that Karl Dorrell does, in fact, run a program of high integrity. And, for the umpteenth time, I don't define integrity and character by the absence of poor behavior (and I certainly don't define integrity and character as the absence of poor behavior in a person's past). I define integrity and character (as regards a football program, such as Dorrell's) by the imposition of consequences as a response to poor behavior. Dorrell, consistently, imposes consequences when his charges behave poorly, which separates him from many other football coaches (including the one he succeeded, and the with whom we currently share a city).

Character and integrity *are* important in a program... they always have been, and they still are. If ever I find that Karl Dorrell is letting his charges (be they players or coaches) exercise poor behavior without consequence, my days as a person who supports Karl Dorrell will come to an end.

And as far as "cultists" go (vis a vis Karl Dorrell), there's only one poster on this (or any other) board who has literally *changed his name* to define his position on Karl Dorrell, thus allowing that position (vis a vis Karl Dorrell) to become his entire online identity: that's you, "DumpDorrell." If allowing your whole entire identity to center on a single coach's employment doesn't qualify you for cult-member status, I just don't know what does.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

DumbDCBrewinNations,

No need to apologize. You spoke from your heart. Most of us feel the same way you do. I don't think anyone takes DumpDorrel seriously. I personally don't read any of his posts. The guy is a buffoon. He needs to knock someone else down to gain a sense of self worth.

UCIBruin. Dont put words in my mouth, have a little integrity. I never stated I had any facts, other than my call to UCLA HR. I have said repeatedly I have questions, obvious questions, that remain unanswered. Sticky issues of misrepresentation on signed forms.

And I never stated or insinuated Scott's reinstatement is Dorrell's decision alone. However, obviously Dorrell could say "I do not support Scott's reinstatement because Scott did not tell me about his 3 convictions, and I just can't go back to my team and preach Character and Integrity and Follow the Rules with Scott on the sidelines." Im guessing that Dorrell hasn't done that nor will he do that. Id like to be proven wrong. If Dorrell supports Scott's reinstatement (does anyone think he won't?!) then Dorrell can't fly the Character and Integrity flag anymore, imo. If you are ok with that then fine. Im stating that I am not ok with that. We can disagree.

DumbDC .. I do not write for BN as I have said before. I represent myself here and everywhere I post, including BN. Why would I change that when I have a blog and so openly present my views with my ID?! Views, by the way, that are shared by so many people I can hardly call them my own. I have to say though that of all the crazy criticisms on here towards my point of view, you were at least honorable to come back and recognize a mistake. I appreciate that.

Thanks DD. Again, while I don't agree with what you say or, often, how you say it, I can act better. And you don't resort to personal attacks on other posters, as I did. For that you get props.

Patrick, thanks for your great post.

The Internet town cryers will always scream that the "sky is falling" no matter what happens in real life. God bless the internet for the humor it provides.

DUMP DumpDorrell

DumpDorrell is a total tool. Nobody takes him seriously. What kind of idiot defines himself by someone else's employment contract?

Idiot is just the tip of the iceberg.

Pat .. how ironic, you calling me out for using my ID DumpDorrell. That just brings the hypocrisy full circle. First people with pseudonyms telling me Im hiding behind my ID, then people telling me Im going around posting as many different IDs, now you telling me Im bad for posting under 1 common ID, which I use simply to clearly identify me with the site I help run. Sweet. I think we covered them all.

I help run a website that nearly a thousand people read every day, nearly 30,000 a month. We love UCLA football and want Karl Dorrell fired. It's that simple. Dorrell cultists and those who would die for Dorrell think that must mean we hate Dorrell. And you call me a cultist. Extreme don't you think? Oh, wait, WE are extreme.

My opinion of UCLA football under Dorrell is based on FACTS .. so many facts that if you believe differently you kind of looks extreme. These facts have been spread around the Bruin web for a year now. Yet, Dorrell cultists have no countering facts, just emotion and personal attacks .. and the one argument that trumped all others, Character. Who is the hypocrite? Who is the hater?

Our site has maintained from day 1, check our archives, that Dorrell is a great guy. He just is an average coach. He is making nearly $1 million a year and Dorrell cultists, and some clowns here, are acting like we who want a new coach are asking to throw him out on the street. Ridiculous. This is UCLA .. you dont give a guy 5 years at nearly $1 million for mediocrity. Seriously, that is ridiculous on the fact of it.

Finally !!!

Back to Football.

Scott will be reinstated. Good. His past is his past - prior to UCLA employment.

This "arrest" proved to be a mistake and charges were never even filed.

Back to Football.

Are you kidding me...

No charges were filed due to "lack of cooperation from the witnesses or victims"...

"Back to Football" what a joke... This guy is a mess, no matter how you look at it...

From Anonymous: "His past is his past - prior to UCLA employment."

Welcome to the Eric Scott era of Dorrell's UCLA Football! Dorrell supporters truly bring the best arguments for firing Dorrell. "His past is his past." That is what we have descended to. Nice. Under that definition we can hire OJ, Ray Carruth (work furloughs?), Michael Vick ... any former SuC players. Great. Far be it from me to suggest we have standards .. known standards that aren't fudged when someone comes along with a Faustian bargain.

Hey Great, the DA dropped charges against the convict coach. Let's all celebrate that he's coming back to campus (just be sure to lock up your valuables). He's certainly no "thug" like those USC players who had their charges dropped. Right?

What's that? The charges were dropped only because the occupants of the house had more criminal activity going on that Scott?

Nevermind that he was at a crime scene with guns, drugs, and stolen property. Move along....nothing to see here. Let's get back to mediocre football.

Looks like the trojans are in tears that Eric Scott has non-violent/non-drug misdemeanors prior to UCLA employment.

TOO BAD - 13-9 must truly SUC when coupled with a "tease" arrest.

Back to football for Bruins as Trojans CRY ON!!!

Thanks for the hard work Brian. Great job breaking this story! Kepp on keeping on!

What a relief for the program...talk about what could have been a really embarrassing situation!

...and I am completely with “Anonymous”, let’s keep Dorrell...and put a stop to these ridiculous attempts to dump Dorrell.

Come on, 29-21 record in 4 years, ZERO Pac 10 Championships, ZERO BCS Bowl Game appearances, 1-3 record against USC, and a 1-3 overall bowl game record (which include the prestigious Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, Sun and Emerald Bowl)...and you want to get rid of this coach?

Stop the insanity!

"Pat .. how ironic, you calling me out for using my ID DumpDorrell. That just brings the hypocrisy full circle. First people with pseudonyms telling me Im hiding behind my ID, then people telling me Im going around posting as many different IDs, now you telling me Im bad for posting under 1 common ID, which I use simply to clearly identify me with the site I help run. Sweet. I think we covered them all."

DumpDorrell, you don't seem to know what the word hypocrisy means. Hypocrisy is when Person A condemns Person B for behavior that he, Person A, engages in, himself. I'm genuinely confused as to how my post relates to that at all. But oh well.

Your continued and repeated use of the words "Dorrell cultists" is a lame and cheesy ad hominem to describe UCLA alums (such as, I assume, myself) and UCLA fans (such as, again, myself) who happen to think that Karl Dorrell is doing a good job turning around a program that (it may be argued) was in trouble when he inherited it. If you disagree with me (as it's clear you do), it's prolly much more constructive for our discussion to deal with the facts ('cause, yes, many Dorrell-supporters *do* have facts at their disposal, upon which their opinion is based). So let's you and I stick to facts from here forward and agree to leave the name-calling and motive-guessing out of the discussion. Deal?

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

"Come on, 29-21 record in 4 years, ZERO Pac 10 Championships, ZERO BCS Bowl Game appearances, 1-3 record against USC, and a 1-3 overall bowl game record (which include the prestigious Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, Sun and Emerald Bowl)...and you want to get rid of this coach?"

For what it's worth, Cal's record in the first 4 years under Tedford matches the above almost exactly.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

Pat

"For what it's worth, Cal's record in the first 4 years under Tedford matches the above almost exactly."

Is this one of your facts?! Who the (heck) cares about Tedford and Cal?! We are talking about cleaning our own house. But if you want to bring up Tedford and Cal .. their 4 year record is 36-15, or 70.5%. Id take that over Dorrell's record. Besides, Dorrell's record is THE WORST 4-YEAR starting record of ANY UCLA COACH since WW2!! You do not want to start rolling out facts to support Dorrell here. Its been attempted hundreds of times. There are none.

The hypocrisy comment I used in a more complex way, involving the arguments of many people, forget it, it's not worth explaining.

Dorrell cultists is a term used to define people who care first about Dorrell, then UCLA somewhere after that. Some people have open stated they are loyal to Dorrell, regardless. The term is only derogatory if someone who I call a cultist claims to be otherwise ... I am calling anyone by name a cultist. So your point is moot. But by all means, you can stop calling me names. I will continue to use facts.

*This post was edited because of questionable wording

None of you buffoons get it. I told you Coach Scott would be on the sidelines for the first game. I own UCLA football, I own you, I own Dan G, and I own Dump and the whole Bruin Nation. No one can touch me. I'm the rainbow coalition of college football. Since I own the whole situation, learn to accept me and the mediocrity I bring to this program.

Brian

thanks for the edit, no harm was intended. I nearly married a Brit and when she used the word it was used as a euphemism, but written it could look a little too much.

tedford and Dorrell have the same number of Division 1A and the same number of PAC-10 wins last two years. And Dorrell wiped the floor with Tedford in recruiting head-to-head last year. This year Ted isn't even close on recruiting.

DumpDorrell needs to get off Dorrell's (back). I am embarrassed that dumpdorrell thinks a coach who won 10 games in 2005 and brought in Walker and is recruiting lights out should go.

He won't, get over it.

*this post was edited because of language

DumpDorrell needs to get banned. That name alone ...

anonymous

again, who cares about Tedford?? I dont see anyone saying Tedford is god here. But if you want to compare random timeframes and stats, Tedford is undefeated in his last game and Dorrell hasn't won in 1 game. Their winning percentages are not even close. As for subjective stats such as recruiting, Cal's navy blue uniforms were darker than our Bruin Blue uniforms. Again, who cares?

DumpDorrell is welcome here, as is everyone else, as long as the takes are clean. Please keep that in mind, or I will go back to the old way of having to OK every post.

Anonymous,

2005 was a Tom Cable thing. After last season how the heck can you defend this coach? He has sucked it up really bad since day one. In 2005, he had one of the worst defenses in D1. Tom Cable saved his ass with a great offense. Do Dump and the Bruin Nation have negative overtones? Most of the time, yes. Do they, like myself feel unbelievably frustrated with four years of crap football? Yes. Do USC fans love this coach? Yes. There’s a reason for this, just ask Roth and JJ. Could it possibly be you’re a SC fan in disguise?

"But if you want to bring up Tedford and Cal .. their 4 year record is 36-15, or 70.5%."

In point of fact, in Cal's first 4 years (under Tedford), they went 32-17 (or .653), which included a much easier non-conference schedule than the one UCLA faced under Karl Dorrell.

"Besides, Dorrell's record is THE WORST 4-YEAR starting record of ANY UCLA COACH since WW2!!"

That's because the program that Dorrell inherited was in worse shape than it was at any point since WW2. To wit, in the 4 years preceding Dorrell's arrival, UCLA's conference finishes were: T-4th, 6th, 5th, and 9th... the worst 4-year stretch in UCLA football history, stretching back to Pearl Harbor.

THAT is the program that Karl Dorrell inherited. And he has improved upon it, by every conceivable measure. It's not fast, and it's not easy, but the improvement is, indeed, happening, and should continue in '07.

And, for what it's worth, you can refrain from calling me a Dorrell-cultist (if you have, in fact, done so to this point). I don't support Karl Dorrell, regardless. I support him only so long as he runs his program with integrity (which is to say, imposing consequences when his charges behave badly), so long as his players exhibit maximum effort on the football field, and so long as his recruiting continues to improve. When the above is no longer in evidence, I will no longer support this football coach. But I will be a Bruin forever.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

If you call last seasons debacle an improvement you need to evaluate your standards.

Last year our QB was hurt. This year will will win double digit games, same as 2005.

Defense and recruiting is excellent.

The run game is solid.

Only question is can Ben Olson answer the call of putting up a Drew Olson like season.

"If you call last seasons debacle an improvement you need to evaluate your standards."

A season in which UCLA finishes alone in 4th and notches a victory over $c does, in fact, represent an improvement over each of Toledo's final 4 seasons (in which we finished 9th, tied for 5th, 6th, and tied for 4th, respectively, with zero wins over $c). Factually speaking, it is an improvement. Sorry.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

So what was Eric doing at the house, parked up the street?

Why was he giving a ride to two armed men and making a stop at a house that had weapons and marijuana at it?

Did the two men not own a car? If one of the two individuals did own a car, why did Eric go with them?

Why is there no renter available for comment? Were the drugs his? Most likely, and it looks like armed men came to house to the house to steal the drugs. Obviously the occupant left and will not return.

This case looks really similar to Eric Wright at USC. Lots of drugs and nobody knows anything....yeah right. UCLA needs to protect its self from further embarrassment. Does everyone really think that this is the last time Eric is going to hang out with these types of people. Is he now a changed man? Will this arrest as opposed the other four, set him straight.

At least if UCLA does keep him, everyone now knows the company they keep and it will not be a surprise the next time.

I still have a hole in my ceiling via the Notre Dame fiasco; from you’re so called improvement. If Cable were still calling plays last season we would have won 10 games just like in 2005. If I remember correctly Dorrell took over play calling because he hired an inept O-Coordinator. Dorrell wasn't much better at the job. He fired that O-Coordinator. Surprise, surprise. Let's hpoe Norvell is.

"I still have a hole in my ceiling via the Notre Dame fiasco; from you’re so called improvement."

I still have a hole in my television from the '01 $c game, in which we got shut out and the team absoultely, undeniably, quit on Bob Toledo. Yes, I would call '06 an improvement. Not only did we beat $c, but the team recovered from a 4-loss tailspin to win the final 3 games of the regular season, when many other teams would've done as Toledo's did: folded up the tents and phoned in the season.

"If Cable were still calling plays last season we would have won 10 games just like in 2005."

Very possibly. If UCLA paid coordinators as much as $c does, we may well not have lost Cable to an NFL position gig. But UCLA doesn't, so we did. What're ya gonna do?

Like you, I have hopes that Norvell will do a good job for UCLA.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

Pat

again, who cares about Cal (Im going to stop that line of discussion even though I could compare orange to apples as you just did)? We are talking about UCLA.

The constant assertion that Dorrell inherited a horrible program is a mockery of the truth. In Dorrell's first year UCLA was ranked pre-season to finish as high as 2nd(!) in the Pac-10 because we had most of our key players (14 returning starters) back from an 8-5 team, AND we had one of the top ranked recruiting classes in the country in '02. Toledo's 4 year record prior to Dorrell starting, in other words Toledo's worst years, was STILL BETTER than Dorrell's. Last year, in his 4th year(!), Dorrell gave us .500 ball. 4 full years after Toledo left you are STILL making "inheriting Toledo" excuses for Dorrell. That is pathetic. When does it ever stop?!

You know what, dont answer that. Im done with you.

DumpDorrell needs a new hobby. I've heard misery loves company but his 1,000 people a day and 30,000 a month is a complete joke.

My wife and I went out to dinner on Saturday and I swear I heard the maitre d' announce, "DumpDorrell, party of one..."

"again, who cares about Cal (Im going to stop that line of discussion even though I could compare orange to apples as you just did)? We are talking about UCLA."

The point of talking about Cal was to compare Dorrell's record to that of a coach (Tedford) who seems to be universally acknowldged as a good 'un, in hopes of adding some objectivity to the evaluation of Dorrell's record. But fine. Forget Cal. Let's talk UCLA.

"In Dorrell's first year UCLA was ranked pre-season to finish as high as 2nd(!) in the Pac-10"

You're wrong. Click here to see the AP pre-season poll for '03 (that was Dorrell's first season). UCLA got not one single pre-season vote. 6 other Pac-10 teams got at least one vote. UCLA got 0(!). So, at least as far as the AP goes, UCLA was ranked to finish as low as 7th(!) in the Pac-10 (or possibly even lower!).

"Toledo's 4 year record prior to Dorrell starting, in other words Toledo's worst years, was STILL BETTER than Dorrell's."

You're wrong again. In Toledo's four final years, he went 24-22 overall and 13-19 in conference (which included zero wins against $c, 2 years in which there was no bowl appearance whatsoever, and zero bowl wins [though Kezerian notched a bowl win with the team Toledo was fired from]).

In Dorrell's first four years (immediately following the mess Toledo has made), he has gone 29-21 overall and 19-14 in conference (which includes a win over $c, a bowl appearance each and every year, and a bowl win).

Toledo's 4-year record prior to Dorrell starting was, no matter how you slice it, demonstrably and indisputably worse than what Dorrell has posted since his arrival.

"You know what, dont answer that. Im done with you."

Given your clear and obvious penchant (as documented above) for posting falsehoods and claiming them to be facts, it would appear that you deciding to be "done" would be the right call to make, and I congratulate you for making it.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

I’m so sick of Bruin fans settling for mediocrity. Let’s leave Toledo out of this. Why do you feel so compelled to compare Dorrell with other coaches? Dorrell’s record speaks for itself. The bottom line is he has won one big game in four years (barely). Never made it to a BCS bowl game. He lost to Fresno, Wyoming, and a bad FSU team in the worst of bowl’s. Fresno!!!! Wyoming!!!!!!! Aghhhhhhhh!!!!!! He’s drained more coaches than any other college football coach in NCAA history. How the heck does this not make you sick? You sympathetic alum are probably the same people unwilling to stand and yell on a third and one. For Gods sake stand up and make some noise.

Brian,

Thanks for making this blog more interactive. I'm able to post, drive 45 min downtown to Coor's Field and not skip a beat. It's nice to banter real time with Bruin and SC fans alike. Good job.

Saying that the team was worse under Toledo ignores the fact that UCLA has underachieved with Dorrell as coach. In 4 years we have lost 10 games in which we were favored to win; that is more losses than all but 3 of 65 teams in BCS conferences. The oddsmakers are not dumb, they think we should be winning more games and so do I.

Odds given to me from Vegas this season 50:1 Last season was 30:1 How's that for a lack of confidense from the true experts. Like last season I will look at the ticket everyday until the first loss. This year I expect to look at it until pay day.

Pat

I stand corrected. I was remembering Toledo's overall record. But let me correct you.

"You're wrong. Click here to see the AP pre-season poll for '03 (that was Dorrell's first season). UCLA got not one single pre-season vote. 6 other Pac-10 teams got at least one vote. UCLA got 0(!). So, at least as far as the AP goes, UCLA was ranked to finish as low as 7th(!) in the Pac-10 (or possibly even lower!)."

You are looking at the wrong data. An AP doesn't tell you anything to disprove what I said. Yet you try and make a case out of thin air anyway. Here is the data that proves Dorrell was picked to finish as high as 2nd in the conference as I said.

Im glad you enjoy comparing Dorrell to Toledo who was fired. Go on, because Dorrell should be fired too. You are the champion of mediocrity. Good for you. Fortunately, most UCLA fans are not so myopic.

Pat

I stand corrected. I was remembering Toledo's overall record. But let me correct you.

"You're wrong. Click here to see the AP pre-season poll for '03 (that was Dorrell's first season). UCLA got not one single pre-season vote. 6 other Pac-10 teams got at least one vote. UCLA got 0(!). So, at least as far as the AP goes, UCLA was ranked to finish as low as 7th(!) in the Pac-10 (or possibly even lower!)."

You are looking at the wrong data. An AP doesn't tell you anything to disprove what I said. Yet you try and make a case out of thin air anyway. Here is the data that proves Dorrell was picked to finish as high as 2nd in the conference as I said.

Im glad you enjoy comparing Dorrell to Toledo who was fired. Go on, because Dorrell should be fired too. You are the champion of mediocrity. Good for you. Fortunately, most UCLA fans are not as generous.

Dorrell's first mistake came from the hiring of Larry Kerr,who was an awful DC,the job was over his head,the second mistake was the hiring of Svoboda.I think he has gotten it right ,and i believe he is an excellent coach.If he can keep this staff inact for some time I expect big things ahead.Eric scott brings more than just recruiting to the job,he brings what UCLA has lacked in recent years,FIRE.AN attitude for winning ,not settling for mediocrity,and most of all an eye for talent,UCLA has been handing out scholies to guys who just dont cut it.Welcome back coach Scott!

Dorrell's first mistake came from the hiring of Larry Kerr,who was an awful DC,the job was over his head,the second mistake was the hiring of Svoboda.I think he has gotten it right ,and i believe he is an excellent coach.If he can keep this staff inact for some time I expect big things ahead.Eric scott brings more than just recruiting to the job,he brings what UCLA has lacked in recent years,FIRE.AN attitude for winning ,not settling for mediocrity,and most of all an eye for talent,UCLA has been handing out scholies to guys who just dont cut it.Welcome back coach Scott!

I just realized why DumpDorrell is so annoying.

It's not his positions and opinions...
Rather it's his frequency of posts coupled with the number of sites he's active on. It's like you cannot escape him. AND he runs his own site too!

DumpDorrell, is there anyplace in the Bruins Sports online universe where fans can interact w/out you interjecting? I have this nightmare that you're going to be sitting next to my group this season, booing from before kickoff and chanting "Dump Dor-rell.. clap. clap. clapclapclap" all game long, even when it's a win!

DD. In no way does your link support your statement. CFN alone picked UCLA 2. Everyone else had them around 5-7.

Linking means by which to discredit yourself is a poor way to convince people.

DumpDorrell wants UCLA to win.
UCLA is not winning (in football).
**That** is what is annoying.

DumpDorrell wants UCLA to win.
UCLA is not winning (in football).
I find that annoying.

Anonymous @ 10:20 pm:

My statement: "In Dorrell's first year UCLA was ranked pre-season to finish as high as 2nd(!) in the Pac-10"

Your statement: "DD. In no way does your link support your statement. CFN alone picked UCLA 2." So, in attempting to prove me wrong you corroborated my statement. Feel stupid now?

Your statement: "Linking means by which to discredit yourself is a poor way to convince people." I agree. Do you now feel discredited? I suspect not, people like you never admit mistakes.

Anonymous @ 10:12 pm. I dont know where else I am posting that you would be reading. I post at BN (which I would assume you dont read), once a day normally at DD, and occasionally here and Whats Bruin. Today, some posters and I had a dialogue on this site so there be more posts than usual .. feel free to not read my posts and to grow up, seriously. You dont have an opinion just attacks, grow up.

So one publication out of 20 or 30 picked UCLA 2nd and Dumpy is all over it??? What a great way to evaulate Dorrell and UCLA's 2003 expectations.

Instead of looking at all the data, just find the one you agree with and extrapolate from there. Brilliant!!!

Does anyone honestly believe Dumpy went to UCLA?

Trey

Are you just here to cause trouble? Seriously, you accuse me of intellectual deception by practicing deception yourself. First of all I never said or insinuated I did an analysis of all the experts predictions. There were 12 publications NOT "20 or 30." And it wasn't just 1 publication that thought as highly of Dorrell's teams potential in the Pac-10 in '03. 2 others picked UCLA to finish 3rd in the Pac-10 in '03 (1 of those was a tie) and another 4th. So enough "experts" thought highly enough of the talent that year for Dorrell not to choke, like he did, which was my point.

This year, although the average ranking is obviously higher and should be higher, there are similar appraisals as in '03 ... which is frankly a joke. Not one publication picks UCLA to finish higher than 2nd. Jim Feist has UCLA finishing 5th (he had UCLA finishing 4th '03) as does the Seattle Intelligencer. And one publication (Blue Ribbon Yearbook, published on ESPN) even picks UCLA to finish 6th in the Pac-10 this year - just like some publications in '03! Rivals.com doesn't even have UCLA finishing in the top 25. The sportsbooks have the over/under on wins set at a lowly 9.

More to the point, it's no accident that several publications (ESPN, Real Football, USA Today, et al) have printed articles that state that Dorrell is on the hot seat this year. Stewart Mandel of Sports Illustrated called Dorrell "one of the 5 worst coaches in college football." A Sporting News writer said Dorrell was the 48th best coach in Div 1. I did not coerce these publications or write the articles under someone else's name. These are talking points now among national sports writers.

So continue to suggest that those critical of Dorrell's performance are not graduates of UCLA. Fine analysis there.

** all the info I noted above can be found here

*correction. I noticed a typo above. DD has over 30,000 page views a month, not visitors.

Dump Dorrell,

I think Mr. Meaghan's point is that you have been misrepresenting facts to prove your case to "dump dorrell". You say according to your facts that UCLA was ranked in the preseason to finish as high as 2nd from the link you provided ...and while that is true, you conveniently leave out that the same source you provided also had UCLA to finish as low as 7th by TWO publications. It was ranked to finish 6th by three publications/"experts" and 5th by three others. Only ONE publication (the one you cited) ranked UCLA to finish 2nd. The OVERALL preseason consensus had UCLA ranked 5th and in the end UCLA's final ranking in the Pac-10 after the 2003 season was 5th...basically just as pundits(as well as the pac10 media) have predicted.

In 2004, the overall preseason consensus rank for UCLA was an 8th place finish. UCLA finished 5th place in the Pac10 that year...better than what pundits have predicted.

In 2005, the overall preseason consensus rank for UCLA was 4th place(tie with oregon). Pac 10 media predicted a 5th place finish and UCLA ended that year finishing 3rd place in Pac 10...again better than what pundits have predicted.

In 2006, the overall preseason consensus rank/prediction for UCLA was a 5th place finish. TWO separate publications predicted an 8th place finish...however, UCLA finished 2006 in 4th place in the pac10...again better than what pundits have predicted.

Read these facts however you like and form your opinion. While I agree with you that UCLA could have done better especially in certain games, I think overall the UCLA football program is in great shape and it is poised for a great year. (just look at consensus rankings, how we are ranked over Cal even though the AP poll puts us below CAL).

Lastly, I don't consider myself a Karl Dorrell "fan" per se and I think it is unfair to label all who disagree with you(and I believe there are many...definitely way more than your 1000 visitor per day fan base) as Dorrell cultists or Dorrell apologists or Doreellistas as the few in BruinBooHooNation seems to like to use. Stopping using the "WE" UCLA fans mantra because your views do not represent the whole UCLA fan base only a very small fraction of it.

"So continue to suggest that those critical of Dorrell's performance are not graduates of UCLA. Fine analysis there."

You misrepresent me when you write this. I am really saying with no uncertainly is that your analysis is so shallow and devoid of fairness and its this that causes me to question your academic background. You have already proven in prior posts that you are not a credible gatherer of facts. And it is your unfairness that makes me MORE sympathetic of Karl Dorrell because it’s rather obvious that you go out of your way to be biased against him.

it's interesting how the issue of discussion has strayed from Eric Scott to Dorrell and his job because of one man and his agenda to fire Dorrell...

let me clarify to DumpDorrell what Pat is saying. He is saying that every program will have issues. It's how a program deals with those issues once the facts are presented that shows whether a program has quote unquote integrity or whatever it is that makes a program clean.

He is saying that the institute across town handles it a different way than UCLA does. Example, Ray "I OWWN the police" Maulaga punches someone's lights out and what's his punishment? He gets to play the next game. But, Justin Medlock has a DUI and gets immediately suspended and misses the bowl game. There is a difference in how things are handled when issues come up.

Regarding Scott's misdemeanor charges...UCLA and any team is allowed to hire people who have misdemeanor records...it's when the offense is a felony that those are flagged and denied employment. According to Kevin Pearson of PE, Eric Bienemy had 4 misdemeanor offenses...why wasn't there a huge fuss over that? Coach Bienemy was nothing but a good example to the UCLA kids when he coached there. His 4 misdemeanors IN THE PAST did not affect how he coached and did not drag down the program. This is the same situation with COach Scott. His offenses were in the past... if he is found currently in this recent case to have an offense and UCLA doesn't discipline or rectify then there is a problem. But Coach Scott has not been found to have committed any offenses and no necessary disciplinary action needs to be currently taken.
UCLA and Coach Dorrell has done its best to rebuild the image of UCLA and restore the sense of institutional control it lacked when Toledo was running the program.

I'm the westwood village idiot. -DumpDorrell

"Remember Dorrell keeps telling us UCLA football is about Character and Integrity."

DumpDorrell, is this statement a fact? Please show us your sources. And please give more than one different source since you use the word "keeps telling us." I highly doubt you can find any sources and I highly suspect you just pull them out of your butt. Maybe that's why your arguments stink.

DumpDorrell has hijacked this blog!
This isn't about UCLA football,
it's about DumpDorrell DumpDorrell DumpDorrll
DumpDorrellDumpDorrellDDDDDDDDD

Help!

Everyone is SICK OF DUMPDORRELL!!!!! If Dorrell goes 7-6 he will and should be FIRED!!!! But we don't need Dumpdorell and his NEGATIVITY ALL DAY ALL THE TIME!!!!!!!!!!

Dumpy, its time for you to get off the computer and take your medicine.

"Im glad you enjoy comparing Dorrell to Toledo who was fired. Go on, because Dorrell should be fired too. You are the champion of mediocrity. Good for you."

Putting your ad hominem aside for now, the purpose of comparing the records of Toledo's last 4 years and Dorrell's first 4 years was two-fold:

A) To correct a very specific factual misrepresentation that you posted ("Toledo's 4 year record prior to Dorrell starting, in other words Toledo's worst years, was STILL BETTER than Dorrell's.").

B) To remind you (and all of us) of the hole that Toledo's successor has had to dig himself out from.

Getting a football program from the pit the Toledo regime left it in to the heights that you appear to demand does not happen overnight... especially if the new coach can't cut corners, recruiting-wise, and bring in non-qualifiers like, say, DeSean Jackson or Reggie Dunn. But the good news, as I've demonstrated above, is that the improvement IS happening, the improvement is measurable, and future improvement is exceptionally likely, given the fact that recruiting (arguably the most important factor in any college football team's success, or lack of same) has improved EVERY SINGLE YEAR under Karl Dorrell. So hooray for that, and hooray for us Bruins!

"Fortunately, most UCLA fans are not as generous."

I'd ask for the evidence upon which you base that assertion, but, thus far, your evidence has been utterly fraudulent. So I'm almost afraid to do so. But, what the heck, I'm feeling optimistic today, so here goes: got any evidence to support that assertion?

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

This isn’t about Dump and it's not about Toledo or Tedford. It’s about a coach that has not fulfilled the standard of quality expected or even any resemblance of discipline football (excluding the 2005 offense and the 2006 defense). I’ve always said Dorrell can win with a great coaching staff around him. This year he should and he must win. As always I’m rooting for him. But lets not stick our heads in a hole and act as if everything has been peachy for the last four years. We cannot live with Dorrell’s prevent offense one more season. Go Norvell!!!!!

Losses to Wyoming, the freaking cowboys from WYO. Fresno State, the freaking bulldogs from Nor Cal. The Mountain West, and the WAC. AGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And FSU in bowl games three out of four years. Melt downs against Notre Dame, Washington, Oregon, an almost melt down to Rice, last year. Rice I say!!!!

Quit yelling at Dump and start expecting more from what is a Powerful 100 National Championship School. At the moment the girls are the only teams bringing home hardware. I live in Big 12 country and it’s been somewhat humbling to be a Bruin football fan. After the Washington and ND games, down right embarrassing.

In the Midwest, fans aren’t happy in 4th place, or even a trip to the Rose Bowl. They expect to compete for a National Championship year in / year out. If you still don’t understand, take a field trip to Figueroa where all the PAC 10 National championship and Heisman trophies reside. They will be more than happy to show you.

Stand up and make noise, it’s third and one.

"This isn’t about Dump and it's not about Toledo or Tedford. It’s about a coach that has not fulfilled the standard of quality expected or even any resemblance of discipline football (excluding the 2005 offense and the 2006 defense)."

Bob,

You're certainly right that this isn't about DumpDorrell, and it isn't about Toledo or Tedford, per se, except insofar as their programs (and others) are useful measuring sticks against which to evaluate Dorrell's program and/or to determine what Dorrell has/had to work with when he took over.

I understand that you've been disappointed with some of the football team's results under Dorrell. But your general list of complaints doesn't help me (or anyone) to understand what precise, objective standard you expect the UCLA football program (under Dorrell, or any coach) to meet. Nor do phrases like "standard of quality" or "resemblance of discipline football." And, again, THAT's the purpose of bringing up the record of Tedford, or Toledo, or anyone else when discussing the record of Dorrell... to try and add some objectivity to an otherwise subjective debate.

"In the Midwest, fans aren’t happy in 4th place, or even a trip to the Rose Bowl. They expect to compete for a National Championship year in / year out. If you still don’t understand, take a field trip to Figueroa where all the PAC 10 National championship and Heisman trophies reside. They will be more than happy to show you."

Those trophies are there because that program cheats, and is willing to enroll "student"-athletes who could never survive at UCLA. The day that UCLA football program stoops to those levels in pursuit of W's is the day that I am no longer a UCLA football fan. I don't care *how* many trophies we win, if that's what it takes to earn 'em. To my mind, that's what separates me from a Trojan fan.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

How about changing your measuring stick and compare it to coaches that don't provide mediocrity year in / year out. Mack Brown, Pete Carrol, Phil Fulmer, Bob Stoops, Bobby Bowden, Steve Spurrier, Tom Tubberville, Urban Myer, Frank Beamer, Jim Tressle. How about, Woody, Bo, Ara, McKay, Vermeil, Prothro, Osborne.

These are the type of programs I want to be compared with. These guys want to win the whole enchilada year in /year out.

Cal sucks. Toledo sucked. Quit comparing us to crap.

"How about changing your measuring stick and compare it to coaches that don't provide mediocrity year in / year out. Mack Brown, Pete Carrol, Phil Fulmer, Bob Stoops, Bobby Bowden, Steve Spurrier, Tom Tubberville, Urban Myer, Frank Beamer, Jim Tressle. How about, Woody, Bo, Ara, McKay, Vermeil, Prothro, Osborne. These are the type of programs I want to be compared with."

Wow, so many of those guys ran/run dirty, mercenary programs. Pete Carroll, I assume, needs no explanation on this board. Jim Tressel presides over an Ohio State program where players were found to have benefitted to the tune of no-show jobs and cash handouts (this also happened under Tressel at Youngstown St., by the way.). Tom Osborne recruited and played thugs like Christian Peter (even after he'd been convicted of sexual assault) and Lawrence Phillips (even after he'd dragged his ex-girlfriend down a flight of stairs by her hair). And those three are just off the top of my head!

The day UCLA has a dirty, mercenary football program like Pete Carroll's, Jim Tressel's, or Tom Osborne's is the day I cease to be a UCLA football fan.

I may as well go be a trojan fan if I wanted victory at any cost.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

“The day UCLA has a dirty, mercenary football program like Pete Carroll's, Jim Tressel's, or Tom Osborne's is the day I cease to be a UCLA football fan.”

Well Pat maybe today is the day you cease being a UCLA football fan. Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought Brian started this thread because the DA declined to file charges against a UCLA Assistant Football Coach because the witnesses are not cooperating (it was actually further reported today on the radio that the DA can’t locate the 911 caller who phoned in the robbery).

A Football Coach arrested...that is a first...even for USC!

Pat,

I really don't see much difference between you and Dump. You will always find fault with some aspect of a coach or the program. If you want I can list numerous things about Dorrell's off field problems. I choose not to. I choose to judge coaches by how they perform his or her job duties. In UCLA case the coach was hired to do exactly what Dorrell promised to do, bring UCLA a Pac 10 Championship. Play to win a National Championship, to bring forth the best product possible to the gridiron every Saturday.

The coaches I listed were out of admiration for the quality and dedication performed, not during the week but on Saturdays.

In Coach Scott’s case, I can care less about his past and hope he cleans up his future. I do believe he has done good for his community and good for most of the kids he’s coached. I welcome him back with open arms and pray he continues to recruit like he has in the past. I say, unless you are close to the situation and people you call out, don’t be so quick to judge, and don’t be so quick to throw the stone. I’m sure if your personal life was under public scrutiny you might be stoned yourself. A stone or two have hit me.

A lot of people (SC fans) called out Coach Wooden during his tenure. You won’t find anyone more honorable than Coach.

"Well Pat maybe today is the day you cease being a UCLA football fan. Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought Brian started this thread because the DA declined to file charges against a UCLA Assistant Football Coach because the witnesses are not cooperating (it was actually further reported today on the radio that the DA can’t locate the 911 caller who phoned in the robbery). A Football Coach arrested...that is a first...even for USC!"

Eric Scott, who did absolutely no wrong in this matter, has been on administrative leave (code word for "suspended") while the situation was being resolved.

By contrast, Rey Malaluga caved in a fellow student's face, taunted his victim and declared that he owns the police, and Pete Carroll played him the very next game.

That, my friend, in a nutshell, is an eloquent illustration of the difference between the UCLA program and yours. You're welcome to yours. I don't want it.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

Love the holier than thou attitude of Pat.

If you truly belive what you are saying does that mean you are not a fan of ucla basketball too? After all, St. Wooden ran the most corrupt program in NCAA history - don't deny me my glory either! I paid top dollar for those trophy's and there is too much evidence to support the allegations. I think Lavin had some ethical issues too!

Do you also not support your softball team, who was tagged with "lack of institutional control" by the NCAA and lost a championship title due to the fact they brought in a ringer, or as you call them a "student"-athlete?

You don't want to be associated with successful programs who have had some bad apples, but you have no problem with a team that employs a coach with an extensive rap sheet for weapons and drugs? Are you kidding us?

Like Bob says above, you need to re-evalulate your measuring stick and look in the mirror before you put on your holy garments and pronounce the rest of the world corrupt.

ucla is no different than the rest of them - especially if Scott stays on staff.

"I really don't see much difference between you and Dump. You will always find fault with some aspect of a coach or the program. If you want I can list numerous things about Dorrell's off field problems. I choose not to."

I understand that Karl Dorrell has had off-the-field problems. I don't know anyone who claims otherwise. But the difference between Karl Dorrell and, say, Pete Carroll (or, from the above examples, Tom Osborne), is that Karl Dorrell imposes consequences on those in his program who get into trouble, and the others don't.

I don't ask for flawlessness. I ask for consequences when misbehaviour occurs, because such consequences make future misbehaviour less likely, and because such consequences can provide the life lessons that turn boys (which is what a matriculating freshman is) into men (which is what a graduating senior should be).

"The coaches I listed were out of admiration for the quality and dedication performed, not during the week but on Saturdays."

I'm sure that's the case, but what I'm trying to say to you is that those coaches (or, at least, many of them) got their Saturday glory by breaking the rules Sunday through Friday, or by refusing to impose discipline when those beneath them broke said rules. That was the price of the glory. Well, I don't want my school to pay that price. You may not care what is done off-the-field by those who wear a UCLA jersey, but I do.

"I say, unless you are close to the situation and people you call out, don’t be so quick to judge, and don’t be so quick to throw the stone."

Absolutely. That's why I didn't jump on the train to fire Eric Scott. We didn't know what his involvement was in the recent matter, and we've since learned exactly what it was: nothing.

That's not the case, though, when it comes to Tom Osborne. Yeah, I'm sorry, but I feel kinda justified throwing stones at Tom Osborne. Friggin' Lawrence Phillips (while a player on Osborne's team) dragged a chick down a flight of stairs!!! By her hair!!! And Tom Osborne *reinstated* him on the team!!! Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and pass judgement on that.

But I promise you that if I ever, myself, drag a woman down a flight of stairs by her hair, I'll give Lawrence Phillips and Tom Osborne both a great big apology.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

Anon @ 2:02 am and Pat @ 3:16 pm - Are you serious with these comments?

"Coach Scott has not been found to have committed any offenses and no necessary disciplinary action needs to be currently taken" - Anon

"Eric Scott, who did absolutely no wrong in this matter" - Pat

What the hell is a grown man, employed as a coach for a D-1 football team doing at a crime scene with younger guys, guns, and "a large quantity" of pot? Nevermind that charges we dropped, no one is disputing the fact that he was there and with the two others.

I'd say some disciplinary action is in order here.

“Eric Scott, who did absolutely no wrong in this matter, has been on administrative leave (code word for "suspended") while the situation was being resolved.”

My bad Pat, I guess Eric Scott’s THREE previous arrests (not including this one...this would be FOUR) are just figments of my imagination too...and I am sure that UCLA is very proud right now to have an assistant football coach arrested...surrounded by guns and drugs. Scott is a great role model! Pat if you really believe what you are shoveling/writing you are just another myopic Bruin fan living in a glass house.

Sam, nice post. I wasn’t going to even bring you up because I didn’t think it was necessary...just saying your name can open up another can of worms, and bring out all of the hypocrites.

"If you truly belive what you are saying does that mean you are not a fan of ucla basketball too? After all, St. Wooden ran the most corrupt program in NCAA history"

Sorry, but I have no personal investment in John Wooden or his championships, as that was 20 years before I enrolled at UCLA. I don't know if his program did or did not get help from Sam Gilbert. I do know that John Wooden is no longer the UCLA basketball coach, Ben Howland is. Do you have some allegations to present regarding Ben Howland's program? And some evidence to support said allegations?

"I think Lavin had some ethical issues too!"

I don't know what ethical issues you're referring to, but Steve Lavin is no longer the UCLA basketball coach either. Ben Howland is.

"Do you also not support your softball team, who was tagged with "lack of institutional control" by the NCAA and lost a championship title due to the fact they brought in a ringer, or as you call them a "student"-athlete?"

I have no personal investment in the UCLA softball team. I've never been to a softball game in my whole life.

"You don't want to be associated with successful programs who have had some bad apples, but you have no problem with a team that employs a coach with an extensive rap sheet for weapons and drugs? Are you kidding us?"

For the umpteen-kajillionth time, I never said that I don't want to be associated with "bad apples," and I don't define integrity and character by the absence of poor behavior (and I certainly don't define integrity and character as the absence of poor behavior in a person's past). I define integrity and character (as regards a football program, such as Dorrell's) by the imposition of consequences as a response to poor behavior. Dorrell, consistently, imposes consequences when his charges behave poorly, which separates him from many other football coaches, most especially Pete Carroll.

And Eric Scott does not have a drug arrests on his rap sheet, by the way.

"look in the mirror before you put on your holy garments and pronounce the rest of the world corrupt."

The rest of the world isn't corrupt. But $c is.

"ucla is no different than the rest of them - especially if Scott stays on staff."

The fact that Scott was suspended for what turned out to be no crime whatsoever already differentiates us from $c, where players can cave in other peoples' faces and play the very next game.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

"My bad Pat, I guess Eric Scott’s THREE previous arrests (not including this one...this would be FOUR) are just figments of my imagination too..."

If I have to post this a trillion times, I will:

I don't define integrity and character by the absence of poor behavior (and I certainly don't define integrity and character as the absence of poor behavior in a person's past). I define integrity and character (as regards a football program, such as Dorrell's) by the imposition of consequences as a response to poor behavior.

"I am sure that UCLA is very proud right now to have an assistant football coach arrested...surrounded by guns and drugs."

Eric Scott committed absolutely no crime. However, if he'd, say, solicited a prostitute (W. Justice), threatened someone with a replica firearm (W. Justice), caved in a student's face (R. Malaluga), gotten caught with large quantities of Ecstasy (E. Scott), fractured a teammate's jaw over a video game dispute (D. Byrd), beaten his girlfriend (F. Rucker), got caught underage in a bar (M. Sanchez), or sexually assaulted a female student (M. Sanchez)... now *those* would be crimes.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

Pat -

By your definition, since all charges were either dropped or none filed to being with, the players you just listed "did absolutely no wrong".

I knew I'd get Sam out of the wood work!!!!!!!

What the hell took you so long.

Nice

“I don't define integrity and character by the absence of poor behavior (and I certainly don't define integrity and character as the absence of poor behavior in a person's past). I define integrity and character (as regards a football program, such as Dorrell's) by the imposition of consequences as a response to poor behavior.” - Pat

You can cut and paste your nonsense until your heart is content...but USC does not have a football coach that has been arrested FOUR times.

“Eric Scott committed absolutely no crime.” - Pat

Actually, charges were dropped against Eric Scott because the 911 caller can’t be located...which is a little different than absolutely not committing any crime...and I wouldn’t say absolute when a guy has been arrested 3 times, and then gets arrested a 4th time surrounded by guns and drugs.

“However, if he'd, say, solicited a prostitute (W. Justice), threatened someone with a replica firearm (W. Justice), caved in a student's face (R. Malaluga), gotten caught with large quantities of Ecstasy (E. Scott), fractured a teammate's jaw over a video game dispute (D. Byrd), beaten his girlfriend (F. Rucker), got caught underage in a bar (M. Sanchez), or sexually assaulted a female student (M. Sanchez)...”

..or had been arrested for assaulting another student trying to study at Denny’s in Westwood at 3:00 a.m. (Manning, Drew, Ebell), or being arrested for felony DUI and fleeing the scene of an accident on the 405 while leaving another female student athlete in the car (Medlock)...

“...now *those* would be crimes.” - Pat

Actually the charges were dropped against most if not all of the USC players you just listed...like Scott... so I guess they did absolutely nothing wrong too...or you are a Bruin hypocrite...one or the other.

Pat -

So if the offender is no longer at the university, or you just don't care about the sport, it's OK to cheat?

My point was not to cast ucla as worse or better than other big-time schools. It was to shine a light on the hypocrisy that you keep spewing all over this board. You can't have it both ways. If you want to hold other programs up to your standards, you need to acknowledge ucla's shortcomings too.

Since you're apparently a man of action when it comes to disclipline, I would think you would want Scott fired this instant for poor decision making and for the black eye he's given to the program.

Bob - it's not wood work that I crawled out of, but from under a rock. While I disagree with you on giving Scott another chance, your posts provide a nice perspective on things.

Pat,

Its time to drop the whole integrity act.

When Dorrell was interviewing Coach Scott for the position at UCLA, if you were reading this blog you would have known everything bout his past. Dorrell knew everything about this guy before he made the hire and yet claims not to know anything. . It was about improving the inter-city recruiting base in which Dorrell was being killed by SC, and that OK with me. I like Dorrell as a person but drop the halo act, he's the same as all the others.

Myself, one of the biggest Bruin fans in the world would take Pete as our coach in a heartbeat. I don't see the difference except for the National Championships, Rose Bowls, BCS bowl games, 5 star recruits, Heismans, going for it on forth and one, passing on first down, OFFENSE, and 10+ wins season. Screw your standards. You seem OK to be a loser every season.

"By your definition, since all charges were either dropped or none filed to being with, the players you just listed "did absolutely no wrong".

Actually, not all of the above charges were dropped. Justice was convicted, and then convicted again. Rucker: convicted. Wright's possession of massive quantities of E was never disputed. Byrd never disputed having broken his teammate's jaw in a video game fight. Malaluga never disputed caving in his schoolmate's face. Sanchez never disputed going into a bar underage.

All of the above, in other words, did wrong *while in Carroll's program*, yet all of the above (with the exception of Wright) continued in Carroll's program, and several of the above (Byrd, Malaluga, Sanchez) never missed a single game. No consequences. Again, that's the primary difference between UCLA and $c.

"Actually, charges were dropped against Eric Scott because the 911 caller can’t be located..."

Actually, the charges were dropped because there was no evidence that a crime was committed by Eric Scott. Not only can the 911 caller not be located, the alleged victim can't be located, and no one can provide evidence that Eric Scott was anywhere other than where he says he was: in the car, doing nothing. The sherrifs didn't find him in the house, the house occupants didn't say he was ever in the house, no identifiable human being in the world has claimed that he was ever, at any point, in the house. So what, exactly, did he do wrong? Answer: nothing.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

"So if the offender is no longer at the university, or you just don't care about the sport, it's OK to cheat?"

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that I have no particular knowledge of either of those programs, and don't know if those programs were run dishonestly. If they were, then I join you in saying "Boo, them!" Okay?

"You can't have it both ways. If you want to hold other programs up to your standards, you need to acknowledge ucla's shortcomings too."

Again, if presented with evidence of said shortcomings, I'll acknowledge them. I don't vouch, one way or the other, for the integrity of Wooden's programs or for the integrity of the UCLA softball team, as I just don't know enough about them to do so. If they were crooked, then they were crooked, and I think that's wrong. Okay?

"Since you're apparently a man of action when it comes to disclipline, I would think you would want Scott fired this instant for poor decision making and for the black eye he's given to the program."

In this instance, I have no idea what it is that Scott did wrong. So, no, until it is demonstrated to me that he did anything wrong, I think Scott's punishment (the already-served suspension while the matter was investigated) appears sufficient, and--again--far more than was imposed by Pete Carroll on several $c players who *did*, in fact, engage in acts of violence against others.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

"When Dorrell was interviewing Coach Scott for the position at UCLA, if you were reading this blog you would have known everything bout his past."

Hogwash. Please point me to the post from back when Eric Scott was being interviewed in which Brian Dohn reported that prospective-employee Eric Scott had 4 arrests and 2 misdemeanor convictions to his name.

You won't find any such post.

"Dorrell knew everything about this guy before he made the hire and yet claims not to know anything."

Brian Dohn has reported, after confirming with multiple sources, that Dorrell had no foreknowledge of Scott's arrests or convictions. You are, above, calling Dohn's sources all liars. Could you please provide some evidence to back it up?

"Myself, one of the biggest Bruin fans in the world would take Pete as our coach in a heartbeat. I don't see the difference except for the National Championships, Rose Bowls, BCS bowl games, 5 star recruits, Heismans, going for it on forth and one, passing on first down, OFFENSE, and 10+ wins season. Screw your standards. You seem OK to be a loser every season."

In college athletics, when it's my alma mater, if the choice is between cheating to win and allowing players to assault others without consequence (as Carroll does) or playing honestly and with disciple and losing, I'll take the latter. Sorry, that's just me.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

thank goodness this thread is over...

Thanks to Pat for writing exactly what I would say to flamers like "sam gilbert" and "jjh4suc"! Go away you trolls and stick with your own board!

Pat -

Now that you've had a few days to think about it, and you've answered every other question, can you finally answer the question that was repeatedly asked above?

"What the hell is a grown man, employed as a coach for a D-1 football team doing at a crime scene with younger guys, guns, and "a large quantity" of pot? Nevermind that charges we dropped, no one is disputing the fact that he was there and with the two others."

Pat, what is your definition of a hypocrite?

PS - Anonymous, I guess this thread wasn’t quite over yet!