Answers, Part XI

Thanks for the questions this week. Hope everyone enjoyed the answers and got some information from them. Now, here is the last set of answers:

Is there a reason other than money which could account for Warner’s failure to provide his transcripts to UCLA (i.e., his grades perhaps not being what he has orally reported to the coaching staff)?
No, my understanding is it is purely financial. I know UCLA defensive line coach Todd Howard spoke to Warner on Thursday, and I was told UCLA was expecting the transcripts any day.

In last week’s Q&A, you mentioned that you knew of “three signees that could become academic casualities.” Were you refering to high school signees, JC players, or both? When should we know for sure?
They are high school kids, and my understanding is the answers should be known by the end of June.

Give us a hint. What positions are we looking at loosing these new recruits at? The academic casualties. I assume DT is one. How about DB?
They play either offense or defense. How is that? If I wanted to get more in-depth about it, I would. I don’t think it is fair to name the kids, unless they are willing to talk about it. If they are willing to talk about it, I will write it, but so far I was told they want to keep it quiet.

You said that the O-line kids who signed LOI’s already(Hasiak, Capella, etc) “passed the eyeball test”. Should fans be excited that they have someone more physically able to compete, or should we be concerned over the lineman we have had and have in the program at this point?
Both, but I think the more important thing is they could be ready to come in and compete immediately. The concern over many of the linemen already in the program was evident last season. If UCLA wasn’t bringing in superior talent on the line, then it wouldn’t be time for concern, it would be time for panic.

Let’s assume the allegations are true and Derrick Rose should have been ineligible in 2008…how should UCLA fans feel about losing to a team that essentially was breaking the rules?
I don’t assume anything, but if I was a UCLA fan, I will feel cheated. But I also would have to wonder how different UCLA’s path may have been to get to the Final Four. If Memphis was not allowed to play in the tournament, it would change the seedings for a lot of teams, and UCLA may have faced a different matchup earlier and lost. I don’t think it is as simple as saying UCLA should have been in the title game because Memphis used an ineligible player.

Do you have any update on Bill Walton’s broadcasting career? Last I heard, he had serious back problems that precluded travel, but that was a year ago.

The Daily News’ Tom Hoffarth wrote about Bill Walton for today’s paper.

Are there any sons of former Bruin players that Howland’s got his eye on for recruiting?
Not that I’m aware of.

Share this post:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on TumblrShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page
  • bbruin

    Hey Brian, if you aren’t going to answer the question why don’t you just limit your response to 50 words or less. If you want a mellow blog be cool bro.

  • Anonymous

    Bill Walton is incredibly gifted as an analyst. So much insight is beyond merely coming from experience.