Surprise, surprise! Extremely disappointed in Josh. I was hoping he’d be man enough to face his mistakes, learn from them, and then become a better person. It was not to be.

Both Josh and his older brother have made bad mistakes in life, this rests on his parents. Way to go! Also, think about it guys, do we really want this guy playing such an important cerebral role on our defense? Not I, hopefully the rain in Seattle will help camouflage his tears, what a baby.

Didn’t the UW fans and supporters railed against Coach Neuheisel because he wasn’t a disciplinarian? Now their new coach took in a player that CRN disciplined and dismissed from his team. Kind of ironic.

Well, they did need someone to replace the guy who was dismissed for failing his drug test. Why not get a thief? That makes sense.

Sarkisian is from Pete’s school of recruiting. “I don’t know anything…it couldn’t have happened”. Sarkisian is not kidding anyone. He dropped his TE as a PR move knowing there were going to be questions when he picked up Shirley. Apparently Shirley would rather live life like a “Dawg” than a Bruin. I hope our O-line pancakes him on a regular basis.

What do you expect from a thief? Good riddance!!!!

Washington…we take your felons!

Shirley is bad mouthing UCLA on his twitter account telling potential recruits to think twice about going….like the coaches somehow wronged him and lied to him about something.

I felt bad for Shirley because I felt he may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but now I say good riddance.

Robear20,

Yeah, I heard about what he’s writing; the kid is upset. Regardless of what happened, he feels UCLA cut him off. Realistically, I don’t think anything he writes on twitter will have an impact on UCLA recruiting.

would be nice to get more info if he really was involved or not.

I would think CRN/AD/compliance would have sat down with him, gotten his side of the story, and determined if he was involved or not. And because he was dealt the same punishment, it implies that there was an equal share of involvement.

cliq said:
“would be nice to get more info if he really was involved or not.”

No need for more information. There is no doubt that Shirley was involved; the actions of he and the Richardsons are on tape.

“I would think CRN/AD/compliance would have sat down with him, gotten his side of the story, and determined if he was involved or not.”

Why did you think those professional you cite did not do what you suggest? At the very least CRN and the recruiting coach, and most likely a legal official from UCLA, sat with Shirley, and probably his parents, and laid out the situation of the suspension.

Do you think that Shirley read about the decision in the newspapers? Remember CRN has a law degree, he has been involved in law suits against the UW and NCAA (and won), he is fully aware of the legal implications of the actions he and the university have taken.

“And because he (Shirley) was dealt the same punishment, it implies that there was an equal share of involvement.”

Now you’re confusing criminal jurisprudence and ethics. (A very USC perspective). Call me old fashion, but being involved with friends stealing something and not doing anything because it might infringe on one’s ‘rep’ is certainly grounds for losing the privilege of gift bestowed upon one.

We can imply that the charges against Shirley are not as great as those against the Richardsons since Shirley was allowed to leave police custody without having to post bail (own recognizance), but from a jurisprudence standpoint he can still be found guilty of being an accomplice to the crime.

Very likely his court mandated sentence will not be as harsh as the Richardsons. Strictly a jurisprudence call based on discussions among prosecutor and the attorneys for the young men.

But the ouster of the young men from the university was not based on jurisprudence, but instead on ethics. Consider that:
(1) CRN’s own issue at UofW of being accused of not being more strict towards players with behavioral issues, and his recent handling of the EJ Woods issue,
(2) the train-wreck that is USC in our own backyard, and
(3) the UCLA Administration’s willingness to air the dirty laundry of coaches Jim Herrick and Bob Toledo

This offers an insight into the way the university (and CRN) arrived at a decision about the young men.
Theirs was not going to be a decision determined by the level of involvement; it was based on a code of ethics. While I have never seen the paperwork that bestows a scholarship to an athlete, I would be greatly surprised in this day-and-age if there was not a morals clause that is pointed out to students, i.e. accepting money, stealing, or moral turpitude.

Shirley and the Richardsons were not dismissed from UCLA because of their level of potential criminal guilt of breaking a law of the State of California. Dismissal, I’m sure, was based on CRN, the AD and University officials seeing actions on tape that warranted invoking the morals clause of the contract the young men had entered into for a free education and the privilege of playing football at UCLA.

The young men were given their release so that they can carry their personal ethical benchmark to wherever it takes them.

In the case of Shirley it is to USC-North, which speaks volumes as to the young man’s character.

I’m probably in the minority but I think the punishment was a handled incorrectly. If you compare what these kids did versus what other athletes have done and look at the punishment they received it seems severe. I’m not trying to underestimate the gravity of their transgression by any means, but wish that Rick had given them a chance to redeem themselves. I do however support and agree with coach RN’s decision and understand the message of zero tolerance he has sent to his team. Nevertheless, I think giving them their release instead of forcing them to confront their misdeed was less painless for all three.