The impact of Richardsons/Shirley release
As most of you have heard, UCLA has released Josh Shirley, Shaquille Richardson and Paul Richardson from their letters of intent, making them re-recruitable by other teams and available to join other programs immediately.
So what does this all mean?
Well, first and foremost, I think it is the nail on the coffin on the "Slick Rick" moniker. Now, I'm not saying he won't toe the line and make borderline decisions on occasion - I truly believe that any coach needs to play that line with utmost care - but the recent trend of good behavior no longer appears to be a trend. With this decision - not just delaying their enrollment but actually allowing them to choose new schools - it's not only clear that Neuheisel is running a cleaner ship, but that he's making it known to recruits and players.
Secondly, the loss of these three players might not be so damning. Shirley was clearly the most coveted player, and for good reason. But he would've joined an incredibly cluttered linebacker corps, and the Richardsons were to join crowded positions - wideout and cornerback - as well. Not saying these aren't great players and top recruits. They certainly are. But the loss of, say, a Cassius Marsh or an Owa would be devastating. This should just sting a bit.
Thirdly, I wouldn't completely close the book on these guys just yet. I'm sure Neuheisel has made it clear to them that there would be a difficult road back. However, any school who signs recruits with pending felons will face plenty of critics. I would be surprised if any school jumps on them just yet, at least with the charges pending.
Now, I've heard from several people that Shirley strongly denies involvement. I've tried to reach him, but he hasn't returned my attempts, and I'd be surprised if he did any time soon. A very difficult situation, I'm sure.
Lastly, I know how important recruiting is to a program, truly the lifeblood and the future. But ultimately, a coach has to make a decision for the direction of his program. Neuheisel did. Like it or not, Neuheisel did.
Your cryptic first paragraph needs deciphering:
“Well, first and foremost, I think it (release of players) is the nail on the coffin on the "Slick Rick" moniker.”
Your nail ‘on’ the coffin cliché misses the implication of the idiom signifying that a nail in someone's coffin is a problem or event that is a clear step towards an inevitable failure.
So are you saying that CRN’s view by some as slick is going away by his actions?
-----------------------------------
“Now, I'm not saying he won't toe the line and make borderline decisions on occasion…”
Are you saying that this decision confirms the “Slick Rick” moniker that he won’t toe the line? This links back to the confusion of stating the action is a nail in the coffin in the moniker.
------------------------------------
“ - I truly believe that any coach needs to play that line with utmost care - but the recent trend of good behavior no longer appears to be a trend.”
In the same sentence are you going from a generalized belief about coaches to a comment on CRN’s behavior or is the comment about good behavior no longer a trend an issue across the coaching ranks?
-----------------------------------
“With this decision - not just delaying their enrollment but actually allowing them to choose new schools - it's not only clear that Neuheisel is running a cleaner ship, but that he's making it known to recruits and players.
This is straight up and understandable.
Jon, I get that Shirley denies involvement but if that were the case, doesn't it seem odd that Coach Neuheisel would summarily dismiss a player of Shirley's caliber? Surely there must be some bit of information that Coach is privy to for him to make such a big decision.
Or is he just working extra hard to ditch the Slick Rick moniker?
i live in Fontana and word on the street is that Washington is pushing really hard for Shirley. And i mean really hard. I would hate to lose him and i would hate it even more to lose him to a Pac 10 team.
Boston Bruin...
Well summarized.
Well, first and foremost, i think it is the nail in the coffin on the 'Slick Rick' monitor; that should be a dead issue.
Now I think Neuheisel will still make borderline decisions, toeing the line of responsible or irresponsible, but the recent trend of his good behavior no longer appears to be a trend, but rather indicates a firm and genuine new direction.
Is this the new sport over here to pick on Jon Gold; his commentary on Neuheisel turning over a new leaf seemed pretty clear.
Just sayin'
LAWYER JOHN
Elaborate on released. Usually in these situations it is conditional and they are not allowed to go to another Pac 10 school.
"However, any school who signs recruits with pending felons will face plenty of critics. I would be surprised if any school jumps on them just yet, at least with the charges pending." - Total BS. Football is a business. There are some schools that won't touch them, but there are a ton who will.
I know it is difficult to "police" (probably a bad choice of words) so many 17-22 year olds, but wouldn't the time to make it known to recruits and players that he wanted to run a "cleaner ship" be BEFORE three of them (allegedly) decided to commit a crime? I know that is harsh, but I have been a bit concerned with the academic casualties on RN's watch, and then this incident. Do you need to TELL players not to do something this stupid? No, but it just makes me curious what we did and did not tell them before it happened.
As far as the "Slick Rick" moniker going by the boards, Jon you make a good point. But again (likely being overly critical again here), wouldn't it be more apt to say this IF the incident DID involve someone of the level of Marsh or Owa?
Well, first and foremost, Boston Bruin is a d!ckhe@d! Everyone knows what Jon meant by his post. But, I do hear that certain people that feel compelled to demonstrate the size of their brain are compensating for shortcomings elsewhere. Just sayin' Was that clear enough for you, Boston Bruin?
Pretty sure Boston Bruin is just confused by our lack of hockey talk.
JJA42
Are you absolutley kidding? Do you think CRn told those kids to go out and try and get away with whatever they possibly can? hale no he didnt. I am sure every freshmen has a meeting with some sort of school official the speaks the about what is expected of UCLA student athletes. And most of the time this works, and it is garunteed that some people wont get the message, simple as that. And then to assume that SHirley was not a big time player as can be compared to Owa or Marsh is rediculous. Shirley could have attended any school he wanted as could owa and marsh. Do some research next time and dont be so synacle.
@spedjones,
email me at jon.gold@dailynews.com.
Thanks
Jon
@JJA42 Has it been that long since you were a child? If your parents not to tell you to do something, is the first thing in your head is to not to do it?
I say good riddance to bad apples. Even if we're losing, at can at least be proud to support UCLA football. And that's all I need.
haha, you said synacle.
I don't think there are any "pending" felony charges. My understanding is that victim declined to press charges once they had been booted from school, but maybe I misunderstood.
Assuming I'm right, I don't think any other schools will think twice about picking them up.
Is Jon trying to get another scoop from spedjones?
Jon - As always, thanks for the 411 and your efforts here.
@ Ultimate Burrito - I guess we all know where VB picked up his boorish behavior. Your fam's classless name-calling and insults of other posters drags this blog down as well as annoys most legit Bruin alums and fans here. It's one thing to disagree with another poster as a healthy debate and exchange of opinions is generally good for this blog but no need to stoop to the gutter...you're better than that.
To Maltbaa and anonymous:
I see that it is not worth the effort to post something here without individuals seeing what they want to see and/or simply taking things out of context. Oh well.
Great take, Jon. I am happy the CRN is taking a hard line with disciplinary issues. In this day of "anything goes," it is a taste of fresh air.
Sorry I hurt your sensibilities, sandiegobruinfan. But, IMHO, Boston Bruin WAS being a d!ckhe@d! And, if you are not amused by my posts, you have my permission to STOP F;CK!N' READING THEM.
@sandiegobruinfan
No, UB is not better than that. He relies on two things to get him through the day: belittling other people and his man bra.
I take pride that my graduate degree from UCLA and attempt to actually use it in my life.
When I read a posting sponsored by a newspaper, I do expect clarity of thought. Nowhere in my post did I attack Mr. Gold, I simply was looking for clarification on the intended meaning of his points being made. I didn’t belittle his points; I was trying to divine their specific meaning.
Mr. UB obviously took umbrage with my post, and mistakenly misconstrued (or was unable) to read my plain, unobtuse prose without reading into it some sort of an attack upon Mr. Gold.
Using his own quaint colloquial, “first and foremost” I would suggest that Mr. UB directly engage a service technician to check his keyboard as his typing incorporates a number of grammatical mark inconsistencies within certain words. Either that or he simply cannot spell.
Taking a stab at determining his intended word “d!ckhe@d” as meaning “dickhead,” he has obviously used it in an incorrect context by claiming I am one. That is physiologically impossible. I indeed have one, but it is impossible for my entire being to actually be one. But Mr. UB may be the best judge of that point since he seems to think about the male member more than I do.
His next point, “Everyone knows what Jon meant by his post,” is obviously unfounded since every person asked to read Mr. Gold’s points would not know the meaning, primarily because not “everyone” reads English. A second large stratum of “everyone” would include those people who know nothing about UCLA and CRN. And even among those who do, I’d suggest that there would be at least one person who would be confused by Mr. Gold’s explanation.
Mr. UB goes on to write, “But, I do hear that certain people that feel compelled to demonstrate the size of their brain are compensating for shortcomings elsewhere.” Now where exactly did Mr. UB hear that? Certainly it was not in a UCLA Biology, Physiology or any Psychology class? Perhaps it was at a gathering of his like-minded friends who trade erroneous and unfounded understandings of Freud’s psychosexual theories? Hummm, isn’t that also another reference to the sexual organ!
By ending his post with “Just sayin',” Mr. UB seemed to want to end his post with the flourish of a “hipper-than-hip” cliché, allowing all readers to surmise that he is “down” with street argot. Unfortunately his choice of words was off the mark since no one has said anything, although much was written. Perhaps if Mr. UB wanted to balance his “street cred” with an education (my assumption, I admit) he might want to connect more to the point of his actual actions by using “Just writin’” or perhaps an even more close-to-keeping-it-real version: “Just Jotin’”
Finally, I’ll quote Mr. UB once last time: “Was that clear enough for you, UB?
it is all good, boston bruin - UB isn't the most well-liked bruin around. outside of his family, it isn't clear who else, if anyone, takes him seriously.
"Mr. UB goes on to write, “But, I do hear that certain people that feel compelled to demonstrate the size of their brain are compensating for shortcomings elsewhere.”"
Boston Bruin, I don't think UB was referring to a sexual organ. I think he was referring to his man breasts and your lack thereof.
Ironically, UB (and all the little b's) often demonstrate to us the size of their brains...
Putting my personal feelings aside, I have to write about the following...
Boston Bruin wrote:
"By ending his post with “Just sayin',” Mr. UB seemed to want to end his post with the flourish of a “hipper-than-hip” cliché, allowing all readers to surmise that he is “down” with street argot. Unfortunately his choice of words was off the mark since no one has said anything, although much was written”
But Boston Bruin's original comment is:
"Your nail ‘on’ the coffin cliché misses the implication of the idiom signifying that a nail in someone's coffin is a problem or event that is a clear step towards an inevitable failure. So are you saying that CRN’s view by some as slick is going away by his actions?"
I know Jon is the first to use the word "say" (in this series of comments) but Boston Bruin buys into it as well. Why not call out Jon or ask, "So are you writing..."
I completely agree with Boston Bruin, I just had to comment :)