Weekly Answers, Pt. 9
Check out the latest batch of weekly answers...
1) How many QB's do we take in this class? and who do you think those QB's will be? Thanks - 909Bruin
I think they take two, and I think they'll be Hundley and a second-tier guy, like a Gretzky type. Maybe Berglund will flip back over at a later date.
2) What is your review of the famous Zesto's in Omaha? - Gourmand
Absolutely, positively, without a doubt: Average. The burger was something anyone could make in a backyard. Maybe a little thicker patty, but definitely didn't taste great. The condiment selection is a joke: ketchup, mustard, onion. Done. The chocolate shake was good, but not the best I've had. Overall, a C-. The atmosphere is pretty cool, though. I'll give it that.
3) I recall last year you were kind of tossed into covering UCLA football on an interim basis during pre-season workouts. Nevertheless, you dived right in and made it seem like you'd been on the beat for years. So, a few questions...like what did you do to prepare? What did you know about UCLA going into the assignment? What do you remember from that first day and what was it like? (PS, congrats on your first anniversary covering UCLA) - Anonymous
To prepare I read most of Brian Dohn's coverage from last year and devoured the blog stuff while really just trying to get a feel for the personalities on the team. Hardest part of this job is cultivating sources, and I tried to meet as many people as early as I could. I knew a little about UCLA from following Ben Olson's career, but when I was gone in San Diego, Wyoming and Las Vegas, I wasn't checking often. I remember the first day at the UCLA media day vividly. It was nice to have 15 blog items to put up. Can't wait to do it again.
4) Uh oh...Seantrel didn't show at USC's orientation. Speculation is that Miami and Ohio State may still be options, but if I remember correctly we were on his list at one point. Any chances Neu has his number? - Mike H Class of 90
I'm sure Neuheisel has tried, but that one's a moooooon shot. Ain't happening.
5) Will vuvuzelas be allowed at the rose bowl? - Anonymous
Don't even joke about that. The single most annoying aspect of sports at the moment. Besides the LeBron spectacle. And the balk.
Only 20% of questions on SC. Making progress people.
Seantrel's a Hurricane.Good enough for me that he's not in the PAC-10. Now let's move on.
LETS ALL GET VUVUZELAS!!!
There seems to be small pockets of discontent against Gold's UCLA coverage (See Jon Gold needs to cover some other team..., http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=12&f=1738&t=6110504) of which I admit I am a member. I was wondering if the actual number of hits for the blog has increased, decreased, stay the same since Jon has taken over. Let's get an answer sports editor?
Be careful what you wish for. Brian, and now Jon, are both infinitely better than the alternative. I am thankful for having a solid go to source for my UCLA fix.
I want to second blackstone's comment: if you're not happy with Jon's coverage, DON'T READ IT. There are plenty of other blogs out there that you can follow!
Unless you're prepared to put your money where your mouth is and actually cut a check to the Daily News to help pay for a replacement, you need to keep you whining to yourself.
My two cents. I'm more than a little satisfied with Jon Gold running this blog. I'm even okay that he's not a Bruin fan. As long as he keeps playing it straight down the middle, I'm good. Matching Dohn is still a reach but he's got his own style and will continue to improve the longer we've got him and I'm proud to send people here to read about UCLA (although I warn them about some of the commenters. sorry).
Don't read it if you are unhappy with it? That's the only option? How about offer some constructive criticism and try and get the blog back to the level it was once at. Wow, I guess its really unreasonable of me and others (check the link even more people are voicing their displeasure at Jon's coverage) would like for the Daily News UCLA blog to be a good source of UCLA sports information. Generally speaking I have stopped, checking 50 times a day that is, like i used to with Dohn, he'd always have some great nugget of information. I would like to see whether the number of hits have gone up, gone down or stayed the same since Jon took over. I bet its gone down, much like the quality of coverage.
Pistalion, you've a right to your opinion and 'small pockets' are, well small pockets. additionally, I prefaced my remarks with 'my two cents'. further some of your comments haven't exactly swept me off my feet. that said, the nature of an anonymous blog means hidden agendas abound and no one can ever really tell when comments are meant simply and sincerely or to advance some not-so-easy-to-see agenda. I'm struck by the number of people who come here for no other reason than to disrupt the blog or to exercise their own wounded egos. I didn't follow your link and can't imagine I will. 50 times a day? wow. maybe you need a hobby.
Jon,
I don't think I have so adamently AGREED with you about all three:
"The single most annoying aspect of sports at the moment. Besides the LeBron spectacle. And the balk."
A minor difference, the LeBron thing was the most annoying.
After counting its profits, BSPN should feel dirty about that whole LeBron manufacured "news." (But then they're so SUC-like in their sport outlook).
Even accepting their sycophantic defenders contention that the LeBron thing was entertainment and not news, I content that entertainment should at least have some connection of relevancy to make it worthwhile.
I don't think the Lakers have to worry. The Celtics big three worked because they were mature, seasoned veterans willing to 'share' for the sake of the team, and Garnett easily took the role as leader on a team built on defense.
Let's see how the Miami pups respond to who the 'leader' of the Miami Three Amigos as the other two start "chucking it from the cheap seats" when under pressure.
@Dr. Sam Gilbert
Glad to see that you proudly wear the prestigious doctorate in Dolus Malus bestowed by the University of Southern California.
I'm not familiar with the "UCLA Hair Club" is that a marketing organization like United States China (USC) Marketing?
Or is that one of the MLM firms that are so popular among the many USC athletes at our institution who can't make it through our stenuous courses like Ballroom Dancing and language courses offered at USC Extension (LA Tech)?
My dissatisfaction with Jon Gold has no hidden agenda, I want a sports journalist covering UCLA to give us the best sports coverage possible. Some of my problems with Jon Gold.
1) He hasn't built up strong sources - alot of his information is just reposting other people's work. Why am I annoyed with this? He, as the Daily news UCLA sports guy, has opportunities that other people don't have, but also the responsibility (it is his job) to find out info that only his position can uncover. I don't need him to be a homer (Dohn was a Rutgers guy, not a UCLA guy) I just need him to do his job - part of that is reguritating whatever UCLA sports information gives out, but some of that is doing your own legwork.
2) He is not on the ball, his coverage of stories and events is late, other online sources are much more up to date that Gold. For example, the biggest story at UCLA is the dismissal of the 3 players. Do we know why they were dismissed, what was the terms of their dismissal, is there any chance they could come back? He must not think its important because he has given scant coverage on it.
There is not ulterior motive, I just want Gold to do his job.
Couple of things,...1) it takes time to build up a network of good sources. considering he came in cold-turkey and has been at it a whole year I think he's doing better than a good job. sorry. 2) it's a free blog. 3) I don't mind if he reposts something from other sources. I don't have the time (nor inclination) to monitor every sports outlet that might have a UCLA story. 4) you don't know why they were dismissed? 5) it's a free blog. 6) Dohn was very, very good. 7) Dohn wasn't as good as some people make him out to be. (he'd be the first to admit it). 8) Dohn left. 9) it's a free blog. 10) I wish Jon had a second writer to cover for him when he's otherwise unavailable. 11) I'd like to see something everyday, preferably a couple of things. 12) This will (thankfully) never be Bruin Nation.
My $0.02.
THIS BLOG IS NOT FREE. When a company puts ads on a website that I frequent, they make me a paying customer.
Like most rational people, I think that Jon as some sort comings, just as Brian did. I think they both have done a great job of getting us information that wouldn't otherwise get. To think that this could be a one-stop shop for all things UCLA is ridiculous.
*Like most rational people, I think that Jon HAS some SHORT comings, just as Brian did.
Too much Sunday bourbon...
@Reformed Droog,
Hopefully not Maker's Mark, an inferior blend.
We all have our sort comings. And by your definition then virtually nothing in this life is free. Fair enough but you know what I meant.
I prefer Hudson Bourbon...
@MichaelRyserson - I should have been clearer about what I meant. Yes, it's minor, but to me, this is an obvious extension of a news organization/business. To reinforce that point, the organization put ads on the blog to generate income. (Sometimes I would swear that Dohn was writing inflammatory things just to drive page hits...)
Sure, we as readers are not paying a subscription, and I think that many of us forget that, but there has to be some accountability and standards from the news organization's side, too. And the fact that they are not charging readers cannot be an excuse every time something negative is brought up about the blog. Neither can the fact that "it's just a blog" be an excuse.
Basically, we're in agreement here, just a couple of quibbles. Had a 'free' daily newspaper left on my lawn the other day. 'Free' meaning it isn't the daily I subscribe to and I didn't ask for it. I took it in the house and gave it a look. Nice paper. The fact it had advertising in it and I was being exposed to the ads and the fact that the paper could now use my perusal in computing an eyeball count to prospective advertisers, doesn't change my opinion that to me, it was a 'free' paper. Hence, this is a 'free' blog. Your point is well taken though. My serial reference to the blog as 'free' was meant as a counter to the viewers who complain that they visit '50 times a day' and expect something to have been posted each time they show up. I think for a blog that doesn't charge a subscriber fee, that may be an unreasonable threshold. I think Jon is a fair to middlin' writer, takes his gig seriously, presently compares favorably to Dohn and will only get better. I think we're on the same side here.
Agreed.