Weekly Answers, Pt. 2

Check out the latest batch of weekly answers…

1) How are we going to use Thigpen next year? – Anonymous
I’m still not sure. He could have the most to gain in spring ball, if he can be healthy and productive. You guys know what I think of his game. I still think he has a ton of potential.

2) The Johnson hire and the pending Shannon hire with Neuhiesel coaching QB’s really has me excited for next season. Am I being foolish for falling into this trap again? – Optimistic Bruin
Well, all I can tell you is my approach to general sports fandom, and that is always go into a year expecting a little worse than you actually hope for. So if you can look at the schedule, look at the relative talent compared to other teams, look at the experience that is returning at certain positions and say, I “hope” UCLA gets eight wins next season, then you should expect six or seven. All that to say, yeah, sure, be excited, but don’t expect utter greatness.

3) Jon, earlier you stated that not having an o or d coordinator was not necessarily hurting our recruiting, no that we know our o coordinator and should Shannon come on this week, are these two names considered a positive for recruits based on their resumes? – Tim
Well, I was speaking more toward the defensive coordinator side, because UCLA never was without an OC – even when thing were dicey for Norm Chow, he continued to do his job – but I also expected a few things to go the Bruins’ way that haven’t, particularly Stefan McClure. At this point, I think you have to say that not having an official DC has hurt during the process.

4) Jon – Since it seems like Howland has not been successful (struck out?) in recruiting a quality High School point guard recently, and seeing how Zeke Jones has come in and produced (beyond everyones expectation), is there any concentrated effort in looking at the JCs again this year, (ie the next couple of months) for another point guard to bring for next season (given that there’s are any potential/quality point guards that has potential like Zeke Jones)? – rejn
Yes, that could be an option, but its also a slippery slope. UCLA should, and will again, be able to recruit elite west coast point guards, and I think some of the issues have been with evaluation, not necessarily the actual recruitment of a player. That means getting on guys too late, or not at all, and expecting them to just love UCLA because the team went to three final fours a few years ago. I don’t think that cuts the mustard anymore.

5) I think that I now understand why so many of our football players and other UCLA athletes seek medical attention outside of the UCLA health system. According to http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm, UCLA spends the least of all PAC10 schools on athlete healthcare. Could it be the incompetence of the training staff or injuries being misdiagnosed by the head medical guy that makes athletes families seek outside medical treatments that they have to pay with their own insurance. Do we not owe our young athletes better care? Remember it is their playing on the fields and courts of UCLA that bring in the cash to the schools coffers. – Anonymous
All I know for certain that athletes at all schools seek outside assistance if they believe that is right for them. Happens everywhere.

Facebook Twitter Plusone Digg Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email
  • samohopar

    RE: Q5

    UCLA spending less per athlete is probably because UCLA is directly tied to the best medical facilities on the entire west coast. I doubt the school pays anywhere near what an outsider would. It’s pretty ignorant and extremely bad logic to assume that our athletes get worse care than the athlete’s at a school that spends more. Which athletic injury was misdiagnosed?

  • Anonymous

    UCLA Medical Center is the best in the West.
    Why are we talking medical care at UCLA Thletics?

  • Apache Joe

    Just because UCLA medical center is the best in the west, how does that directly mean that our athletes are being taken care of? I think it’s a very odd concept when athletes go out of the system at UCLA, if in fact UCLA has the best in the west type of medical care. Why would they do that? There are major internal problems in the training rooms at UCLA. That would be the only issue. Maybe the team doctor is incompetent at this point in his career and has been misdiagnosing injuries, etc.

    UCLA spending less per athlete doesn’t have anything to do with having great medical care. The costs around the nation are pretty similar to it’s obvious that when you have 17 season ending injuries, the expenses probably would be higher compared to most schools who didn’t have that type of injury count.

    The obvious conclusion here is that UCLA either doesn’t have in the injury rate of other schools (not the case, see 17 injuries to football players this year), or that they are refusing to admit the fact that the student-athletes are being withheld from the BEST POSSIBLE CARE they can have.

  • Anonymous

    OMG Gold what a bogus answer to the medical care issue question, Jon you put more thought into answering what someone should name a “wanker” softball team then this one. Sure we know that players may go outside the system for a second opinion at their own expense. But it is the incompetence of the medical staff especially the top team Doctor who tells kids with a serious possible season ending injury that they should think about medical retirement rather then get them the referrals in the system they need all to save the mighty UCLA buck? No wonder parents get frustrated when he either drops the ball, mis diagnoses or just looses the kid in the system and they take them somewhere else, they want the best care for them. Jon either be a reporter and do the job or move on and let someone else do it who will get the answers to tough questions. Apache Joe sees the problem why don’t you Jon?