College Football Recruiting (2010 Class) Thread - UCLA vs UW ITT

[Poli]

I see where UCLA fans could be bitter. I'd be bitter if something along those lines happened at Tennessee. The only reason I said ANYTHING was because of the track record thing. I think years in regards to a track record, usually of the three or more variety.

Your response later, to me, being out of the area where this apparently is a hot button topic, seemed to say the same thing the UCLA guys were saying.

Good luck with the kid. I hope he's straight...but to be honest, I'm not overly concerned. I wouldn't expect you're overly concerned about the UT bar brawl, either. I totally understand that.

[Chief Rum]

I'm not angry about Shirley. I hope he fixes whatever went wrong and has a good career at Washington. I hope I am wrong that Sark has bent his apparently rigid disciplinary history in allowing Shirley on the team. Frankly, the second word came down that these three were going to be held out until at least January, I figured they would be gone. So as a UCLA fan, this is not a loss at this point, but is just what happened to a guy we already knew wasn't going to be a Bruin (like finding out a guy who says he's transferring, what school he's going to; I mean, we already knew he was transferring, finding out the school doesn't really add any angst).

The only point I was trying to make--and I admit I may have been needling dawg here--is that dawg is looking at this very much from a purple and gold sunglasses perspective. He makes out a big deal about Sark's disciplinary record, and then tries to make excuses about the Shirley situation. To me, that's abit hypocritical.

FTR, Shirley himself admitted he did wrong on his Twitter and to media members who follow the UCLA program after it happened. I already pointed out that Neuheisel has a lot more information on this situation than Sark, and he doesn't have to go beyond reasonable doubt like the DA does. It seems clear to me that no one has better information on what happened in this situation and with the ability to do something about it than Neuheisel. And despite the fact that Shirley was released without bail, despite the fact that Shirley was a well-regarded recruit who was a bit of a coup to get in February, and despite the fact he could have possibly broken into UCLA's two deep this fall, despite all this, Neuheisel didn't waste much time in cutting him loose.

dawg, think about that. That should tell you something.

I hope I am wrong. But what we do know, it doesn't paint a particularly positive picture for Shirley (and even less positive for the Richardsons--and last I checked, Sark's still recruiting Shaq, too).

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The only point I was trying to make--and I admit I may have been needling dawg here--is that dawg is looking at this very much from a purple and gold sunglasses perspective. He makes out a big deal about Sark's disciplinary record, and then tries to make excuses about the Shirley situation. To me, that's abit hypocritical.

Seriously CR, you telling someone else they are being a homer about things is as good of an example of the pot calling the kettle black as exists.

FTR, Shirley himself admitted he did wrong on his Twitter and to media members who follow the UCLA program after it happened.

"Did wrong" is hardly a detailed description - it could mean anything from he planned and executed the theft to he made a mistake in hanging out with some bad apples and found himself present when they did something wrong.

Let's also not forget that Shirley felt the decision that Neuheisel and UCLA made was a gross over reaction to whatever it was he actually did, so if you're going to use Shirley's own actions as evidence, don't cherry-pick.

I already pointed out that Neuheisel has a lot more information on this situation than Sark, and he doesn't have to go beyond reasonable doubt like the DA does.

The second part of that statement is true; the first part is laughable. Why exactly would Neuheisel have "a lot" more information on this than Sark?

It seems clear to me that no one has better information on what happened in this situation and with the ability to do something about it than Neuheisel. And despite the fact that Shirley was released without bail, despite the fact that Shirley was a well-regarded recruit who was a bit of a coup to get in February, and despite the fact he could have possibly broken into UCLA's two deep this fall, despite all this, Neuheisel didn't waste much time in cutting him loose.

dawg, think about that. That should tell you something.

It tells me that someone at UCLA didn't want any of them playing for the Bruins this season and were willing to risk losing them to another school. Are you certain that people higher up than Rick didn't make this call for him?

Let's say it was fully Rick's decision. He didn't sever all ties with these kids - he said you can come back in January if you meet certain requirements. Yes, that certainly put them at risk of leaving, but whatever it was Rick thinks they did, it wasn't so bad that he cut ties completely. He just felt compelled to keep them from playing this season, and that's essentially the difference between how Rick and Sark have treated Shirley.

Maybe Rick made the right call for UCLA regarding Shirley - that doesn't necessarily mean Sark made the wrong call bringing him in now, that he's compromising his disciplinary standards. Had Shirley and the Richardsons been allowed to stay with UCLA this season, they would have been bigger distractions there than Shirley will be at the UW, simply because the theft happened on UCLA's campus - that adds a layer of complexity to the case. There may well have been some political pressure via the UCLA administration about having them continue to be on campus.

And I'll reiterate that I find the idea that Neuheisel was able to get far more information about what happened than Sark completely without merit; what, Sark doesn't have any connections in SoCal? He has no connections to Shirley and his family, friends and former H.S. coaches despite recruiting him for over a year? He doesn't have any connections within the L.A. area justice system to make private inquiries into the details of the allegations? He has no well-connected people in SoCal he can call to find out more info? Sorry, not buying it.

I'll also reiterate Sark's record up to this point in dealing with disciplinary issues on his team. There's no evidence up to this point that he's lax and will let players slide simply because they're talented - Kavario Middleton being a great example. Middleton didn't flunk out of school, and he hasn't been convicted of any crimes (let alone charged with any). He wasn't putting in the effort the coaches wanted and he had a major marijuana habit, and he didn't shape up despite being given ultimatums by the coaching staff. So despite his enormous talent and the fact that losing him leaves the Huskies very thin at TE, Sark booted him.

The minute Andrew Pulu was arrested for violent assault this winter, he was suspended indefinitely from the team. This despite the fact that he was in line for a starting position this fall, and despite the Huskies going into Spring Practices extremely thin at the DE position.

So despite those and other examples, now all of a sudden Sark is selling out his standards to bring in Shirley?

(...and last I checked, Sark's still recruiting Shaq, too).

You state this as though it were a fact. Do you have some evidence to back it up, or is this just conjecture on the Bruin boards?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Seriously CR, you telling someone else they are being a homer about things is as good of an example of the pot calling the kettle black as exists.

Do you want to discuss this, or do you want to sling mud back and forth? Your decision, I guess. I think it's pretty clear you have a biased view of this situation. Take Poli as an example--he's not connected to this, and he thinks you're a little too close to this as well. This is not a UCLA situation, where my bias really comes in. This is a UDub situation, a school I could really give a fig about. So while I am certainly not without my opinions (since there is a UCLA connection at least), I am certainly not as close to this story as you are (perspective-wise). If this were a UCLA dominating story, I would even allow that I have a bias in the situation. I say stuff like that all the time, about UCLA, the Angels, the Clippers. You, however, are apparently impervious to this. You have perfect judgment at all times and all of your conclusions are completely rational, logical and without emotional influence.

If that's your stance, then we can stop discussing this or anything, because it would then be clear to me that having any discussion with you is absolutely fruitless.

"Did wrong" is hardly a detailed description - it could mean anything from he planned and executed the theft to he made a mistake in hanging out with some bad apples and found himself present when they did something wrong.

But he did make a mistake, right? You're not denying that, are you? He himself has said so.

Let's also not forget that Shirley felt the decision that Neuheisel and UCLA made was a gross over reaction to whatever it was he actually did, so if you're going to use Shirley's own actions as evidence, don't cherry-pick.

Let's also not forget that Shirley is an 18 year old kid. Does it really surprise you that he thinks losing a whole season is an overreaction? I wouldn't exactly say his reaction is necessarily a true representation of what the appropriate response should be. It's a virtual guarantee he will consider anything beyond a slap in the hand as too harsh.

The second part of that statement is true; the first part is laughable. Why exactly would Neuheisel have "a lot" more information on this than Sark?

Really? Neuheisel, with his own players, on his own campus, with his own campus police, with his own university officials, and apparently tape of the incident itself... you really think Sark has as much info? That's pretty insane that you think that. I wouldn't dream of saying Neuheisel has as much or anywhere near as much info on an incident up in Seattle or in South Bend or in Gainesville or whatever as the coaches on those respective campuses, and especially with their own players. It's mind boggling to me that you think Sark is some Super Detective Coach with in roads to all possible sources of information. Kinda like how he sniffed out how odd it was Reggie Bush was driving around in a nicer car than Sark himself in 2005... oh wait.

It tells me that someone at UCLA didn't want any of them playing for the Bruins this season and were willing to risk losing them to another school. Are you certain that people higher up than Rick didn't make this call for him?

Pretty sure, yes. EJ Woods is example #1. The school was ready to keep this one around and Neuheisel booted him, and that was after a sexual assault charge. Hasiak was essentially only going to school and was no longer a member of the program earlier this year, showing the school was willing to give him latitudes that Neuheisel wasn't. Since he has come here, Neuheisel has actually been pretty strict, and the only thing the school is stricter than him on is academic admissions.

Let's say it was fully Rick's decision. He didn't sever all ties with these kids - he said you can come back in January if you meet certain requirements. Yes, that certainly put them at risk of leaving, but whatever it was Rick thinks they did, it wasn't so bad that he cut ties completely. He just felt compelled to keep them from playing this season, and that's essentially the difference between how Rick and Sark have treated Shirley.

Why does Neuheisel have to completely cut them off to get credit for disciplining them? You yourself pointed out Shirley's reaction to this punishment. Clearly it was too strong for him. You can bet that one of Neuheisel's conditions was that the three deal with their legal issues, and he wouldn't have accepted them back with that hanging over them. And that's a key difference between what Neuheisel did and Sark did. There's a pretty sharp difference, IMO, between how the two coaches punished Shirley.

Maybe Rick made the right call for UCLA regarding Shirley - that doesn't necessarily mean Sark made the wrong call bringing him in now, that he's compromising his disciplinary standards. Had Shirley and the Richardsons been allowed to stay with UCLA this season, they would have been bigger distractions there than Shirley will be at the UW, simply because the theft happened on UCLA's campus - that adds a layer of complexity to the case. There may well have been some political pressure via the UCLA administration about having them continue to be on campus.

So there's political pressure about the purse snatching, but there isn't about a sexual assault or physical assaults? Unless you can point to some change in UCLA's policy for these activities in the past 3-4 months, you're going to have a hard time showing this decision came down against Neuheisel's wishes. As for whether it was better for these players to not be at UCLA, but okay at UDub, that's a straw man--we're not talking about what's a better situation for them, we're talking about Sark's approach in this case as a disciplinarian.

And I'll reiterate that I find the idea that Neuheisel was able to get far more information about what happened than Sark completely without merit; what, Sark doesn't have any connections in SoCal? He has no connections to Shirley and his family, friends and former H.S. coaches despite recruiting him for over a year? He doesn't have any connections within the L.A. area justice system to make private inquiries into the details of the allegations? He has no well-connected people in SoCal he can call to find out more info? Sorry, not buying it.

I still can't fathom you think Sark has anywhere near as much info on this as Neuheisel. You must think he's omniscient or something. Sark The All Knowing. We have a disconnect here, and I don't see how we can possibly agree on this point. To me, it goes against all logic to even suggest Sark has more than second/third hand info outside of Shirley himself, a source with a strong incentive to be fudgy with the details.

I'll also reiterate Sark's record up to this point in dealing with disciplinary issues on his team. There's no evidence up to this point that he's lax and will let players slide simply because they're talented - Kavario Middleton being a great example. Middleton didn't flunk out of school, and he hasn't been convicted of any crimes (let alone charged with any). He wasn't putting in the effort the coaches wanted and he had a major marijuana habit, and he didn't shape up despite being given ultimatums by the coaching staff. So despite his enormous talent and the fact that losing him leaves the Huskies very thin at TE, Sark booted him.

The minute Andrew Pulu was arrested for violent assault this winter, he was suspended indefinitely from the team. This despite the fact that he was in line for a starting position this fall, and despite the Huskies going into Spring Practices extremely thin at the DE position.

So despite those and other examples, now all of a sudden Sark is selling out his standards to bring in Shirley?

Yes. It only takes once. If Sark isn't being the same disciplinarian at all times, then clearly he isn't the 100% strict operator you seem to suggest he is. This is a questionable move, and puts at risk what other stronger disciplinary decisions he has made.

Sark deserves credit for the discipline he has enforced. I'm not trying to take that away. I'm just saying, if that's his track record, this move is an iffy one that calls all of that into question. And it will remain that way until Shirley has proven himself to be a mature and accountable individual and worthy of the gift he has been given.

You state this as though it were a fact. Do you have some evidence to back it up, or is this just conjecture on the Bruin boards?

First of all, many of those "conjecturing" are by people who are really close to the program and have all sorts of in roads into the behind the scenes dealings. So I wouldn't discount it just because it didn't appear in the LA Times.

That said, you're right that it basically comes down to Internet rumors, and nothing more. Bug might know more. In the mean time and until we get more solid info, I'll retract that and figure I have it wrong.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Do you want to discuss this, or do you want to sling mud back and forth?

It's slinging mud to point out how much of a homer you are about the Bruins and Angels? Oooo-kayyy...

This is not a UCLA situation, where my bias really comes in. This is a UDub situation, a school I could really give a fig about.

Seriously? The fact there is a direct comparison at stake here in how UCLA and UW are dealing with Shirley, and this doesn't have anything to do with UCLA? You're really saying this?

You, however, are apparently impervious to this. You have perfect judgment at all times and all of your conclusions are completely rational, logical and without emotional influence.

If that's your stance, then we can stop discussing this or anything, because it would then be clear to me that having any discussion with you is absolutely fruitless.

Please show me where I said that. All I have been doing is providing a counter point to the view being put forward by UCLA fans on this and showing that there are other interpretations about what's happening.

If you are unwilling to consider there are other ways of looking at this situation, you're right - there's no point continuing this discussion.

But he did make a mistake, right? You're not denying that, are you? He himself has said so.

I am not disputing that. All I'm saying is a kid saying he made a mistake doesn't really give you a whole lot of information - you still don't know what it is that he did that he thinks was a mistake. It could have been a really serious mistake, i.e. planning and executing a theft. It could have been a much less serious mistake, like hanging out with guys that are questionable and being with them when they execute a theft. Do you acknowledge this range of possibilities?

Let's also not forget that Shirley is an 18 year old kid. Does it really surprise you that he thinks losing a whole season is an overreaction? I wouldn't exactly say his reaction is necessarily a true representation of what the appropriate response should be. It's a virtual guarantee he will consider anything beyond a slap in the hand as too harsh.

I think that's generally true, yes, but not an absolute - there are plenty of people that, when they screw up, know it and accept their punishment without complaint.

Really? Neuheisel, with his own players, on his own campus, with his own campus police, with his own university officials, and apparently tape of the incident itself... you really think Sark has as much info? That's pretty insane that you think that.

The only thing you listed that provides substantially more info than Sark could get is if Neuheisel has tape of the incident. I haven't heard word of this before now. I have some question if this is actually true, because if there is tape of the incident that proves Shirley committed a crime, why would the DA choose not to prosecute?

It's mind boggling to me that you think Sark is some Super Detective Coach with in roads to all possible sources of information.

Who has to be a super-detective? You really are saying Sark doesn't have any connections in SoCal? He can't call on any number of people he knew as a coach at USC and still has contact with as someone recruiting that area on a year-round basis? Really?

Kinda like how he sniffed out how odd it was Reggie Bush was driving around in a nicer car than Sark himself in 2005... oh wait.

That's rich, a fan of a team coached by Neuheisel attempting to call out other coaches as rule-breakers.

Pretty sure, yes. EJ Woods is example #1. The school was ready to keep this one around and Neuheisel booted him, and that was after a sexual assault charge.

I don't follow UCLA religiously. Is it public record that this is what happened and not just message board speculation?

Hasiak was essentially only going to school and was no longer a member of the program earlier this year, showing the school was willing to give him latitudes that Neuheisel wasn't.

What crimes did Hasiak commit? Again, not a super-close follower of everything UCLA, but I thought his issues were about clashing with teammates and his coaches. Unless there's something else that was going on, this is not a relevant example.

Since he has come here, Neuheisel has actually been pretty strict, and the only thing the school is stricter than him on is academic admissions.

That's great - it's good to see Neuheisel growing and learning from his past mistakes.

Why does Neuheisel have to completely cut them off to get credit for disciplining them? You yourself pointed out Shirley's reaction to this punishment. Clearly it was too strong for him. You can bet that one of Neuheisel's conditions was that the three deal with their legal issues, and he wouldn't have accepted them back with that hanging over them. And that's a key difference between what Neuheisel did and Sark did. There's a pretty sharp difference, IMO, between how the two coaches punished Shirley.

I do find it interesting that Sark took Shirley in before knowing for sure that the charges would be dropped.

My point about the discipline that Neuheisel applied isn't that he didn't apply enough, just pointing out that he didn't close the door on any of the three. Listening to some UCLA fans go off on the Richardsons and Shirley, you'd think they were clearly guilty of something so bad that any other school would be foolish to take them. Again, the main difference between Neuheisel and Sark seems to be the timeline - Neuheisel wanted to wait 4 months to see if they met his conditions; Sark is OK with taking Shirley now. Maybe Sark is making a mistake, but I have no doubt that Sark has done his due diligence on the matter. What he found out I don't know, and it's possible he's letting Shirley enroll despite being an active participant in a theft instead of being falsely accused or an unwitting accessory to a theft.

As for whether it was better for these players to not be at UCLA, but okay at UDub, that's a straw man--we're not talking about what's a better situation for them, we're talking about Sark's approach in this case as a disciplinarian.

You misread my point - it's not about the better situation for the players, it's what's the best situation for the schools. There's always going to be more pressure on the school that had the player when he did something wrong than the next school they move on to.

I still can't fathom you think Sark has anywhere near as much info on this as Neuheisel. You must think he's omniscient or something. Sark The All Knowing. We have a disconnect here, and I don't see how we can possibly agree on this point. To me, it goes against all logic to even suggest Sark has more than second/third hand info outside of Shirley himself, a source with a strong incentive to be fudgy with the details.

Again, I'm equally stunned. Unless you're telling me Neuheisel was there, his info is second hand at best (outside of Shirley and the Richardsons) too. Who exactly do you think Neuheisel talked to that Sark couldn't have also contacted, or found an equally informative source to talk to?

Now, if Neuheisel has tape of the incident, and the tape clearly shows Shirley committed a crime, that's different. But I'd be shocked if that were true, because why would the DA pass on the case if that kind of conclusive evidence existed?

Yes. It only takes once. If Sark isn't being the same disciplinarian at all times, then clearly he isn't the 100% strict operator you seem to suggest he is.

You're right. But at this point, we have no idea if Sark isn't adhering to his team discipline standards with regard to Shirley, because we don't know exactly what Shirley did.

This is a questionable move, and puts at risk what other stronger disciplinary decisions he has made.

It does put it at risk. But it is not conclusively contradicting his prior actions - that's the point I'm trying to make. We don't know what Shirley did. We know he was arrested. We know he was released without bail. We know the DA has declined to prosecute. We know that Neuheisel removed him from the team and gave him the option of returning in January if he met certain conditions. We know Sark feels comfortable enough with what he knows about the situation to bring him in now. We know that in every prior instance of team discipline as head coach at Washington, he's been rather strict. That's what we know. I find it presumptive to assume more than that.

Sark deserves credit for the discipline he has enforced. I'm not trying to take that away. I'm just saying, if that's his track record, this move is an iffy one that calls all of that into question. And it will remain that way until Shirley has proven himself to be a mature and accountable individual and worthy of the gift he has been given.

This is true. I'm not disputing that it's a risky move to outside observers. It may be a risky move by Sark too - he may not have enough information to know for sure he's doing the right thing.

First of all, many of those "conjecturing" are by people who are really close to the program and have all sorts of in roads into the behind the scenes dealings. So I wouldn't discount it just because it didn't appear in the LA Times.

That said, you're right that it basically comes down to Internet rumors, and nothing more. Bug might know more. In the mean time and until we get more solid info, I'll retract that and figure I have it wrong.

I follow the Huskies very closely, and I hear all kinds of insider rumors all the time. Sometimes those are proven to be true, sometimes not. Unless you know the source personally and can vouch for the veracity of the claim, it has to be taken with some measure of salt.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

"Did wrong" is hardly a detailed description - it could mean anything from he planned and executed the theft to he made a mistake in hanging out with some bad apples and found himself present when they did something wrong.

It's a vague comment. But the campus police don't make it a habit of going around and arresting people for just "did wrong". It's not like any of these kids were a flight risk so there was enough evidence to arrest them

Let's also not forget that Shirley felt the decision that Neuheisel and UCLA made was a gross over reaction to whatever it was he actually did, so if you're going to use Shirley's own actions as evidence, don't cherry-pick.

This is the biggest problem with Shirley. Most of the rumors I've read about Middleton is that he was lazy, didn't put in much effort, and smoked a lot of pot. I have no idea what really happened, but it seems to be a character flaw in Middleton that Sark was unable to fix. So be it, he's gone and I hope UW is better for it. The fact that Shirley was involved in something like this, on campus, and the only thing he seems to feel at this point, is outrage? Dude is involved, at least at some level, of theft, and he feels like he was the one wronged? That alone says all you need to know about Shirley.

The second part of that statement is true; the first part is laughable. Why exactly would Neuheisel have "a lot" more information on this than Sark?

Because Rick works on campus. This didn't happen in Fontana. This didn't happen during a senior year of High School for these kids. This happened while they were enrolled at UCLA, on campus, with UCLA football players. Do you honestly think that Sark somehow was able to tap into all of the same resources?

It tells me that someone at UCLA didn't want any of them playing for the Bruins this season and were willing to risk losing them to another school. Are you certain that people higher up than Rick didn't make this call for him?

Rick made the call to burn a year of eligibility on campus. Everything happened too quickly for anyone to make that move for him. UCLA administration just helped UW by declaring them ineligible for the fall quarter. Josh Shirley didn't have the personal conviction to accept responsibility for what he did and acted accordingly.

Let's say it was fully Rick's decision. He didn't sever all ties with these kids - he said you can come back in January if you meet certain requirements. Yes, that certainly put them at risk of leaving, but whatever it was Rick thinks they did, it wasn't so bad that he cut ties completely.

I'd say for a charge that was always destined to be a misdemeanor at worst, they would have served a pretty stern punishment. They would have shown that they realized that they screwed up and were willing to work with their teammates to atone for their mistake.

He just felt compelled to keep them from playing this season, and that's essentially the difference between how Rick and Sark have treated Shirley.

I don't think anyone can disagree with this sentiment.

Maybe Rick made the right call for UCLA regarding Shirley - that doesn't necessarily mean Sark made the wrong call bringing him in now, that he's compromising his disciplinary standards.

The wrong call is to bring him without finding out what the charge will be, if any. If all charges had been dismissed, it wouldn't have been much of an argument about Shirley going to UW.

Had Shirley and the Richardsons been allowed to stay with UCLA this season, they would have been bigger distractions there than Shirley will be at the UW, simply because the theft happened on UCLA's campus - that adds a layer of complexity to the case. There may well have been some political pressure via the UCLA administration about having them continue to be on campus.

They weren't allowed on campus for the fall quarter except as visitors to the campus. Nothing else. Not much of a complexity with that aspect.

What sort of complexity?

And I'll reiterate that I find the idea that Neuheisel was able to get far more information about what happened than Sark completely without merit; what, Sark doesn't have any connections in SoCal? He has no connections to Shirley and his family, friends and former H.S. coaches despite recruiting him for over a year?

What does Shirley's family, friends, and HS coaches have to do with a theft on UCLA's campus?

He doesn't have any connections within the L.A. area justice system to make private inquiries into the details of the allegations?

I don't doubt that he does.

He has no well-connected people in SoCal he can call to find out more info? Sorry, not buying it.

Pretty sure Sark doesn't have a connection into UCLA Housing or UCLA campus police. But since I don't have evidence to disprove it, you can just assume that it's possible

I'll also reiterate Sark's record up to this point in dealing with disciplinary issues on his team. There's no evidence up to this point that he's lax and will let players slide simply because they're talented - Kavario Middleton being a great example. Middleton didn't flunk out of school, and he hasn't been convicted of any crimes (let alone charged with any). He wasn't putting in the effort the coaches wanted and he had a major marijuana habit, and he didn't shape up despite being given ultimatums by the coaching staff. So despite his enormous talent and the fact that losing him leaves the Huskies very thin at TE, Sark booted him.

The minute Andrew Pulu was arrested for violent assault this winter, he was suspended indefinitely from the team. This despite the fact that he was in line for a starting position this fall, and despite the Huskies going into Spring Practices extremely thin at the DE position.

So despite those and other examples, now all of a sudden Sark is selling out his standards to bring in Shirley?

Yes. It only takes once. Nobody is saying that Sark is scum of the earth for doing this, but you can't claim the moral high ground on this.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Seriously? The fact there is a direct comparison at stake here in how UCLA and UW are dealing with Shirley, and this doesn't have anything to do with UCLA? You're really saying this?

Most people think the punishment was harsh, considering it happened before anyone knew what the results of the court case would be.

I am not disputing that. All I'm saying is a kid saying he made a mistake doesn't really give you a whole lot of information - you still don't know what it is that he did that he thinks was a mistake. It could have been a really serious mistake, i.e. planning and executing a theft. It could have been a much less serious mistake, like hanging out with guys that are questionable and being with them when they execute a theft. Do you acknowledge this range of possibilities?

It could be all of those things. He was involved with a theft. I dont think anyone disagrees with it, but the UCLA police don't go around arresting people for hanging out with questionable people.

The only thing you listed that provides substantially more info than Sark could get is if Neuheisel has tape of the incident. I haven't heard word of this before now. I have some question if this is actually true, because if there is tape of the incident that proves Shirley committed a crime, why would the DA choose not to prosecute?

UCLA also has the luxury of talking with all three kids without the police around. They have access to potential witnesses.

Who has to be a super-detective? You really are saying Sark doesn't have any connections in SoCal? He can't call on any number of people he knew as a coach at USC and still has contact with as someone recruiting that area on a year-round basis? Really?

No idea what recruiting contacts would have to do with anything?

That's rich, a fan of a team coached by Neuheisel attempting to call out other coaches as rule-breakers.

That's true. Rick allowed Jerramy Stevens to stick around after the rape incident. He spent a night in jail before being released. What was his bail amount again?

I don't follow UCLA religiously. Is it public record that this is what happened and not just message board speculation?

I'm assuming you don't plan on bringing any more "speculation" to these boards now?

What crimes did Hasiak commit? Again, not a super-close follower of everything UCLA, but I thought his issues were about clashing with teammates and his coaches. Unless there's something else that was going on, this is not a relevant example.

Wanted to fight a coach and other teammates. Wasn't charged with a crime but I'm sure they could have gotten him arrested for assault if they wanted to.

That's great - it's good to see Neuheisel growing and learning from his past mistakes.

So far so good. Unless he takes Middleton then I take back everything I said

I do find it interesting that Sark took Shirley in before knowing for sure that the charges would be dropped.

I'd laugh if Shirley has to spend a month in jail during football season. That would be the right karma for him.

My point about the discipline that Neuheisel applied isn't that he didn't apply enough, just pointing out that he didn't close the door on any of the three.

Nope. They deserved punishment. A year suspension is kinda long, especially when they hadn't been convicted of a crime yet, only accused. If he gets charged with a misdemeanor and ends up on probation, I think UCLA fans will be annoyed that Rick gave them a second chance and they bailed before taking personal responsibility.

Listening to some UCLA fans go off on the Richardsons and Shirley, you'd think they were clearly guilty of something so bad that any other school would be foolish to take them.

Actually, most of the UCLA fans think Rick was too harsh on Shirley

Again, the main difference between Neuheisel and Sark seems to be the timeline - Neuheisel wanted to wait 4 months to see if they met his conditions; Sark is OK with taking Shirley now.

I'd say there is a little bit bigger of a difference then that.

Maybe Sark is making a mistake, but I have no doubt that Sark has done his due diligence on the matter. What he found out I don't know, and it's possible he's letting Shirley enroll despite being an active participant in a theft instead of being falsely accused or an unwitting accessory to a theft.

Since the city attorney hasn't finished the case, Sark can't have done his due dilligence unless all of his law enforcement contacts managed to get the charges dropped completely.

Again, I'm equally stunned. Unless you're telling me Neuheisel was there, his info is second hand at best (outside of Shirley and the Richardsons) too. Who exactly do you think Neuheisel talked to that Sark couldn't have also contacted, or found an equally informative source to talk to?

Lots of people. The housing staff. Students. The dining staff. Campus Police. UCLA administration. UCLA PR.

Now, if Neuheisel has tape of the incident, and the tape clearly shows Shirley committed a crime, that's different. But I'd be shocked if that were true, because why would the DA pass on the case if that kind of conclusive evidence existed?

Seems to be a pretty flimsy piece of info. The video tape would have to show that all three were clearly there to manage to take them to court and there isn't a guarantee that any video tape says that. Rick or the Admin doesn't need that same "without a reasonable doubt" to take punishment. Nor does it discount that they weren't involved.

You're right. But at this point, we have no idea if Sark isn't adhering to his team discipline standards with regard to Shirley, because we don't know exactly what Shirley did.

Seems like taking players with possible felony charges pending seems to be one disciple standard that he has.
It does put it at risk. But it is not conclusively contradicting his prior actions - that's the point I'm trying to make. We don't know what Shirley did. We know he was arrested. We know he was released without bail. We know the DA has declined to prosecute. We know that Neuheisel removed him from the team and gave him the option of returning in January if he met certain conditions. We know Sark feels comfortable enough with what he knows about the situation to bring him in now. We know that in every prior instance of team discipline as head coach at Washington, he's been rather strict. That's what we know. I find it presumptive to assume more than that.

This is true. I'm not disputing that it's a risky move to outside observers. It may be a risky move by Sark too - he may not have enough information to know for sure he's doing the right thing.

I follow the Huskies very closely, and I hear all kinds of insider rumors all the time. Sometimes those are proven to be true, sometimes not. Unless you know the source personally and can vouch for the veracity of the claim, it has to be taken with some measure of salt.

Unless that said measure of salt is your opinion that Sark did his due diligence into the matter, right?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It's slinging mud to point out how much of a homer you are about the Bruins and Angels? Oooo-kayyy...

Your exact quote was "...as good of an example of the pot calling the kettle black as exists." Do you realize what kind of an asshat you are saying that? You're basically calling me as big of a biased blind fool as has existed. I'm not sure why you're surprised I might take offense to that.

Seriously? The fact there is a direct comparison at stake here in how UCLA and UW are dealing with Shirley, and this doesn't have anything to do with UCLA? You're really saying this?

Yes. Shirley is no longer a UCLA player and I am completely comfortable with that. Have been since the punishment came down and I more or less accepted it was very unlikely any of the three would return. My passionate objection has nothing to do with UCLA. It has do with you and the stance you're taking. You are defending your school and your coach (and to an extent, yourself). You don't see how much closer you are to this situation? You're really saying this?

Please show me where I said that. All I have been doing is providing a counter point to the view being put forward by UCLA fans on this and showing that there are other interpretations about what's happening.

If you are unwilling to consider there are other ways of looking at this situation, you're right - there's no point continuing this discussion.

Your response to me pointing out your bias was that I was the most biased person ever. You're excusing your own bias because of your perception of mine. You're not even acknowledging your bias. My response was a overly-sarcastic response to your not allowing for your own bias or even mentioning it. And now you say you're just "counter pointing", once again, like you're some rational, unattached individual reasonably picking apart the irrational arguments of your opponent. No, you're biased. Admit it. Stop trying to make yourself above it all. It's that arrogance that keeps me coming at you.

I am not disputing that. All I'm saying is a kid saying he made a mistake doesn't really give you a whole lot of information - you still don't know what it is that he did that he thinks was a mistake. It could have been a really serious mistake, i.e. planning and executing a theft. It could have been a much less serious mistake, like hanging out with guys that are questionable and being with them when they execute a theft. Do you acknowledge this range of possibilities?

He admitted to a mistake. He was arrested. He was not allowed to enroll in the school. He may still end up facing charges from the City Attorney. Of course, from our perspective, there is a range of possible actions that took place. But the consequences are irrefutable. And whatever that unknown action was, he admitted it and that he was wrong to have done it.

Point is, he's no choir boy. This is who Sark has recruited.

I think that's generally true, yes, but not an absolute - there are plenty of people that, when they screw up, know it and accept their punishment without complaint.

Shirley isn't "plenty of people". We already know he refused to accept his punishment without complaint. Regardless, my point with that was to say that you can't accept Shirley's word alone that it was an overreaction and assume it was. In fact, it's far more likely that a mature 50 year old Division I coach got it right than an 18 year old who possible committed a crime.

The only thing you listed that provides substantially more info than Sark could get is if Neuheisel has tape of the incident. I haven't heard word of this before now. I have some question if this is actually true, because if there is tape of the incident that proves Shirley committed a crime, why would the DA choose not to prosecute?

There is a tape. This has been spoken of ad nauseum on the UCLA boards. All of the halls at UCLA, including the one where this occurred have surveillance cameras. We don't know exactly what's on the tape except that it was apparently at least somewhat exculpatory. Remember, what is enough for those with common sense to figure out is much less than the standard the DA must meet; it's quite possible that there is plenty of room to determine with virtual certainty what happened, without it being enough to satisfy the legal standards the DA must meet to gain a conviction.

Who has to be a super-detective? You really are saying Sark doesn't have any connections in SoCal? He can't call on any number of people he knew as a coach at USC and still has contact with as someone recruiting that area on a year-round basis? Really?

I'm not saying Sark doesn't have his connections. I am saying Neuheisel is much closer to his connections. He also has the influence and power within the circles of those connections to get answers unavailable to Sark or Sark's limited connections from outside. I just don't get why you think Sark has some information highway connection into UCLA. That makes no sense. If anything, people at UCLA--the ones actually closest to all this--would likely tell him to F-off.

That's rich, a fan of a team coached by Neuheisel attempting to call out other coaches as rule-breakers.

Neuheisel paid for his transgressions. He also GOT paid for others' transgressions, courtesy of both the NCAA and your very own administration at UDub. Since arriving at UCLA, he has run a tight ship and you're not hearing about shady dealings in Westwood.

Meanwhile, how exactly has Sark been punished for his role on that staff at USC? He's gotten off scott free. Even if you assume no one but McNair knew (and I doubt that, strongly), Sark was as close as anyone to the situation. And he did nothing. And now he's reaping the benefits, while Kiffin and Petey get fileted.

To be fair, I have to wonder the same thing about Chow.

I don't follow UCLA religiously. Is it public record that this is what happened and not just message board speculation?

Yes. Go look up E.J. Woods.

What crimes did Hasiak commit? Again, not a super-close follower of everything UCLA, but I thought his issues were about clashing with teammates and his coaches. Unless there's something else that was going on, this is not a relevant example.

UCLA kept it internal and no charges were filed. But Hasiak had a number of verbal altercations, and at least two somewhat physical altercations with others, including one in which it is thought a coach was involved. Hasiak was kicked off of the team in December and sent back to Hawaii. After a cooling off period, UCLA allowed Hasiak to return for the Winter Quarter as a student. Eventually, Hasiak and the coaching staff made amends and Hasiak was given conditions to meet in order to be reinstated to the team.

We know a lot of this because Hasiak's own father posts on the UCLA Scout board regularly (on top of other sources close to the situation).

I do find it interesting that Sark took Shirley in before knowing for sure that the charges would be dropped.

My point about the discipline that Neuheisel applied isn't that he didn't apply enough, just pointing out that he didn't close the door on any of the three. Listening to some UCLA fans go off on the Richardsons and Shirley, you'd think they were clearly guilty of something so bad that any other school would be foolish to take them.

Are these UCLA fans speaking out on the same boards you lower down here tell me to take with a grain of salt? Those UCLA fans doubtless know little more than you or I. As you have stated, we don't know the exact nature of the crime. I just don't see the relevance in whether Neuheisel kicked them out or gave them a punishment that allowed them to possibly return. Either way, it's a much stronger punishment than Shirley is getting from going to UDub.

Again, the main difference between Neuheisel and Sark seems to be the timeline - Neuheisel wanted to wait 4 months to see if they met his conditions; Sark is OK with taking Shirley now. Maybe Sark is making a mistake, but I have no doubt that Sark has done his due diligence on the matter. What he found out I don't know, and it's possible he's letting Shirley enroll despite being an active participant in a theft instead of being falsely accused or an unwitting accessory to a theft.

It's actually about 8 months, including the summer sessions, from which the players were removed, and the entire fall quarter. Maybe winter, too, depending on how long things were expected to take to resolve in January. More importantly as a football player, Shirley would have missed the season and not played until 2011. I don't see anyway that these punishments can be called remotely close. Shirley basically ends up with his hand slapped.

I'm not close enough to the Husky program to know how far Sark will have gone to investigate. I appreciate that you feel you have seen enough to trust his judgment, but just as much, I feel I saw enough when this guy was at USC. Sure, he wasn't the ringleader, but he was part of the circus. It's awfully hard to just accept he's on the up and up, especially since he has never seen any negative repercussions from what happened at USC in 2004-05. This is one of those situations where we're just going to have to wait and see who's right--if it even comes out.

You misread my point - it's not about the better situation for the players, it's what's the best situation for the schools. There's always going to be more pressure on the school that had the player when he did something wrong than the next school they move on to.

Okay, I can see that.

Again, I'm equally stunned. Unless you're telling me Neuheisel was there, his info is second hand at best (outside of Shirley and the Richardsons) too. Who exactly do you think Neuheisel talked to that Sark couldn't have also contacted, or found an equally informative source to talk to?

UCLA officials, UCLA police, students involved, the players themselves--with power over those players Sark could not have, knowledge of the culture/situation in which it happened, facts that will have been shared with Neuheisel as somewhat of an unofficial guardian of the players that wouldn't be shared with an outsider--there are a ton of ways that Neuheisel will have been closer to the situation than Sark could ever possibly get.

Now, if Neuheisel has tape of the incident, and the tape clearly shows Shirley committed a crime, that's different. But I'd be shocked if that were true, because why would the DA pass on the case if that kind of conclusive evidence existed?

Asked and answered above.

You're right. But at this point, we have no idea if Sark isn't adhering to his team discipline standards with regard to Shirley, because we don't know exactly what Shirley did.

That's where we differ. You trust Sark. I don't. That's really what it comes down to.

It does put it at risk. But it is not conclusively contradicting his prior actions - that's the point I'm trying to make. We don't know what Shirley did. We know he was arrested. We know he was released without bail. We know the DA has declined to prosecute. We know that Neuheisel removed him from the team and gave him the option of returning in January if he met certain conditions. We know Sark feels comfortable enough with what he knows about the situation to bring him in now. We know that in every prior instance of team discipline as head coach at Washington, he's been rather strict. That's what we know. I find it presumptive to assume more than that.

But you're using these facts to make assumptions. You're assuming Sark did his due dilligence. You're assuming that UCLA over-reacted and that the punishment did not fit the crime. If the above were all that we're accepting as presumeable, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is true. I'm not disputing that it's a risky move to outside observers. It may be a risky move by Sark too - he may not have enough information to know for sure he's doing the right thing.

Like I said, we'll just have to wait and see. Neither you nor I know enough to make any definitive conclusions at this time. So we should just agree to disagree and go our separate ways, until such time as more information may come to light that may allow us to understand what happened.

I follow the Huskies very closely, and I hear all kinds of insider rumors all the time. Sometimes those are proven to be true, sometimes not. Unless you know the source personally and can vouch for the veracity of the claim, it has to be taken with some measure of salt.

Of course I know this, it is much the same with me and UCLA. But over time, when you have numerous sources to draw from, you learn to discern which sources are believable and trustworthy, and which ones you need to carefully consider before bringing their information into your personal database. Much of what is out here that falls under "Internet rumors" is coming from sources which have, in the past, proven to be very reliable.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Poli

Good luck with the kid. I hope he's straight...but to be honest, I'm not overly concerned. I wouldn't expect you're overly concerned about the UT bar brawl, either. I totally understand that.

I am, I hope they all get banned from football for life and UT becomes a sun belt team

[MrBug708]

Apparently Sark didn't check into the past of the Shirley family. They seem to have a pattern of not taking responsibility for their crimes. So concerned were the UW fans about not getting the CRN of 10 years ago that they were blind to the fact that they were getting the Carroll of today

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So he's still got four years of eligibility, correct?

This upgrades our line prospects big time. Got probably the best pass rusher in the conference on the outside and some really big guys in the middle now. Should really help our run defense.

My understanding is he will still have 5 years to play 4, and considering our depth on the O-Line and his absence for the summer workouts I think hes about the safest bet possible to a redshirt for the incoming class. The 2nd line is pretty well established with guys like Britt and Meiners at OT, and I would be drop dead stunned if gets playing time over those guys.

[CU Tiger]

u2 get a room...

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Your exact quote was "...as good of an example of the pot calling the kettle black as exists." Do you realize what kind of an asshat you are saying that? You're basically calling me as big of a biased blind fool as has existed. I'm not sure why you're surprised I might take offense to that.

I'm saying that you, as someone who has repeatedly demonstrated a strongly defensive stance and biased view about his favorite teams, calling out someone else as being blindly biased is rich irony.

If speaking the truth makes me an asshat, I guess I'm an asshat.

Yes. Shirley is no longer a UCLA player and I am completely comfortable with that. Have been since the punishment came down and I more or less accepted it was very unlikely any of the three would return. My passionate objection has nothing to do with UCLA. It has do with you and the stance you're taking. You are defending your school and your coach (and to an extent, yourself). You don't see how much closer you are to this situation? You're really saying this?

Bullshit. Neuheisel put a line in the sand regarding how he's handled this situation, and when another school and coach takes in one of those players, it creates a contrast and invites a comparison in the two approaches. You really don't see that you are being defensive about how Neuheisel handled this situation? You automatically assume that Shirley is guilty of something worthy of being dismissed from the team for the season because that's the punishment that Neuheisel gave out, and you don't seem to acknowledge it's possible that Neuheisel over reacted.

Your response to me pointing out your bias was that I was the most biased person ever. You're excusing your own bias because of your perception of mine. You're not even acknowledging your bias. My response was a overly-sarcastic response to your not allowing for your own bias or even mentioning it. And now you say you're just "counter pointing", once again, like you're some rational, unattached individual reasonably picking apart the irrational arguments of your opponent. No, you're biased. Admit it. Stop trying to make yourself above it all. It's that arrogance that keeps me coming at you.

My arrogance? Rich.

Of course I'm biased towards the UW. That doesn't mean I'm not making valid points. All I've been doing is pointing out that there's a lot we don't know about the Shirley case, and there are a lot of assumptions being made by many UCLA fans. It's easy to rush to judgment when a guy is arrested, but do I really have to point out that being arrested doesn't mean the guy committed a crime, or that he committed the crime he was arrested for.

It's the prejudgment before we know all the facts that I've been arguing against.

Please point out where I've made a definitive statement about what Shirley did and what punishment he deserves.

He admitted to a mistake. He was arrested. He was not allowed to enroll in the school. He may still end up facing charges from the City Attorney. Of course, from our perspective, there is a range of possible actions that took place. But the consequences are irrefutable. And whatever that unknown action was, he admitted it and that he was wrong to have done it.

This is a bunch of rambling CR. What exactly is your point here? Yes, he said he did something wrong. Neither you nor I knows what exactly it was he did wrong. It could be something rather benign. It could be quite bad. Chances are it wasn't that bad given that the DA punted the case.

Really, all this comes down to is whether Neuheisel's punishment was appropriate, and how much of a risk Sark is taking in bringing him in. I'm pointing out that I don't think there are enough facts that are public to make a call one way or another on that yet.

Point is, he's no choir boy. This is who Sark has recruited.

If you want to follow football teams made up of choir boys, stop following Division 1 football.

Both Sark and Neuheisel recruited Shirley for a long time leading up to Signing Day, so they both should have had some idea of his personality and make-up. Maybe this incident was a major departure from what either coach knew (or could have known) about him prior to it happening. Maybe the incident isn't all that bad. We don't know yet.

Shirley isn't "plenty of people". We already know he refused to accept his punishment without complaint. Regardless, my point with that was to say that you can't accept Shirley's word alone that it was an overreaction and assume it was. In fact, it's far more likely that a mature 50 year old Division I coach got it right than an 18 year old who possible committed a crime.

I was simply pointing out that it was an over generalization to say that no 18 year old is going to have proper perspective on whether the punishment leveled upon them is justified or not.

There is a tape. This has been spoken of ad nauseum on the UCLA boards. All of the halls at UCLA, including the one where this occurred have surveillance cameras. We don't know exactly what's on the tape except that it was apparently at least somewhat exculpatory. Remember, what is enough for those with common sense to figure out is much less than the standard the DA must meet; it's quite possible that there is plenty of room to determine with virtual certainty what happened, without it being enough to satisfy the legal standards the DA must meet to gain a conviction.

Different standards, yes, but clearly this tape didn't show beyond all doubt that Shirley committed a crime, otherwise the DA wouldn't have punted the case.

I'm not saying Sark doesn't have his connections. I am saying Neuheisel is much closer to his connections. He also has the influence and power within the circles of those connections to get answers unavailable to Sark or Sark's limited connections from outside. I just don't get why you think Sark has some information highway connection into UCLA. That makes no sense. If anything, people at UCLA--the ones actually closest to all this--would likely tell him to F-off.

So what you're saying is, there is pertinent info in this case that the DA's office didn't get from people at UCLA? I get that the incident happened on campus, but wouldn't all of the necessary details be passed along to the legal authorites?

I won't (and didn't) dispute that Neuheisel would have more info, but you suggested that the difference in info is dramatic, and I highly doubt that - I'd be shocked if Sark couldn't get information from sources about what kind of case and evidence the DA's office and City Attorney's office had on this incident. Coaches have connections all over the place to keep tabs on what their players have done. Sark spent a lot of time in SoCal and should have a lot of connections to get information.

I wouldn't expect Neuheisel to have as much info in incidents up here in Seattle involving players he's recruiting as Sark, but he'd have a lot given his time up here and the connections he made. It's not like this is Nick Saban coming in from left field trying to track down information.

Neuheisel paid for his transgressions. He also GOT paid for others' transgressions, courtesy of both the NCAA and your very own administration at UDub. Since arriving at UCLA, he has run a tight ship and you're not hearing about shady dealings in Westwood.

That's great that he's apparently learned some lessons. Neuheisel only got paid for his transgressions at the UW because the NCAA screwed the case, taking the UW down with them.

Meanwhile, how exactly has Sark been punished for his role on that staff at USC? He's gotten off scott free. Even if you assume no one but McNair knew (and I doubt that, strongly), Sark was as close as anyone to the situation. And he did nothing. And now he's reaping the benefits, while Kiffin and Petey get fileted.

To be fair, I have to wonder the same thing about Chow.

Thank you for pointing out Chow so I don't have to.

Let's assume that Sark was aware of Bush's fancy ride. We know that Carroll apparently didn't care to investigate it, and we know that the compliance department didn't care to investigate it. What was Sark supposed to do, be the supremely principled whistle-blower and go behind the backs of Carroll and the USC AD? OK, he could have done that, but it would have put a huge crimp on his coaching career. Not too many people in the coaching fraternity and college athletic administration circles would be thrilled about bringing in a guy that ratted out one of their own.

Yes. Go look up E.J. Woods.

There's a link somewhere to a newspaper reporting that the UCLA administration was fine with letting Woods stick around?

UCLA kept it internal and no charges were filed. But Hasiak had a number of verbal altercations, and at least two somewhat physical altercations with others, including one in which it is thought a coach was involved. Hasiak was kicked off of the team in December and sent back to Hawaii. After a cooling off period, UCLA allowed Hasiak to return for the Winter Quarter as a student. Eventually, Hasiak and the coaching staff made amends and Hasiak was given conditions to meet in order to be reinstated to the team.

We know a lot of this because Hasiak's own father posts on the UCLA Scout board regularly (on top of other sources close to the situation).

Again, good example of Neuheisel applying discipline, yes. But I'm not really sure why the UCLA administration is relevant in this case - you expect that university administrations would typically get involved in internal disputes? No charges were filed, right? Seems pretty clear that they would look at this and say to Neuheisel "It's your team, and the incidents are things happening within your team and coaching staff - it's up to you to decide what to do". I don't see anything you've listed that seems to be of the level of offense where an administration would feel compelled to step in, unlike situations where players are arrested and charged with crimes.

Are these UCLA fans speaking out on the same boards you lower down here tell me to take with a grain of salt? Those UCLA fans doubtless know little more than you or I. As you have stated, we don't know the exact nature of the crime. I just don't see the relevance in whether Neuheisel kicked them out or gave them a punishment that allowed them to possibly return. Either way, it's a much stronger punishment than Shirley is getting from going to UDub.

As an example, I find the way a board like Bruins Nation is treating this situation to be bitter and petty.

I guess it's a matter of semantics to say that Neuheisel wanting to push back Shirley's eligibility a year as compared to Sark is a "much stronger" punishment.

It's actually about 8 months, including the summer sessions, from which the players were removed, and the entire fall quarter. Maybe winter, too, depending on how long things were expected to take to resolve in January. More importantly as a football player, Shirley would have missed the season and not played until 2011. I don't see anyway that these punishments can be called remotely close. Shirley basically ends up with his hand slapped.

It's about 4 months until Shirley could have potentially re-enrolled at UCLA and joined the team for workouts, unless I'm missing some info on what conditions Neuheisel laid down. And again, unless I'm missing something, Shirley didn't necessarily have to start burning his eligibility clock either - he effectively could have "greyshirted" if he'd decided to stick it out with UCLA.

How severe that punishment is I guess depends on just how determined Shirley was to play this season. Obviously since he had the chance to play elsewhere, he took it. And maybe he felt like it was better to get away from L.A. and UCLA and get a fresh start.

I'm not close enough to the Husky program to know how far Sark will have gone to investigate. I appreciate that you feel you have seen enough to trust his judgment, but just as much, I feel I saw enough when this guy was at USC. Sure, he wasn't the ringleader, but he was part of the circus. It's awfully hard to just accept he's on the up and up, especially since he has never seen any negative repercussions from what happened at USC in 2004-05. This is one of those situations where we're just going to have to wait and see who's right--if it even comes out.

See my points above about Sark and whistle-blowing. Tarring all the coaches that were at USC is not necessarily fair. I get that there will be some cloud of suspicion about Sark given that he was there when the issues were happening at USC. But he wasn't cited by the NCAA in their investigation, and thus far as a head coach he's had nothing more than 2-3 minor secondary violations. It's still way early to judge whether Sark is pretty clean with regard to the rule book or a guy that really pushes the ethical limits.

And again, as a fan of a team coached by Neuheisel, I'd tread lightly in trying to tar other coaches as possible cheaters or rule-breakers. That's not to say that Neuheisel hasn't changed his ways, but there should be a much darker cloud of suspicion hanging over Neuheisel still than over Sark.

UCLA officials, UCLA police, students involved, the players themselves--with power over those players Sark could not have, knowledge of the culture/situation in which it happened, facts that will have been shared with Neuheisel as somewhat of an unofficial guardian of the players that wouldn't be shared with an outsider--there are a ton of ways that Neuheisel will have been closer to the situation than Sark could ever possibly get.

Run me through your theory here. Obviously Neuheisel grilled the Richardsons and Shirley about their version of events. Very likely other players on the team talked with the Richardsons and Shirley about what happened. Are you saying that the Richardsons and Shirley lied to Neuheisel about what happened but told the truth to other players? And then those other players ratted out their teammates?

The pertinent access Neuheisel had that Sark wouldn't have that I can see is Neuheisel being able to view a security tape and talk with the campus police that arrested the three players.

However, wouldn't all of that case information have made it to the DA's office and City Attorney's office? And if not, why not? Do you think that Sark wouldn't have connections to get info from either of those departments?

That's where we differ. You trust Sark. I don't. That's really what it comes down to.

I cited the evidence of why I trust him. It seems rather clear that his association with USC is a big part of why you don't trust him. That's fine, reasonable people can differ when presented with the same information.

But you're using these facts to make assumptions. You're assuming Sark did his due dilligence. You're assuming that UCLA over-reacted and that the punishment did not fit the crime. If the above were all that we're accepting as presumeable, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I have no reason to think that Sark didn't do his due diligence. I have cited his past record on discipline at Washington as evidence for supporting the idea that Sark doesn't put up with a lot of crap and is perfectly willing to boot players regardless of their talent level and how much losing them will hurt the depth chart.

You are also misinterpreting my stance. I am not assuming Neuheisel over reacted - I am suggesting that it's a possibility. That's all I've been doing this entire thread. If you can point to something I wrote that contradicts this, I'd love to see it. My intent all along has been to say "Hey, there's another way to look at this situation than the way UCLA has handled it, and Sark isn't necessarily compromising his integrity by bringing in Shirley".

As much as you seem to be thinking that I'm convinced that Neuheisel over reacted, you are coming across as convinced that it's not possible that Neuheisel over reacted.

Like I said, we'll just have to wait and see. Neither you nor I know enough to make any definitive conclusions at this time. So we should just agree to disagree and go our separate ways, until such time as more information may come to light that may allow us to understand what happened.

Bingo. Haven't I said that already? We don't know enough to make a conclusive judgment, that's been my theme the whole time. I objected to the suggestion that Sark was compromising his principles by bringing in Shirley. It's a risk, certainly. But it's not necessarily a bad call on his part.

[MrBug708]

To be fair, citing Bruins Nation is kind of like citing Basnight

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

To be fair, citing Bruins Nation is kind of like citing Basnight

Duly noted

[I. J. Reilly]

And thus ends the "Pac-10 football fans aren't passionate" meme. Way to represent guys

[Poli]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

I am, I hope they all get banned from football for life and UT becomes a sun belt team

I hear Mizzou has a great chance of winning the Sun Belt this year.

[kcchief19]

I say this loving CR and dawg ... but you have an argument basically boiling down to a guy defending Slick Rick and a guy defending someone who was on a staff that received a punishment just short of the death penalty.

It's a bit like arguing who is the better guy: Al Capone or Bugs Moran.

[MrBug708]

Looks like Paul Richardson to CU if there are no charges filed

[dawgfan]

So as the dust settles, looks like Paul ends up at Colorado (as Bug said) and Shaquille is at Arizona.

[MrBug708]

I'd gladly switch Paul Richardson for Josh Smith

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I'd gladly switch Paul Richardson for Josh Smith

Josh Smith? You mean the basketball recruit?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Josh Smith? You mean the basketball recruit?

Former CU Buffalo kick returner and wide receiver. Very exciting athletic player who seems likely to start for the Bruins next month. He was kicking the UCLA defense's ass on the scout team all through the season last year.

[MrBug708]

The basketball player is more affectionately referred to as Joshua Smith

[dawgfan]

Ah, gotcha. I was trying to figure out what the connection was.

[MrBug708]

Taniela Maka signs with UNLV today. Was willing to turn down an Arizona offer to greyshirt and get his grades up for UCLA. Wasn't able to get them up enough last year and ends up signing with the Rebs

[MrBug708]

The word on the street is that Brandon Willis, the UNC early signee, who was once a Tennessee verbal, has moved to SoCal with his family and will be enrolling at UCLA. He is applying for a hardship waiver but I dont think it will be granted, but it's a huge boost for UCLA's defensive line if true. North Carolina fan, understandbly, think that Lane Kiffin is behind the move though

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

The word on the street is that Brandon Willis, the UNC early signee, who was once a Tennessee verbal, has moved to SoCal with his family and will be enrolling at UCLA. He is applying for a hardship waiver but I dont think it will be granted, but it's a huge boost for UCLA's defensive line if true. North Carolina fan, understandbly, think that Lane Kiffin is behind the move though

Why on Earth would Kiffin do something that helps UCLA? That's like Tyler Honeycutt transferring to UNC all of a sudden and UCLA fans blaming Coach K.

Weird.

Agreed, it's a big boost if this happens. Don't think he'll get a hardship granted. What grounds would he even be able to use to get it?

[MrBug708]

No No, UNC fans think he's going to USC, hence the Kiffin comments.

As for the hardship waiver, his mother died within the previous 12 months and the father is moving to SoCal for work and so his immediate family would all be out here.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

No No, UNC fans think he's going to USC, hence the Kiffin comments.

As for the hardship waiver, his mother died within the previous 12 months and the father is moving to SoCal for work and so his immediate family would all be out here.

I saw Tennessee talk, getting back in with him (which makes sense, in and of itself). That wouldn't make sense, though, if his dad got a job in SoCal and wants to keep the family together.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by espn article

Ask a group of average college football fans to name the most successful programs of the past decade and you can expect to hear a dozen or more consensus picks. The Florida Gators, LSU Tigers, Ohio State Buckeyes, Oklahoma Sooners, Texas Longhorns and USC Trojans each played in multiple BCS national championship games from 2000 to 2009 and dominated the polls for most of the past 10 seasons. The Georgia Bulldogs, Virginia Tech Hokies and Oregon Ducks were consistently very good, if not elite. The Boise State Broncos, TCU Horned Frogs and Utah Utes led the way from outside the major conferences. The Miami Hurricanes, Florida State Seminoles and Nebraska Cornhuskers were exceptional in the early part of the decade, and the Alabama Crimson Tide came on strong at the end.

How many more programs would get mentioned before anyone even thinks about casting a vote for the Boston College Eagles? At least a few more from each of the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12 and Pac-10. Even in the ACC, the Clemson Tigers and Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets would almost certainly join the others already mentioned before anyone would give the Eagles the nod. Look no further than the annual ACC preseason media poll, in which Boston College has consistently been projected to finish in the middle of the pack. Just as consistently, the Eagles have trumped annual expectations and placed first or second in the ACC Atlantic Division every year since 2005. They rank among the top 15 teams in college football winning percentage over the past 10 seasons (.675).

Consistency has been the secret to success in Chestnut Hill, but strangely, it's also the reason BC gets so easily overlooked. Among the top 15 teams in FBS winning percentage since 2000, the Eagles are the only team never to play in a BCS bowl game in that span. The other 14 teams made a total of 52 BCS bowl game appearances since 2000.

Mathematically, Boston College's consistency ranks second only to Southern Mississippi. The Eagles have the second-smallest standard deviation in annual winning percentage over the past decade (0.072). If we plotted every team's yearly win distribution, most would form a natural bell curve, with a few outlier seasons at the edges and a cluster in the middle. BC's graph would look more like a couple of pillars -- no high or low extremes, only consistency.

that's all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Former HS teammates remember slain Vandy commit Rajaan Bennett, nice mention in the story about how Vandy has stayed connected to the family On Friday, a group of parents of freshman football players at Vandy visited Narjaketha and asked for photographs of Rajaan smiling. They plan to have an artist make a portrait.

Tributes pour in Saturday for Rajaan Bennett *| ajc.com

[Eaglesfan27]

Bumping this because Latwan Anderson just tweeted that he's transferring to USC. He is talented, but I'm not sure this is a good thing.

[bhlloy]

Hell no. Stay away please.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Hell no. Stay away please.

Sounds like he actually came out to Los Angeles without being invited by USC. Word is that Kiffin is telling him he does not want him on the team and is refusing his transfer request.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Sounds like he actually came out to Los Angeles without being invited by USC. Word is that Kiffin is telling him he does not want him on the team and is refusing his transfer request.

Someone is going to eventually take that kid because of his talent, but he's burned so many bridges and caused so much drama I don't know who it will be.

Whoever it is, if he doesn't start as soon as he's eligible to play they'll have a headache on their hands.

[Poli]

Originally Posted by Poli

Actually met some of his coaches at a Glazier clinic yesterday. Looks like a great athlete on film. They run no huddle with wristbands...but they admittedly 'helped' Dean with his. Where most of the team would hear "Wristband 26", look at their wristband and see something like "Green Indiana", Dean would see "Block the corner".

Hey, whatever works. Turns out they coach Petrino's son as well and had Nutt's son there previously.

Dean does look like a stud, though.

MJ4H: This is the guy. Looks like they're taking him as a tight end. I'd be a little more worried with blocking calls.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by cmp

Michigan picks up a commitment from 4 star DB recruit Cullen Christian.

And like thief in the night, Cullen is gone

[DeToxRox]

A shocker to all I know, but Brandon Willis is leaving UNC.

I don't remember if he was a 2010 kid or not, too lazy to check.

[CU Tiger]

headed to Tenn accoding to his brother..this is school 3?

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

headed to Tenn accoding to his brother..this is school 3?

Yep. UCLA, UNC and now Tennessee.

[Chief Rum]

lol... I don't know what's up with this kid, but I hope he figures it out and gets t actually playing some football before his eligibility is used up with transfers.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Yep. UCLA, UNC and now Tennessee.

UNC, UCLA, and then back to UNC. If he hadn't taken any aid at UNC, he'd probably be back at UCLA. I can understand the ruling, but he should have been able to play for UCLA