Bruins Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: BCB Interview: Mike Fontenot Bar-right-arrows

[UPDATED- Harbaugh Gets 2nd] Is The DyNoMite OUT?/Leach In? (Rumor via KLAC)

Bruinsnation_tiny by Nestor on

Can anyone confirm hearing this?

Joe Mcdonnel (KLAC) is reporting DW has been told he is out of the running. That was from comment section in Dohn's blog.

And then posted on the Bruinzone: Joe McDonnell reporting mystery interviewee is

Mike Leach. D. Walker supposedly has been told he is out. Says that M. Leach wants to 2.5 million, so he probably will not be offered. Leaves RN. Let's see if this story has any legs.

If I am not mistaken it was Big Joe who also reported before anyone UCLA could be going after Bellotti.

GO BRUINS.

UPDATE: From Big Moe in DumpDorrell.com comment thread: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury…latest "news flash", courtesy of Big Joe McDonnell, who called into the "Loose Cannons" show on AM 570 radio. You may take this information with a grain of salt, however, I’ve listed to Big Joe for years, and he really knows his stuff…and when he says he has sources, I do believe him. He announced that he heard this afternoon that DeWayne Walker has been informed by UCLA (I’m not sure if it’s by Dan G…or some one else)that he is not being offered the HC position at UCLA. While Walker was upset with the decision, he told officials that his first choice would then be to stay on as DC under the new coach…whomever is hired. UCLA has made another big push for Mike Leach…except for two big problems: (1) Leach wants a minimum $2.5 million per year (more than we’ll ever pay!); (2) Leach wants to evaluate every coordinator and assistant, and make his own moves (UCLA wants the new HC to keep Walker as DC). Leach is out! It really is down to Rick…and he wants to be here like yesterday to get started working. Enough time spent…let’s move forward with Rick! Leach or RN. I will be more than happy with either. If any of you guys hear more on this specifically about Walker being out, please post it in the comment thread. GO BRUINS. -N

UPDATE II: From Doh!n, Harbaugh is set to get a second interview. That's just nuts. -Menelaus

Philadelphia Eagles defensive backs coach John Harbaugh, the brother of Stanford coach Jim Harbaugh, was scheduled to meet with UCLA chancellor Gene Block about the Bruins open coaching position either today or Saturday, sources said Friday.

... Harbaugh joins UCLA defensive coordinator DeWayne Walker and Baltimore Ravens offensive coordinator as current candidates to interview. Sources said former Bruins quarterback Troy Aikman was stumping on behalf of Harbaugh, who does not have head coaching experience but comes from strong bloodlines.

... UCLA is hoping to make a decision in the next few days from the three remaining candidates.

UPDATE III: Perelman at What's Bruin is reporting that UCLA AD Dan Guererro is en route to San Francisco to interview OSU head coach Mike Riley. This is shaping up to be an eventful weekend. Here is the blurb:

A credible source says that UCLA Athletic Director Dan Guerrero took a flight to San Francisco tonight for the purpose of speaking with Oregon State coach Mike Riley tomorrow morning about the UCLA head coaching position.

Stay tuned...

UPDATE IV: Talk about an interesting day; now CSTV is reporting that UCLA is considering Carolina head coach John Fox:

A source tells CSTV that UCLA is considering Carolina Panther head coach John Fox to take over the Bruins' football program. Fox, who is under heavy heat for a disappointing season with the Panthers, has experience at the college level, all before 1989.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 94 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

I love this rumor
If we lose Leach for $$$$, I will applaud the effort and understand.

And, as I've already said, I will be pleased with RN.

I really want Leach and will send money -- Please DG "Ask and you shall receive".

I'll also hope that KD gets the Texans job -- even though I'm a Texan fan, so that we can recapture the buy out and give it to Leach.

Wow, I hope it's true.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 28, 2007 2:50 PM PST   0 recs

You know
If DG asked for money to bring in a coach like Leach all he has to do is just ask. He can easily raise few hundred thousand if not a million if he asked for help from UCLA alums online.

by Nestor on Dec 28, 2007 2:52 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I can live with this
I don't like UCLA's history of stinginess either, but 2.5 million as a minimum is pretty absurd all things considered. If the head coach makes 2.5 million, how much will he and his staff command?

But the best news is obviously that DyNoMite is OUT.

by Tydides on Dec 28, 2007 2:55 PM PST   0 recs

Retained as DC?
That's mentioned in the post in the other thread.

That is not good.

Anyone confirm this?

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 28, 2007 2:56 PM PST   0 recs

If someone like RN or Leach
Decides to keep Walker on their staff I will have no  objections. I have enough confidence in those two guys that they will not put up with any funky business from the DyNoMite.

by Nestor on Dec 28, 2007 2:59 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I agree, completely
I will honor the HC's choice with enthusiasm -- so long as the HC was given a choice.

We all know that Leach is my favorite candidate. His only weakness, that I could find, was his loyalty to his DC. I think he finally let him go, this year.

I honor loyalty a lot more than I honor those who throw others under the bus.

I WANT LEACH. If he wants Walker, that's OK. One thing -- maybe by practicing against a real offense created by a genius, Walker will learn how to D real offenses. One thing that people never mentioned in Walker's defense -- his players went up against one of the weakest O's in the world, for practice. Tough to be honed to excellence in that scenario.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 28, 2007 3:03 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Rye has a theory
which he can explain if he wants.  He posits that having a pass-happy spread offense will adversely affect the defense because they won't be able to practice against a running team.  

I don't see the inherent logic in that, and Rye and I have debated it.  Anyway, I note that Rye is back and can explain more on this subject if he wants to.

And by the way, I really want Leach, too.

by Fox 71 on Dec 28, 2007 3:17 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Most of the time
we appear to be able to stop the run.

We have been killed by passing teams and spread teams.

I was just trying to find some silver lining if the new HC decides to keep DW.

You've expose me.

I'll go back to being a hater.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 28, 2007 3:22 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Okay
My theory is that a pass happy offense like Leach's leaves that team's defense vulnerable to the run because it does not practice against the run in practice. Yes, the scout team can be used to run the ball and the 1st team offense can try running the ball in practice, but the players in the program aren't going to be road grating lineman or powerful, downhill runners. The players in the program will be recruited to do what the 1st team offense does best, spread it and pass it. If you're not practicing against a good running team, how will you be able to stop a good running team.

Also, running the ball and playing physical football creates a physical mentality that is necessary, especially on defense. Football is a tough game and a defense needs to have a physical mentality to be good. It's tough to have that mentality if there isn't a lot of physicality in practice Sunday- Friday. Most people who have played football (me included) talks about how a run game creates a physical mentality and I believe it.

Personally, I believe in physical, hard nosed football that is defense first. It's not a coincidence that the top 5 teams nationally in total defense are playing in BCS bowls. This doesn't mean I don't appreciate a good offense, but I feel football is a defense first game. I also am not against the spread because I feel it can be very effective, as long as you run the ball out of the spread. It's also not a coincidence that 8 of the 10 teams playing in BCS bowls are in the top 36 nationally in run offense, while only 3 of those 10 teams are in the top 50 nationally in pass offense.

Also, I think Leach's offense will prevent him from ever winning a national title or consistently competing for a conference title. In his offense, it's extremely tough to protect a lead. When the clock is constantly stopping, all you're doing is making a game you want to end keep going. Take a look at one of the greatest comebacks in football history when the Bills erased an Oilers 35-3 halftime lead in the 1994 playoffs. Had the Oilers not been running the spread, there is no way the Bills come back and win because there would not have been enough time.

I know this was just supposed to be about the effect of Leach's offense on a defense, but oh well. I just don't think a team that passes the ball so often can have a very good defense. They may be OK, but take a look at the stats and they show that defense and a running game is the odds on way to win championships.

by ryebreadraz on Dec 28, 2007 3:43 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Toledo's late 80s' teams bears you out
Fabulous, unstoppable offense, but as an overall football powerhouse we were just pretenders.

by bluegold on Dec 28, 2007 3:48 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

You all see the problem with Rye
He posts very logical arguments which are difficult to refute.  When he takes the same position that I take, that's of course OK.  But I have a real problem when he takes a position contrary to what I want.  It's difficult to come up with arguments that refute him.

So I'll have to fall back on a sure tactic.  I had lunch with three wealthy and influential alumni who told me that Leach would be better than anyone else.  

by Fox 71 on Dec 28, 2007 4:18 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

What about all the best NFL defenses?
The Patriots defense, the Packers defense?  Or is that different because the NFL is a much more pass-heavy game and the players are more experienced and skilled?

by Odysseus on Dec 28, 2007 4:21 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

The NFL
is a bit different because it is geared towards passing. The illegal contact emphasis in the past few years as well as the other defensive restrictions have made it a passing game, but that doesn't change the fact that the Packers are going to enter the playoffs with the worst run defense of any NFC playoff teams.

The Patriots meanwhile have run into a problem because they don't run the ball. I don't think anyone will argue that the Patriots were more dominant in the early portion of the season, prior to them playing the Eagles. Ever since then, they have been the best team but not nearly as dominant as they were earlier in the season. Entering the Eagles game, they were 3rd in the NFL in rushing. They are now 10th in the NFL in rushing so as they stopped running the ball, their dominance weaned and they went from unbeatable to merely the best team in the league.

by ryebreadraz on Dec 28, 2007 4:39 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, Skippy's offense almost beat the Pats
Even though Bilick calls the plays, Skippy deserves some credit for the Raven's "moral victory"

by bruinliv on Dec 28, 2007 4:57 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Good Points
I've always felt that the spread is a gimmick offense and that a gimmick offense is not the key to longterm success.  Typically, you run a gimmick offense to compensate for a lack of 4 and 5* athletes.  And then every so often, you'll find a team with 4 and 5* athletes that runs the gimmick really well and wins a title (see Florida last year) but I really believe they're the exception, not the rule.  Since we can get 4 and 5* guys at UCLA, I don't see that we need to run and jump on the spread since everyone else is doing it.  

That said, I still like Leach for the job.  He's clearly a different kind of "thinker" and I believe that with the mix of athletes he'd have at UCLA, he'd run a more balanced offense than we see at TT.  It would be a damned creative, hard-to-stop offense but I believe it would have balance.  

And to rye's point, that might have a positive effect on our defense.  

by tliggett on Dec 28, 2007 5:13 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Rye, is this a corollary?
If our offense runs a pro-style offense (2 backs, 2 WRs, 1 TE, with some minor variations off those sets like an extra TE or 3rd WR with only 1 RB), does that make our D vulnerable against the spread and the spread-option? (Performance the last 2 years against the spread offense would seem to support this hypothesis, but I haven't tried to prove it.)

If that's the case, and if the spread and pro-style (with somewhat equal numbers of runs and passes), then wouldn't any particular offense make us vulnerable against the other? And with the spread gaining prominence to the point that a large number of significant schools are running it, then aren't we likely to be vulnerable against one offense or the other no matter what our offense is? If that's the case, what percentage of teams running the spread would be required for our running the spread to be worth it? (My take is that if the spread really is the cheese, it would be when a significant minority of teams are running the spread because the advantages of having that dynamic of an offense would probably outweigh the disadvantage of being vulnerable to pro-style sets.

by BruinsRule on Dec 28, 2007 5:17 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I don't think so
I don't think it's a matter of matching up styles. I think it's a matter of practicing versus the run and the pass. Florida runs the spread option and can stop a pro-style offense. SC runs a pro-style offense and their defense has been good. I can't find any correlation between the style of offense you run and your defense.

The point of the spread is to spread the field and create one on one battles for the offense. In college, this usually works to the offense's advantage because the NCAA rules that limits practice time has caused fundamentals (like tackling) to be excluded from practice. The offensive player is just trying to make someone miss while the defender needs to break down and tackle properly. I think the reason we struggled with the spread the past couple seasons is we lacked fundamentals, especially tackling.

by ryebreadraz on Dec 28, 2007 5:42 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

But it all begins with the line...
...on both sides of the ball.  We need hosses, two-deep.  A dominant offensive line insures that an average back becomes a good back.  A good back becomes very good.  A very good back becomes a Heisman candidate.

Recruiting position players is the key.  I'll be very interested to follow the recruiting program from now on.  Either Leach or Rick's offensive bent is going to be fun to watch.

UCLA - the finest public university in the world

by SecondGenBruin on Dec 28, 2007 5:39 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Look at his O while he was OC at OU
IMO, Leach's O at TTU is a product of the talent pool that he has available to him--which consists of the leftovers from UT, A&M, and OU. He also has to compete with SMU, Baylor, and Houston for recruits. His offense is a system where smaller athletic players can create mismatches with bigger, faster and mostly more talented players.

I think he would adapt to the much deeper talent pool at UCLA. He can get top notch RB's and OL, much like he had at his disposal while at OU. While I doubt he'd completely abandon the Air Raid O, I think Leach's O would be more balanced if he comes to UCLA.

by Ajax on Dec 28, 2007 9:20 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

If Walker isn't even a backup candidate for HC,
then I doubt DG likes him so much to demand that Jones keep him as DC.  If that's the case, then Jones may not be out of the running.  So, if Leach is too expensive, then let's get June Jones.  And if Jones is too expensive, then I'll be content with RN.

by bornagainbruin on Dec 28, 2007 3:01 PM PST   0 recs

Nothing on Double T Nation about this story
I'll keep an eye over there.

They are good people. Hate to see them lose a coach they love BUT -- I WANT LEACH.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 28, 2007 3:07 PM PST   0 recs

OK, i'll cave
you got me... I want Leach as well. I like the thought of innovation. Your persistence has paid off at least with one person.

by bruinbunz on Dec 29, 2007 12:45 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I'm back
I was in Mexico for a bit and I come back to, well not so much news until this. I wonder if this really is that other mystery candidate and if he is, how has DG kept it quiet with everyone suspecting Leach was the frontrunner at the beginning.

IMO, $2.5 million is to be expected. Leach makes 1.7 now, but it due a pay raise in the next year or 2 that will make his yearly salary $2.5M. In essence, he would be taking a pay cut to come here at $2.5M because he'll be buying a house in LA as opposed to Lubbock. Most coaches request a pay raise to come to LA, if he's going to take the same pay, I think it says something about his interest in the job, not that he's pricing himself out of the running.

by ryebreadraz on Dec 28, 2007 3:09 PM PST   0 recs

I can see that being the max
but I was hearing 2.5 as a minimum. If we're looking at 2.7-3 million a year, that's going to be hard to swallow.

by Tydides on Dec 28, 2007 3:21 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

It's Called NEGOTIATIONS
A $2.5million entry demand is usually not made as a "take it or leave it" play.

It's a starting point.

If we really have $1.7, creative negotiators can find a deal that works for all.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 29, 2007 4:00 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

God..how I love cost of living indexes
Because (despite my love for BN) I refuse to pay the $8 fee for coli.org, here's free data from cnnmoney comparing $1.7M in Lubbock to Los Angeles/Long Beach

Salary in Lubbock TX:
$1,700,000
Comparable salary in Los Angeles-Long Beach CA:
$3,011,832.68

If you move from Lubbock TX to Los Angeles-Long Beach CA...

Groceries will cost: 41.925% more
Housing will cost: 261.999% more
Utilities will cost: 18.566% more
Transportation will cost: 18.293% more
Healthcare will cost: 13.121% more

***Note that this is Los Angeles/Long Beach, so you can skew the data even more because I doubt Leach would live far from West LA.  Given this data, a "pay increase" would sadly be about $3.5M to make any sense.  In short, Leach is extremely well-compensated as-is, but I applaud DG's efforts nonetheless.

by bruinhopeful on Dec 28, 2007 3:50 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

But consider this
If Leach were spending all he is earning, then I would agree with you. However, the cost of living only applies to living expenses. How much could Leach really be spending to live now? $300,000 if he's living pretty lavishly? If so, he could probably live off of $500k in LA, which means he'd really only need a $200k raise. The numbers may be off, but the point is that after a certain amount of living, everything else is being invested, and for that it makes no difference where a person lives.

by BruinsRule on Dec 28, 2007 5:21 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I concur...
Maybe it's because I haven't yet made millions a year, but how could it possibly not be cushy to live in LA on 2~ million a year?

by bruinbunz on Dec 29, 2007 12:48 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Great Point
I'm not an economist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express, so let me weigh in:

Most of us don't own our houses, we just rent them from the bank, hope we build equity, and then sell them.

The value of my house in Pacific Palisades almost doubled in the half a dozen years in which I lived in it. The monthly payments were high, but it turned out to be the best investment I ever made.

I will not get the same return on my house in Texas when I sell it.

So, to some extent, the COL stuff, though true, doesn't paint the entire picture.

Yes, one has to spend more on housing, but one gets more back. And, with $2 million, one can carry a pretty good mortgage on a property in an area of almost certain appreciation (like the beach areas of which Leach is so fond).

He, let me talk with him -- I'll get him to take less and come.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 29, 2007 3:57 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I was wondering..
..when you guys would get around to this. Cost of living in L.A. is obviously higher and housing will require a large chunk o' dough, but the salary thing is mostly for bragging rights, ego, and all that. Anyone who wants to come to L.A. (and leave Tejas) will do so and deals are structured (as "sjh" says, negotiated) to suit both parties. I left a contract that paid a high amount and took a job that offered less on the face annually but actually paid me for all of the hours I worked and I made much more than at the first gig.

Leach, Neuheisel, Jones, Reilly, don't just drive up, start coaching, and collect 1/24th of their deal amount every half month. A smart coach and a smart school who genuinely want to work together will structure a deal that they can both afford/live with.

As many have pointed out, incentives and accomplishments will make the new coach's salary a  drop in the bucket when matched against what his teams will do. UCLA becomes successful in football and the season ticket sales go through the roof, contributions increase from grateful alumni, bowl revenues start accruing, etc. Remember, season ticket sales this year peaked at over 75,000 per game. Many attribute this to the promise of the 20 or so starters returning, the expectations, and the Notre Dame people buying up about 10-15,000 tickets keeping the ND game ducats and eBaying the rest. Next year, will be a down year with a bravo sierra schedule and an expected decline. Somewhere I got the analysis I did on attendance and will post if challenged.

..how many times have we seen on this site variations on, "you've got to spend money to make money?"

by whp68 on Dec 29, 2007 7:31 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I can see $2.5 mil including incentives...
That is, take UCLA to a BCS bowl and Leach is paid the 2.5;  if it's his base salary at 2.5 then it seems too high.

But what do I know?

by bluegold on Dec 28, 2007 3:15 PM PST   0 recs

Leach is out?
There's a big leap in this report.

Salary?

DC requirement?

Are talks off and closed?

I do not believe some of this -- particularly:

We would lose Leach over Walker AND

that Walker will stay when UW and the world want him Soooooo much and will pay him soooooooo much more.

Only a fool will take a job with Iago on his staff.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 28, 2007 3:27 PM PST   0 recs

That last 'update'
I wouldn't call it a 'report.' It was a post and that commenter's own analysis. Nothing wrong with that. However, it didn't have any specific fact showing Leach is out.

by Nestor on Dec 28, 2007 3:29 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Two issues:
I'm a bit concerned that Neuheisel or Leach could be forced to accept Walker as DC. I don't have a problem with anyone choosing Walker voluntarily, but I'm not sure how we'd know for certain. All the parties would put a best face on the deal. As several writers have said on BN, if Walker is forced on a new head coach, there's an immediate potential for friction.

I'm also curious about how much Ben Howland is making. I don't object to paying top dollar for a great football coach, but I don't think the new coach should be paid more than Howland. Is it possible that Howland may feel the same way?

by bruinfollower on Dec 28, 2007 3:41 PM PST   0 recs

Two things
I agree with you re the Walker situation.  It will be almost impossible to know whether any new coach who retains DW actually kept him voluntarily.

As for Howland, no problem.  Let's give him a raise tomorrow.  1.5MM is pretty good for hoops, but, send us an email, Dan, I'm happy to contribute some more to keep Ben happy.

by Menelaus on Dec 28, 2007 3:59 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Let's make sure that he's paid top dollar...
...for basketball.

But if success is measured by championships, Al Scates is the most successful coach in UCLA history and I don't see anyone saying that he should be paid 2.5 million.

by Chandler on Dec 28, 2007 9:08 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Howland's salary isn't relevant
I've said this before. Basketball is a different business. A smaller one. A much smaller one. It doesn't bring in anywhere near the money football does.

If you were going to go by coaching success, you'd have to give even more than the 2.5 million to Al Scates, whose teams have won 19 titles. That's two more than all other college volleyball teams COMBINED.

by Chandler on Dec 28, 2007 9:04 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Forcing assistants on a new coach
take one look at Louisville this season and tell me how it worked out.

by ryebreadraz on Dec 28, 2007 3:44 PM PST   0 recs

$2.5 mill should not stop us
OK, here we go again with the MSM painting UCLA as cheap and not willing to pay for top talent.

I think we understood DG to suggest that the money would be there for the right coach. Is Leach the right coach? There is a pretty strong consensus opinion here on BN that he would be.

Secondly, earlier someone posted here on BN that the "budget" amount was in the neighborhood of $3million at the top end. $2.5mill with incentives seems about average market price for a Tier 1 candidate in this year's coaches sweepstakes.

Lastly, and this is directed at DG, ask and you shall receive. If DG came to the fan base and the alums I think the money would be there. I know I would up my booster level participation if it meant getting Leach. I'm serious. Just ask us Dan, just ask...PLEASE!

by GemCityBruin on Dec 28, 2007 3:55 PM PST   0 recs

Rose Bowl can seat another 20,000 per home game
I think the average attendance for the Rose Bowl this season was 70,000.  Or is that too high?  In any case, the Rose Bowl can seat 20,000 more and at $30 / ticket, that's $600,000 per home game * 6 home games = $3,600,000.  I figure 25% goes to the Rose Bowl (pulling the # out of my butt), so that's an additional $2,700,000 in ticket sales per year if we can sell out the Rose Bowl like 'SC sells out the Coliseum.  That can easily cover the pay increase for Leach and his assistants.

by mark the bruin on Dec 28, 2007 4:01 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

and don't forget...
concessions, parking, retail sales, donors...

the list goes on supporting positive financial repercussions

by bruinhopeful on Dec 28, 2007 4:04 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Right
You have to spend money to make money, but there's a hitch in these logic...the administration. The administration refuses to allow the athletic department to stop being self-sufficient. If they were to pay out for a coach, they wouldn't be self-sufficient for a year, maybe 2. Now for all of us with a brain, it's not a big deal because you'll make all that money back, plus more, but the administration clearly lacks the ability to think so logically.

by ryebreadraz on Dec 28, 2007 4:07 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Them that can does..
..them that can't (make money) teaches.

Oops, Steve, no offense meant.

by whp68 on Dec 28, 2007 4:12 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Thanks Mark
You answered my question before I could post it.

A great coach more than pays for his own salary.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 28, 2007 4:09 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

If this is in fact true,
I don't care anymore. Neuheisel, Leach, Jones, etc...we can't lose. There's just no way. Hope DW is truly out of the race.

by OutOThsWrld on Dec 28, 2007 3:59 PM PST   0 recs

Where and why would the line be drawn?
Rhetorical speculation: Why is Walker so special that he should be retained? How can Guerrero ask the new coach (Neuheisel or Leach or whomever) to accept Walker and NOT accept Scott (Walker's friend) or Norvell?

If I'm Neuheisel, I tell Guerrero (politely) that Leach wants too much, he got blown off by his other choices, and he (Rick) is working on the cheap. If there are a lot of incentive bonuses in Rick's contract, he might not want to hitch his wagon to some traitorous, questionable coach.


Also, why would Guerrero be so compelled to allow Walker to stay on -- especially after the politicking and back-stabbing he and his cronies have done?

If anything, I'd tel ol' "Dead Man" Walker, "Uh, Rick's not down with you, old son, time to dust off the resume and hit the bricks. Say hi to Ty and be sure to get yourself a good raincoat."

..inquiring minds.

by whp68 on Dec 28, 2007 4:09 PM PST   0 recs

Is it all about the '08 recruits?
Fine, let's say every single one of them decommits and we have no recruits for the '08 season.  With RN as the head coach, wouldn't it be easy for him to get good recruits for the '09 season?  And I'm sure there are a lot of other LA high school football players who may not be 5-star(?) rated players, but would love to play for UCLA.  Look at Boise St.  I distinctly remember Peterson and/or the game announcers saying that they took all of the Pac-10 rejects (too small, too slow, etc.) but played with passion and won the BCS game.

by mark the bruin on Dec 28, 2007 4:17 PM PST   0 recs

I Don't Buy the Tie-In
First, I don't see why DG would want to tie DW to the program. DW's record is not that strong and no one would believe the "recruiting" crap.

Second, if these rumors are true, we are clearly fishing in the deep end. Why make it more difficult?

The coaches we want have the strength to say "No, I don't want DW".

This is DG's signature hire. And, if he truly wants one of these guys, he won't kill the deal by trying to shove DW done someone's throat.

Third, DW has really hurt himself in the last week or so. He's not only a mediocre coach, but also he has not played his PR hand well. If ever DG felt some "obligation" to DW, he can't feel that now -- after DW and his family have tried to pressure him into a premature decision.

And, by the way, I do not fault DW for campaigning for the job. He just has not done it well. Instead of creating support and protecting DG and the process, he's made life more difficult for DG.

In the end, I can't see DW as being so important to DG that he will risk this very important hire in an attempt to keep DW employed.

DG has to keep himself employed and to do that, and gain honor role status as our AD, he has to make a good hire.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 28, 2007 4:18 PM PST   0 recs

Shoot -- throw an avg. $1.3/yr at RN...
... for 5 years and a 2-year, $950K deal at DW.

Lock them both up.  If DW wants to walk, I understand, but let's at least give him a 2-year deal to beat UW and at least have some fairly decent continuity on one side of the ball.  

I'm not saying DW is a world-beater on D, but I find him to be fairly solid for a 2nd-year DC.  Give him the asst. HC shot and let's roll with the Neu already.

M

"Because I'm tired of it. Year after year after year after year having to choose between the lesser of 'Who cares?'"

by Meriones on Dec 28, 2007 4:19 PM PST   0 recs

I am ok with that ...
only if that is okay with RN (or Leach).

Also I don't see why we have to give Walker a raise.  There are lot of good DCs out there. What about the Georgia Tech DC who worked for Chan Gailey? Ron English will be available.

Walker at this point has no leverage on UCLA. He should be staying here on our terms or go ahead and sip his latte in Seattle.

by Nestor on Dec 28, 2007 4:24 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I assume you mean $950k over 2 years
Because DW isn't worth nearly that much.  In fact, while I can see giving him a modest raise, going from the 300ish he is reportedly making now to 475k is a ridiculous raise unwarrented by the circumstances (I don't have any reason to believe the UDub is offering near that amount).  I get your point re continuity, but think it would be offset by the potential for players "taking sides" and any undercutting of the HC that DW might engage in.

As for Neu, I'd give him more than 1.3MM/yr even if we could get him for that.  Maybe I'm just looking at the long road, but any increase in the institutional outlay for head coach is good news to me.

by Menelaus on Dec 28, 2007 4:27 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I've had enough of Walker
There is a lot of talk about severing all ties with anyone connected with the late Terry Donahue.  (The Terry Donahue who attended UCLA would never have said UCLA was just a bball school, so this is obviously an alien occupying Donahue's body.)  I think we should also sever all ties with CTS, which includes Walker (and of course Training Jay.)

Walker was nothing when he came here.  Seriously, who had ever heard of him?  And frankly, he has done nothing to distinguish himself from 35 or so DC's who have put up better numbers.  

My biggest gripe with him now is thanks to Doh! and Walker's relentless PR campaign.  You can only watch election commercials for a brief period before you think that it wouldn't be all that bad under a pure dictatorship.  When he learned that Paulie Gatto had set up Don Vito, Sonny told Clemenza that he didn't want to see Paulie no more.  While I don't need to have Clemeza take Paulie for a ride, it is a fact that I don't want to see Waynie "The Stabber" Walker no more.  

by Fox 71 on Dec 28, 2007 4:40 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Nice prediction re Neu
1.3 is pretty darn close to 1.25.  Give the man a cigar.

by Menelaus on Dec 29, 2007 2:52 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Let's Correct Big Moe
I was on the way home from the office and personally heard the Big Joe report and there was no mention whatsoever of evaluating the coordinators - the conversation was strictly over the fact Leach wants 2.5 million.
This is the problem - people twist fact with rumors and we wind up with issues that don't really exist.
I mean if we want to believe rumors didn't everyone say in the beginning Leach would ask for less to come to UCLA.
Let's cut the BS and hire RN, give DW the opportunity to be his DC.  If DW doesn't want the job - lets go elsewhere and get this program back on track.
"Failing to Prepare is Preparing to Fail"

by Griffin1 on Dec 28, 2007 4:38 PM PST   0 recs

Yep, $950K over TWO years...
... with my reasoning being as follows:

(1)  Reports are that DW was making $330-$350K last year.  (I believe the OCR had the nubmers at one point during the season.)  Rumors have it that UW offered DW the same amount he's making NOW to come up north.  Figure a 40% value increase due to cost of living.

Bumping DW to $450K or so would balance that out.

(2)  Whether you think DW is the second coming of Buddy Ryan and the 46 Defense or not, he is, IMO, a PROMISING D-coordinator.  In this conference, there aren't that many out there.  Yes, we got burned by spread offenses, but the past 2 years are certainly better than the last 8 preceding it.

(3)  Whether you think DW is the greatest recruiting tool since the arcane methods shown in "Johnny Be Good" and "Blue Chips" combined, DW is effective.  Price is a plus in that column.  

IS that enough to merit a HC promotion?  NO, of course not.  

Is DW's overall recruiting effort enough to make him worthwhile to try keeping -- again, with RN's approval (as N pointed out)?  I THINK SO, YES.

(4)  How many OCs have we had in the last 5 years?  FOUR.  How many OL coaches?  FOUR.  How many receiver coaches?  THREE.  How many QB coaches?  THREE, if you count Norvell (is he a QB coach?).

Anybody notice our best units are the ones where the coaches actually are good enough to merit a second year to coach???

IF, IF, IF RN were to be hired and have no qualms about keeping DW on staff, then I'll go with it.  Rumors have swirled that RN would want to keep him on.  If that's true, then I'd gladly take it.

(5)  RN has not held a HC gig in, what, 5 years?  I think keeping DW on may actually help RN in some ways by reducing some of the flux that comes from new hires, new philosophies, etc.

I realize many of us fear the Kragthorpe situation with dissension and backstabbing -- however, I have FAITH, crazy and unsupported as it may be, that a RN/ DW combo would be free of such things.

And if it doesn't, if we make the bump-up offer to DW with RN's approval and he doesn't take it, then no harm no foul.  RN has the enthusiasm and experience to build from the ground up.  If recruits leave, then that just gives RN more breathing room to re-build.

M

"Because I'm tired of it. Year after year after year after year having to choose between the lesser of 'Who cares?'"

by Meriones on Dec 28, 2007 4:47 PM PST   0 recs

Sorry, We can do better than DW
Why continue mediocrity?

Clean Sweep!!! Except Kezerian.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 28, 2007 6:50 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I love the towel waving guy!
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Dec 28, 2007 11:02 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Harbaugh? What the hell???
I was gone when the original news on him broke, but I have never understood why he is receiving any consideration for the job. Anybody know? anybody? Buheler?

by bruinhoo on Dec 28, 2007 5:17 PM PST   0 recs

Doh! isn't exactly a good source
Doh! says Harbaugh gets a second interview.  It may therefore be safely assumed that Harbaugh did not, in fact, get a second interview.  I want some credible reporting.  Someone go find Bill and Ted.

by Fox 71 on Dec 28, 2007 5:17 PM PST   0 recs

Aikman for Harbaugh? Wait a minute...
Wait, folks.

What do we know:

(1)  RN was Troy Aikman's QB coach.

(2)  Reportedly, Troy has spoken highly of RN.

(3)  Harbaugh is a defensive specialist in the NFL.

(4)  DW has interviewed to take a DC position at UW.

Does ANYONE think that Harbaugh may be getting interviewed NOT as a KD replacement, but as a DW replacement???

M

"Because I'm tired of it. Year after year after year after year having to choose between the lesser of 'Who cares?'"

by Meriones on Dec 28, 2007 5:24 PM PST   0 recs

Aikman
That sounds wrong. We've all heard Aikman was stumping for RN.

by Raisin on Dec 28, 2007 5:43 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Aikman for RN Widely Reported
And, it makes a lot of sense.

Look our own front page picture.

Aikman has also been helping RN, in Dallas, at SMU. As reported by reputable Dallas newspapers.

Dohn must have gotten this wrong. What is Aikman's tie to Harbaugh?

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 28, 2007 7:56 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

May be onto something
That would certainly make more sense.

by Menelaus on Dec 28, 2007 7:43 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Dohn
Harbaugh report looks like a very hurried post (text from a cell phone in a sports bar?) based on scant evidence.  Agree with Meriones, if true it is likely an interview for DC in the event DW moves to UW or is let go by the next HC.

I'm not big on the Leach hire - IMHO he has too much NFL glow in his eyes; happy where he is waiting for the right opportunity and will only move to a higher profile college job if the pay is more.  In other words, a risky investment if we assume he will pay for the salary increase through increased ticket sales, etc... may not be in Westwood long enough.  I'm also concerned about the effect on other UCLA coaches, who would also be looking for similar compensation; and the impact on athletics infrastructure improvements (Pauley renovation, etc) if we spend every penny on this guy.

Mark me down as a new RN vote.  My hope now is the delay in announcing the decision is hinged on identifying & hiring the remainder of the coaching staff replacements - as Dohn may have tipped us to.

by East Coast Bruin on Dec 28, 2007 6:06 PM PST   0 recs

Uncredited Reports
...have Walker with a two year deal. This may be circular reporting since none of the Oregon, Washington sources credit the original source nor does the OC Register...could all circle back to Doh!'s original rumor mongering.

In any case Walker should take the paycheck and then plan his next move. It's clear to me that DG told him that the new HC would have the right to bring in his own guys without interference from DG...otherwise why all the heavy handed pimping by Doh! and the other Walkerista's for the HC job?

DeWayne, you need to let this idea of being HC go for right now. You need to think strategically. If Washington has offered you a job it's always better to go where you are wanted. Take the job offer, cash the paycheck and move on.

by GemCityBruin on Dec 28, 2007 7:24 PM PST   0 recs

2.5 Million
I'm not as a fanatic as most posters here, But 2.5 Mil for Leach? I follow college football to some extent and I tend to shy away from the stats. I just enjoy the passion and the abilities of the young atheletes, and I follow UCLA religiously. I see enough to determine who are the powerhouses in college ball. And Texas Tech and Leach have not entered my radar screen. What has he done to merit such attention from most of you here and merit this salary when I think we can do better with Rick, with probably less money for him and more for good assistances?

by hdATucla on Dec 28, 2007 7:31 PM PST   0 recs