Is Slick Rick up to his old tricks?

by Paragon SC on Dec 29, 2008 7:00 AM PST in USC Football Comment 52 comments

Looks like Slick RIck is living up to his name...

USC assistant coach Ken Norton Jr. on Sunday lashed out at UCLA for allegedly using him as bait to lure recruits to Westwood and discourage them from joining the Trojans.

Norton, a former All-American linebacker for the Bruins, said UCLA has told prospective players that he would be joining Coach Rick Neuheisel's staff if defensive coordinator DeWayne Walker leaves for another job.

"It's coming from there and it's wrong and it's not true," said Norton, who has coached linebackers on Coach Pete Carroll's USC staff since 2004. "So if you're going to recruit, recruit what you have. . . . Don't try to recruit, saying I'm coming over there.

"And I'm not saying I'm a big deal. I'm just saying you've made it a big deal by using me as some kind of target or ploy or something."

There is negative recruiting and then there is Slick Rick's style of recruiting.

I could be wrong but sooner or later Ken Norton is going to leave USC. If he leaves for ucla that's great for him, I can understand wanting to coach at your alma mater, there is a special pride in that no question about it. But based on this article and what we have heard in the past Slick Rick doesn't seem like the type of guy that Norton would want to coach for. He turned him down last year so I don't see him jumping this year even if its for the DC position.

But like I said I could be wrong.

Norton pulls no punches in opinion of Slick Rick...

But Sunday, Norton referenced Neuheisel's troubled tenures at Colorado and Washington, saying, "It's kind of a pattern of what happened in the past."

Neuheisel, apprised of Norton's comments, said, "I have no comment to that. I've had no contact with Kenny."

Norton also said he has had no recent contact with Neuheisel. "It's important that it's known that I'm here and I'm staying here," Norton said. "I just think the recruits should know that. The fans should know that."

"I've found over the years what you say in recruiting kind of tells who you are," Carroll said. "The truth always comes out in the end."

Then there is this gem from Pete Carroll.

"I've found over the years what you say in recruiting kind of tells who you are," Carroll said. "The truth always comes out in the end."

Yeap couldn't have said it better myself...once a punk, always a punk.

0 recs | Comment 52 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Coming on a little strong, aren't you?

“It;s kind of a pattern” with Neuheisel per Norton referencing his past misdeeds and the current flap-whatever you say, Norton. Norton was a fine linbacker at UCLA and in the pros, but maybe all those hits took their toll over the years because he displays none of the reasoning skills his UCLA education certainly provided circa 1989. This claim that Norton references involves no misdeeds, NCAA infractions or anything else, even assuming it’s true, which we have no way of knowing.

Nice of Norton to consider the source (17-18 year-old kids) before popping off. I find it hard to believe that anyone on UCLA’s staff would be dumb enough to say something like that to a recruit, and the more likely explanation is that some recruit asked if Norton might be a DC candidate if Walker left and was told something to the effect that he would be considered. Any chance a discussion along those lines might be incorrectly restated to Norton by some recruit?

And, “once a punk, always a punk?” And citing Carroll for that proposition? Now that is priceless:-) Seriously, though, you mention negative recruiting and then “Slick Rick’s style of recruiting”-what, pray tell, defines that style since he took over at UCLA? Recruiting hard? Going after USC commits? Do you know something we don’t? Because I haven’t read any negative accounts about his recruiting nor any hints of dishonest/unethical practices.

by ucladj89 on Dec 29, 2008 9:34 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Dude read the papers

I saw this last night in la times, so you telling us recruits are lying ok maybe. Now you shizekoffs will not be able to use this and some recruits will think all of you are bogus. NnnnnnnnnnnIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiCcccccccccEeeeeeeeee

Oh and we really don’t need your undersize and weak recuits anyway.

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on Dec 29, 2008 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Setting a new standard for reading comprehension, I see

Since I didn’t say recruits were lying, only that something might have been “lost in the translation” as related by 17 and 18 year-old recruits and alternate explanations make more sense. Keep working on that, mmkay? As for you not needing our weak and undersize recruits, you may not need them, but you sure act like you want them-ask Brian Price, Byron Moore and Presley.

by ucladj89 on Dec 29, 2008 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

When you say consider the source

You are implying that the source is either mistaken, or being deceitful. I think a 17-18 year old kid knows the difference between “maybe coach Norton will be our DC” , and “Coach Norton is going to be our DC.” Coaches are very specific about these things while recruiting, and I seriously doubt that Norton didn’t ask for a clarification from his source before coming out with this story.

by frak on Dec 29, 2008 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not quite

I implied the source was mistaken, not being deceitful. Note that in my original response, all I said was that the “more LIKELY explanation” was an incorrect re-statement of what the rercruit was told. As for Norton’s motivations, I don’t think either you or I know enough about them to speculate. I’d like to believe that Norton gave Neuheisel a call or talked the issue over thoroughly before going to the press, but we simply don’t know that.

by ucladj89 on Dec 29, 2008 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why is it more likely ?

explain your reasoning for this.

Considering Neuheisel has a track record of lying, and has issued a “no comment” when confronted with Norton’s claims, I would think it would be more likely that there isn’t a mistake or lie coming from a potential recruit.

by frak on Dec 29, 2008 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Because 17 and 18 year old kids

sometimes hear things they want to hear that weren’t said; sometimes hear things they don’t want to hear that weren’t said and don’t always remember things exactly as said when they repeat them to others. In the recruiting world, as in law, you have to ber very careful how you phrase something, and in my experience it is amazing how often people still get the exact phrasing wrong even after hours of discussion.

As for Neuheisel’s “track record of lying”, IIRC that involved his lying to his Washington AD about the 49ers job and involvement in the NCAA pool that led to his termiantion and subsequent vindication after settling his wronful termination suit for $4.5 million. AFAIK, it did not involve lying to NCAA investigators or recruits. Dishonesty in one thing does not necessarily mean dishonesty in others. It could, but I don’t know that to be the case in this instance and I’m not going to go use what he said to his employer when he was in a job search as prima facie evidence of a dishonest character.

by ucladj89 on Dec 29, 2008 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't agree with you on this point

you are saying that its more likely that a 17-18 year old kid makes a mistake because they are young. I’m willing to wait for more information to come out before making up my mind on this issue, even if that means giving Neuheisel the benefit of the doubt. But by no means am I giving him more credit simply because the source might be a 17-18 year old kid, and they remember things wrong all the time. Right now, someone is lying, or this is a big misunderstanding. After the denial from Neuheisel, I’m willing to believe that it could be a misunderstanding. Before that denial he looked pretty sheepish with simply the “no comment.”

by frak on Dec 29, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The defensiveness comes out ...

Funny how Bruin memories or so poor. So let’s take a trip back in the ole time machine. Time: 1999. Destination: Boulder, Colorado.

After Neuheisel left, Colorado lost five of 25 scholarships for one year, and was put on two years’ probation for 53 rules violations, 51 when Neuheisel was the Colorado coach from 1995-98. “This was a serious case,” the NCAA’s infractions committee ruling said, “in which a football coaching staff, led by the former head football coach, in a calculated attempt to gain a recruiting advantage, pushed beyond the permissible bounds of legislation, resulting in a pattern of recruiting violations..”

It was during his time at Colorado that he first began to be known as “Slick Rick” by his detractors, as it reflected their belief that he possessed a disingenuous personality.

by Zoulou on Dec 29, 2008 10:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Strangely enough, my memory of what happened ten years ago is pretty good

and on this particular issue its quite sharp, since the issue of Neuheisel’s past infractions was discussede to the nth degree on Bruin boards before and after Neuheisel was hired. But my point was directed to current activities, and AFAIK, the only “problem” with Neuheisel’s CURRENT stint as a coach is this one as alleged by Norton. Might be true, might not be, might be based simply an inaccurate statement made during a recruiting visit, but a) it ain’t an NCAA infraction (assuming it’s true) and b) it ain’t part of a pattern (at least yet.)

by ucladj89 on Dec 29, 2008 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Will you conceed that it is possible

that Neuheisel overstepped by making the false claim. If it is true wouldn’t you be worried that he just got busted lying to a recruit, and called on it publicly by a respected former bruin alum and player.

You have to be objective. Norton doesn’t have a track record or pattern of deceit. Neuheisel does. Who are you going to give more credibility to? The proven liar, or the coach with no track record of it.

by frak on Dec 29, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Certainly it's possible

as I acknowledged in my response to Zoulou, but if it makes you happy, I’ll restate it: the story could be true. It might also be untrue, or based on a misunderstanding of what was said. Could also be reflective of some bad blood from Norton directed toward UCLA from the rigors of recruiting. Point is, while Neuheisel obviously carries baggage from his run-ins with the NCAA at Colorado and Washington, Norton works for USC, and the battle on the recruiting front is pretty heated as I understand it. But a story based on unknown sources claiming that UCLA (who? which coach?) was saying that Norton was coming to Westwood if Walker left is hardly indicative of anything. Let’s see more support for the claim before giving full credence to the story.

by ucladj89 on Dec 29, 2008 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Who are you going to believe

The proven liar that is Neuheisel, or a 17-18 year old with probably no reason to lie. Norton is a bruin alum, who has had experience in the past with bruin assistant coach Scott sitting in on a recruiting visit posing as a family member of a player. When its reported that Norton will take a DC job if Walker leaves, and Norton has nothing to do with that story, and hes hearing that Neuheisel is telling kids just that, then I can’t really blame him for launching torpedoes.

In closing, Neuheisel has flat out lied in the past to his superiors at Washington. Why not lie to a player he wants to sign with him. Its not really a violation to lie to a player is it.

by frak on Dec 29, 2008 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I believe I'll wait for more than

the claim of a rival coach, based on unsourced allegation(s), that UCLA “lied” to recruits about where said coach is going if Walker leaves, before I believe the story is true. I said already that I believe there is a more likely explanation that doesn’t involve lying by either Neuheisel or Norton. If I am mistaken, and it’s just Slick Rick back to his weasel ways, I’m sure I’ll be hearing all about it over the next year.

by ucladj89 on Dec 29, 2008 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We now have a flat out denial from RN

I guess we will see if the source of this accusation comes to light.

by frak on Dec 29, 2008 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is the worst part, the unsourced allegations. Oh wait, and the no comment! hah!

I’m sorry Kenny sounds like a crazy homeless guy. It has been a while since I’ve dealt with any, I’ve been on paternity leave since the end of November. But my day job actually entails I deal with all kinds of people in the City of L.A., a lot of whom are transients. This is textbook irrationality. I think Kenny should get out of the elements for a while.

“UCLA is talking trash about me! They’re sayin’ I’m leavin’ USC!”

Who is Kenny?

“UCLA is!”

No, specifically Kenny. Who in Westwood? Dan Guerrero? Rick Neuheisel? Bob Field? Joe Bruin … ? Josephine Bruin maybe?

“Uhm… UCLA IS! I SAID THEY WERE!”

Oh alright Kenny. We believe you. Now if offered the UCLA DC job will you accept it?

“No comment.” (his actual response to the above question!!)

WTF!? This is quite possibly one of the biggest WTF moments ever. Why after all of this, would his response to a direct “will you take this job you are saying you are not in fact going to take?” question is NO. COMMENT.

by Seanny Rotten on Dec 31, 2008 2:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

For the same reason(s) Coach Neuheisel issued his initial "no comment" reply

To buy some time and to let the issue of importance STAY important. It was/is a strategically “mannered” move to allow the crux of the accusation to stay at the forefront. Besides, it’s a “loaded” question, and Coach Norton is savvy enough NOT to bite.

If you will:

A. If, in fact, Coach Norton “heard from recruit(s)” that people on staff over at Ucla were using the lure of Coach Norton possibly returning to Ucla once the DC job opened up- and not specifically given any names as to whom that person was from said recruit(s), Coach Norton couldn’t exactly say who said what, where, or when. Even if Coach Norton did “have names”, I’m pretty sure he’s classy enough to not get that particular person or persons in hot water with the Ucla higher-ups. Someone could very well lose their job(s), now how would that look? It’s not such a misdeed that could or should warrant that, would it? Coach Norton just simply went public so that the “shenanigans” come to an end AND so that “publicly”, it would be known far and wide that Coach Norton is a USC coach, and NOT a soon-to-be-UCLA coach.

B. With Coach Norton’s integrity, loyalty, and class remaining intact- it wouldn’t be prudent on his or USC’s part to name names, be it recruit(s) or fUcla-personnel. Both recruit(s) and coach(es) would be put in jeopardy for any and all future endeavors as it applies to college football. Any recruit(s) who have yet to make up their mind for their school of choice would be hampered and somewhat limited if Coach Norton identified them in this unfortunate situation. Any fUcla coach would be reprimanded, fired or quite possibly might have to “take the fall” for having used Coach Norton’s name in trying to lure a recruit to Westwood if he, too, were identified in this situation. Again, it’s not like some rule was broken- just some crazy bullshit was spoken. And Coach Norton wanted it to stop.

C. The situation is, what it is. It’s not about “would you take the DC job if it were offered to you”. It’s not about Ken Norton coming back to Westwood. It’s about Ken Norton, USC linebacker coach, recruiting potential football players to Heritage Hall and being a professional, hard working man while doing it. Mostly, it’s about maintaining a respectful and courteous playing field in the highly-competitive environment that is college football recruiting.

As far as all the talk about Coach Norton “going public” on some fabricated and unsubstantiated charges based on “bad-blood” because USC is “worried” that fUcla is “taking away” all our prized recruits? Uh. . . . .yeah. . . .right. . . .but not really. That’s the REAL WTF?

It is.

(hint: Ken Norton is a Hall of Famer. . . . .from Ucla . . . .he’s a pretty damn good guy . . . .and a freaking excellent coach . . . . with tons and tons of integrity . . . . and NOT A SINGLE BLEMISH ON HIS PLAYING OR COACHING RECORD !!!!! Just thought I’d clue all you Bruins in on that. . . . in case y’all forgot or something. . . . AND . . . . . by trying to tear down his image or find his motivations to be less than proper in all of this. . . . .y’all are looking REALLY REALLY stupid. . . . .because . . . . also. . . . in case you didn’t get properly introduced . . . . pot- meet kettle . . . . just sayin’ . . . . . ;- )

"I was INVERTED!" -Maverick in Top Gun

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 31, 2008 7:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not a single blemish?

First off, that’s B.S. If he really didn’t want the UCLA DC job if offered he should have said, “No.” Not, “No comment.” That defies all rationality.

Gee, I dunno jumping ship from the Cowboys to the hated 49ers was pretty low. Just ask Troy, Emmitt & Michael. Having a huge fight with your own father and not speaking to him for years is pretty suspect. He has no problem getting really mean and person with his own family. Bringing up Colorado and UW when you don’t really need to is pretty suspect …

Anakin is now Darth Vader. We’ll see if he ever redeems himself.

All he had to say was, “Several recruits told me this – I can’t name them.” Or “Position coach _.” But no, he made a wildly unsubstantiated allegation and to give that baseless allegation ammo he brought up things that happened five and ten years ago. And then the NO COMMENT!!!

In any event it’ll all come out in the wash and we’ll see who was full of it in the weeks, months and even years to come. It’s nice to finally have some honest to goodness bad blood, give and take in the recruiting wars. 2006 was horrible when Neuheisel’s predecessor had about three or four soft verbals from FIVE star recruits only to lose all of them to USC. This is a welcome change and it should infuse this rivalry with some much needed energy. See you on the field!

by Seanny Rotten on Dec 31, 2008 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The world doesn't exist JUST to please you. . .

. . .and a handful of others. What’s so hard in understanding that Coach Norton wanted the use of his name and/or possible future hiring to cease?Nothing more, nothing less. Because he didn’t respond the way you wanted him to, does it make the situation dramatically less believable?

Sure, he could have picked up the phone (who’s to say he didn’t try?). Sure, he could have replied the way you (and others) wish? He didn’t. Stop whining already.

As far as him going from the Cowboys to the 69ers . . . . .what the f_ck? And private family matters that played out publicly? Dude, pull it out. I’m almost hurting FOR you. Is that all you got for blemishes? See you on the field?

BTW: a dude, with child. . . will only see fields of joy. congrats on the little person, I can almost tell you’re not getting much sleep.

"I was INVERTED!" -Maverick in Top Gun

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 31, 2008 11:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It would have been illegal

for USC, Coach Carroll, or Coach Norton, to name the source of the accusation in the media. Thats probably why Coach Carroll told Simer’s to try to track down the recruits himself.

by frak on Dec 31, 2008 10:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

well of course they can't name a recruit BY NAME,

that’s an NCAA rule violation. No one was asking them to do that. But he could have said, “_# of recruits have told me so.” So we’d have more to believe him than these wild stabs in the dark. We’d know if it was one recruit who got him all hot and bothered or if it was a whole cadre. It would make his story more believable too. But the unsourcing is what is troubling and makes him less believable.

I’m not saying I don’t believe him, it would just be easier to believe his story with more details.

by Seanny Rotten on Dec 31, 2008 10:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Our guys have nothing to prove...

we’re not the one with the shady track record.

Norton isn’t the type of guy to stir the pot like this. Neuheisel, well……………….

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Dec 31, 2008 8:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

"It’s kind of a pattern"

Is a quote from Norton, not me. I simply quoted him…

My stance on Neuheisel has never wavered…the NCAA dealt with his past and regardless of the severity of the accusations/charges one thing has always stood out to me…RN is a liar pure and simple. He has lied before in these types of situations so I will have a hard time cutting him some slack.

I won’t try to parse the what ifs that have been going back and forth here in this thread but to me the kicker is this…Pete Carroll has NEVER been punished let alone charged with the type of things that RN has been tagged with. You will have a hard time finding ANYTHING negative that a potential recruit has ever said about Pete Carroll, yet he is called “Cheaty Petey” and such without any proof ever being put forth. I will grant you that the truth is probably somewhere in between but Norton is not one to scream the sky is falling. He heard something and he addressed it.

I for one believe him…

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Dec 29, 2008 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You're entitled to your

misguided opinion:-)

I don’t think it’s cutting a guy slack to simply say wait and see. Also, I don’t recall seeing anyone accusing him (Neuheisel) of lying about recruiting tactics. His lying was (again, IIRC) related to his seeking employment in the NFL while still coaching the Huskies and regarding his invovlement in the NCAA pool. I don’t believe the NCAA ever claimed he stonewalled them or lied to them during its investigations regarding recruiting. So if you want to state as a blanket proposition that he is a liar, you’re certainly free to do so, but I think that’s overstatement. Of course, what else are sports boards for except hyperbole and a little fun?

by ucladj89 on Dec 29, 2008 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

When someone lies to their boss

on multiple occasions, it kind of makes them a liar.

by frak on Dec 29, 2008 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure it does...it makes them like a lot of other people

Not saying it’s right, because it’s not, but I know quite a few people who are otherwise quite decent who have lied to their employer while conducting a job search, and they’re not considered liars like Neuheisel is. Why doesn’t Neuheisel get the same consideration as so many others do? Especially when the same employer he lied to tried to can him and got spanked into settling the case for millions to make amends?

by ucladj89 on Dec 29, 2008 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Defending Neuheisel's actions at Washington

is an uphill battle. Lying to an employer, especially after his stint at Colorado, should have been a no-brainer. But he did it not once, but twice. The truth is Neuheisel has a track record of dishonesty, and bending NCAA rules at two different schools. I don’t think he’s going to get much sympathy from anyone. If you don’t believe me, look at the comments on the ESPN story. People from all over the nation don’t have a hard time believing he is up to no good.

As for the everyone lies angle, yeah I’ll admit, everyone probably has lied at one time or another. If that’s good enough an excuse for bruins to swallow the “Rick is squeaky clean now Kool-Aid,” then so be it. Maybe he can try the everyone has lied excuse with Guerrero next time he gets busted doing something naughty.

by frak on Dec 29, 2008 6:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent straw men you've got there

First, I’m not asking for sympathy for Neuheisel, who certainly doesn’t need any under any scenario. Second, I haven’t, and AFAIK nobody else has ever suggested that Neuheisel is “squeaky clean.” If you’re going to go after my post, at least stay on the point I made, not the point you wish I had made so you could attack it. Just so we’re clear, my points are:

1) the unsourced and unsubstantiated word of Norton, a USC coach, about “UCLA” (not Neuheisel or any other specified assistant coach) making false statements about Norton’s future destination is an accusation, not a conviction;
2) The accusation is based on, apparently, nothing more than a recruit(s?) word that this was said;
3) Said recruit(s?) may have misunderstood, or did not hear, the discussion of Norton’s future (assuming it occurred);
4) Said recruit(s?) may have repeated the comment(s?) back to Norton incorrectly, transforming a reasonably worded comment into something else;
5) Neuheisel’s “liar” status that you seem fixated on comes in relation to his job search and his lies were not related to his recruiting tactics at either Colorado or Washington (IIRC)
6) It’s too early to say whether the charge is true, for the above-listed five reasons.

by ucladj89 on Dec 30, 2008 6:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

I think Neuheisel’s propensity to lie is pretty well documented.

I read Simers’ piece too this morning and as usual its tongue-in-cheek. He is an equal opportunity agitator. Even BN tried to use Simers as some justification to show there is nothing here. Maybe true maybe not…

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Dec 30, 2008 8:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Gee ucladj, not to pile on. . . .but. . . .

. . .I just read that Seattle PI article, and it shows, QUITE OBVIOUSLY, that Coach Neu is very much a liar. Almost sociopathic in pattern and practice. Not good. Not good at all.

Do you really think he’s changed much? If, at all? Scary person, even scarier coach. It’s like I feel about Dubya. . . .one cannot WISH all the bad PR to accompany the m-fer. One cannot possibly MAKE-UP the scheit that the man delivers. But . . . . .he happens to continue to dig his own hole.

That is all.

"I was INVERTED!" -Maverick in Top Gun

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 30, 2008 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I read it, too

yup he lied at first when questioned by the NCAA about the pool-and then admitted the truth. I don’t know that he qualifies as “very much” a liar-only that he lied under those circumstances. Mary McCarthy once said that Lillian Hellman was such a liar that every word she said was a lie, even “and” and “the.” Clinton was a heck of a liar, too. Now, I think we can all agree that Neuheisel lied about certain things 5 years ago, but AFAIK, there have been no other claims that he is a liar or examples of his lying, other than these two points. I don’t consider that track record sociopathic, not by a long shot.

Do I think he’s changed? I don’t know. Only time will tell. My own take is that he’s an intelligent lawyer, used to looking for ways to bend the rules wiothout breaking them. That can lead to trouble without necessarily involving actual dishonesty. On this topic, I simply think that in the absence of anything other than an accusation of negative recruiting without any independent support for that accusation, I don’t think we know enough to say one way or another.

by ucladj89 on Dec 30, 2008 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm in total agreement with you

But. . . . .this is YOUR coach we’re talking about.

The Mary McCarthy quote was classic. “And” and “the”. . . I gotta use that somewhere soon. On someone. (my big sister! she used to tell people in high school that our family had American Indian blood. We categorically don’t. But. . . .she wore those funky “mocassin boots” that all the stoners used to wear, so. . . .at least she was kinda dressed for the part?)

"I was INVERTED!" -Maverick in Top Gun

by BixBeiderbecke on Dec 30, 2008 10:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I do find it interesting

that when you look at all the players involved that the conclusion that you come up with is that the young recruit is most likely mistaken. You cite 3 reasons why the recruit could be to blame for this, but there are only really 3 possibilities.

#1. Norton is lying (perhaps sour grapes over losing Presley)
#2. Neuheisel is lying (he has done it before under more serious circumstances)
#3. Recruit is lying or conveyed the story incorrectly to Norton

You can choose to defend Neuheisel because he is your coach, but he is the only one here with a documented reputation for dishonesty. You made the contention that its more likely that a young recruit got the story wrong. At the very least its more likely that Neuheisel is up to negative recruiting given his track record. Your first point insinuates that Norton being a USC coach could be lying, but you leave out the fact that he has an excellent reputation on and off the field, and that he is a former bruin player and alum. This isn’t just any USC coach accusing ucla. This is a guy who has deep roots in Westwood. I happen to think that when a head coach is asked a direct question about a potential violation of NCAA rules and responds with a deliberate falsehood, that it is indicative of his character. When it comes to business, and rules, Neuheisel has lied in the past. That makes him a liar. Yes he did lie about the 49ers job, and he also lied about the basketball pool. At the time there was a question on whether the pool was illegal, and he chose to lie about it at first rather than come clean from the beginning. Will he lie in the future? I don’t really know, but if he did, I wouldn’t be surprised.

Your first paragraph was an excuse for Neuheisel lying, basically claiming that you know a lot of decent people that lie to their employers. Yes that makes them all liars to some degree, and if I knew that someone lied before in an interview, I probably wouldn’t hire them. Yes I know there are various reasons why people are less than honest, but Neuheisel lied because he thought he was caught doing something wrong. That says something about who he is in business, and that’s why he was banished for 5 years.

The “squeaky clean Kool-Aid” comment was meant to be sarcasm. Perhaps I laid it down a little too thick. I do however believe that Neuheisel is getting a blanket pardon for all his past offenses at Westwood. bruins should not be upset when the press writes articles about him in a negative light, because that’s who you are in bed with. The reason he gets so much flak, is because he has a bad reputation. I’m sorry if you think that its an unfair characterization, but that’s Slick Rick for you.

As far as sympathy, I think Neuheisel needs as much of that as he can get. He has everyone over in Westwood saying that he has changed, and we should all give him a break. You’re defending him pretty passionately, and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I won’t claim that he did what Norton claims that he did, but I reserve the right to not be surprised at all if it turns out that he lied on this occasion.

by frak on Dec 30, 2008 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ahem.

I am defending Neuheisel but only to a point, one that you seem intent on missing. I haven’t said that he did nothing wrong. I haven’ defined him as squeaky clean. I acknowledge that he has a past history of lying at Washington five years ago. I have only said that based on what we know right now, it seems more plausible that a kid(s) mistakenly repeated back to Norton words that either weren’t said or the kid’s paraphrase of what actually was said was erroneous. Given that Norton did not identify the alleged “perp” by name and simply said “UCLA” was doing this, I don’t find the accusation leveled at Neuheisel as compelling, even if it comes from a credible source like Norton. If you want to interpret that as a blanked defense of Neuheisel, be my guest.

As for the remainder of your post, I could care less that you give Neuheisel flak. Comes with the territory and is perfectly fair game for a guy with his past history. But my argument with you and others here is not about what you think regarding his character, but rather whether his character is etched in stone by trangressions from 5 years ago (or in Norton’s opinion, 10 years) and that there can be no other explanation for allegations levied against the generic “UCLA” other than “Neuheisel’s a liar-what else can you expect from Slick Rick.” You at least concede the possibility of a misunderstanding, but while conceding it you make abundantly clear tht you believe it is more likely true that Norton had his facts straight. Me, I think it’s possible that “UCLA” was negatively recruiting, but more plausible that this is a misunderstanding. But would I be surprised if “UCLA” was negatively recruiting? Not really. I concede both prospects are reasonable ones.

Now if both our opinions are erroneous and Norton is just a traitorous dillweed looking to screw over UCLA-what will we say then?

by ucladj89 on Dec 30, 2008 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe Norton’s loyal to people rather than institutions. When you get down to it, once you’re an alum, USC or UCLA become an abstract loyalty – you’re not in it day to day. That abstracted loyalty might be less compelling to Norton than the fact that Pete Carroll took him on and gave him a chance to succeed.

Not that I would know one way or the other, but aside from having an idiosyncratic aversion to using the word “traitor,” I do wonder if perhaps Norton might be offended because he sees this as his personal loyalty being called into question.

It doesn’t really matter one way or the other, but it’s possible that Norton’s motivations and UCLA fans’ motivations in this area are not the same.

by DC Trojan on Dec 30, 2008 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be pretty surprised if Norton was flat out lying

The Simer’s piece is an interesting read. In it Coach Carroll and Norton refuse to give their source, probably because it would be an NCAA violation to do so. But Carroll then tells Simer’s to ask the “recruits.” He said the word “recruits” so maybe that means there is more than one recruit that “ucla” has allegedly mislead about Norton.

You are right. Its all heresay. All I have to go on is contradicting statements from two men. One has a good rep, and the other doesn’t. Is that enough to convict Neuheisel and ucla? No its not. But I stand by all my previous statements about Neuheisel’s character. I don’t really think he is sorry he lied in the past. I think he’s one of those guys who is sorry he got caught. The fact that he left 2 college football programs in shambles does give him a negative track record. That’s just my opinion, you can take it or leave it.

Simer’s basically threw down the gauntlet asking for anyone with information on this to email him. Maybe we will find out if someone’s lying or its all just a big misunderstanding.

Hypothetically, if it turns out that Neuheisel or one of his staff did misrepresent Norton, what would be your opinion on that DJ?

by frak on Dec 30, 2008 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My take would be

if it was Neuheisel I’d give him one more chance to be honest, and I’d want him to be canned if it happened again. I’m referring to the lying, not the negative recruiting-I’m not terribly bothered by negative recruiting, to be honest with you, since all schools do it and the negativity in this case is not particularly disturbing IMHO. If it was someone on his staff who screwed the pooch, same deal. Recruiting is a dirty, nasty little business, and rules get bent and danced around as a matter of course. But I do expect honesty if called out on it, and the only reason I would give Neuheisel a final chance would be because of the minor nature of the charge here.

by ucladj89 on Dec 30, 2008 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points

The only thing that I would add is his actions not only have a negative impact on USC recruiting, but also on Kevin Norton’s job. I agree with you that negative recruiting is part of the college football world, but in this case it took a personal turn by involving Norton. This is all hypothetical of course.

by frak on Dec 30, 2008 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

pattern

It’s funny to hear that from Norton. There’s a pattern of USC players getting in trouble with the law. What does Norton has to say about that?

by pxcasey on Dec 29, 2008 11:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

WOW!

get out much?

2 comments on BN since October and 1 comment here?

Longtime lurker first time caller….

This isn’t about the players, its about a head coach of a well documented pattern of lying and a coach who has a spotless record accusing said head coach about lying.

I am not sure about how that equates to player issues off the field. How are blue & gold blinders working for you….

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Dec 30, 2008 5:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Quote from Neuheisel

How can you doubt Norton when Neuheisel’s response to his accusations of dishonesty is to refuse to comment on it. Why didn’t he just flat out deny that it wasn’t true. What would be the benefit of not straightening out the story if Norton has it wrong.

Neuheisel, apprised of Norton’s comments, said, “I have no comment to that. I’ve had no contact with Kenny.”

by frak on Dec 29, 2008 12:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Neiheisel's Statement today

"In response to comments made by USC assistant football coach Ken Norton, let me say that I have an outstanding defensive coordinator in DeWayne Walker. He has done a great job for us and I hope he stays at UCLA for many years. However, if he has the opportunity to become a head coach, I know he would do a fine job and I would support him in any way possible.

"That being said, I was sorry to read the comments Kenny made in the Los Angeles Times. I have not told any recruits that if DeWayne left, Kenny would be the defensive coordinator at UCLA and neither have my assistant coaches. Despite the fact that Kenny is a great Bruin, we have more than enough positives at UCLA to interest recruits and convince them that this is the school at which they can flourish both academically and athletically.

"There has been a lot of speculation about Kenny’s return to UCLA in the media and on the internet, and perhaps that has confused people about who has said what. If DeWayne leaves, I would consider several candidates for the defensive coordinator job. Kenny probably would have been among those considered, with no guarantees. However, his quotes in the paper say he is staying at USC, so we wish him well."

by frak on Dec 29, 2008 12:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

He is denying it on the record

I guess we will see if it gets any bigger from this point on.

by frak on Dec 29, 2008 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Considering the explicit nature

of Neuheisel’s questioning before he was offered the job by our AD regarding his past infractions and other transgressions, I think he would have to be nuts to step too closely to the line. While there is precedence for that kind of stupidity (Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich comes to mind) Neuheisel is a pretty bright guy and not likely to repeat errors that would almost certainly doom any future as a head coach.

by ucladj89 on Dec 29, 2008 12:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

FWIW

I would have a hard time believing that Neuheisel would specifically tell recruits that they were looking to backfill DeWayne Walker with Ken Norton, for the reasons that you enumerate. It’s not outwith the possibility that others might have let recruits draw their own conclusions, but 1) if so, it’s hard to prove, and 2) there’s a big difference between a generic management responsibility for your recruiters and specifically misleading recruits.

If there’s anything to this story, I suspect that it’s someone (or someones) other than Neuheisel that made any implications, and that any delay in response was either due to consultation with UCLA’s legal department or taking stock with the existing UCLA staff. I just don’t see Neuheisel getting up to general shenanigans himself, this early in his tenure. That would be a low return, high risk action.

by DC Trojan on Dec 29, 2008 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

that makes sense to me

since Neuheisel is a lawyer (didn’t he get his JD from USC?) and even if he didn’t do anything wrong maybe one of his coaches did. He did the “no comment” route to give himself time to talk to everyone and then issued the blanket denial once he could speak for everyone.

by ucladj89 on Dec 29, 2008 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He is indeed a JD from USC

I’m not saying that Neuheisel won his degree off the dean in a poker game, I’m just saying you wouldn’t be totally surprised if that was true. Which it isn’t.

by DC Trojan on Dec 29, 2008 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hell of a poker player in that case. Sure it wasn’t some sort of a pool? ;-P

by impaulv on Dec 29, 2008 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Doh!

Conquest Chronicles

by Paragon SC on Dec 29, 2008 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

as long as there were no football players involved, it doesn’t matter to me ; )

by DC Trojan on Dec 29, 2008 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Man was I sweating it...

…during my final for environmental ethics. I really needed to beat the professor in Texas Hold’em to get the A, but my game had always been 5 card stud!

by Laughing Stock on Dec 29, 2008 6:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Let Ucla get all the players in the world, it doesn't matter they have always found a way to mess-up and always will!

I been watching these guys since 1964 and they are great at BB but always pretty much suck at FB. And come on really Rick Neuhassel the guys a geek and a gambler, and now he has lost Walker. Maybe he will hire Slimers to coach DEE!

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on Dec 30, 2008 2:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs