So it's not just Karl Dorrell who's on the Football 101 kick. Just when you thought UCLA football couldn't get any more odd, Chris Foster of the LA Times uncovers this bit of fodder for the faithful: read more
The local press finally has the guts to ask the most basic and obvious question we have been asking since the Scott arrest broke. Bill Plaschke, LA Times, has written a biting report on Dorrell’s and Guerrero’s contradictory comments and the lack of transparency that followed revelations that during Scott’s hiring Dorrell did know about Scott’s past yet did not inform Guerrero or the University (HT to bluestreet at BruinsNation).
At the heart of the issue is the integrity of the program, a flag flown so high by Dorrell and Guerrero during these years marked by the poor performance of Dorrell’s teams on the field. We will have more on this later, but we are going to cut and paste right now. For all those Dorrell cultists and even those who claim to want Dorrell gone who simultaneously called attempts to reconcile the truth “a witch hunt” and a “character assasination” .. tell us how proud you are of this: read more
Editor’s Note: Let us make something clear. We are NOT chasing this story. It keeps coming to us. First with Svoboda’s mother-in-law’s comment here, then Svoboda’s emails, then an email from a well-known sports blogger alerting us to a coach who would verify the story (and he did). We are not seeking to discredit Dorrell. It is what it is.
Right. We were ready to drop this story once we got confirmation from Marc Dellins, UCLA football SID, and from Jim Svoboda himself that he was NOT fired by text message. But 2 things have happened since we broke this story.
Furthermore, the second source (who again is an NCAA football coach who knows Jim Svoboda well) added something more interesting. Svoboda, according to this source, approached Dorrell 3 times and asked him point blank if he wanted to go in a different direction. In all 3 cases, Dorrell said “no” that everything was “going to be alright.” When told that Svoboda denied in writing that he was fired by text message this source replied, “Of course he would. That is the business we’re in. He can’t say that publicly.” He continued, “It was wrong of Dorrell to do that. You just don’t do that.” It also happens to be against California employment law, which states that if you terminate an employee it must be done in person.
Now, one crazy email from a supposed mother-in-law against the denials of UCLA and Svoboda himself put this issue to bed. But an NCAA coach confirming it makes it more likely that it went down this way. We know that there will be nothing made of this in the press. But you can know that we are getting to the bottom of this. If this is how he is conducting himself representing UCLA and UCLA football it is disgraceful. Moreover, if he is lying about it, given the total lack of transparency regarding the Scott hiring, we are now, for the first time ever, beginning to question his integrity. The one thing we liked about him is now seriously in doubt. Shameful.
UPDATE 2: Jim Svoboda has now confirmed via email that he was NOT fired via text as his mother-in-law stated. Thanks to Menalaus at BruinsNation for the confirmation. Svoboda did not answer why his mother-in-law emailed us with a different story.
UPDATE: One of our editors just got off the phone with Marc Dellins, UCLA Sports Information Director. We asked Marc if what Jim Svoboda’s mother-in-law said was true. He denied the story and said Svoboda was informed of his dismissal in an face to face meeting with Dorrell. We have not heard back from Svoboda’s mother-in-law. We also asked about Eric Scott, if he was ever asked about his past record. Marc said he could not tell us do to privacy laws. Marc also said Eric Scott did not fill out any application as no coaches do at UCLA. He also could not tell us what the results of the background check by the UCLA PD were due to privacy laws. A big thanks to Marc for answering our questions.
Jim Svoboda is our son-in-law and we are proud of him. Seems like he should have been given a chance but - chances are not what Dump Dorrell hands out.Jim is hard working dedicated and reliable and gives 100% of himself even when he is not appreciated. Too bad he wasted his time at UCLA because he certainly will make a come back - and he hasnt fallen - he was pushed! Too bad for Dorrell because it seems that he is a racist - Jim is not black - and evidently that is a no no where Dorrell is concerned. Thank goodness he is somewhere where he is valued - eventually I guess Dorrell has done him a favor - although he did not intend to. Jim deserved more than a TEXT MESSAGE TO let him know he was out. We have more guts than that in Texas - we can look a man in the eye. Fairness is not something Dorrell is long on - this coming season I hope the team does well - at least they dont have to worry about job security. Good luck UCLA you are going to need it. Elizabeth
This comment was left this morning on our site by someone posting as Elizabeth Merworth on our Dec. 8 post last year that discussed the expected firing of Jim Svoboda. We did not edit this comment, except to add bold highlights. The one point about this comment that we would like to comment on is the way “Elizabeth Merworth” says Svoboda was told he was fired … by text message. We obviously have to question the comments of someone who claims Dorrell is racist which we will take as absurd, but the firing by text message seems to us to be a simple case of being either factually correct or not.
If this is the way read more
UPDATE: From Chris Foster, new UCLA beat reporter for the LAT: “Guerrero was not made available to address how UCLA’s background check on Scott was mishandled or whether changes would be made in the process.” Shame, just as we have been saying. Foster also had this report: “The arrest brought to light Scott’s criminal history, which Guerrero said he had no knowledge of despite a standard background check. Dorrell has said he was aware of some of Scott’s troubles but said he was not aware of his arrests.” That differed from Dorrell’s statement given earlier to the LAT: “Coach Karl Dorrell also acknowledged in a statement that the school knew about the former Crenshaw High player and coach’s criminal background when it hired him.” Regardless of the glaring inconsistencies and omissions, this will finally most likely be put to bed. Character and Integrity have long since left the building anyway.
Dorrell has drawn the line in the sand. He has put his hat in the ring with Eric Scott and all the issues surrounding his hiring and arrest. We have no problem with Dorrell taking a stand, if that is what he really believes in. We can’t fault him for his beliefs. But now he has the added responsibility of accepting everything that comes with Eric Scott being on the sidelines. That he cannot avoid or dismiss ever. Dorrell could have declined to reinstate Scott to send a very clear message about Character and Integrity. Dorrell chose not to, and Dan Guerrero let Dorrell make his bed and sleep in it.
There is no question that Dorrell lost wiggle room, and that his relationship with Guerrero must be affected. Dorrell made his decision, the consequences are his to bear now. No amount of scapegoating can shield him from responsibility should anything go wrong. And he certainly can’t waive the Character and Integrity flag around in his own defense anymore. Dorrell (Perelman, LA Times):
“We feel this is the right thing,” said Dorrell, “and the best thing for our program is to get him back in the fold and keep ourselves moving forward.”
Best thing for the program? Or read more
The decline of UCLA football continues, the Character and Integrity flag has been taken down and has been taken away. The athletic department has officially reinstated Eric Scott, according to Brian Dohn. In the press release, there is no mention of whether Scott lied about his arrest and conviction record to get the job.
“We are glad that this situation has reached its conclusion through the legal process,†said Dorrell. “After extensive deliberation with Coach Scott and a clear and thorough evaluation of the entire matter by the campus, we have decided to reinstate Eric to the coaching staff.â€
During the investigation, previous incidents in Scott’s background were discovered.
“Eric and I have spoken at length about his background and his previous incidents, including the ones in which I was unaware, and the circumstances surrounding them”, said Dorrell. “Eric fully understands and is very clear on the importance of being a good role model and the standard of behavior expected of a coach at UCLA. He also recognizes that UCLA has given him the opportunity to further his professional career and positively impact the lives of many student-athletesâ€.
Eric Scott NOW “recognizes the importance of being a good role model and the standard of behavior.” Got it. Little misunderstanding … everything NOW is “very clear.” Not to be outdone, Dan Guerrero chimes in with this beauty: read more
Brian Dohn is reporting that Eric Scott will meet today with Dan Guerrero and that a decision on his reinstatement is expected later today. The decision as has been long suspected will be to reinstate Scott, as Dohn confirms with his sources. If this indeed is going to happen, Guerrero would be wise to make it publicly clear that there will be a “zero tolerance” policy on Scott getting in trouble. Hanging around the wrong crowd when trouble goes down, regardless of his culpability, should be enough to get Scott dismissed. If Guerrero must reinstate, that is the minimum condition that would have to be placed on Scott.
We of course disagree with bringing Scott back. Too many questions about the integrity of the hiring process are left unanswered. How a program that prides itself on Character and Integrity allows these questions to linger is beyond our comprehension. A clean program would first eliminate any appearance of impropriety and that surely has not occurred here. Further, if Eric Scott were honorable in his intentions to be a coach at UCLA, and if he truly believed he has departed from his past behavior, he would have disclosed his conviction record to Dorrell and Guerrero, which both men have said did not occur, instead of intentionally or unintentionally trying to game the system by remaining silent on the issue.
What a shame. If it goes down this way, read more
Update: Dohn reports that sources say “Eric Scott is expected to be reinstated.” Just as we expected, Scott will be on the sidelines in no time … and no one will come forward admitting they made an error in his hiring. The so-called breakdown in handling his background check will be swept under the rug. Now just about any 5-time arrestee and 3-time convict, with recent arrests and convictions, can become a UCLA coach - if they come with highly rated recruits. Nice. So much for Character and Integrity. Can’t waive that flag anymore.
Looks like the situation with Scott’s arrest has turned out for the better, the DA will not charge him. We are happy for Eric Scott, hopefully he can use better judgment to get himself away from bad crowds and bad situations. 5 arrests and 3 convictions just is not good. As for whether he should come back … we think he shouldn’t. Not until UCLA tells us the real story on his application and has a good explanation for the mistakes in handling his hiring. Also, Scott will be called as a witness in his friend, Jesus DeAlba (the guy he got into college who then got expelled for burglarizing several dorm rooms and a football facility), who has a continuing case of having a concealed weapon at the scene. What will Scott do?
Citing victims and witnesses either unavailable or who have declined to testify, the Los Angeles County District Attorney on Thursday announced it would not file charges against UCLA assistant football coach Eric Scott in connection with a residential burglary in Norwalk on July 24.
Det. Rick Broussard, the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department’s lead investigator on the case, said a 911 caller reported seeing three men forcibly enter the home but that authorities had not been able to re-establish contact with that witness.
He added that it could not be proven that Scott, 32, ever entered a home where deputies later found rifles, shotguns and “a large quantity” of marijuana.
Some important developments regarding the Eric Scott arrest. The “new guy” at the LA Times on the UCLA beat is Chris Foster, and he is making a splash very early. All those questions we had regarding the Eric Scott case that never got answered are now in Foster’s cross-hairs it would appear. Let’s get right to it. Foster, unlike other reporters, got a little more info about the background check process (HT to Nestor at BN):
The background check was done by the UCLA police department, which sent fingerprints to the California Department of Justice. While there is a variety of search levels depending on what job is involved, Department of Justice spokesman Gareth Lacy said “it is very unlikely” Scott’s previous record would have been missed.
Typically, the UCLA police department forwards the background check to human resources, which then sends the information to the athletic department. Guerrero has said that process will be reviewed.
Just as we suspected … it is hard to believe the UCLA PD didn’t do their job. And it would be highly unethical not to mention classless to pin the error on our PD or HR, which the athletic department (AD) is doing by omitting where the breakdown in processing Scott’s background check occurred. By not publicly stating where the background check procedure failed the AD is ensuring that no one gets fingered for knowing about Scott’s background when they said they didn’t know (Dorrell?). If there are no skeletons then opening the closet should be a no brainer. By allowing these questions about the integrity of the program and the character of it’s highly paid custodians to linger, the image of UCLA football will continue to decline. You may not notice it, but it’s slowly happening. Foster has uncovered what we have long suspected … something is amiss and someone needs to account for these obvious issues.
And there’s more. It appears that Eric Scott has 3 prior convictions, not 2 as has been previously and widely reported: read more
Here we think we are done with Eric Scott’s hiring debacle and Robert Kuwada, OC register, comes up with more detailed info on Scott’s hiring that smacks of cover-up. Turns out that Guerrero and Dorrell incorrectly stated a 3rd party had conducted the background check. Now they say that, as Dohn alluded to earlier, it was the university’s own police department (PD) that did the background check and sent the results to HR, but somehow the results for the flagged “critical position” (quote at end) didn’t get to the athletic department (AD). So, UCLA did know.
UCLA officials said Monday that the background check on receivers coach Eric Scott was conducted by the university and not an outside agency, as previously stated.
No answer yet as to what the PD came up with in their background check (you’d think that piece of info would be important), just that somewhere there was a breakdown in passing along the results to the AD. It can’t be that Scott informed UCLA of his convictions AND that UCLA did not know about them at the same time. Someone is lying and there is no reason why the details of Scott’s hiring are not all out in the open by now.
As we have been saying, this stinks of cover-up. Strange how read more