Dorrell on the Eric Scott matter: "It’ll go away."

After the mass session ended at Thursday’s Pac-10 Football Media Day, each school’s coach and attending player met with the media in smaller, one-on-one sessions in an adjacent meeting room. UCLA coach Karl Dorrell sat at a round table surrounded by local media for more than an hour, answering some questions about football and a lot about the Eric Scott situation.

On the Scott issue, Dorrell suggested that once the facts of the case are exposed, the case will "go away." There were lots of whispers among those looking on about reports that the residence that was entered by Scott, Jesus DeAlba and Timothy Williams was that of a relative of DeAlba.

On football, Dorrell was asked about how much of a role he will have with the offense during the season since he took a larger role with some of the play-calling last season, Dorrell was firm: "Jay [Norvell] will call the plays."

Bruce Davis told reporters that he would be lining up on the wide side of the field consistently this year, away from the tight end, to try and get a better shot at rushing the quarterback. He’s quite confident in the play of Nikola Dragovic and UC Davis transfer Tom Blake to replace Justin Hickman at the other end spot.

In addition, Davis said that freshman Brian Price from Crenshaw and sophomore Jerzy Siewierski could be key contributors behind starting tackles Kevin Brown and Brigham Harwell.

More to come from Pac-10 Football Media Day . . .

Comments

[John Thomas]

Karl Dorrell should "go away" along with the UCLA Athletic Director for the sake of the entire UCLA community and especially all young athletes. His prediction may be the result of his observations of the USC program and their violations "going away" because of all of the TV money generated by college football. However, Dorrell might be conditioned from the UCLA football culture of player locker room theft not to realize the distinction between a NCAA violation and a felony criminal violation. If Assistant Coach Scott has a prior criminal history, the UCLA Chancellor also should be terminated.

[Peter]

Let's just bulldoze the entire University.

[DumpDorrell]

There are many obvious and serious questions here Rich that strangely no reporter has thought to ask.

Daily News has reported that Dan Guerrero said that he, Dorrell and UCLA DID NOT KNOW of Scott's prior arrests and convictions ... which obviously raises many important quetsions, regardless of the outcome of the burglary arrest:

1. Did Scott lie on his application?? UCLA's online job application asks specifically if the applicant has been convicted of a misdemeanor. Did Scott sign a different application? If so, which one and why? Did it ask about prior misdemeanors? If not why not?

2. What did Dorrell know and when did he know it? Dorrell has gone on record as saying he did know something about past incidents in Scott's history. Did he know about an arrest or a conviction?? If so when did he know that, before or after the background check that came up clean? If he knew before the background check then did he confront Scott about the bogus result of the background check?? Did Dorrell knowingly look the other way when the background check came back erroneous?? If so why?

If Scott lied on his application then he should fired for cause IMMEDIATELY. This is something Dorrell and Guerrero can obviously know now. Why has that not happened?? What is Dorrell not telling us and why?

[george]

If you grow up in the inner city you will be screwed w/ by cops. He was stopped once for driving a new mercedes w/o license plates(you don't get license plates when you by a new car )B/c he was black the cop said that his car was maroon that he must be a blood. He went to northwestern and transfered to ucla . I remember in the movie "when we were kings" don king said" no matter how much a black man accomplishes in america he is still a nigger" that was said over 30 years ago, in norwalk and in L.A. things haven't changed much. wait til all the facts are in b/4 you judge if can't ,then there is a job waiting for you w/ lapd and or lasd. This is said by a 50y/o mexican/american male.

[george]

for those who are concerned w/ the fact that he may have a misdeanor conviction does not bar one from work. Secondly I believe they have been expunged, once they are expunged its as if you have never been convicted, lastly assuming they weren't expunged , you know you can practice law , medicine, and even b/c priseident of the usa,(bush had a dui), and you weigh that against the good that he has brought to this world, then clearer minds must prevail, and Ill tell you this, the police always over charge then they make you an offer where you don't go to jail . you can later expunge it, and lastly the cost of the trial makes it prohibitive for a person to turn down a deal, assuming he went to trial and won , he still losses b/c he has to pay his lawyer 15-20 grand. that misdeamnor conviction doesn't sound so bad does it. And the guy he speculates about whether he lied on his application, really is saying that the kids that he has nuteured and has help b/c men from an enviroment that is pure hell, is saying its not important , f**k those kids. Well my friend I bet you come from a white middle to upper class background who can only see the world from their ivery towers. come down off the tower go to where he came from , as they say walk a mile in another man shoes, then pop off.

[44-y/o Mexican American male]

What a bunch of B.S. I hope you're not a UCLA grad. Embarrassing.

[george]

whats embarressing , my spelling,? ok I give you that one, but what is b.s in what I said . or what you could understand.? Do you know if he lied on his application? Do you know if they ask if you have had any misdemeanor convictions? Most jobs ask if you have only a felony conviction. So is that b.s.? That you c/n have a misdemenor expunged,? of course you can, so that wasn't b.s. Was it b.s that police overcharge then make you offers that you can't refuse? unless you have been living in cave ,its pretty well known that police will lie ,cheat and steal.. so we can assume thats not b.s. . Well we are whittleing down you " bunch of b.s. comments, "mr.ucla grad, I guess they teach you to make conclusory statements and how to spell. But wait maybe it was my statement that a trial in a misdeamenor case can charge up to 15-20 k , ask a good lawyer what he will charge you for a misdeanor trial , I have had friends charge 35k or more, so thats not b.s. Dude and finally was it b.s that he has reached into his community and has pulled numerous kids from the clutches of gang violance , to some of the best universities across america. I guess your wrong on that one as well. Dude Im tring to figure out what was a bunch b.s.?, So 48yo meican american male , you are very much like the rest, popping off b/4 you analyz what you say. But hey also being a mexican america male who is 50 ,I got a couple of years on you, so when you mature you probably will understand what I said or was tring to say. those who seem to be holier than thou is a dead give away in their own insecurities. You jumped to conclusions w/ no critical thinking but hey I also went to public h.s. ,address my points and detail how what I said was b.s., if you can't be a man and say it. I forgive you.

[DumpDorrell]

Its confired by UCLA Human Resources dept. Eric Scott was required to fill out an application for employment before being hired and the application asked him if he had ever been convicted of a misdemeanor. He had to fill it out and answer the question and then sign the application prior to be hired. So, if as Guerrero and Dorrell have said that neither they nor UCLA knew of Scott's prior convictions then it would have to be that he did not answer truthfully on the application. Lying is grounds for termination and he should be fired for making such a lie. The only other explanation is if he did fill it out correctly and Guerrero, Dorrell and UCLA not only ignored it but they are now lying, after reviewing the situation, that they had no idea. Either is embarrassing but at least one is solvable with a simple solution .. fire Scott.

[george]

when you weight his contribution to not only his community, and his contribution to society, then to fire that person for either a negligent act , and assuming for the discussion it was intentional, does not make sense. America is better place b/c of eric scott. Do you know how mant kids he has guided from the ghetto to major university across america.? better question is do you care? If you care about people , if you care about this country then , his failure to disclose,is not sufficient to fire him. When your brother has been shot and killed and he sees that others from where he grew up were shot and killed, and he chooses to go back to that community to litterally save lives , then the urgency to fire him is unfair to him and unfair to me.(I want to live in a safer america and he has contribute to that). My brother , Why is he considered a great recruter in the inner city, b/c they identify w/ him, he didn't come from a cosby family , he came from a fatherless family and from probably the worst school in LAUSD but yet went to northwestern. Graduated from ucla , was the offensive coordenator from the state champ H.S. team then maybe fireing him d/n fit the ommission, also I bet you who are requwesting the firing must be usc alumni, he he hurts your recruting

[george]

where is the apology that all of you who were calling for eric's head on a platter. Shame on you, shame on trying to destroy a young mans life, shame on you passing judgement for not knowing the facts, shame on america .

[BruinGrad67]

Shame on no one except the liars. Scott is doing a credible job of destroying his own life. Att 32, he still hasn't learned right from wrong?

[george]

Its interesting you say he is destroying his own life, they didn't file , let me ask you this , did the 4 white lacross players do anything to assit in destroying there lives, I mean they were arrested 4 rape? of course not , this is what happens when you have an over zelous police department. the fact that someone is arrested does not make them guilty. If he did nothing wrong then he must know the difference b/t right and wrong, apperaently you don't.