UCLA's Rick Neuheisel may not have USC's Pete Carroll on his side, but the kids are fine

Rick Neuheisel just pulled a Lane Kiffin.

The UCLA coach told boosters that he had proposed an amendment to Pac-10 rules so that his kids could join him on the sideline during football games, only to have it opposed by USC Coach Pete Carroll. Portions of his speech were released on UCLA's YouTube account.

But it turns out that Neuheisel's kids -- or anybody under the age of 18 -- can already be on the sideline provided they are performing a game-related task.

After telling the crowd that they would leave "ticked off at Pete Carroll, ticked off at all that is SC," Neuheisel described how Carroll was the lone dissenter in a 9-1 vote by the league's coaches. He apparently forgot to mention that the Pac-10 athletic directors immediately shot down the proposal, 8-2, with only UCLA and Arizona in favor of the change.

League officials were primarily concerned about increased liability, and also wary that a change might lead to efforts by administrators or even donors to try to get sideline passes for their children, too. As proposed, the new rule would have allowed any coach's child to get a pass. Such a change could have added as many as two dozen kids on some sidelines.

Remember what happened to Dusty Baker's son during the 2002 World Series?

Neuheisel spent much of his speech kidding about kids, but he did appear to misinterpret the existing rule. Pac-10 bylaws already provided for the exception he wanted, stating, "no person under the age of 18 shall be allowed on the sideline or in the team area during the game unless he or she is performing an assigned game-related task."

Anybody given a pass to work the sideline counts against the school's allotment. Last year schools were capped at 40, hypothetically forcing a choice between a coach's kid and a trainer. But the Pac-10 bumped the allotment to 60 for the upcoming season.

In other words, when you see a lanky kid with a mop of blond hair on the Bruins sideline next season filling water cups, carrying cords, or helping trainers ... yup, probably a Neuheisel. The only job specifically prohibited for those under 18 is serving as a ball boy. That front-line task is reserved for adults because of the dangers associated with being so close to the field.

UPDATE: Carroll told Times staff writer Gary Klein this afternoon, "I think it's a good rule. I like the way the rule is written. I see no reason to comment further."

-- Adam Rose

Comments

[gerrrg]

Isn't Neuheisel's tirade called FUD? I see Ted Miller on ESPN is all upset over Pete's vote, as if it mattered.

I think it's funny how Pete tweaked Rick. It finally gave Rick a reason to stop the lovefest he has going on with USC's football program.

[Josh]

Football coaches shouldn't need a reason to bring their kids onto the sideline... give me a break. The liability issues are a farce. No coach is going to bring his kids out to the sidelines if they are truly going to be harms away. Besides, even in a worst case scenario, getting knocked over by a guy wearing pads is more dangerous to the 60+ coaches than it is to the 7 year old boys. What are the football players going to do, lower their shoulder and try to clobber the kids as they run off the field?

Articles like this make me crazy. You'd be on Ted Miller's side if it was Neuheisel as the lone dissenter. Have a little integrity.

[Tony]

Slick Rick is trying everything he can to pump up his boosters. Its evident that his football team isn't doing it.

[ElevenNatts]

The current rule already allows coaches kids to be on the sideline.

[ElevenNatts]

Rick is being Rick, never really telling the entire story. we should all be use to this by now. Stick to gambling rick.

[Scott Ostlund]

Scroll down the message board you are all on. After post a commet, it states that you may not participate if you are under 13 years of age. Maybe Ellen should petition this as well. The reason I know this is because you can read the rule. Next time he sites a rule, he should first read abot the rule. I am a little worried about the USC law department for giving Mr. Neuheisel a degree in law. In short, his kids can be on the sideline and can even carry the nonusable cord he wants them to carry and it would not break any rules.

[Oldrunner262]

What else can be said? This is a non-issue, another example of the media making a mountain out of a molehill. Rick should stick to coaching, like Pete does. Or maybe he is just getting ready for another Rick-gaffe, like he had at Colorado and Washington. Peace! And Rick, don't forget to wear your BLUE jerseys to this years' game at the Coliseum. The whites can stay home.

[Maximus]

I don't get to bring my children to my job, and there aren't 22 men running full speed around my job either. Get your kids a job on the sidelines, Rick, or exchange smiley-faces with them after the game. They can rush the field with the rest of the crowd when (if) you beat Washington in November.

[hugo g]

it's funny how many people hate on rick, maybe if he went on tv and hated on his quaterback for leaving early or maybe if a star player took money as a player, people just might love him

[juan]

Did anyone watch the video? Rick is just working the crowd with an anecdote. Sure, he might not have been as informed about just how the rules played, but it's a thick rulebook. His story is based in fact, but does anyone believe he's really ticked at PC?

It's funny to see sports reporters on the evening news take his comments out of context. In context, they are just an entertaining tale.

[shekib]

hey Adam...why dont you be useful and report on $C allegations.....your wasting our time here writing for UCLA....what you write sir is JUNK.

[Go Bruins]

If it was so well-known that the rule allowed for kids to be on the sidelines doing game-related tasks, then why did every Pac-10 coach vote. They all didn't know the real rule and at the very least Rick did get an answer on how Pete really felt about it. So he didn't know, but Pete still is the lone guy voting no.