Arizona receiver Dan Buckner hauls in a touchdown pass over UCLA cornerback… (Wily Low / Associated Press )
I really have to give credit to UCLA Coach Rick Neuheisel. After a 36-point drubbing to a 1-5 Arizona team, he still manages to cling to his optimism by saying "we can and will turn the corner."
This time I think you're absolutely right, Coach. Only the next corner you turn is going to have "Exit" by the door.
The worst thing about UCLA's 48-12 loss to Arizona? It wasn't even as close as the score indicated.
If Dan Guerrero needs to wait until the end of the season to evaluate UCLA's football program, perhaps it's not just the football coach who needs to be replaced.
Glenn M. Langdon
After having season tickets to UCLA football since 1976, I gave them up this year. Whatever fills Rick Neuheisel's "Passion Bucket" surely stinks. I never thought I'd miss Karl Dorrell; thanks Rick for proving me wrong there.
Anyone who thinks the Bruins currently have an acceptable football coach must wear cardinal and gold.
The UCLA football players must really want a new coach because that is the only explanation for constantly missing tackles, dropping passes, committing silly penalties, and now getting into fights. It's almost like they're doing it on purpose, because it's hard to believe these scholarship players can be that bad.
Chris Foster's article about the UCLA offense and strategy [Oct. 15] tells us all we need to know about what has happened to our society. So Rick Neuheisel, who is supposed to be a leader of our youth, believes that it is more important for him to be successful than to be safe. And Jim Mastro says in effect that there is danger in the plays that UCLA has decided to call and that it is up to the players to learn how to protect themselves. What kind of nonsense is that? Shame on them.
Bernard S. Otis
Work of Arte
My goodness this hurts to write this, but T.J. Simers' column on Arte Moreno couldn't have been more spot on. This Angels season is on him more than Mike Scioscia or Tony Reagins. Having lost out on Carl Crawford, had Moreno ponied up the cash for Beltre, the Angels would have had no reason (or money) to trade for Wells. It's hard to believe Arte was a successful businessman with this strategy of deciding that the market is just too high for valuable assets. It is, however, easy to believe that this strategy has rendered the club far less competitive than Texas.
One factor T.J. Simers may have missed regarding the Angels' failure to sign any of the top free agents may well have been, in addition to Arte Moreno's bungling, that none of those premier players wanted to have to play for "tyrant" Mike Scioscia.
I know T.J. Simers likes to bloviate because he likes to draw a reaction. However, his column on Arte Moreno is just downright ignorant. Abreu, Hunter and Wells each hit 20-30 points below their career batting averages all in the same season and the Angels missed out on the playoffs. That is Moreno's fault? The Napoli-Wells trade looks bad in the rearview mirror, due in no small part to Napoli having the greatest year of his career and Wells having his worst. Was Moreno supposed to see that?
The Angels didn't overpay for Teixeira, (who got nothing but singles in his one postseason in Anaheim), Lackey, (a total bust in Boston washing away his misery in beer in the clubhouse during games), Figgins, (whose career appears to be over post-Anaheim), and he still has them contending most years. I went to my first Angels game in 1972 — well before Simers ever realized there was a team there. I watched a lot of really bad baseball for a lot of years. I appreciate that the Angels have four postseason appearances in the seven years of Moreno ownership and only four postseason appearances in the entire 40-plus years prior to Arte.
The Jamie factor
After reading Bill Plaschke's column on Jamie McCourt, everyone should know Frank was willing to pay her $130 million in a settlement because it is worth it.
Anyone know how Charles Steinberg's "Project Jamie" campaign is doing these days? Funny, I haven't heard much about it lately.
Bill Plaschke's article makes me wonder. Does this mean Jamie will not be president of the United States?
It doesn't get any more sexist than Bill Plaschke's attack on Jamie McCourt. Women now have some rights and don't have to be one of the "good old boys". I find his column and remarks insulting to all women. He took it real easy on Frank, however ... because he's one of the boys?
Wouldn't it be ironic if Frank McCourt is forced to sell the Dodgers and has to declare personal bankruptcy after he cannot afford to pay Jamie the $130 million?