[socalstanfan1]

I have to say, until reading that article, I though Good Grief's idea had some merit.  Howland's reputation when he came from Pitt to UCLA was very good, in fact kind of the opposite of the the image that emerges from the article (the author of the SI piece even acknowledges that at the beginning).  But I think I wouldn't want to take a chance on a coach that clearly, if the article is accurate, looked the other way when problems began to emerge.  It seems like coaching 101: the coach must have control of the team.  Fail that and you are courting disaster.

[socalstanfan1]

I have to say, until reading that article, I though Good Grief's idea had some merit.  Howland's reputation when he came from Pitt to UCLA was very good, in fact kind of the opposite of the the image that emerges from the article (the author of the SI piece even acknowledges that at the beginning).  But I think I wouldn't want to take a chance on a coach that clearly, if the article is accurate, looked the other way when problems began to emerge.  It seems like coaching 101: the coach must have control of the team.  Fail that and you are courting disaster.