Disparate Treatment?

by Nestor on Nov 21, 2006 3:09 PM PST in Football

Embattled Alabama head football coach Mike Shula is now under intense heat not just in the local media but also in the national press. Actually he was facing intense pressure from the national press even before heading into the Iron Bowl. Even ESPN has gotten into the act fisking a coach's record who like Dorrell also won 10 games last season:

Former Alabama quarterback Brodie Croyle once said that Mike Shula had a quiet confidence about him that was infectious.

Try telling that to the Crimson Tide fans right now. Their confidence in the 41-year-old Shula is quickly eroding, and there's nothing quiet about it.

Shula, who was given the dreaded vote of confidence by Alabama athletic director Mal Moore prior to the inexplicable home loss to Mississippi State, has been pillaged on radio talk shows and Internet message boards by those convinced he's in over his head as Alabama's head football coach. The Crimson Tide (6-5, 2-5) have tumbled back into the bottom half of the Southeastern Conference this season after winning 10 games a year ago.

The unrest will only grow louder if Shula loses his fourth straight Iron Bowl this weekend to Auburn. [...]

There are some telling numbers that clearly don't help Shula's case.

He's just 2-15 against Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, LSU and Tennessee; 3-15 against SEC teams with winning records and 4-13 against nationally ranked teams.

Against all teams with winning records, he's 8-19. Against all teams with losing records, he's 18-2.

Since Shula returned to the Capstone, Alabama has yet to come back and win a game in which it was trailing heading into the fourth quarter.

And in games decided by seven points or less, Shula's record is 5-12.

Of course, all those numbers wouldn't look nearly as ugly if the Crimson Tide can figure out a way to win the one that counts double (maybe even triple) this weekend.

HT to FanBlogs.com. Alabama of course went on to lose its fourth straight Iron Bowl to it's arch rival which bumped Shula's gruesome numbers to look ... well ... even more Dorrellian:

2-18 vs. AU, ARK, LSU, UT, UF and UGA
3-17 vs. SEC teams with winning records
4-15 vs. Ranked teams
8-21 vs. All Teams with Winning Records
18-2 vs. Teams with losing records
0-20 when trailing in the fourth quarter

This led to noted Georgia blogger paulwesterdawg (who also identified himself as a 'Bama fan) to reach this conclusion:

Why would you keep a guy like that? Is he ever going to be able to manage a game successfully? Are Bama fans forever doomed to watch Shula bumble decisions like whether or not to kick a field goal on 4th and 15 with 5 minutes left and two timeouts. Or whether or not to go for two down 14-9 in the first half.

Now someone please tell me why aren't we seeing those kinds analysis on a coach like Mike Shula who is also coming off a so called "10 win" season, while nothing on Karl Dorrell except here on BN and DD? Why is the traditional media (referring to the article in ESPN, not Paul) are completely silent on Dorrell's ugly resume after four years in Westwood which is almost identical to Mike Shula's mediocre resume compiled at Tuscaloosa:

0-3 against Southern Cal.
1-10 on the road against teams with a winning record (that lone win may be wiped off if ASU loses to Arizona)
3-11 against ranked teams
1-7 against top 10 teams
7-16 against teams with a winning record
9 losses to unranked teams
Only 4 conference wins against teams over .500
0 Pac-10 Championships
0 BCS Bowl Games

[Source Petition to Dump Dorrell]

What is worse in this case unlike Shula, Dorrell did not inherited a program coming off NCAA sanctions. He took over a program which was already stocked with talent (second only to Southern Cal in the Pac-10) and was coming off an 8 win season.

So what's the deal? Why is Shula being treated differently than Karl Dorrell?

No matter how much folks try to dismiss the intense heat on Shula as local pressure, the article looking beyond the shallow "10 win" gloss came from ESPN.

So what gives? Can someone tell me why are we seeing articles in the traditional media generating intense heat and scrutiny of Mike Shula while Karl Dorrell is getting a pass?

Why is no one writing articles about why Karl Dorrell should not only think about resigning should he fail to beat Southern Cal, but he should probably stay away from trumpeting any win over the Trojans as a sign of some kind of turnaround for the worst football program in the history of UCLA since WW2?

Are we going to see any fact and reality based articles in both the local and the national traditional media about a coach who should be on a scorching hot seat for accomplishing nothing after four years in Westwood or are we continue to see bullsh!t puff pieces such as this one talking up "the Thinker" of Westwood?

We are going to find out the answers next week. However, I am certainly not optimistic that the media will actually do it's job and tell the real story behind Dorrell's performance (or lack thereof) as a head football coach. The chances are the media for some reason will continue to give him a pass. For some reason they will continue to treat him with kid gloves and avoid asking him questions based on numbers and facts on why he hasn't been able restore the tradition of Bruin football.

The question is why the media is treating him differently compared to other similar situated head coaches around the country who have also compiled similar less than impressive resume, but are being subjected to intense scrutiny.

Why are folks so afraid to write about the facts re. Karl Dorrell?

GO BRUINS.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

maybe its because

KD is one of the few African American coaches in college football? Could it be that the media is wary of setting its sights on KD for fear of the "racist" charge that is bound to come up if it did so?

I'd hate to think that's the reason, but I can see no other difference between Shula and KD in terms of their track records as head coaches at their respective programs. I mean that's what makes or breaks a coach, right? And by any measure,as shown on BN time and time again, KD is a failure as a coach.

by kdout on Nov 21, 2006 3:33 PM PST reply actions

I'm not sure it is that sinister

I think other posters have hit it on the head, local journalists like the idea of it being SC for Football and UCLA for basketball. And the fact that there are a lot of former SC people in key writing positions.

by Free the 16 on Nov 21, 2006 4:35 PM PST reply actions

I don't think it's a race thing

I think it is a Alabama is known for Bear Bryant and UCLA is known for Terry Donohue thing.

by True Blue and Gold on Nov 21, 2006 5:14 PM PST reply actions

I think it's the whole race deal...

if anything Dorrell should be on a hotter seat than Shula, who at least has the excuse of NCAA sanctions to rely on. Dorrell came into a great situation at UCLA with a team that had just won 8 games and returned a great deal of it's players. And now in his 4th year were hoping for a 7 win season? Not what I call progress

FIRE KARL DORRELL!!

BEAT KENTUCKY!!
THANK GOD FOR BEN HOWLAND!!

by BruinFanatic1988 on Nov 21, 2006 5:35 PM PST reply actions

The Press Reflects Our Tolerance of Mediocrity

I was going to post something along this same line a few weeks ago.

Dennis Franchionne (sp?) is under intense pressure at Texas A and M. He, too, has a better record than Dorrell.

So, is the difference that Shula and Franchionne are white and Dorrell Black?

I don't think so.

I think the difference is that in Alabama and Texas they don't tolerate mediocrity. In Westwood, they do.

The press does not create opinion, it reflects it.

I think the best evidence that my hypothesis may be true is the fact that Lavin got favorable press -- as he destroyed the most storied program in college sports.

Why did Lavin get good press? Because, in Westwood he had a host of defenders -- defenders of mediocrity.

You don't see fans defending Franchionne the way our fans are defending Dorrell and used to defend Lavin.

Many of us have signed the petition. Far more of us have not. The press will not lead the movement to fire Dorrell. They aren't leading it in Alabama and they aren't leading it in College Station. They will get more aggressive when they see clear handwriting on the wall. The petition, and leadership of this site and dumpdorrell, if they pick up enough support will turn the tone of the stories.

In my eyes, Lavin is proof that race is not the issue. The issue is our perceived tolerance of mediocrity. That's what sets the tone of those news stories.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Nov 21, 2006 6:35 PM PST reply actions

Hitting the nail on the head

I think Bruin of 66 got it just right. We are a basketball school, so our football program can continue to deteriorate as long as we are OK in basketball. (That theory got tested to the nth degree with the Lavin era.) Hence, the athletic department, the fans, the media, the coaching staff and maybe even the team are content with mediocrity.

It's difficult to tell the difference between sort of mediocre, mediocre and really mediocre, and no one really cares. It doesn't matter how much detail and numbers Nestor and the others generate, the powers that be are contend with mediocrity, and truly don't care that were dropping below the mediocre line.

I think we are looking at a situation where will will be a stout opponent to anyone's basketball team, a perennial winner and odds-on favorite to be in the Final Four, but a cream puff on anyone's football schedule.

There's a program in North Carolina like that, called Duke. Frankly, that's where I see our football program heading until we get a Ben clone in the driver's seat.

by Fox 71 on Nov 21, 2006 9:42 PM PST up reply actions

Oops

Please excuse the typos. (Hard to type when you're in tears.)

by Fox 71 on Nov 21, 2006 9:42 PM PST up reply actions

good point about Lavin,

however, Lavin did manage to get his squad into the Sweet 16 a few times and once into the Elite 8, I believe. If we equate that to any of the BCS Bowls in football, I'm not convinced that we can say the same about Dorrell.

by kdout on Nov 22, 2006 10:22 AM PST up reply actions

Hitting it on the head

I am so tired of tolerance of mediocrity. My family has been Bama fans for life and they are ready to kill Shula. At UCLA we are happy hoops have started. UCLA should be a power in football, no excuses.

The reason Bama is a bigger story is 12 versus 1. For those who need explaination google national titles and Alabama

by Ghost of seven in a row on Nov 23, 2006 6:21 PM PST up reply actions

No one cares

I think the big problem is that, despite being a winning program overall, UCLA just has not been consistently relevant in the world of college football. We haven't consistently competed for the Pac-10, let alone a national championship. We're not a cinderella story either, so even doing well doesn't surprise many people. We're sort of in no man's land. When we don't do well, it is on par with our history. When we do well, it's because we have no reason not to, with our location and recruiting pool, so it's not a big deal. Until we can be successful consistently in football, we will be an afterthought.

It is hard to convince others of the wasted potential of this program, when they just look at our history and come away unimpressed.

by tasser10 on Nov 22, 2006 8:49 AM PST reply actions

re: "We haven't consistently competed for

the Pac-10...championship"

Depends on what "competed for" means.

I'll volunteer that if you finish in the top 2 or 3 in conference, then you competed for the championship.

By this standard, (top 3) until very recently, UCLA has been a perennial contender.
From 1949 (Red Sanders first year) through 1988 (Troy Aikmen's last year), a total of 50 seasons:
UCLA finished FIRST 11 times.
UCLA finished SECOND 16 times.
UCLA finished THIRD 6 times.

The Bruins won the conference 22% of the time.
54% of the time, the Bruins finished in 1st or 2nd place.
throw in 3rd place showings, and it's 66%.

So roughly speaking 2/3 of the time UCLA has "competed for a conference champonship"

By comparison USC did it 62% of time, and Washington did it 40% of the time.

by McCloskey on Nov 22, 2006 2:20 PM PST up reply actions

Very nice!

That's great info McCloskey! I probably meant more recently, though even that may not be completely accurate. It just feels like we have been mediocre for a while. How strange. It's probably the media's fault. Cal is only a newcomer in the Pac-10 race, but if you listen to the media they make it sound like the Pac-10 is always a two-horse race between them and U$C. It stinks being treated like the WAC...

by tasser10 on Nov 24, 2006 7:47 AM PST up reply actions