Is Success Our Own Worst Enemy?

by alcor805 on Jun 6, 2006 11:05 PM PDT

Bruins Nation is full of so much optimism these days. Our beloved basketball team is back where it belongs. Mens vollyball won yet another championship. Baseball had a breakthrough season. Championship number 100 is close. It's a great time to be a Bruin.....except.

Football. What the hell? Why are we so down on our team? They were 10-2 last year. They won their first bowl game in years. We enjoyed miracle comebacks and precision passing of the highest quality. What could Karl Dorrell be lacking in the eyes of Bruin fans?

As far back as I can remember, every football season has crashed and burned in a sea of injuries. Our D-Line was badly injured before the season even started last year. I don't think you could blame Dorrell for that.

Sure you can make unfair comparisons to Coach Howland. But Ben would be the first to admit our basketball team has enormous recruiting advantages compared to football.

I don't remember Terry Donahue being that great. His tenure ended in Hawaii, where he got bombed. Sure he had his moments in the 70's and 80's but we put up with his crappy 3-7-1's and 5-6 seasons. His '88 team was overloaded with talent and they still couldn't stop Washington St. when they were the #1 team in the country.

I don't see how losing to SC's rediculously talented team makes Karl any less of a coach. As a lifelong Bruin fan I can't remember a better SC team. If our only goal in football is to beat SC then I think we should at least be realistic about how we're going to do it. In order for last years Bruins to have beaten that SC team there would have to have been exteniating circumstances. An injury to Reggie Bush and Matt Leinert, plus maybe even a freak snow storm. Their lineman alone were enough to put our team at a massive disadvantage nevermind the glut of weapons SC had. How is this Dorrell's fault? He didn't have the weapons to match up.

Dorrell hasn't had proper time to establish his system. We need to give him another 2 years at least. I know I'm going to be attacked for posting this but I want closure. I can't keep on bashing Dorrell because T.J. Simers made it fashionable. I want to employ the same kind of optimism we have towards baseball. We don't have to win the championship every year to be happy.

I will now assume the duck and cover position. Feel free to disagree.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don't remember ...

going to UCLA and doing jumping jacks over a football season after getting humiliated by USC.

Oh way ... that didn't happen while we were in Westwood.

In terms of how the disgraceful performance against USC was KD's fault you should be smart enough to scroll back and read those posts from December of 2005.

by Nestor on Jun 7, 2006 6:02 AM PDT reply actions

Agree with Nestor

When a team has 3 weeks to prepare for their cross-town rival & the game has major bowl implications, you should be more than prepared. They came out as flat as any game this past season and spent the entire game looking like a deer in the headlights. It shouldn't happen in any game, particularly against your hated rival.

That is and will always be the coaches fault.

by artybruin on Jun 7, 2006 8:17 AM PDT reply actions

another 2 years at least?

I'm all for optimism. But I'm also a realist. Dorrell has had two bad seasons and one better one. And I don't need to spill any more ink talking about the good, bad and ugly that has Karl Dorrell over the last three years, be it poor early recruiting, suspect game preparation, etc.

And, I'm probably less hard on Dorrell than many. But, "at least" two more years is not even in the neighborhood of something I'd give. My guess is that dude will bust out another 6-6 type season and many doubter's concerns will be confirmed. If I'm wrong, and we get 9+ wins, then great, I'll be the happiest wrong guy around. But only then will another year, much less two be even remotely on my mind.

by Menelaus on Jun 7, 2006 8:58 AM PDT reply actions

Exactly

If Dorrell busts out a 9 win season (including the bowl game) which includes a win over SC, you will have competition from me for the prize of happies wrong guy (on Dorrell) in the Bruins Nation.

This is a watershed year.

by Nestor on Jun 7, 2006 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions

If KD wins less than 9 games

then (with 8 wins) his overall winning percentage will be .600
That's unacceptable.
If he wins 8, and loses 5, he won't be ranked in the top 25, (unacceptable) and it will again be the case that he wins most of the games when he's the favorite and loses all of the games as the underdog. And that means he's never gonna win the conference, and he's never gonna get to the Rose Bowl, and he'll only rarely beat USC. He shouldn't be the coach if that's the case.

by McCloskey on Jun 7, 2006 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm With Alcor

I know most folks here can't stand KD, but I agree with Alcor that (like the baseball team) his team took a major step forward last season. The team showed a lot of heart in their comeback wins and the offense was much better. All KD needs is some improvement on defense to really have something going.

Yes, it's disappointing that they played so poorly against the PUSCs, but they played well in the game the year before. Unfortunately, SC has been so strong the past couple years that we can't use beating them as the benchmark for whether our coach is doing his job -- just as Tim Floyd could do a great job as USC hoops coach the next few years and still get blown out by Ben Howland's powerhouse squad every time.

Barring a disastrous season this year (i.e., a losing record and continued ineptitude on defense), I think it will take at least two more years to see what KD can do.

by vanaaron on Jun 7, 2006 9:45 AM PDT reply actions

Yes ...

I was really inspired by those last minute comebacks against shitty teams only to see Dorrell taking it up his rear end when it came time to win the games that would have gotten us in the BCS.

9 regular season wins from a schedule that was the easiest in last 30 years with another assraping from USC.

Hey so you are cool with being SC's bitch. That is your problem.

by bluestreet on Jun 7, 2006 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions

Alcor missed the mark ...

in so many ways that we can do another post out of it. But it is not worth it.

Alcor compared KD to Dan Savage conviniently forgetting the tangible progress Savage made from his first to second season, as to what KD did in his first two years.

Savage (just like Howland) has the Bruins set up to establish a great program out West and perhaps in the nation (in Howland's case he has a program that is set up to be one of the nation's elite).

While all KD has done is continue Toledo's later year tradition of UCLA serving as SC's backyard bitch.

You consider that as progress. I don't.

by Nestor on Jun 7, 2006 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions

The way I see it

It isn't that KD "lost" a game (or three) to USC.
It's a lot bigger than that, the signs that KD isn't getting it done are a lot more than that.

I've written umpteen posts detailing how KD's record is the worst or second worst of any coach from Sanders til now (8 different coaches). It's the many losses to bad programs, it's the bad road record, it's the mediocre conference finishes, it's the embarassing record against ranked teams, it's the overall record, it's the pathetic bowl performances, and it's the margin of victory, the absolute trouncing in the USC games. It's not just that KD "lost" to USC

by McCloskey on Jun 7, 2006 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions

Tim Floyd Beat UCLA

And, that's all we are asking of Dorrell.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Jun 7, 2006 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions

This is somewhat off topic

but considering the postseason run that immediately followed that game, I dont think Ive ever been happier to lose to SUC.

by scittles on Jun 7, 2006 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions

That's sort of my point

Whose season would you have rather had; Howland's or Floyd's?

It's not about winning one game. It's about overall achivement, in conference, in the conference tournament, in the post-season.

If KD goes 11-2 next year, but loses at Notre Dame, and to USC, I would say the season is a sucess. Everything shouldn't ride on the outcome of one single event. It's the totality of his career (thus far) thats unacceptable.

by McCloskey on Jun 7, 2006 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Defining Success

Your excellent posts make clear that to have a winning season one must be able to play well against good teams.

Getting blown out, in a game where our team never plays well, is not acceptable.

As much as I loved the last minute wins, and as much as I count them as victories, many games were butt ugly and -- considering our talent level -- clear evidence of a poorly coached and unmotivated team.

Another season like last year's, where we barely scrape by against inferior teams, and get blown out by good teams will not be a success in my mind -- even if we end up 11-2.

Yes, 11-2 will be enough for KD to keep his job. But, when one looks behind the numbers, it shouldn't be.

That said, setting win/loss standards now is somewhat unrealistic. I'd rather set performance standards -- for the team and for the coach. Play hard, make smart deicsions -- that will be a winning season for me.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Jun 7, 2006 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Quit beating around the bush.....

and say what you mean (LOL).

Excellent summary, McCloskey

by artybruin on Jun 7, 2006 11:38 AM PDT reply actions

What if......

Krazy Karl and Southpaw Jesus pull off an upset at Notre Dame but lose to SC? Or they beat both SC and ND but lose to Utah, Arizona and Stanford?

From the deluge of posts I've read, I don't think we have realistic expectations for the upcoming season.

by alcor805 on Jun 7, 2006 5:48 PM PDT reply actions

Realistic expectations

Our expectations are more than realastic given the talent on our team and the schedule we are going to have this coming season. And as detailed in the link I don't see any reason why we should not expect this team to beat SC and win 9 games. If you have other ideas, please give your game by game takes and lay out why our expectations are unrealstic. Otherwise making general statements without having anything to back it up make you look like a fan who is opining without any grasp of reality.

by Nestor on Jun 7, 2006 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Nestor, Your Projections

are not unrealistic. However, they have us going 9-3 assuming we suffer no upset losses and win one game as a likely big underdog (USC) and two other games that look like toss-ups (Utah & @Arizona St).

If we actually win those three games and avoid any upsets, I will regard the season as another major step in the right direction. If we lose them all and go 6-6, then we will know KD is not up to the task.

Anything between those extremes, and we'll have to consider the circumstances. Did the defense play better, or continue to get pushed off the field? Were we competitive against our strongest opponents, or did we suffer more demoralizing blowouts? We have too many road games against good teams (Oregon, Notre Dame, Cal, ASU) simply to say the season is a failure if we don't win 9 regular season games.

by vanaaron on Jun 8, 2006 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions

One thing

I should have probably corrected in that post is that I'd be happy with an 8 win regular season if that includes a win over USC. 8 wins (in a regular season) and a win over USC - will do it for me.

Of course McCloskey's point in this thread is poignant that beating SC is not the only prerequisite for 06 to be considered a succesful one. It's part of the bigger picture.

Lastly to respond to another comment (down thread I think) - we will not stop talking about the job that is Karl Dorrel has done as the HC of UCLA football. The mediocre job done by the Karl Dorrell is THE ISSUE of UCLA football.

by Nestor on Jun 8, 2006 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions

I think it goes deeper than Dorrell...

A bit off subject, but I'm STILL asking myself why Dorrell was hired in the first place. What the hell was Dan Guerrero thinking? And don't even get me started on the contract extensions that DG keeps throwing Dorrell's way. We were doomed the second Guerrero signed Dorrell's contract, and sent further down shit creek after the contract extension to 2010. And once Dorrell finally gets run out of town by the administration/media/alumni/students only to have his contract bought out with a few million dollars, who the hell is going to want to walk into the mess that Dorell left behind.

DG shouldn't have put us in this position in the first place.

by norcalbruin95 on Jun 8, 2006 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions

Mess

I think it will only be defined as a mess after we see what this next season brings us. More of the same (no defense,losses to inferior teams, etc) and I'll be jumping on the Butch Davis for Coach bandwagon.

Yes, the program should be in better shape than it is, but this upcoming season tells the tale of what direction the progranm is heading.

by artybruin on Jun 8, 2006 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Judging Competancies in football is very difficult

There are so many variables in the program, that it can't be pinned entirely on one person. However, KD signed up to be the point person, and he has to take the fall if the program can't show more tangible progress.
This program has been mediocre to bad since '99. In '01 they looked good for 6 games and then collapsed horribly. We do have to be fair that KD didn't create the situation, and has had to compete with the incredible resurgance of SuC football as a rookie coach. That's a tall order. But if he's not the guy to rise to the occasion, then we need to find someone who can.
But we need to be smart and not too rash in our judgements. The 10-2 is a good record, but it was boosted by a weak schedule and heroic comebacks in games that were basicly lost. But it wasn't because we were overloaded with talent. Alot of the talent on the team last year was on positions dependant on the lineman, on both sides of the ball. MJD could have had incredible numbers like a certain other back if he had a line that could open a crease and let him into the open field. DO didn't have much time to make his reads, not like the dancer did, but still had a great senior season. On D our line was super thin due to injuries and the other positions couldn't pick up the slack.
The blame for alot of this is recruiting, which only now is (slowly) catching up. Also alot goes to the coaches, good and bad. As the administrator for the team, KD needs to get more out of his staff and players. This year and every year after serves as a barometer for how well KD is able to perform this function. I think some of us are a little overzealous in our desire to see the team succeed and beat those assholes across town.(which is a legit concern) But comparing Football success to ANY of the other programs success is not a fair comparison. They are just too different.
But, I do think we are getting close to time to decide if the KD experiment is a success or a bust. So far he hasn't done anything miraculous to overcome the crappy numbers, but there is always next year. My request is that we not beat this dead horse anymore until we get some major Football news.

by isodore on Jun 8, 2006 12:56 AM PDT reply actions

I couldn't agree more...

Isodore's comments were right on the nose. KD is paying for a lot of Bob Toledo's transgressions. He can't claim UCLA is a consequence free environment like our cross-town rivals can when recruiting. If any coach were to topple SC and become a national power at UCLA it would take 5 or 6 years minimum.

Somewhere in the back of my mind I still try to ignore the notion of race being a factor when people judge KD. Toledo gave us great offense with a defense like a sieve too. That was his best team.

by alcor805 on Jun 8, 2006 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions

Gotta love that race card ...

when there are no arguments to back up assertions, there is always the race card.

by Nestor on Jun 8, 2006 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions

5 or 6 years minimum?

That's both longer than it takes, and longer than I'm willing to wait. A good coach could and should turn a school with the incredible natural advantages such as UCLA into a force in three years, four at tops. KD has had 3 years and has managed two bad seasons, and a highly qualified better one. Dude needs to get it done in year four, or at least show a good bit of improvement, or he should step aside.

I'm not giving KD two more years to fail, and then the next guy 6 to have a good year. That's ridiculous.

by Menelaus on Jun 8, 2006 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Another way to look at it ...

when you bring in a young associate at a law firm or anywhere ... you have a pretty good idea within 3-4 years if he or she partner material (without considering her race, sex, sexual orientation etc).

Simple question to ask ... has Dorrell produced to date? The answer is no.

And if the answser is no at the end of this upcoming year, he needs to go.

by Nestor on Jun 8, 2006 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Good point

But 3 to 4 years? I used to grind through them in a summer. ;)

Sadly, though, to extend the analogy, I know a lot of firms that give guys like Dorrell an extra year or two to keep up appearances on the NALP form. It's too bad.

by Menelaus on Jun 8, 2006 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions