Bruin Football Over The Years

by bruin7982 on Nov 20, 2007 12:43 PM PST Comment 5 comments

Perhaps I should put this on Streeter's blog, but I don't want to increase his blog traffic. Others may have also done similar research. I wanted to check Streeter's assertion that Dorrell's record is basically consistent with the record of other UCLA coaches over the years, so I calculated UCLA's winning percentage in each five year period preceding Dorrell going back to 1950 (2002 to 1998, 1997-1993, etc.) (yes, I have too much time on my hands!).

I ignored ties in doing the calculations. With two games left to play this year, Dorrell's winning percentage is 57%. Toledo's record for the preceding five years was about 59%, and he got fired. There were only 2 five year periods that I studied where UCLA's winning percentage was worse, 1958-1962(55%) and 1968-1972 (54%). The coach from 1958-1962 was Bill Barnes who got fired and the 1968-1972 period reflected the end of Tommy Prothro's UCLA career and the beginning of Pepper Rogers' career. That period was sandwiched between two very successful periods, Prothro's first three years on the job (82%) and 1973-1977 (75%). From 1950-1957 and 1973-1987, UCLA won well over 70% of its games.

It is true that since Troy Aikman left after the 1988 season, UCLA has not done a lot better than Dorrell, winning around 59% of its games from 1988 through 2002. That can be attributed to the fact that Donahue was playing out the string during those years, mostly without Homer Smith as his OC (his record with Homer was much better than without) and Toledo was really not qualified for the job (slightly more qualified than Dorrell). The potential of UCLA football I think is reflected by the period from 1973 to 1987 when UCLA won well over 70% of its games (the Sanders era of 1950-1957 with its almost 80% winning percentage may be too much ancient history).

Assuming Dorrell gets fired, he will be treated the same as the only two coaches who were fired during the period studied, Bill Barnes and Bob Toledo, both of whom had comparable records to Dorrell, and will not be treated worse than any other UCLA football coach. I don't think it is unreasonable for UCLA fans to expect a coach who will bring UCLA up to its potential on the field.

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.

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Thanks for the data 7982

We should also note all of our Pac-10 titles, Rose Bowl championships that Dorrell loving idiots always coviniently ignore. All the info can be found in a link under our blogroll laying out our football tradition, which the Doofus has not come close to living up to in his miserable tenure at Ucla.

by Nestor on Nov 20, 2007 3:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

You guys do great work!

Nestor, thanks for pointing that out. I very much enjoy the posts that you and others make on this site. I am a relative newcomer so am not familiar with everything that has been said before.

by bruin7982 on Nov 20, 2007 4:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Your assignment

Read every post that has ever been made. Or if you want the short version to get to the Absolute Truth, just read the stuff that I've written.

by Fox 71 on Nov 20, 2007 5:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Streeter's Fuzzy Math

Streeter's lofty target of an "acceptable" 60% win rate per season includes three to four non-conference games per year, most of which are against patsies, and two to three Pac-10 games against teams which will inevitably be awful in any given season. Crunch the numbers, and 60% = well below .500 against quality opposition, combined with losses to truly wretched outfits, such as ND and Utah. UCLA football has achieved exactly this, and less, under the CTS regime. Of course, CTS is learning and growing, and after another few mediocre years, 8-4, with a hard-fought loss to SuC may be a real possibility!

by TfXc79 on Nov 21, 2007 1:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe 60% is good enough for Streeter.

He got a zero for his journalistic effort in playing the race card, and a zero for his second effort at defending his position. So all he needs is three 100%'s in a row and he's got his acceptable 60% accuracy mark.

Had I been the editor of a serious paper, I would have spiked the first effort and of course there would have been no second effort. But we have to remember the forum - the fishwrap. In my view, the fishwrap has been out of touch with reality since at least the '70's. No real newspaper would have anything to do with a fool such as Mr. Streeter.

I'm sure Mr. Streeter and the fishwrap are both very happy with themselves, so good for them. Just stay from me and my UCLA family and we'll all be happy.

by Fox 71 on Nov 21, 2007 5:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs