A couple of things in this article really ticked me off this morning. For instance, Deinhart suggests that not even Peterson could do much better than Dorrell at UCLA, all else being constant. So I've included the link, and my response.
As a Bruins fan, I actually appreciate an article that highlights the shortcomings of UCLA's commitment to football. Hopefully, it will help lead to all of these issues being addressed. However, I think the article, and the some of the responses, miss some of the big picture and a few major points.
1) The article seems to be so focused on the negative issues that it misses (or avoids?) the big picture. That big picture is that UCLA has so much going for it (location, academics, elite in overall athletics, elite in basketball, recruiting base, etc), that it is truly one hire away from at least being competitive again in football, if not elite. You don't believe me? That's fine, but just take a look at what has recently happened to UCLA basketball and baseball. When Lavin was fired, there were articles much like this one (perhaps even written by Deinhart?). These articles said UCLA's time is over as things have changed, high academic standards are a problem, the facilities are poor, Arizona and the east coast powers have a strong recruiting grip on So. Cal., etc. All UCLA did was hire a great coach. Sure, we got him for under market value, but again, all Dan Guerrero did was hire a great coach. Look how that's turning out. Now, let's look at baseball, where UCLA's status had been lower than it's current football status, nationally. People said we weren't a baseball school, the stadium sucks, etc. Guerrero hires a very good coach, and within a few years we are again on the national scene. So, for anyone to suggest that even a Peterson hire would likely keep UCLA from doing much better than the uncompetitive, inconsistent, and uninspired teams of Karl Dorrell seems pretty foolish.
2) The world of college football has indeed changed, and more investment is needed to be an elite team - and based on actions to date, it seems like this hasn't been lost on the current administration. The current administration of Block and Guerrero have proven to be far superior to the previous administration of Carnesale and Dalis when it comes to a commitment to excellence in athletics (coaching changes, progress on Pauley renovation, etc.). Guerrero says he wants excellence in his football program, and considering he has done everything he has said he would do, to date, there is no reason to NOT take him on his word. In my opinion, Guerrero understands the opportunity cost of NOT having a strong football program, especially in such a large market as L.A. (not everyone is a SUC fan). Lastly, all of the changes suggested by Deinhart seem (from my partial understanding of UCLA's athletic budget) to be possible within the current budget. It's not like UCLA needs a new stadium.
3) One could make the argument that football coaches have been underpaid while Guerrero has been AD. However, who is going to pay the price of a Ferrari for a Yugo? Before being hired at UCLA (hired by Carnesale, I might add), Dorrell was a position coach. He had some less-than-successful experience as an OC - but even then he didn't even call the plays. Deinhart says "you get what you pay for", and that is the case much of the time. However, I would counter that with "you don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate." And Dorrell, considering his lack of experience as a head coach and lack of success as even a coordinator, was in no position to negotiate more than what UCLA was willing to give him (he didn't deserve even what he was getting, in my opinion). And let's also not forget that Guerrero did give sizable raises to the coordinators, even though neither of them had any real experience as coordinators (Norvell never called played and Walker had been a position coach). So, just because Guerrero didn't pay the unproven Dorrell and his coaching staff much relative to other Pac-10 coaching staffs doesn't mean he won't pay market value for a proven, successful coaching staff going forward.
4) What's up with all the whining from the Trojan fans? To say that UCLA has an inflated view of itself is the biggest case of the "pot calling the kettle black" that I have ever heard. Most of the UCLA fans I know recognize that we haven't been an elite program over time like Michigan, OSU, ND, and USC; and we don't expect to "beat USC, CAL, OREGON and the rest of the PAC-10 each year." However, we do expect to be, at the least, competitive with these programs. And why shouldn't we? Afterall, before Dorrell was hired, one media service (I can't remember which one) had UCLA as the #16 team all-time in college football. Not elite, but certainly very good. These USC fans probably get their information on what they think "real UCLA fans" want from BRO, and are probably the same SUC fans that think the Yahoo stories regarding Reggie Bush and his family were nothing more than a witch hunt.
The bottom line is that UCLA, because of it's natural advantages and it's commitment to excellence in all it's sports programs by the current administration, has the ability, and now seemingly the will, to become an elite national power in football. If we can get the right head coach in place, I'd bet the rest will fall into place, much like has been the case with basketball and baseball.