Chow Would Be Great!

by uclahy on Dec 12, 2007 1:37 AM PST Comment 62 comments

[I originally posted this as a comment, but it's so long I made it a diary, if that's OK.]

WHY ALL THE CHOW HATING? HE WOULD BE GREAT!

The guy is obviously a brilliant offensive genius. He has coached at wonderful, successful places, BYU, SC and the Tennessee Titans. He has groomed many of the finest QBs in college football history and has done fabulous with Vince Young who now is an awesome professional passer.

He has been a coach in football for over 30 years, but he's never been a HC so he's not good enough for UCLA because KD was not a HC? WTF kind of non-sequitur is that? KD could not carry Norm Chow's jock strap in terms of football coaching. Jeez.

With Chow, BYU was fabulous with countless great QBs's in a second tier conference. At SC he made Carson Palmer bloom from mediocrity. And what about a guy named Matt Leinart who is a pale image of himself in college without Chow? Are you guys nuts. CHOW IS WHY SC WON ALL THOSE FRICKING GAMES WITH CARROL! GIVE ME A BREAK!

CHOW IS THE BEEF!

Now why is he supposed to be so "bad."

1. He's been passed over by other schools, like Stanford when some AD genius thought Walt Harris of Pitt was a better pick for Stanford. So because others are stupid somehow Chow isn't qualified?

2. There must be something wrong with him b/c he's never been picked as a HC before, a corollary of the first dumb argument. Without getting too personal, I'm 58. I've worked my job almost 30 years and for some dumb-ass reason no one has annointed me to be a top level supervisor in my office. Does that mean I'm no good, or could it be SHIT HAPPENS, that all too often stupid politics or personality issues [wasn't a kiss ass, wasn't a "great" player, is Asian, who knows, who cares?] outweigh promoting the right people?

3. Chow has a bad personality, can't get along with others. Yeah, like fricking Pete Carroll! WTF, I thought KD was bashed for years b/c he was good with birthday cards and got along with everyone but he was incompetent, while Howland has been praised because he's great even though he might be just a little rude to other people. DUH!

Who the F... does the HC have to kiss the ass of anyway?

4. Chow can't recruit! I love this BS. Every top QB prospect in the nation will be begging to come to UCLA if Chow is the HC. This is the most important recruiting factor for any team. How many teams sucked this year after their first string QB went down for a half, let alone a game?
Ben Olson is the only high profile QB prospect we have had in years and of course KD destroyed him with his horrible version of the WCO. With Chow we'll recruit 2-3 Ben Olsons or better every year! For the rest, I think most will be attracted when we keep getting the best QBs. A half-way decent recruiting coordinator can handle the rest.

5. Chow is too old. Right. Maybe Joe Pa and Papa Bowden are now, but at a healthy 62 Chow should have a good ten years in him if he wants. I'd be thrilled with 5 from anybody after what we've been through. But he is too old to go after an NFL job after UCLA, so maybe we'll just get the best the guy has to offer til the end of his great career? I bet he'd give his left you know what to beat little Petey 5 years in a row and show that he was the man behind SUC's success and not smiley boy.

6. Chow will be the shill for a future Walker hire. I doubt that after 30 plus years as an assistant coach that Chow as HC is going to put up with any assistant's BS. Plus, assuming the rumors that DW is going to be the heir apparent, he would have to be a mad man to do anything to upset his relationship with Chow by undermining him b/c Chow could fire him at any time for such BS. The reality is IF CHOW IS NOT SUCCESSFUL, DW WILL NOT BE HIS SUCCESSOR. HE WOULD BE PART OF THE FAILED REGIME AGAIN. And if DW's defense doesn't measure up CHOW WILL FIRE HIM TO GET SOMEONE WHO CAN long before then.

I am sick of these paranoid arguments that are nothing more than mindless mental masturbation that hides the obvious.

OUR MAIN PROBLEM IS A TERRIBLE OFFENSE AND CHOW IS AN OFFENSIVE GENIUS. If he wants to keep DW, that's fine with me. Any reasonable person would have to agree the Bruin defense improved markedly under DW in just a year! And if Chow wants to dump him, that's fine with me. IT'S UP TO CHOW, THE HC.

DG, may of course, pick someone else because he thinks they are better, but if he picks NORM CHOW, genius assistant coach for 30+ years, I WILL BE THRILLED!

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 62 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

No

Given, except that SUC is not a wonderful place and Vince Young and the Titans' offense sucks this year, or did you not catch that Dorrellesque performance against SD?

He has no HC experience, and he is therefore an unknown quantity when it comes to anything outside of developing offensive schemes and calling plays. Our job opening is for a head coach, not an OC. DG has said he wants someone with experience, therefore it is relevant and not a non-sequitur as you so loosely define it.

I'll give you BYU. Maybe Palmer. The rest of this is crap. Even KD won 10 games relying on superior talent with MJD, and in SUC's case, they rode Free House Bush to success. To say that he's single handedly responsible for Free House's talents and for Leinart being a flop (it couldn't be that the NFL is tougher competition) is a stretch at best. Typing in all caps doesn't make your opinion a fact. Give ME a break.

I don't know how many people equate Furd with "stupid" but I digress. Did it ever occur to you that he was so inept at selling himself that he couldn't even distance himself as a coach from Walt Harris? If he couldn't sell himself under those circumstances, how would he do so with recruits?
You go and single everyone else's argument out as "dumb" and then backtrack with "not getting too personal". That's a funny one. It's a shame you backup your opinions with "dumb-ass" faulty logic so that it's difficult to respect anything you say, but I'm feeling charitable so we will examine this anyway. You say he hasn't been "picked" in 30 years. I say he hasn't tried hard enough. You'll never convince me that in three decades there wasn't a smaller position available where he could prove that he was head coaching material. You and him seem to share that false sense of entitlement, you where you think your faulty opinions are facts and he where he should get a HC job at a high level Div. I job. Shit happens. It doesn't happen for 30 years though.
You're grasping at straws. No one cares what his personality is like as long as he can do his job. However, some of the responsibilities of being a HC entail interacting with others beyond the sidelines or the practice field. SUC donors love Pom Pom because he brings them wins, no matter how dirty they are. UCLA donors love Howland because he wins and is honest and upfront with them. Does Chow have the skills to navigate this? Who knows? He has no head coaching experience. Another minus for him.
Here comes the favorite tactic of the Dorrellistas: Wait for the uncertain future! You don't know that top QBs will come here, but you talk as if you do. That's a lie. No one knows what his recruiting abilities are like, we just know that he doesn't enjoy doing it, and when you don't enjoy doing something, it usually shows. Not good. Another minus.
Too old to be a head coach? No. Too old to be a first time head coach who has to learn a whole new set of responsibilities? Probably. Last time I checked, JoePa and Bowden got into the HC business at a much lower age than Chow. Nice try.
All under the false assumption that Chow will be HC. Not worth responding to.

I am sick of these paranoid arguments that are nothing more than mindless mental masturbation that hides the obvious.

You can do better than that pea-brained insult, Junior. (Looks like it's not that hard to sling insults from a false sense of superiority, I can do it too)

Chow is not the HC. Our defense was terrible in plenty of games this season even before you could use the fatigue excuse (WSU). Any reasonable person would have to agree that our defense in 05 could not have been any worse, so anyone who came in after that would improve it. Any reasonable person would have to agree that a world beating DC would improve a defense with 10 returning starters (this was certainly not the case this year). You struck out big time in that paragraph.

DG, may of course, pick someone else because he thinks they are better, but if he picks NORM CHOW, genius assistant coach for 30+ years, I WILL BE THRILLED!

...because you're too afraid to think bigger.

And by the way, if you move your left pinky over (assuming you're not hunting and pecking) a centimeter to the left, there's a caps lock key. It is not the "make my unfounded and unsupported opinions into facts" key. It is established that he has no HC experience and that is one of the major sticking points with DG, so your speculation and conjecture about how Chow "might" be is irrelevant.

Oh and tone it down on the namecalling. It only highlights that your post lacks legitimate arguments.

by Tydides on Dec 12, 2007 2:20 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Perfect

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks, Ty.

by Class of 86 on Dec 12, 2007 8:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Always block quoting

everyone else's arguments with snide remarks after each block quote does not make your argument any stronger. It's called the block quote not the "I block quoted something then responded to that unsupported opinion with my unsupported opinion making my argument infallible!"

What kind of argument is suc isn't a wonderful place? Okay, anyways Chow was the reason for their success and they haven't been the same since he left.

You're going to lower Chow's candidacy because of the SD game? Thirty years of great success and one game and you dismiss the man? BTW Vince Young was rookie of the year and Palmer sucked at suc until Chow got there. Arguing with what the man's done is reaching for straws. The two main points you can argue are no HC experience and recruiting.

UCLAHy makes some good points. With Chow's resume he wouldn't be nearly the experiment most people would be and with his resume I think he'd recruit just fine.

by Dorrellian on Dec 12, 2007 11:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

It makes it clear what I am responding to so people like you can't take me out of context.

If you've seen the Titans this year, you'll know their offense is nothing special. You'd know that Vince is experiencing himself a nice sophomore slump, and the SD game was merely one example of how underwhelming they've been this season. Pretty much anything you say regarding how Chow "might be" as coach is grasping at straws, because you don't know. We have no record to look at. I took the time to respond to the entirety of his specious arguments, and all you do is cherry pick "suc isn't a wonderful place". That pretty much tells me you have nothing else to say about the mountain of objections I placed in front of the decision that hiring him is a good idea. All you have is "I think he'd be good, because I say so". He made no good points, because the facts he wants to use to back his assertions up don't exist.

Pretty sad effort on your part.

by Tydides on Dec 12, 2007 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If I took the time to respond to your entire

argument I'd be here all day, literally. I wouldn't have to cherry pick either, I could close my eyes and my mouse would find many opinions on your rebuttal to UCLAHy's post. I chose "Suc's not that great a place" because at best that wasn't even an opinion of the job Chow did there. I didn't even know what that meant. It was just throwing stuff to the wall hoping something sticked. Is suc not a great place because you don't like them, because you think any coach can have success there, because they let thugs in, what? I can't even respond to that one. Then if I did respond to your entire argument I'd have to respond to your next post that responds to mine and am I supposed to respond to every opinion you make of which there are many? Then we'd be going all day because after reading this site for a while now it's obvious that you more than anyone are the king of pissing contests. I don't have that kind of time.

Tennessee has virtually no talent on offense and Chow's doing a good job. He did a great job last year with them. I'm not going to argue Chow's resume because you're the one grasping at straws if you're going to argue the man's credentials. Mike Leach's gimmick offense that fares well against the terrible teams and usually is completely shut down by the good teams is more of a gamble then Chow's offensive genius coupled with no HC experience. Yes, that's an opinion. When we argue who will be a great head coach at UCLA (outside of a Spurrier type hire)what we're all arguing are opinions because if we knew for a fact who would have great success here then it'd be really easy.

by Dorrellian on Dec 12, 2007 12:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Dorrellian, one question

What in the heck are you talking about? It's not difficult to follow what you're saying, it's impossible.

by Fox 71 on Dec 12, 2007 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Dorrellian

is using a classic example of the phrase "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".

This is probably a good time for him to use the blockquoting method from earlier, because he keeps expanding this argument to try and find some little nugget of truth in his ramblings. I made it perfectly clear who I'm responding to. I think Dorrellian is talking to the voices in his head.

by Tydides on Dec 12, 2007 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

His username

Sure fits the description of his posts.

by bluestreet on Dec 12, 2007 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

I was going to insert that into one of the previous comments but I forgot. Good call though.

by Tydides on Dec 12, 2007 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's all chill

If Chow gives Dorrellian warm and fuzzy feelings, then so be it, I for one am not here to change that. He has made some good comments before so let's not get all riled up. This @#$#% search is driving us all Kramer.

by tasser10 on Dec 12, 2007 2:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

'Tennessee has virtually no talent'

Yeah Vince Young is such a waste. ROFL

by bluestreet on Dec 12, 2007 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't be thrilled with the hire

I think it could be much worse however. At least Chow has a rep for being a strong playcaller and developing QB's, something UCLA has been seriously deficient in. How he's doing in the NFL has no serious bearing because it's the NFL, not the Pac 10. We already know that his offense works in the Pac 10. Obviously there are questions swirling around him and his lack of experience as a head coach, but if Chow comes in and gets the most out of the QB position, and calls plays like we all know he can, I'd be fine with it. The main thing is UCLA would be settling for Chow, we know DG wants a Petersen or Leach, if the higher ups in the administration don't allow him to aggressively pursue those high priority candidates then it's pretty much on them.

by ucla21 on Dec 12, 2007 2:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't be thrilled either

However, I don't think it could be much worse (the only much worse scenario which comes to mind is hiring Walker as HC). The pro-Chow crowd seem to mix up HC and OC responsibilities. There is no doubt that when Chow sits up in the press box, and has talent like Leinart and Bush, that he can run a powerful offense. It is not clear how this automatically translates to running the team from the sidelines with responsibility for over 100 players.
It is also not obvious that all the top QB prospects will automatically flock to UCLA after Chow is hired. The closest analogy I can think of is Walsh's 2nd stint at Stanford. The attraction of playing for Joe Montana's coach and the coach with a well-deserved reputation for innovation should have been unbeatable. I don't know that there was a deluge of QB recruits who came to Stanford because of Walsh (others may have a better sense of this). I do know that he took over a Denny Green team and did well, but did not leave an incredible pipeline of QB's for Willingham. The point of all this is not whether Walsh was or was not a great coach, but rather that Chow does not automatically equate to a pipeline of talent, as suggested by the pro-Chow group.
In the meantime, we would still have the issue of Walker as DC. There is no doubt that the defense improved in his 1st year. Did it improve in his 2nd year? The evidence (defense team stats, number of all-conf performers) would suggest otherwise. This can not all be blamed on the offense doing their 3 and out routine over and over.
Georgia Tech and Arkansas can manage to get HC's with proven Div 1 HC experience. I don't see how Chow and/or Walker matches up. I also don't see why UCLA can't be competitive with the Georgia Techs and Arkansas's of this world.
Hopefully, the "close to the vest" scenario is playing out, and DC will unveil a grand surprise in time for the holidays. Hope springs eternal.

by islandbruin on Dec 12, 2007 6:06 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Chow might be great

MIGHT BE GREAT. The problem is there is no HC experience. So its all upside in people's minds. Just like Dorrell. But as we learned with Dorrell there is a lot of downside too.

Chow is clearly an offensive genius. But you know who else is? Charlie Weis. What happened there?

Basically, the problem for me IMO is that he has no HC experience. He is not green like Dorrell, yes. But sitting in the booth above the stands is not the same as being on the ground with your players. There are too many good coaches with that experience to mess around with someone who does not, especially after the Dorrell Era.

by njbruin on Dec 12, 2007 7:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I would replace "might" with

"probably won't", because there are enough red flags with this guy that gives me serious doubt that he will be a successful HC at UCLA.

The red flags have been discussed at length; I don't think I need to reiterate them. And every meritless counterargument such as the diary above only solidifies the notion that Chow would be a bad hire.

Here's another history lesson: I'm sure you all remember when Dorrell was hired how all his supporters were predicting a steady influx of All-American wide receivers because of him being a "former WR" and "NFL WR coach". Yeah right.

Chow, Walker, Chow-Walker, any combination of these hires would leave me with serious doubts over the current ADs committment to the football program.

DGs legacy will be coming to fruition in the next few weeks. Firing Dorrell was a good start, but the hiring process so far has DG in a big hole.

"This is not a place for just any coach" Dan Guerrero

by godblesstyus95 on Dec 12, 2007 7:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Chow is a great offensive mind

But if UCLA goes with him it will be another "experiment." And after three decades of frustration, I am sick and tired of experiments, and I am more sick and tired of administrators and apologists trying to shove down another experiment down our throats by selling us the same old BS about how a coach will grow into that position at UCLA. Fuck that.

by bluestreet on Dec 12, 2007 7:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

You know?

Jim McMahon, Steve Young, Ty Detmer, Philip Rivers, Carson Palmer, Matt Leinart and Vince Young ain't a half bad list of names to daydream about.

I'm starting to think we're over thinking this thing. Chow was no one's first choice here on BN, but absent interest from any of the names we've thrown about for 6-months and in lieu of handing the reigns over to Walker at such an early juncture.

I THINK WE MIGHT JUST NEED TO GET OVER IT.

GO BRUIN BLUE.

by theREAL_LOGAN5 on Dec 12, 2007 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

If it was just Chow and some other DC besides Walker I'd think about considering it. But if its Chow who is forced to keep Walker, than as N said, that "arranged marriage" scenario is not going to work.

by bluestreet on Dec 12, 2007 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Paul Hackett is an offensive genius, too...

and look how that turned out for the Toejies.

GIVE ME A PROVEN, SUCCESSFUL HEAD COACH!!

by bornagainbruin on Dec 12, 2007 7:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Pete Carroll was a proven failure of a head coach

and look how that turned out.

Your point re: Hackett would be valid if he had success in college. Instead he was a successful NFL coordinator who tried to implement a complex offensive in college that didn't work.

He wasn't the first to do that and won't be the last.

Chow is a proven NCAA offensive genius. He has been the OC for two different schools that have won the NC, has coached numerous heisman winners, etc.

So, I wouldn't compare him to Hackett.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Dec 12, 2007 8:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

PC was a top notch defensive coordinator

who at least had some head coaching experience. And given his track record at SuC, it is obvious he learned something from that experience.

Chow may be a top notch OC, but he has no experience, and he might be looking for a job to head into retirement.

He will bring absolutely no energy into this job and this whole arrange marriage trial balloon that is being floated and wished by your friends on BRO (I am assuming you guy by the name "tradegreen" who always whines about BN on BRO after getting worked here in the comment threads) is just sickening.

by bluestreet on Dec 12, 2007 8:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I am

Deflect much?

your comparison of Hackett and Chow was just silly. Comparing an NFL coordinator with a guy who has 25+ years experience as an NCAA coordinator is ridiculous, and stating that because a specific NFL coordinator wasn't successful means anything is ludicrious.

My point about Carroll was expanding on that there is no magic formula. Carroll was less successful as a coordinator than Chow has been. Carroll was a nfl head coach, and was terrible at it. and he had never been a collegiate head coach. He doesn't fit the formula. Some NCAA coaches have success at one school and fail at another (Franchione, Barnett), some fail at one school and become successful at others, some NFL retreads are highly successful (Carroll) some are disasters (Bill Walsh part 2), some NFL Coordinators fail (Hackett, Weiss), some succeed (Harbaugh at San Diego), some former coordinators take over programs and are highly successful (Stoops in OK), some aren't (Stoops in AZ).

You have to evaluate the individual. I agree that a successful proven collegiate head coach is the best way to go if you can find one that fits what you are looking for. But to say Chow bring no energy (you know that how exactly?) or that he won't be successful is just not based on reality. You simply don't know. And neither do I.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Dec 12, 2007 9:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Read closely

I didn't make the comparison between Hackett and Chow.

PC was less successful as a coordinator? You do realize he helped the Niners win their 5th superbowl. He put together a pretty awesome defense in SF. In fact PC had better experience as an NFL coordinator than Chow ever had.

As for Chow bringing no energy and enthusiasm, the guy can't even sell himself in interviews, and now all on a sudden I am suppose to believe he is going re-energize our program?

It sounds like you are in denial and are ready to accept another experiment just like the other losers on BRO.

by bluestreet on Dec 12, 2007 9:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The thread was on Chow

and you bring up Hackett. Can you explain your point about Hackett on a Chow thread if it wasn't to compare him to Chow?

Chow has won NCs as the OC at two different schools. He has coached 4 heisman trophy winners. Can you name a collegiate offensive coordinator with a better resume? There are plenyt of DCs in the NFL who have won super bowls.

By all accounts, Chow was offered the Kentucky job and turned it down because he was waiting for the BYU gig after Edwards. BYU admin changed, he felt they were racially insensitive and left. Was not offered the Stanford job after interviewing.

So, he got one offer in the two times he interviewed. That is not being able to sell oneself? In mind 50% success in job interviews is a pretty good percentage, especially considering the barriers to hiring minority head coaches that were in place for much of Chow's career.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Dec 12, 2007 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Read closely

I didn't inject Hackett in this thread.

And don't insult UCLA football by comparing to the Kentucky football program.

by bluestreet on Dec 12, 2007 9:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

silverlakebruin/tradegreen

Do not insult UCLA football by comparing it to Kentucky. That is an insult to our football history.

f you are going to bring in that kind of mentality of settling for less, take that BS somewhere else.

by Nestor on Dec 12, 2007 9:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I would rather be banned

than told all the time what I can and cannot say. If what I say is so troubling to people here that they can't take it, then just ban me.

I nowhere compared Kentucky to UCLA. What I said is his point that he couldn't sell himself is not based in fact. He is known to have interviewed for 2 head coaching positions and was offered 1. Further, he has never been unemployed to my knowledge. Clearly he is not this guy who can't sell himself as was claimed.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Dec 12, 2007 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't try to play dumb

You implicitly compared UCLA football to Kentucky's program by bringing up the point that Chow was offered the job at Kentucky. In other words you are giving the impression that if Chow was good enough for Kentucky, he should be good enough for UCLA.

And enough whining about BN. You loiter around on BRO complaining about BN as "tradegreen." Yet BRO is also the same site where even commenting on how Pierson runs that message board will get you banned. So stop whining like a little baby.

by Nestor on Dec 12, 2007 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

My implicit comparison?

Using that logic, since he didn't get the Stanford job, I am saying he shouldn't get this one because we have a better program than Stanford.

I am not saying either of those things. What I am saying is that getting offered one of the two jobs you applied for doesn't mean you can't sell yourself as was alleged. If someone is going to bring up the fact he didn't get hired for Stanford as evidence he can't sell himself, I think it only fair to bring up the job he was offered and the fact that the guy has never been unemployed. Clearly he is marketable and a wanted commodity to some.

Doesn't change the fact that a coach with experience is preferable, but pointing out selected facts to put a negative spin on him isn't forthright.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Dec 12, 2007 12:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The only relevant information here

strictly in the case of Chow is negative.

He has no HC experience
UCLA does not do well hiring coaches with no HC experience

Everything else is really just fluff and speculation and the conclusion is that he should be at the bottom of the list.

by Tydides on Dec 12, 2007 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Chow job offers

Where do you get the idea that Chow only interviewed for two jobs? Norm interviewed at: Stanford, BYU, Arizona, and Kentucky. He also interviewed for the Arizona Cardinals head coach job. That comes to at least 5 that we know of.

Keep in mind that NC State, where he was OC for a year, didn't call him when they had an opening.

by nikeu on Dec 12, 2007 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeap

NC State didn't even bother to consider him even though he was on their staff.

by bluestreet on Dec 12, 2007 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd love to see a study

that looks at successful coordinators that were given head coaching jobs at major universities over the last 20 years, or so. What percentage were successful as head coaches? ("successful", of course, would have to be defined)

I'd also like to see the same for successful head coaches at smaller D-1 schools that moved on to coach at a major.

Also, the same for successful head coaches at D-2 (or D-1) that have moved on to a major.

That sort of analysis would give us a better picture of the risk of hiring a proven, successful head coach versus one that has only been a coordinator, or a head coach at a smaller school.

Until someone shows some facts based data on this, I'm not willing to believe (like seemingly most on this site) that we should take a chance on a guy who isn't a proven, successful head coach.

by bornagainbruin on Dec 12, 2007 8:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

7 of the current top 10 BCS schools hired

coaches with previous experience. 3 did not.

with: Ohio St, LSU, Va Tech, Missouri, SUC, West VA, and Hawaii

Without: Oklahoma, Georgia, and Kansas

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Dec 12, 2007 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Some of you guys miss the point!

I'm no Dorrelista, and if you read to the end, I say DG could pick others and that would be fine.

The point is simply NC has been demonized on this site when he would be a great pic, period.

What, he's gonna turn into Paul Hackett or KD because he never had a HC job before? Not unless he had a lobotomy.

And as far as personality and a head coach, have you ever seen Bill Bellichick at a news conference! What a grinch. So what?

by uclahy on Dec 12, 2007 8:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Another stupid argument

Bill Bilichik took over a pro team where he doesn't have to do recruiting. And he also took over Pats after having extensive experience as a head coach with Cleveland Browns. You sound like a pretty uninformed sports fan.

by bluestreet on Dec 12, 2007 8:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Personality issue

As far as I can tell, the personality issue has a few effects. In no particular order:

Motivating players. Belichick is a proven motivator (at least now). Cannot be said for Chow, because he's had no opportunity to motivate.
Recruiting. Belichick doesn't have to recruit high school athletes. The sum of his recruiting is telling free agents he wants to sign them, it seems. If they want to win, they go; he has a track record. Again, Chow has no explicit recruiting successes despite his grouchy personality. In college, it isn't so simple as "Look at my success." He's recruiting kids, not professionals.
Shmoozing with donors. There aren't donors in the NFL. There are at UCLA. I can't really see him liking that part of the job.

You bring up Belichick as someone who's successful with a bad personality. But just because he is doesn't mean Chow will be. Chow hasn't proven he can succeed as a head coach with a crappy personality.

by jaffa on Dec 12, 2007 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Uninformed bluestreet? What a non-sequitur.

My last point merely refocused on the personality issue you raised with Chow. All I'm saying is you can have the "terrible" personality of a Bill Billicheck and still be a great coach.

As for the "no HC" and recruiting issues, I already dealt with those issues in my original post. If anything, NC is overqualified to be a HC given 30+ of outstanding success. He's certainly no "experiment." My Lord.

And as for recruiting, as I said, where would any top QB prospect want to go other than the dream chance of being tutored by a legendary OC and QB coach? Duh.

Again, I think NC would be great, but I don't have any vested interest in him being the only pick. I would have no problem picking him or some of the others.

We have many good choices. If NC is the one, we should thank our lucky stars after what we've been through since 1998 and the day of infamy in the Orange Bowl.

by uclahy on Dec 12, 2007 9:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Uh no

Your comparison to BB and NC was totally off base given their background.

As for recruiting as someone wrote above Walsh coached Montana and Young into HOF QBs, yet recruits didn't really flock to him.

You may not have a "vested interest" in NC but you sure are fighting hard making lot of baseless argument to shove his shit on BN.

by bluestreet on Dec 12, 2007 9:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's your problem, even calling

anyone "shoveling" NC's "shit."

How vulgar and tasteless, not about me, but to Mr. Chow. Making an argument on a candidate with his knowledge and experience and class is not "shoveling" anything, but too many posters on BN degrade the site by using derogatory name-calling against any coaches they don't like.

How silly. How classless. And, apparently, the shoe fits you. If you really are a Bruin and went to UCLA, you didn't apparently learn anything about logic or class.

As for Walsh, he wasn't recognized as on offensive genius until after his fantastic run with the 49ers. Walsh did not prove himself at the college level by winning NC's like Norm Chow has. So before he was proven, QB prospects would not flock to him. So? Give me a break.

But with your logic, Walsh should have never been hired by the 49ers in the first place because he was not a great college or pro coach before he went there.

I'm only vested in common sense, logic and truth. I only defend NC because he has so viciously been attacked on this board. Start doing the same thing to others, like Mendenhall, and i would be just as vehement.

by uclahy on Dec 12, 2007 9:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Right

And "mental masturbation" and saying that others use "dumb-ass logic" isn't vulgar, silly, and classless. What a hypocrite.

And FYI, the Niners can hire anybody they want. We aren't the Niners. This is UCLA, and after a long history of failed experiments with guys that have no HC experience, that is no longer acceptable here.

I'm only vested in common sense, logic and truth.

Not according to your diary.

by Tydides on Dec 12, 2007 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Uhm

You do know Walsh had a second stint with Stanford after building his reputation with the Niners as a 3 time Super Bowl champion right? He didn't get any recruits in Stanford worth remembering despite building the reputation of one of the greatest coaches in NFL's history.

by bluestreet on Dec 12, 2007 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And Hy, there's another thing

Your basic premise is that Chow would be a great head coach, and then your argument proceeds from that point. It's impossible to argue when the result of the argument has already been assumed.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have convince people that Chow would be a great head coach, you can't just assume that he would.

I have seen nothing put forward that would suggest that Chow would be even an adequate head coach. Everything that I have seen says he would be an excellent OC, but being an excellent OC does not necessarily mean he would be an excellent head coach.

Have you ever tried a lawsuit? I was a very good "second chair" as a trial attorney, but I was at best average as a first chair. I am a very good airline passenger, I know the theory of flight pretty well, and I successfully landed a 727 simulator. But I don't think you can extrapolate from those great qualifications that I would be a very good airline pilot.

Nobody knows for sure whether Chow would be a great head coach. Nobody knew for sure whether CTS or CHP would be great head coaches. We have experimented twice in the last decade, and both experiments were horrible failures.

If Chow is indeed a great head coach, let him prove that somewhere else. I will join many others in calling for DG's resignation if he hires anyone who has not demonstrated the ability to be a head coach by actually having done that job in the past.

Hy, I'm sure your heart is in the right place. But with all the respect that your arguments deserve, your head is firmly up where the sun don't shine on this issue.

by Fox 71 on Dec 12, 2007 11:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

You have so many standards when it comes to an

argument that if you applied it to every post on this site I don't think anyone would be allowed to write anything. Not one post would past your theories. I see now why you're a good second chair and not a first chair.

UCLAHy is being modest. A lot of people on this site pride themselves with going to law school or being a lawyer. I know UCLAHy and even though he wasn't promoted to whatever position he wanted in thirty years the position he currently has and the ones he has had would be coveted by any lawyer here. I can safely assume that, trust me on that one.

"Have you ever tried a lawsuit?" You were a good second chair. You have Karl Dorrell credentials compared to UCLAHy's Spurrier like credentials when it comes to that world. He does not need a lecture on how to argue.

by Dorrellian on Dec 12, 2007 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He might not need a lecture

on how to argue, but he certainly needs one in staying within the argument and reading comprehension. You knowing this guy isn't exactly speaking well for either of you, since you both seem completely incapable of grasping the facts that:

Chow has no head coaching experience
UCLA does not do well hiring coaches with no head coaching experience

With the simple conclusion from there that we should seek a head coach with this experience and only contact Chow as an absolute last resort. You can argue on the outside of these things all you want, but until you can change either of these facts, it doesn't matter.

by Tydides on Dec 12, 2007 2:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And PS

I'd keep your "IRL" antics out of this. It confirms that you know you lost the argument. Like the internet tough guy who threatens to kick your ass IRL - you know he's run out of rebuttals, as you apparently have.

by Tydides on Dec 12, 2007 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Stop it

I hate that I have to explain this for the 200th time.

WE WANT SOMEONE WITH HEAD COACH EXPERIENCE AS THE NEW UCLA COACH.

WE WANT SOMEONE WITH HEAD COACH EXPERIENCE AS THE NEW UCLA COACH.

WE WANT SOMEONE WITH HEAD COACH EXPERIENCE AS THE NEW UCLA COACH.

Is it sinking in yet? Maybe I should try again.

WE WANT SOMEONE WITH HEAD COACH EXPERIENCE AS THE NEW UCLA COACH.

WE WANT SOMEONE WITH HEAD COACH EXPERIENCE AS THE NEW UCLA COACH.

WE WANT SOMEONE WITH HEAD COACH EXPERIENCE AS THE NEW UCLA COACH.

Do you get it now? If you tell me that there are NO candidates with head coaching experience available, then we can discuss Chow, and you have to make a good argument as to why he would make a good head coach even though all he has ever been all his life is offensive coordinator.

by tasser10 on Dec 12, 2007 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with one edit

You are correct, but there needs to be one qualifier: We want someone with SUCCESSFUL head coach experience as the new UCLA coach.

Guerrero said he too wants soemone head coaching experience. Please don't tell me the the DW interview is evidence that Guerrero is backtracking on his statement. DW should get an interview even if there is no intention of considering him. It is the classy thing to do and will give Guerrero another opportunity to provide DW with some additional career counselling. Nothing wrong with that.

by Bruin77 on Dec 12, 2007 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

A successful head coach would be even better! Even though sometimes win-loss records can be misleading...

by tasser10 on Dec 12, 2007 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, Dorrellian - you get an F in argument, too

You skirt the issue but you don't explain it. Hy (who I don't know from the man in the moon) posits that Chow would be a great head coach and argues from that proposition that he would be, guess what, a great head coach. But you and he refuse to address the fact that you haven't convinced anyone of your basic premise, that he would be, in fact, a great coach. You state an assumption in the form of a fact.

You don't know me, but you attempt to buttress your argument by belittling my professional accomplishments. Those may, of course, be insignificant compared with those of Hy, but then again might not be. The fact is that neither of our professional accomplishments have any bearing on the basic premise which neither you nor Hy nor anyone else have established: That Chow would be a great head coach. I will concede that point, of course, if you or Hy has professional credentials as a clairvoyant.

If you really don't understand why the argument is pure bootstrapping, there is nothing more that can be said. You and Hy might be great selectors of head coaches, but I would not want either of you arguing my position on anything important.

by Fox 71 on Dec 12, 2007 6:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Do you ever post a diary

or are you just here to comment and rip people's posts apart who you disagree with (and in a boring, textbook kind of way I might add)? I am waiting for the day that you put yourself out there, contribute and post a diary on your thoughts on something such as who you think we should hire and why. Then I'll be the guy in the comment section ripping apart your argument piece by piece just for the sake of ripping it apart piece by piece. I've seen you post one diary here in the last three months and it was just some news clipping or something. I want to hear your thoughts on your top candidates and why. Please, do diary it up.

by Dorrellian on Dec 12, 2007 6:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ad hominem

Ah yes, can't answer what he's saying, so attack the sayer. Very wise.

No Chow

No Walker

No Chow / Walker

No HC experience, no HC at UCLA. OK.

by Tommy Bruin on Dec 12, 2007 7:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Because creating a diary

defines whether or not someone is a quality contributor. Fox has contributed as much to BN as anyone not named Nestor. His personal thoughts on the head coaching search have been explained multiple times and they were as well done as any diary I've seen it quite some time. If you bothered to use the search button, Fox posts a diary roughly twice a month so one diary in the past 3 months is just ignorance on your part.

I'm sorry if you can't stand people picking apart diaries, but instead of getting defensive, how about using that input to improve your writing? I looked back at some of my first posts on BN and I can't tell you how far I've come with regards to making a good argument. I also looked at the comments and Fox was the one picking them apart pretty often so at this time I'd like to thank you Fox for helping me become a better writing. I will also tell you Dorrellian, that Fox is fair and will certainly compliment a well thought out post as quickly as he picks them apart. If you can't stand intelligent banter and an expectation for quality arguments and points, go to an SC blog. There aren't enough fans that know what good writing is so you'd fit in fine.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 12, 2007 7:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the kind words, Rye

You started way ahead of the curve, by the way. You must have had some really good teachers in high school.

We still disagree a lot, but I have to say you have convinced me to change my mind a few times. Even then, sometimes I'm convinced that I have changed from the correct view to the incorrect one.

As far as Dorrellian is concerned, I suppose I have earned his contempt. I can live with that. Again, thank you for the compliment. (What will be especially rough will be watching Dorrellian rub it in when Chow is hired, runs the table next year and wins the NC.)

by Fox 71 on Dec 12, 2007 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Rye is Way Ahead

He gets you to change your mind,

Mos of us can't get you to use it.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 13, 2007 6:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

OK -- I had to use that line

When I was in law school, at USC, in 1966, we had a brilliant faculty of young turks who were terrorizing all of us.

They made the classroom in the Paper Chase look like a pleasant tea.

Anyway, one of the most abrasive young turks criticized a theory propounded by one of the older "icons". Word got out that the two professors had discussed both the disagreement and the rudeness with which the turk had acted.

In class, one of my mates asked the turk "Did you get Prof. X to change his mind?" the response, "Change his mind? I couldn't even get him to use it!"

I've never forgotten that, how inappropriate it was -- even though it was a cool turn of phrase.

I've waited years to use it -- Fox, my friend, thanks for giving me the opportunity to unload the baggage from my youth.

sjh

PS. Aren't you impressed that I still can remember back that far?

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 13, 2007 7:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Steve, you can remember details from

the 20-16 game, so you're not totally gone over the hill. (After that game, I found a card (like on the back of a pad of legal paper) under the justsc bench with a play drawn on it. It was obviously something John McKay was going to try. I wish I had kept that.) That was the first time I rushed the field.

I wish the youngsters could have memories like that one to look upon in their dotage.

by Fox 71 on Dec 13, 2007 11:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

for saving me a response.

by Nestor on Dec 13, 2007 5:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I''ve explained my position in the past

I'm still waiting, as we all are waiting, for you and your friend Hy to explain why Chow would be a great head coach. You have belittled me over and over, but I don't see how that sort of argument advances your point.

Sorry if I put you to sleep with boring comments. I'll try to keep things shorter from now on.

So to use your argumentative style, how's this. First, assume that Chow would not be a good head coach. Based on that assumption, I believe I have just demonstrated conclusively that Chow would not be a good head coach.

Is more dialogue necessary here?

by Fox 71 on Dec 12, 2007 8:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Chow as OC is great

From everything you say, he'd make a great OC. Nobody knows what kind of HC he'd be, which is why I don't want him to be the HC of UCLA.

If he really wanted to be a head coach, why has he only interviewed for 2 HC jobs in his whole career? He should have gone and head coached at a lower tier school 20 years ago and worked his way up from there.

I'm still sick that Johnson went to Georgia Tech and we never even interviewed him. I'm pessimistic about this coach search and am really worried that we'll end up with Walker or Chow/Walker, and have another 5 years of watching someone learn (or at least claim to be learning, turning corners, coaching harder) on the job on the UCLA sideline.

by Tommy Bruin on Dec 12, 2007 1:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

CHOW WOULD BE GREAT! ---- (ducks behind his desk)

OK NOW -- FROM THE TOP!!! HAHAHA!

GO BRUIN BLUE.

by theREAL_LOGAN5 on Dec 14, 2007 3:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Very good, Logan

What you have done is basically to hang a BA. I think hanging a BA is one of three or four inherently funny things, such as a rubber chicken, or a pie in the face, or dropping your pants and showing funny shorts.

I think that's an appropriate tag line for the great Chow extravaganza.

by Fox 71 on Dec 14, 2007 7:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs