Why I Will Support The Next Coach
by Bruin77 on Dec 18, 2007 1:09 PM PST
Email
PrintThis is somewhat of a preemptive post. I know once UCLA makes an announcement on the next head football coach, BN and the other Boards will light up with both support and criticism of the new coach. We can easily see from all the controversy over the rumored candidates that there is no consensus pick. There have been many very passionate arguments for a variety of candidates. Unfortunately, these arguments tend to polarize fans. It is unlikely that anyone short of Tony Dungy or Steve Spurrier will be universally anointed by the divergent fan base as a "home run" hire.
There have been many very good posts that address the credentials, character and track record expectations for the next coach. I don't need to belabor those points. Unfortunately, even the mythical "home run" hire that appears to meet all the criteria might fail. Conversely, a vastly under-qualified selection could succeed beyond our wildest expectations. Given those intangibles, I am not going to jump on Dan Guerrero for his selection (yes, even if it is settling for Chocker) until we see the product that is put on the field next season.
I have been a season ticket holder for more than 30 years and I was willing to not renew my tickets next season if Dorrell had been retained. The product that Dorrell put on the field was not worth the expense and time commitment. It wasn't just the losing, or losing games against inferior teams. Dorrell coached a very boring brand of football. Boring coupled with losing does not make for an enjoyable fan experience. However, as a second generation alum and a Bruin fan from birth, even if I did give up my football tickets, I would still support the team and hope they win every game. I don't cheer for the coach, I cheer for the school. I would have given up my tickets because that is really the only mechanism I have for sending a message to UCLA about the direction of the football program.
I suppose I could have the same attitude toward next year's team if the coach that is named clearly does not meet the minimal criteria that Dan Guerrero laid out in his post-Dorrell comments. However, I am willing to give Guerrero the benefit of the doubt regardless of what I think of his ultimate selection. While I might be disappointed in the selection, Guerrero has earned some leeway. It isn't just that he hired Howland and Savage. It isn't the continued success of the non-revenue producing sports. It isn't that the athletic program appears to be in relatively good financial condition under his leadership. It is all those things. Also, for anyone who has been in management it is important to support your employee's decisions, even when you disagree. You can't hold people accountable if you micromanage their efforts to the point that they are just implementing your decisions.
Of course, with all that being said, after Dorrell, my patience will be very limited. I am not going to stay "on board" if a candidate of questionable qualifications is given the job and starts putting up Dorrellian numbers. I will give a highly qualified selection that comes in with a track record of success, a little longer to prove he can deliver at UCLA. But, even the most qualified candidate coming in, still must deliver. As loyal Bruin fans, we have struggled with a mediocre football program for some time. This is an opportunity to turn that situation around. While I will always be a Bruin, unless I see a better product on the field, as a consumer I will have no choice but to express my disappointment in the performance of the football team and let Dan Guerrero know I am disappointed in his performance by the only means available to me, withholding financial support.
I hope and have every confidence that Guerrero will make a good call. He has far more at stake in this decision than I do. I wish him luck and I give him and his selection my unqualified support until it is proven that once again UCLA has settled for mediocrity.
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.
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wow
by Callmesenorfresh on Dec 18, 2007 1:54 PM PST reply actions
Thank you
Go Bruins!
I don't think you mean that
Just to give you an idea of what is going on, here are the schools that had a vacancy and the head coaches they hired:
Georgia Tech: Paul Johnson
Texas A&M: Mike Sherman
Arkansas: Bobby Petrino
Michigan: Rich Rodriguez
Duke: David Cutcliffe
Washington State: Paul Wulff
Do you see a pattern here? Every single one of those schools hired a coach with experience. I refuse to think of UCLA as inferior to any of those schools when it comes to football, except Michigan. If you do not believe me, you should do a little research, and specifically LOOK AT THIS. We will be a laughingstock if we do not hire an experienced coach.
UCLA used to get away with not having an experienced coach because RECRUITS TENDED TO STAY NEAR HOME. That is why Donahue had a good run, the talent pool in Southern California was endless. But the game has changed, and recruits go just about anywhere now. We need to stay in the game and hire someone with experience. Period. Hope and wishful thinking will not work anymore.
I second that emotion.
I Agree 100%
Go Bruins!
WAKE UP!
Guerrero's previous hires were: Ben Howland, a PROVEN winner, and John Savage...a PROVEN winner. Why are your expectations so much lower for UCLA football? Yes, DG's track record suggests that he would go after a PROVEN winner...but is that what you are hearing and reading, or is that only what you are assuming?
"The new coach no matter who it is deserves to start from a clean slate"...you cannot possibly be serious. Fine. Jay Norvell is our new head coach. Are you happy with that? Magically, his craptacular offense has found new life and he has suddenly become an innovative genius, scoring 40+ points a game. NOT!
What?
So you assume
They are all experiments.
From the Morgan Center that gave us...
5 years of Karl Dorrell...
There are those of us who refuse to just blindly kowtow to the Morgan Center anymore.
5 years of my UCLA football life were flushed down the toilet, and the toilet is too good a place for KD's brand of football.
Just ask 1-11 Duke if KD is good enough for them. But yet, the Morgan Center believed he was good enough for UCLA.
My sentiments exactly ...
Great post, Bruin77!
Snork, you make it very very difficult
But instead of rallying behind the efforts to make real change and to return UCLA to what it was when we were your age, you spout platitudes about supporting whoever is the coach. OK, how about me for coach? Or better, me for benevolent dictator? (You can rest assured that the NCAA would take action against the thugs across town under my regime.) If you will take just anyone for any of these positions, you are setting your sights too low. Are you so afraid of getting turned down that you won't ask the pretty girl to the prom? Are you so afraid that the new coach will actually try to keep the promises that DG and CTS made when CTS was hired that you will be satisfied with just anyone? You won't try the Porterhouse steak because it might not be perfect, so you'll stick with the macaroni and cheese?
UCLA should mean more to you than that, and it should have put something more into you than that. Go back to your Shakespeare class (or sign up for it next quarter). There's a speech by John of Gaunt to Harry Bolingbroke at the beginning of Richard II as his son prepares for a duel with the Duke of Norfolk: "Be swift like lightning in the execution and let thy blows fall like amazing thunder doubly redoubled on the casque of thy adverse, pernicious enemy. Rouse up thy youthful spirit. Be valiant, and live!" (That might not be verbatim, but it's close.) That's my message to you and to your friends who will be satisfied with Whoopi Goldberg when Halle Berry is waiting to be asked.
Never Said I Enjoyed the Last Five Years
Actually, you're pretty far off the mark. I'm a third generation Bruin (class of '80) through my grandfather (Vermont campus years) and both my parents. I think my Bruin "pedigree" will hold up against anyone's. And, as one might expect with my history, I'm a lifelong Bruins fan.
Sufficeth to say, I have witnessed my fair share of Bruin classics over the last 40 years (many first hand through four years as a student, the last 18 years as a season ticket holder) and I would characterize the large majority of those years as "fun" with even a few genuinely exciting years mixed in (most notably when Homer Smith saw fit to grace our program with his presence).
That said, I cannot deny that the last seven years have been a low point for Bruin football, the last two years especially excrutiating. Too often I found myself literally gnashing my teeth as my once-proud Bruins struggled mightily but seemingly got nowhere. It was like they were vying against two opponents - their own stultifying offense directed by inept coaching and the team standing across from them on the field. I found myself not looking forward to the next home game. The next mediocre performance was just too frustrating to contemplate. Sure there were some highlights, but they were too few and too far between.
Nobody was more happy than I to see KD go. He got his shot and he proved he just wasn't ready. I don't bear any malice towards KD; I think he genuinely tried his best, but his best just wasn't good enough.
Now we have this great opportunity to hire a new coach and change the direction of UCLA football. I am genuinely excited about that. I have a strong opinion about who I think would best replace KD, but I know that my opinion matters nought.
DG will make that determination; that's his job and he is far more qualified at it than I. Furthermore, based on his track record, my bet is he makes a great hire. In any case, whether I agree with his hire or not, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and be only too happy when he proves me wrong.
As for my sights: I married the prettiest girl at the prom and I much prefer ribeye (rare) to porterhouse. Whoopi Goldberg vs. Halle Berry? You might have me there. I can only speculate since I haven't had the pleasure of meeting either, but I think ol' Whoopi might have a few more fascinating tales to tell. I bet Halle Berry is just another pretty (alright, drop-dead gorgeous!) face.
by snorkeldorf on Dec 18, 2007 11:39 PM PST up reply actions
I'm surprised.
DG will make that determination; that's his job and he is far more qualified at it than I. Furthermore, based on his track record, my bet is he makes a great hire. In any case, whether I agree with his hire or not, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and be only too happy when he proves me wrong."
Remember that DG hired CTS. That was a bad mistake. He may have capitulated to whatever the idiots above him told him to do, and they may be assuming that he'll do the same thing again. That's why your opinion does in fact mean something. (As an aside, if your opinion is that Chow or Walker should get the job, then I take most of this back.) If you become one less vote for going along with whatever the decision is and become one more vote for radical change (i.e., hiring a proven winner), then your voice could be the one that convinces DG to take us back to those halcyon days when you were dating the prettiest girl at the prom and when you had rare ribeye steaks for breakfast.
That's the point of all my preaching. It's not to bust any chops, but rather to convince. I am convinced that our collective voice here is being heard in Morgan Center.
Completely and totally disagree
If the next head coach doesn't fit the criteria we have laid out over last few months (you can say years based on our ongoing narrative), not only that person will not get any kind of breathing room from us, the fire will be directed towards DG.
This not a ra ra ra ra Bruin cheerleading website. There are plenty of other places to take that kind of dittohead mentality of following UCLA sports,
To What End?
What I am saying is even if from my perspective Guerrero, et. al. make a totally horrendous decision I will at least give them the benefit of the doubt until there is evidence that our worst fears have materialized. For me, Guerrero bought time by firing Dorrell. That was step one. Step two is bringing a coach that will raise the football program beyond the mediocre levels of the past 30 years (Donahue-Toledo-Dorrell). I will not have that answer until I see the product the new coach puts on the field.
While I may not agree with the selection process, evaluation criteria and the end result of who was selected, I will not blindly walk away from UCLA. After all, I am a Bruin, it isn't like I can say screw UCLA and I'll only support Cal State Long Beach from now on. Also, as a Bruin I will support the choice of the decision makers until there is evidence that they made the wrong decision and are not doing anything to fix the problem.
Let's assume the worst case scenario; our next coach is some combination of Choker. We can rant and rave about what a poor decision was made, but that will change nothing. Or we can support the team and the new coach until performance indicates that what we all suspected and feared is correct and the new coach doesn't cut it. If that is the case, I will join the chorus of "I told you so" and be prepared to start this process all over again. Not my preference, but reality.
As I said in my post, Guerrero has much more at stake in this selection than almost anyone I can think of. If he is willing to risk his career on whomever he selects, then let's at least wait until we see the results of his efforts before we damn him. Who knows, Guerrero might get lucky and make the right choice for all the wrong reasons. Only time will tell. I hate to use $c as an example, but remember the uproar across town when PC was announced. Now all they do is gloat.
So let me turn this question around to you, if Choker or some other selection that is deemed unacceptable is the next UCLA coach, what will you do? If your answer is continue to the fight, I must ask the question in the title of this post, to what end?
What will I do?
With What Evidence?
I agree with the vast majority of opinions here on BN that any combination of Choker would be a horrendous decision, but what if I am wrong? I am at least open to seeing what will come. I will admit my support will be on a very short leash, but like said before, it isn't like anything is going to change the decision until there is some evidence that this is another experiment gone wrong.
So I ask the question again, to what end?
I told you so
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong in telling DG what your expectations are for the next football head coach. You are an alum, for one, and if you live in California then you are a taxpayer and are justified in a way in expressing your opinions to someone who is a state employee.
But the ultimate reason for which you are justified is that, in the end, we are the ones paying tickets to go see the games. Our opinions should henceforth not be ignored. Any company that provides a product or service does polls and surveys to figure out what its customers want. So go ahead and tell DG what you want, it's okay, he won't bite your head off and you'll still be a Bruin. Sitting back only to complain later is just like throwing a tantrum, no one will listen to you.
This whole exercise is making me weary
There are a lot of people who think the way you do. For the last five years, they were called "Dorrellistas." They are just waiting for the new coach to become "---istas."
There are also a lot of people who are trying to change the future. There are a lot of people who believe that DG can be influenced to do the right thing, and that is to hire a coach who might actually do what we all want him to do.
But that's enough. I'm getting tired of making the same speeches. I'm thinking of taking a little sabbatical.
I'll bite
I must say, however, that there are many scenarios in which I would no longer support the AD.
21 years
9 years since we've been anywhere near contention for a BCS title.
53 years since we've WON a National title.
We are at a crossroads for bringing a long suffering, excruciating era to an end. The decision DG makes now will effect us for the next decade. If you want to give unconditional support, than go right ahead. But NO FUCKING WAY will I take a "wait and see" approach to a lackluster, underwhelming hire.
We have suffered too long. We deserve better.
We're not a third rate school
And it's not a "wait and see" scenario - if DG throws in the towel (which is what a Walker / Chow hire would be), he's agreeing that UCLA should be a third rate football school. I'm not supporting that notion in any way.
I'm not giving up, the more time the search takes, the better the outcome could be.
by Tommy Bruin on Dec 18, 2007 7:42 PM PST reply actions
Is this soothing complacency what we fought for?
Let Me Try One Last Time
However, that being said, if all that comes out of the fan community between the time a coach is announced and until that coach puts a team on the field next September is a running commentary as to why he is the wrong guy for the job, the arguments will lose credibility. Then when the time comes to pick up the battle again, I do not believe the collective voices of discontent will be heard.
The strength of the arguments written around here are based quantifiable stats. Right now the new coach, who ever that might be, is 0-0. He may have been a total screw up in his past, but for whatever reason, he got the job. Right now, before a decision has been made, forcefully arguing who should be the next coach is reasonable and appropriate. However, complaining about the hire after the contract is signed but before there is quantifiable evidence he is a screw up at UCLA is premature and I think will be interpreted as sour grapes from those that didn't get what they wanted. I was wiling to give up my tickets and financial support (which while it does not make me an influential alumni but totals over six figures in the last 30 years which is substantial for my income bracket) if Dorrell had been retained. I am not willing to make that same commitment based on the results of this hiring process. I will withhold judgment until I see what the new guy can do. I have posed the question, what would be accomplished by continuing the coaching debate after a decision and until next season begins? I have not seen answer.
I would equate my position to politics. The one statement made by every loser, no matter how contentious the election, is now that a decision has been made, let's put politics aside and rally behind the winner to make this country better. It's called the honeymoon period. How long the honeymoon lasts is based on the winner's job performance. That was the thought behind my post. Maybe the post was a little premature since we don't know if the next hire is going to be a turkey or a home run. We all hope for a positive outcome for this search. However, even if my guy doesn't win, I am willing to give the next guy a honeymoon period to prove himself. Let me put it another way, from my perspective any new hire is on probation. I won't pass judgment until his probationary period is over. That does not mean blind acceptance, it means show me you can do the job.
I think some of the posts above missed my point. Maybe it wasn't communicated well. Then again, maybe some people just disagree. That's fine. I am not asking anyone to join me. I am just sharing my thoughts. I thought that was one of the the reasons this forum existed. I hope I am not wrong.
Your post was premature
Of course, once a coach is hired, we will have no choice but wait. However, our patience will be directly correlated to the new head coach's previous experience. We are not willing to wait another five years only to find out that UCLA hired yet another incompetent football coach.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
