Response for ryedreadraz

by BlueReign on Sep 17, 2007 1:43 PM PDT

My response was too long so it wouldn't fit.

You're right & wrong but what's the difference?

If Guerrero is legitimately looking elsewhere for a new HC, do you really believe that the recruits & their families would not be aware of this? How often is a secret kept in major college athletics or the pro game? We're always hearing ESPN & other media outlets citing an anonymous source who says, "Kentucky has contacted Donovan about their head coaching job" or "Bama has contacted Saban or Rich Rodriguez concerning their HC position". I mean, rumors about Guerrero gauging Mariucci's interest was floated around whether real or not. My point in this is that if we are looking for a new HC, it ain't gonna matter whether he sticks around till the end of the season or not. Recruits will get word of it and it is in their best interest to look around. Some will reserve judgement until the next regime because they verballed to UCLA for UCLA and it won't matter to them who is the HC. Others will bail because it was the staff that attracted them to UCLA. Also, all of the other programs that were showing interest in our verbals will be like vultures trying to snatch them away. So there is no guarantee that this class will stay intact. This is excluding recruits thinking twice about their verbals after seeing a performance like this which happens at least once every year.

We all know what the problem is. Even programs like U-Dub & ASU who have been down are on the upswing. It will only be a matter of time before we are getting cozy with Wazzu, Zona & Stanford if we don't get this guy out the door.

Lastly, an interim coach will not guarantee a better record but who's to say that for a fact? I don't have much confidence in our coordinators but sometimes a coordinator is held back due to the HC (Perfect example would be Ron Prince who worked under an underachieving Virginia program led by Al Groh. Look at the tangible improvements he has already made with Kansas St. People could have labeled him as being inferior just because he was under a mediocre HC like Groh). I'm not saying that it will but who's to say that keeping KD around longer WILL result in a better year? Neither you or I can answer this question. But we do agree that the coach needs to go. As long as he is out the door, I could care less if it was now or at the end of the season. I'll go with whatever is the best option for our program. However, you don't keep KD around just because we have a nice looking recruiting class on paper.

It's like Field of Dreams. If we get a true leader who instills confidence in our kids & programs and who actually knows how to game plan and coach, the recruits will come. Everytime I talk to my friend who is a diehard Huskers fan, he always wonders why UCLA is not a superpower in College Football considering all the talent in our area and natural recruiting advantages.

It's simply the HC.

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 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Your arguement

basically says screw the recruiting class just so we can see KD gone. That doesn't make much sense. We have a very good recruiting class committed and we can still bring in a lot of the class with a new coach after the season, if KD is not fired midseason. You want to fire KD and take a chance on an assistant who might do better, but could also do worse. I don't see much of an advantage in this.

Also, Guerrero isn't going to start meeting with coaches midseason or calling coaches. He wouldn't get permission from an AD to do it midseason wouldn have to wait til the offseason. The rumors that go around come from when a coach and AD meet. That won't be happening. Doing some personal research and havig a basis with which to start the search can be done by himself and kept quiet during the season.

Again I still don't see what the advantage is to firing him now as opposed to after the season.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Sep 17, 2007 2:51 PM PDT reply actions

Uh....no

Just so it's clear, I'm not saying screw the recuriting class. I also don't know whether it is better to get rid of him now or at the end of the season. What I'm saying is that you do not keep a HC around just because of a recruiting class. You say keep him around till the end of the season. I'm not in agreement or disagreement with you on this. I'm saying that it doesn't matter. "If" DG is searching, word will get to the recruits thus don't expect the class we have verballed now to be the class that gets to UCLA. And if the recruits get wind of this, opposing coaches sure as hell will know as well.

If DG wants to google candidates on his own, yes he can keep it under wraps. If he tells a single soul, eventually word will get around. DG won't ask an AD to speak with a HC in-season, that I agree with. However, a lot of major universities hire a search firm in secrecy or go through people (Vaccaro) to gauge a candidates interest. That is where all the Donovan, Rich Rodriguez, Saban, Gillespie, Sampson, Alford, etc. rumors/information came from. They were never contacted by the AD or school but somebody leaked the information to the media.

This is all based on a legitimate search for a HC of course. If so, the recruiting class will be what it is at the end.

by BlueReign on Sep 17, 2007 3:11 PM PDT reply actions

The recruiting class

is an advantage to keeping him for the season. I'm just giving reasons for keeping him and stating that I've yet to find better reasons to fire him now.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Sep 17, 2007 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions

I Don't Get It

Why is it so clear that the recruiting class will stay committed even though KD and his staff are, once more, proving their mediocrity?

It is just as likely that they will realize that they have been conned and that they will start to look elsewhere.

How impressed do you think they are with the fact that KD would not pull the starters? That he risked them to injury and that some were?

They ARE NOT committed. They have given soft/verbal committments. And, no recruit is ever guaranteed that he will come to the coach who recruited him.

Under the "we will lose our recruits" rhetoric, one can never fire a coach.

Also, isn't it a bit deceptive to say, "Hey, keep your committment" when you know, really know, that the coach won't be here next year? If you really care about these high school kids, it seems to me that they deserve the truth. Let them make a wise and informed choice. it's only fair to them.

I see absolutely no reason, other than rhetoric, to suggest that we run a risk of losing our recruits should we make clear that what KD is doing is unacceptable and that he is going to be replaced -- now or at seasons end.

If knowing the truth, they decide not to come -- that is their right.

Unfortunately, we have a group of seniors who cannot "choose not to come". They are here and have to play out the season.

I am far more concerned about them than I am about some "poetntial players".

I think we owe far more to the guys who have been here, in the trenches, for 4 or 5 years -- we owe them the chance to succeed. How dare we subject them to this mediocrity because we fear that some high school kid, who has not broken one bead of sweat for UCLA, may choose not to come?

Sorry, Rye, but I just can't agree.

It seems unfair to everyone, our current players, and those who MIGHT come here to equivocate.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Sep 17, 2007 3:58 PM PDT reply actions

I agree with Rye

Here's why.

There are a number of variables in recruiting (location of school, academics, parents, etc.), but the two biggest are probably the relationship a recruit has with a coach and the success the team has out on the field.

Right now, we're looking at a situation where the only thing that would keep some of the recruits committed is their relationship with Dorrell and/or another coach on his staff, cuz "success on the field" is starting to fade. (I know, many of you find it hard to believe that recruits and their parents would like KD, but it's true.)

Whacking Dorrell now basically takes away the only remaining pillar of the recruiting class. Keeping Dorrell until the end of the season keeps at least some of the recruits interested in/loyal to UCLA. At the end of the year, you can fire him and HOPEFULLY bring in someone with a track record of success. Then you replace the "relationship" pillar with the (potential) "success on the field" pillar, and hope that that's enough to get the recruits to stick.

But if you axe KD now, you knock out all of the recruits' ties to UCLA and give them every excuse to look elsewhere.

Just my $.02. The bottom line is simple, though: Guerrero has to fire KD within the next few months, barring an absolute miracle (i.e., UCLA running the table, which ain't gonna happen).

by SuinBruin on Sep 17, 2007 4:40 PM PDT reply actions

I am 100 % with SJH on this

It appears that the only reason to keep Coach Toledo's successor until the end of the season is the potential that we will lose recruits. I will come back to that in a moment, but I think there is a much much more important issue that has been glossed over.

There has been speculation that Coach Toledo's successor might suddenly learn how to do his job and take this team to a one loss season and a BCS bowl. The likelihood that this will happen is so remote as to be not worth discussing.

What is much more likely is that he will figure a way to go 6-3 or 5-4 for the rest of the season, and end with a 8-4 or 7-5 record. If one of those wins is against justsc, then we will be in exactly the same position we were in last year.

I think it would be a terrible mistake to subject our school and its decision-makers and the hand-wringers and the Kool-Aid-drinkers and the Black Coaches Association fearers to a debate about whether an 8-4 or 7-5 season should be good enough to save this pretender's job. All of the factors that showed us heading for a BCS bowl will be forgotten and replaced by excuses.

The basic premise is clear. Our current coach does not know how to do his job and should be terminated. The question is when is the announcement made. There is nothing he can do between now and the end of the season to change anyone's mind. (Don't say what if he wins out. That's absurd.)

I think we should fire him now. If we need a caretaker, then fine. We can find one. We're not some JC trying to find a coach who will handle his football chores after he teaches an English class or two. We'll be paying good money. We have a professional Athletic Director who undoubtedly has contacts that we've never even considered. More important, we can get literally anyone to step in and do as good a job as the current coach. Bring in Homer Smith. Bring in Marty Schottenheimer. Bring in any of the umpteen unemployed former head coaches who are sitting at home watching Sports Center. They can try to fix the unfixable for the balance of the year.

Now recruits. SJH hit the nail on the head. There are no signed contracts that require any of these guys to come to UCLA. Realistically, how many said they would come because of Coach Toledo's successor? One? And that was the guy whose paperwork got screwed up by a gaffe from Coach Toledo's successor. It seems to me that what these guys want is just what SJH said - a chance to play and a chance to play on TV. They will get those chances whether Coach Toledo's successor stays or goes.

Also, how many recruits out there did not give committments to UCLA because of the moron running the show? I think there is a much greater likelihood that we will get more and better recruits if they know that their skills will be honed and polished and developed, rather than what is happening now.

Here's the $64 question. If Mr. Guerrero were to release the following statement, how many would think it is inaccurate: "The Athletic Department has decided to sever its relationship with the current head football coach effective immediately. Looking at his body of work from the day he was hired through the game at Utah, we believe it is clear that the current coach cannot lead the team to the prominence that it deserves. The team's poor performance at Utah was not the only reason why we have terminated the coach's contract. It is simply the most recent of many incidents that make it clear that he is not the man to lead this team."

If Mr. Guerrero showed a release like that to Coach Toledo's successor, it is likely that he would resign so that he could issue his own press statement, and Mr. Guerrero could mouth all the platitudes that are generally mouthed under similar circumstances.

Bruins - it isn't going to get any better. Let's do it now, and spend our time debating how the team can improve, rather than scratching our heads at the fact that Coach Toledo's successor does the same things over and over even though they don't work. How is either this year or next year going to be improved by letting this pretender steal his salary for the balance of the year?

It's time to end the pain NOW. (I'm tired of using the Michael Corleone analogy, but you get it.)

by Fox 71 on Sep 17, 2007 8:33 PM PDT reply actions

I still haven't found

a legitimate reason as to how firing him now is better than after the season. All I've heard is KD is no good and we should put the program out of its misery as early as possible. That's not good enough. We need a better reason to do it now as opposed to later and a reason that outweighs the recruiting damage it will do.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Sep 17, 2007 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Recruiting damage

Is, imho, a bad reason to withhold from making a coaching change. Let's face it, when you fire a coach, there is invariably some negative impacts. And, yes, recruiting is often mentioned among them. But, as I've mentioned before, this explanation, er, excuse, is usually the refuge for people who, at heart, want to maintain the status quo.

Unfortunately, there is a reason they call it "ripping off the band aid". It's because there are some negative effects. However, they are almost alway temporary in nature, and far less important than the problem motivating the action to begin with.

In my view, a hit to recruiting, even if I were to buy into you assumptions, is just a drop in the kettle compared to the potential upside.

by Menelaus on Sep 17, 2007 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions

Rye - listen to the arguments

They are made. The only argument for waiting is the impact on recruits. That argument doesn't work. The assumption that there will be damage to recruiting is just that -- an assumption. There are many reasons why that assumption lacks merit. Most important, recruits want to play, and with 20 seniors leaving there will be opportunities no matter who is the coach. Equally as important, do you want a recruit whose sole reason for coming is because of Coach Toledo's successor? That doesn't say much.

My biggest worry is that the team will respond and come in at 7-5 or 8-4 and then all the apologists will be clamoring for him to be kept. And if that happens, the program is shot for yet another year. I would like to see UCLA come to prominence sometime during my lifetime.

The only way to make sure he is gone next year is to do it now. That will end the debate. And if our recruiting class all bolts, then you can launch a smart bomb at my house. But I don't think it will happen.

by Fox 71 on Sep 17, 2007 9:08 PM PDT reply actions

On review

I have one more comment re the now or later question.

No one really knows for sure what the demise of CTS would have on recruiting. That is a substantial uncertainty. We know with what is for all intents and purposes absolute certainty that the team will improve if CTS is gone. This improvement is not just in the long run but also for the balance of this season.

Measuring the uncertainty of the impact on recruting against the certainty of an improved team in the short run and in the long run, I think it makes sense to fire him now.

Remember the worst case scenario - he wins 4 or five more games. Then we are stuck with him for another year. I can't take much more of this.

by Fox 71 on Sep 18, 2007 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions

Replacing KD

If we were to fire KD now and DG were to look for a replacement, how likely will we have an interim coach? And how fast will it take for us to get a high-quality coach?

I believe the recruiting argument by Rye has some merit due to the personal connections a recruit and the coaching staff have, but with the way KD's been coaching our team, we'll be lucky to get half those recruits at all.

Therefore, how we will replace KD needs to be addressed. We don't want another assistant becoming an interim coach, then becoming head coach like Lavin. What coaches are available RIGHT NOW that we can contact? Are they experienced and qualified, and would they be willing to step in mid-season?

Class of 2010. GO BRUINS!

by Yoyo on Sep 18, 2007 2:19 AM PDT reply actions