Dorrell Football: 4 Times More Likely to Suffer a Blowout Loss

by CAJason80 on Sep 18, 2007 3:29 PM PDT Comment 11 comments

Bumped. Just the facts. GO BRUINS. -N

I cross posted this at my blog as well, but wanted to share this with you.

After Saturday's debacle, I did a little digging around on the level of sucktitude that UCLA football has been dragged through over the past five years. We all know about the painful losses, the terrible record against ranked opponenets and on the road, but I wanted to take a look at how much more often UCLA has been blown out in the Dorrell era compared to seasons past. I went back to what individuals generally regard as the beginning of the modern era for UCLA football, which begins with the Red Sanders era.

I defined a blowout loss as any loss in which UCLA lost by more than 30 points.

The results are not pretty.

Anything look out of whack there? It's simple math: since Dorrell has taken over, UCLA is essentially four times more likely to suffer a blowout loss than previously.

Prior to Dorrell's arrival, UCLA suffered a 30+ point loss once every four years when extrapolated across a 12-game season (13 total blowout losses in 585 total games, or 2.22% of the time).

Since Dorrell has arrived, UCLA has suffered four 30+ blowout losses, which averages out to once every year (4 total blowout losses in 53 total games, or 7.55% of the time).

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 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Just had a thought...

... any way to make a graph re: number of losses after having halftime leads?

I know we blew FOUR of them last year.

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Sep 18, 2007 3:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

And Look Who Blew the Bruins Out

Great research! While the sample size may be relatively small, the trend is unmistakable.

Off the top of my head I can think of three of the four blow out losses you reference. Utah last Saturday and in 2005 Arizona and SC. Utah and Arizona were not just blow out losses, they were losses in games UCLA was the prohibitive favorite. It is one thing to get blown out by one of the top ranked teams in the country, but to have such embarrassing losses to unranked teams that do not even have a break even record is inexcusable.

by Bruin77 on Sep 18, 2007 4:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Fouth One:

59-24 Oklahoma, 9/20/2003. And yes, the caliber of team in which UCLA was blown out by is much different in the Dorrell era than in years past. Donahue's 6 total blowout losses were to the following teams: Cal (1992), Arizona (1989), Oklahoma (1986), Nebraska (1984), Nebraska (1983), and U$C (1979). Of those 6, only the Cal loss was close to as bad as the Arizona loss (Cal was 4-7 in 1992). Every other one of those losses was to (I believe) an opponent that was ranked at the time.

by CAJason80 on Sep 18, 2007 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Three words sum this all up

"Just Like Lavin."

Where does UCLA find these people?

by Barnes2JJ on Sep 18, 2007 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good find

Two of Dorrell's four blowouts were to the #1 team in the country, showing that he can't stick with the superior team. And the other two were to teams with losing records, showing that his teams overlook weaker opponents.

It would interesting to see how many blowout wins he has had compared to other UCLA coaches.

by SuperBruinMan on Sep 19, 2007 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great job, Jason

This needs to get added to the list of 19.

Nestor, I repeat my request. Would you put up a link to that list. Make it so easy even a child (or a geezer) can do it.

by Fox 71 on Sep 18, 2007 4:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Blowout

I would think anything over 17 points could easily be considered a blow-out. After all, at that point you are realistically talking needing three touchdowns to win. Lowering you threshold to 18 points certainly would increase your sample size.

by nikeu on Sep 18, 2007 4:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sorry to be a stat geek, but...

Decreasing the threshold for what is considered a blowout wouldn't change the sample size. It would still be 53 games coached by Dorrell vs 585 total games w/ all other coaches.

Nice work, CAJason80.

by insomniacslounge on Sep 18, 2007 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs