A Refresher on Mike Riley/Karl Dorrell Debacle at UCLA
by Nestor on Nov 5, 2010 5:52 AM PDT
Email
PrintSo Scott Reid from the OC Register has written up a lengthy article making the obvious point about UCLA blowing it by hiring Karl Dorrell instead of Mike Riley back in 2002. He then used it to throw in bunch of cheap shots against our current program asserting how we didn't get it done last two and half years (completely ignoring the big picture about how the program did take a step forward last year and in the recruiting circuit).
Where Reid really failed though (and he usually is a BIG FAIL when it comes to presenting stories with full context) in his shoddy piece (won't give a link) is pointing out how Dorrel was hired over Riley at UCLA. In case anyone needs a refresher:
Riley's near-30-year relationship with Field and his experience as a head coach -- something Dorrell and Robinson lacked -- was taken as a sign by many that UCLA would hire Riley. That speculation was further fueled last week when Riley turned down a more lucrative offer from his alma mater, Alabama, and no other proven commodities had surfaced in the UCLA search.
Even if there were many who were lukewarm about Riley -- he did not have a winning record in his five seasons at Oregon State and San Diego -- few thought there was a more likely hire.
However, according to a source close to the search, Dorrell, dressed in a stylish dark suit and white shirt, had an extremely impressive interview with Carnesale and vice chancellor Pete Blackman on Tuesday.
"The bottom line is, Karl kicked (tail) in the interview," said the source close to the search. "He really showed passion and demonstrated from a philosophical standpoint the importance of discipline, what it means to be a Bruin, what it means to wear that uniform, to go to school and graduate from here and to beat SC and win Pac-10 championships."
And there was this from Dorrell's first press conference:
The chancellor gave Dorrell a hug as the news conference ended.
''There's a sense of quiet maturity, poise and leadership that he possesses,'' Carnesale said. ''You can spot passion without him jumping up and down.''
Let's just say based on background information we can also assert beyond what is excerpted above that it was Carnesale's decision to hire Dorrell. Most of us on the frontpage followed that process hour by hour when it was unfolding back in 2002. Moreover, Dan Guerrero at the time was barely in his first year at UCLA and was focused on addressing the basketball situation which materialized few months later through the firing of Sleaze Lavin and ushering in the Ben Howland era in Westwood.
Folks can raise questions and concerns about the athletic department (which is one of the few in Pac-10 operating in black). One thing we are not going to let is anyone engage in revisionist history putting the responsibility of hiring Karl Dorrell on Dan Guerrerro. DG ultimately will have to answer for the datapoints on Neuheisel (which will provide a more clear picture by the end of next season) but incomplete and shoddy article like the one Reid wrote up in today's OC Register really does a disservice to painting the real picture on what transpired around the Dorrell debacle in Westwood.
GO BRUINS.
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
Mike Riley is never leaving Oregon State
And most likely would not have left OSU to coach UCLA if given the offer.
MR played for Corvallis HS while his father was coaching OSU. He coached OSU from ’96 to ’98, before leaving to coach the Chargers. He may have played College Ball at Bama, but OSU will always be Home for him.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
My point is that Reid's concern trolling is unfounded.
MR would have never left OSU to begin with; therefore UCLA did not blow it by hiring KD instead.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
That is not accurate
Riley at the time was a secondary coach for the Saints. He would have absolutely left for UCLA. He was ready to take the job (and I know this based on info from folks who I trust). Gurrerro and Field wanted him badly but were overruled by Chancellor.
Riley then went on to take Oregon State job after Dennis Erickson left Corvallis to take the Niner gig.
I get the impression ...
that Mexi believes Riley was at Oregon State when we hired Dorrell and we were trying to hire him away from the Beavers.
As you noted, Riley was passing the time with the Saints. He also turned down the Alabama job (where he played for Bear Bryant) because he thought he had the UCLA job locked down. There is no doubt that he was ready to come to Westwood.
I’m with you and BlueReign and the others who put the responsibility for hiring Dorrell on Carnesale. But I must admit that I don’t completely absolve Guerrero. Here’s why:
Someone put Dorrell in a room with Carnesale and Blackman. I believe that person was Guerrero, though I’m totally open to some other possibility if someone here thinks otherwise. The question is, why would Guerrero do that? He either was trying to make Riley look good by putting up a candidate that he thought had no chance (which I don’t believe — that would be a reckless gamble on his part and he’s not a reckless gambler) or Dorrell was a legitimate candidate in his mind. This was a tactical mistake by Guerrero and I’m not ready to let him off the hook.
I think it’s safe to presume that only serious candidates were allowed to meet the chancellor and Guerrero apparently thought that Dorrell was a legitimate candidate. For the record, he wasn’t and never should have gotten past Guerrero to the “meet the chancellor level.” If “alumni relations” forced DG to interview Dorrell as a courtesy, he should have been given a “thanks, but no thanks” at that point.
The only way to let DG completely off the hook is to believe that there were other factors that got Dorrell into Carnesale’soffice. (Maybe his alumnus status got him some favorable treatment and DG had no choice?) Under any scenario, though, DG was not able to dissuade the chancellor from making a disastrous hire and while I believe that DG preferred Riley, I don’t believe he felt Dorrell was a disaster. If he did, then he never should have allowed Dorrell to get to the final stages of the interview process.
In short: I hold Carnesale ultimately responsible, but I don’t totally absolve DG. Guerrero preferred Riley, but he was not against Dorrell and for that reason I can’t completely absolve him. I don’t judge his tenure AD by the Dorrell hire, I do, however, hold the fact that he put Dorrell in the running against him.
There were other factors
That allowed Dorrell into Carnesale’s office. Dorrell had a huge lobbying circle behind him (which hilariously included guys like Ken Norton).
Moreover, you need to keep in mind it was Guerrerro’s first year in the office. He already had enough on his plate which included making sure UCLA hired a top flight hoops coach at the end of the season. From what I understand and remember Guerrerro was working on that from the very beginning. That process didn’t magically start after firing of Lavin.
So he had lot on his plate. He made strategic decisions in terms of how to navigate through all the relevant turfs. He though Riley was going to get the job ultimately. So yes, I do absolve Guerrero for this decision and I certainly think it’s ridiculous for people to blame him for Carnesale’s mistake.
I guess we disagree on the margins a bit ...
If Guerrero really felt Dorrell was a poor choice and the hire was made anyway, then he was really weak in offering those objections. I really don’t believe that DG had strong objections to Dorrell. He preferred Riley, but he was at some level OK with Dorrell.
Of course I know he had a full plate at the time. But he made the decision to fire Toledo. He set in motion the process of hiring a football coach. He should have been ready for everything that would entail.
I acknowledge that Carnesale made the decision and that DG, left to his own devices would have gone in another direction. I don’t, however, believe that DG raised strong objections to Dorrell. I do believe that Guerrero, on some level, considered Dorrell a legit candidate. I don’t blame DG — that would be ridiculous. But I can’t let him off the hook completely.
We agree to disagree
Working through bureaucracy to propagate changes is not easy. It takes time and built in political capital. Life is not so simple that DG could just walk in and then place his candidates of choice in every sport. Football and basketball are major revenue sports that involves lot of politics not just at UCLA but at every major D-1 program.
I don’t blame DG at all if he decided that he was going to save it for hoops so that he could bring in either Ben Howland, Mike Montgomery or Roy Williams (the three top choices for hoops at the time). It’s a strategic decision he made because perhaps raising objections wrt to football hire would have compromised his hoops decision. I don’t think it’s reasonable to fault him under such difficult circumstances. Perhaps guys on message boards want to do that but we should be better aware of the overall circumstances and understand context.
Let's not lose sight of the fact
that Karl Dorrell might actually give a pretty good interview. He is calm, collected, and was after all a very good UCLA football player. I’m not sure exactly how it went down, but I will rue that day until UCLA football is back on top. I wish he had bad breath or bad B.O. on that day, or that there was mustard on his suit.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I'm Truly Troubled
By the fact that Carnsale had so much pull. I understand as Chancellor, he is afford significant consideration for all hires at the university. But this man is not exactly a football person. Politics is playing a game with serious consequences; sports is playing a game with few consequences. IE, Where do politics fit in a decision like this? I can understand economics, academics, etc, but politics? Frightening. I am always awed by the power of UCLA beauracracy.
I did indeed have my dates mixed up.
Doh!
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
It always left a bad taste in my mouth..
That Carnesale was the dude hiring KD. What the hell does Carnesale know about College Football???
Carnesale’s a nuclear engineer who went into international politics, his strength as a Chancellor was in his fundraising (read: being slick)… The few chances I had to meet and interact with him, he struck me as a politician who baffled with bullshit rather than dazzled with brilliance. Given this, it’s no wonder that a smooth KD nailed the interview.
My only gripe with DG is that he didn’t can Dorrell sooner.
I truly believe
DG was ready to pull the trigger after year 4, but then Dorrell went and beat southern cal. In typical UCLA-supporter-with-blinders-on fashion, beating southern cal was seen by many as “saving” the season, and hence a year 5 was unjustly rewarded, setting this program back another 2-3 years.
I guess we’ll see if history repeats itself
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
Should be interesting
I am not going to be happy with 1-3 record rest of the way even if that win comes in the last game.
The epitome of hypocrisy
So Scott Reid comes out and says that UCLA blew it in 2002 by hiring Karl Dorrell.
Then he takes cheap shots by saying UCLA hasn’t gotten it done in the last two and a half years? Hello? What the hell? He just wrote in his stupid article how it was a mistake to hire Dorrell, and then doesn’t have the intellectual honesty to link his mediocre tenure to the current struggles in the program?
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Reporters are like goldfish
They eat, ****, go in circles, forget what they just did 3 seconds ago, and can only see their own reflection. Can we really expect something like intellectual honesty from a thing like Scott Reid? Or the UCLA-hating hydra that is Foster/Maya/Plaschke/Simers? Ugh. What I wouldn’t give to end that monster.
Victory my friend
that’s what it’ll take.
p.s.: was in Lake Oswego yesterday, yessir I was.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
You also can't discount
the Toledo effect. At the time, one of the biggest concerns was the perception that the players were out of control, led by a sweaty, lax non-disciplinarian with his shirt-tail permanently untucked. Karl, by giving such a professional, calm, and businesslike interview, presented Carnesale with the opposite of the coach they were trying to replace. They wanted a squeaky-clean looking program, with the anti-Fred Flintstone as the image of UCLA. And at least Dorrell did accomplish that task. Winning consistently, however, was another task entirely.
good thing the internet is leveling the news playing field
so newspapers with soapbox staff writers can be called out
This is so enlightening
I went to UCLA between 2001-2005. CTS ruined my college experience, now I know I have Carnesale to blame for that. It’s a good thing I don’t read the OC Register.
by Strathmore&Gayley on Nov 8, 2010 12:30 PM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
