The BruinsNation Criteria For UCLA's Search of Rick Neuheisel's Replacement
by Achilles on Oct 24, 2011 5:44 AM PDT
in Football
Email
Print
The thought and feeling among frontpagers of the Bruins Nation is that it's not necessary at this point in time for us to identify by name possible coaching candidates for the eventual search for Rick Neuheisel's replacement. The feeling here is that it's not our job to name or speculate about specific candidates, because there might be some great coach out there whose name we don't know.
A proper coaching search requires the necessary interviews, background and reference checks any high level executive search requires. Oh, don't misunderstand, there is absolutely nothing wrong with speculating about names, but we believe the focus should be on something else as well that would be just as productive.
We should narrow down a set of criteria, refine it and then use that to evaluate the candidates as they become known and also to assess Rick Neuheisel's eventual successor. Here are our thoughts:
UCLA's Next Head Coach Should Have No Prior Ties To UCLA Football
The new head coach should have no prior ties to UCLA football. So, that would eliminate Greg Robinson, Bob Field, DeWayne Walker, Ken Norton Jr,, Norm Chow, the return of Karl Dorrell, Bob Field, Al Borges and Bob Toledo. And, yes, some of those were sarcastic. But sarcasm aside, we need to acknowledge that the UCLA way of doing football is not working and we need someone whose experience is entirely from the outside so that they might bring to us their knowledge of what has worked elsewhere. We need a strong leader with a powerful foundation in what it takes to build a successful football program, because as much as they will need to change the results on the field, they will need to change the culture off the field.
UCLA's Next Head Coach Must Have Total Control Of the Football Program
The new head coach must be given total control of the football program in every aspect that is possible. This means that they can retain any assistant coaches they want or replace the whole staff. They decide how the team practices, does strength and conditioning (including the hiriing of the strength and conditioning coach). who we schedule, what style we play -- everything. Our only concession in this area are admissions (because that's a moot point, admissions is not going to give up admissions -- though we strongly encourage admissions to have more of an open mind when it comes to who the next coach is allowed to offer a scholarship) and medical (UCLA Medical Center has fine doctors. We can't just switch to Cedars Sinai).
UCLA's Next Head Coach Must Either have Prior Head Coaching Experience or Must Be a Well-Regarded Coordinator
UCLA's next head coach must come from one of two categories. They must either have prior head coaching experience (with play calling experience on one side of the ball or the other) or they must be a well-regarded coordinator who is clearly "the next guy" who is getting a head coaching job. In other words, we either need a proven head coach, or a guy like Will Muschamp was last year before he went to Florida -- a coordinator who will be a head coach in short time. A coach with pro experience is okay, too, if he basically meets the criteria. In other words, Bill Musgrave, the Vikings OC, would be a choice that met the criteria.
UCLA's Next Head Coach Must Be an Enthusiastic Recruiter Who Believes In What UCLA Stands For As A University
If the next head coach is a college coach, either a coach with head coaching experience or a coordinator who is clearly "next in line" for a head coaching position, they must have an established reputation as a recruiter. Recruiting is going to be half the battle for any new coach. Some coaches love to do it and understand how, for others it is a necessary evil. We want someone who loves to do it. But they also must understand the qualities that make UCLA great, that simply recruiting a bunch of five star athletes is not necessarily the goal. UCLA is going to be a demanding academic experience for any recruit. The school also has its own particular vibe that must be recognized. In other words, the next coach needs to recruit the right kind of player for both UCLA and his system. If the coach comes from the pros, we need someone whose personality suggests he is going to be a strong recruiter.
The Following Criteria Are Not As Essential as Those Listed Above. We Consider Then Secondary Criteria -- Important, But Not Essential
It Would Be Nice To Have An Up and Comer, Not a Retread (Though Some Coaches Rise Above Either Criteria)
It would be nice to have an up and comer over a retread, unless that retread is in his prime. In other words, unless we're talking about Urban Meyer or Mike Leach or Chris Peterson, it's better to go with an up and comer who is hungry, than old established vet looking for one last hurrah. Some might disagree with this. But we'd rather have the hot young guy ready for the next step than Mike Bellotti or do what ASU did with Dennis Erickson. Oh, there is nothing wrong with Bellotti or Erickson or would have been wrong with Mike Riley when we got Dorrell, but we'd rather have that guy who years from now will be associated with the success he had at UCLA, not just have UCLA be one of the many stops on his coaching train. Again, if we're talking about elite, upper echelon guy in his prime like Urban Meyer then it doesn't matter. But we don't want Chris Ault of Nevada over Manny Diaz of Texas, if that makes it any clearer.
UCLA's Next Head Coach Should Be Mediagenic; It's Still L.A., After All
While it's not an essential criteria, it would be nice to have someone who was great with the media. No matter what, this is Los Angeles. You're not going to have coach-friendly media like you might have in some college towns. So, it would be nice to have someone who understands the difference between operating in a media market where your team is not the center of the universe, like it might be elsewhere. Along those lines (though a bit tangential), it would be great if the next head coach and his family are desirous of city life. UCLA, like USC, like Washington, like Miami is one of the relatively few schools located in a large, urban city. If you the next coach gets that, relished that, it's a plus.
UCLA's Next Head Coach Should Call Plays On One Side of the Ball Or the Other
Of all the criteria in this post, this last is perhaps the most controversial and the easiest to disregard depending on who becomes the next head coach. But, the feeling here is that it would be beneficial (though not essential) that the next head coach call plays on one side of the ball or the other. Or they must be the special teams coach. In other words, we need someone who is in charge of the offense or the defense or special teams. We don't need to spend millions on a guy who just recruits and gives the pep talk. In actual practice if a coordinator assists in actual game day play calling that's fine. The point is that the head coach must take full responsibility for one aspect of the game and in many ways that will become our identity. If we hired a defensive minded head coach then we are a defensive team first. If we hire an offensive guru, then we're the team that puts up a lot of points. But we need a head coach to be in charge of one side of the ball or the other.
119 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We can't be a defensive team first. Ugh.
So I have to partially disagree with your last point. I do not want to see Woody Hayes football. I don’t really want to see Benball on the gridiron. Being a defensive team is only adequate if you win all the time. Terry Donahue was a defensive-minded coach. No.
No, no, nooooooo.
I want to see a Homer Smith type as head coach. A Don Coryell. A Dick Vermeil.
Winning matters
I was thinking about this topic over the weekend I agree with the list…
Defense is important for all the big offenses around college football it really is the other side of the ball that is winning championships. The teams that are winning are making plays on defense, balance on offense.
I don’t care if we win looking like Stanford, Oregon, LSU or whatever the flavor of the month is… Just want wins!
by Seahawcla on Oct 24, 2011 6:34 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Wrong
At least in UCLA’s case, offense > defense. Stay tuned and I will show you.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Look forward to it
I cant recall a championship team in modern era that did not have a decent to great defense. Or at least one that was opportunistic. Would love a counter approach, ill look for the research soon.
All it means
is they were a complete team. Anyway, you’ll see what I mean on Wednesday :)
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
???
Isnt that what I said balance offense playmaking defense.
I'm sorry
but I’m gonna have to give a big DUH to your comment. I don’t ever remember a shitty team winning a championship.
The point of my post will be figure out which helps you win more, not how you win a championship.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Not on same page...
A team can have a bad defense and still win games, as well as not have balance and be effective to a degree. (GT, Navy) I would not call them bad football teams.
I hear where you are coming from
But many of us loved Ben Ball (in its pure form). :-) I find defensive football pretty awesome. You look at programs like Alabama, LSU and TCU – they are predicated on defense.
However, I also love explosives offenses as well. Whatever it is, we’d like our coach to come in with a specific identity or vision (and I personally don’t care whether it is offensive or defensive).
The end of the 20 game win streak was on the defense.
We scored a lot against Miami and Wisconsin, but we gave up more.
That first Final Four team was incredible.
Starting with one of the Stanford games (I listened to it in the car), it seemed like whatever our halftime lead was we would double it in the final score. We seemed to play every single possession flat-out on both ends every single game after that.
So yes, if that’s what you mean by its pure form, it’s pretty great. Incredibly satisfying to see. I loved watching that team. And its character, pure CHARACTER, showed in that amazing comeback against Gonzaga.
It’ll never be my FIRST choice, though. The last decade of John Wooden basketball is my first choice. I love fast-break basketball. And I want to see the UCLA high-post offense again. Not that there are a lot of Kareem Abdul-Jabbars and Bill Waltons out there, of course. But even that last team with Dave Meyers at center was pretty amazing.
So I do care which identity it is, but I agree with you that having a strong one is essential. A world-class defensive team would be OK.
by Seth Chandler on Oct 24, 2011 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions
I think we are generally on the same page here
My personal preference is along your lines of having someone who will bring to Westwood and innovative and explosive offense.
Defensive football is awesome!
How great would it be to watch them flying around and completely shutting down the opposing team? That hasn’t happened in a long time. I’m tired of being on every teams highlight reel…
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that counts" - John Wooden.
Defense first football
I don’t know how well a defense first team would work in the Pac-12. I feel like there are too many explosive offenses to believe that focusing on D first will win up a conference title. Now, I’m not saying we don’t need a strong stout D. Just that the way our league works, it seems more important to have the ability to hang 35+ points on every team we play.
I agree.
Also, while I’d rather win 3-0 than lose 38-31, I’d rather lose 38-31 than lose 10-3. High-scoring games are more watchable, in my view. But then, I’m not much of a soccer fan, either.
by Seth Chandler on Oct 24, 2011 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Are these criteria open to discussion?
I would change a couple. I think the concept of total control is necessary, but the description is not total control. I also think “mediagenic” should not be a factor at all. If it is a factor, then I would embrace the concept of dual head coaches: One coaches football and the other smiles and makes nice with the media.
I reiterate the risk you get with an up and coming coordinator. The Muschamp example isn’t working all that well here. Florida is 4-3, with wins over Florida Atlantic (0-7), UAB (1-6), Tennessee (3-4) and Kentucky (3-4.) Their losses have been to two elite teams (LSU and Alabama) and one good team (Auburn). Muschamp had not improved over 2010 when Florida went 8-5 (Meyer’s last season, and his worst as a head coach.) I think we went through this discussion at length during our last coaching search. There is a risk when there is no head coaching record to look at.
Still too early to tell with Muschamp
I agree that Muschamp hasn’t been Urban Meyer, but it is still his first year with Florida. I’d give him another year or so before deciding if the risk was worth it. The immediate payoff of getting an up and coming coordinator may not be immediately seen, but it could pay dividends after a few years.
Here’s an interesting fact. If you look at the current AP rankings, 11 of the top 25 teams have HCs who had no prior HC experience before becoming HCs at their schools. 6 of those 11 were promoted from within, so there was some continuity from the prior HC. The remaining five all came from outside their programs as coordinators with no prior HC experience. Those five are Mark Richt, Dana Holgorsen, Kevin Sumlin, Bo Pelini, and Bob Stoops.
And just for the sake of being complete, the 6 current HCs who were promoted from within with no prior HC experience are Mike Gundy, Chip Kelly, Chris Petersen, David Shaw, Bret Bielma and Dabo Swinney.
You can dispute the recent performances of some of the names above (Richt and Swinney), however I’m sure the students, alums and supporters of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin, and Oregon football are thanking their AD’s for taking a risk on a coordinator with no prior HC experience.
Point being the risk may be justified if it’s with the right coordinator.
by Kerckhoff405 on Oct 24, 2011 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Yep
Experience is only a piece of the puzzle for every Muschamp, who it is too early to tell Florida had issues this season. There is Koetter, Hawkins, RRod guys with good HC track records who did not work at previous stops.
Find the right guy for UCLA is all I care.
For a self-proclaimed geezer
you are surprisingly intolerant on the patience front. I guess the last few years of UCLA football have done that…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Money doesn't buy championships but..
UCLA need to put up the money to hire a top tier coach. Stop trying to get the blue light special Dan!
by Big Bully on Oct 24, 2011 7:09 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I think its awesome that you guys
are already analyzing the to-be coaching vacancy. It seems to me the way to go, if you don’t get an established, proven CF coach, is to go with an offensive minded assistant, like a Steve Sarkisian. Young offensive guys in the Pac conference appear to be the trend and the right move
How about Gus Malzahn?
He’s probably the best OC in the nation and you could argue deserves as much credit for Auburn’s NC as anyone. He was a legendary HS coach as well. He doesnt’ have west coast ties but a pedigree like his brings instant cred anywhere, plus he could bring in a recruiting coordinator with strong SoCal ties.
by ucla21 on Oct 24, 2011 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not familiar with him
nor do I know how long he’s been there. Is his stock high right now because of having the privilege of directing a Cam Newton-led offense?
total agreement
I think this is just about right, as far as what we need to look for. I never assume that a new coach is a savior, but it’s time for CRN to go. Only a miracle finish will save him now…
The Harbaugh Effect
This ties in greatly to your last point, but I would love to see our next coach become the absolute face of our program. Part of what made Harbaugh effective at Stanford and now with the Niners is that he has instilled HIS ideal form of football into the programs he coaches.
I think that is why I was (past tense, unfortunately) so on board with the hiring of Neuheisel; I liked the idea of a team that played with reckless abandon and took chances. As detailed in great length on BN, however, both Rick and the team have been beaten down from this model by the UCLA model (punting is winning!).
by South Campus is for Lovers on Oct 24, 2011 8:40 AM PDT reply actions
I'd like to tweak a point......
I think in the area of recruiting it is imperative that the new coach knows the So. Cal high schools or have an assistant that is tapped into this vast talent pool. There are so many talented kids playing in So Cal that it should be a given that we can recruit 22 kids to play on both sides of the ball without a sweat.
We should be able to recruit talented QB and the such. They shouldn’t be going to schools up North or out of state.
UCLA's Next Head Coach Should Have No Prior Ties To UCLA Football
+1
I’d also like to see some Div II Championship Coaches in the mix. Especially if they have have a history of being D-1 giant killers. If his stats are awesome, loves winning, and would welcome the opportunity, we should talk to those guys. The big difference? Athletes. Competition. Payday. I’d look at JUCO Champion Coaches too. (UCLA : Where Champion Coaches Are Welcomed) No matter what, I’m gonna look at the guys statistics before I make an endorsement or get excited. I’ve come to appreciate statistical analysis more than ever – thanks entirely to this blog and members on it. Heck, I even posted my own first-time-in-life statistics while here, lol.
U-C-L-A Fight, Fight, Fight! Go Bruins!
NBA: Where Greed Happens. RIP 10/10/11.
Recent college coaching or coordinating experience
I’d like to add that caveat to the great list that Achilles started. I’ve always been weary of coaches coming in straight from the NFL with little to no feel of the college game (i.e. recruiting, school pride, developing young players, etc). There have been some successes (Troy Calhoun has done a fantastic job at Air Force coming from the Texans), but there have also been some fails (ahem Rick). However, if you look at the schools who brought in new HC’s over recent years, and are experiencing success now, most if not all HC’s had recent college coaching/coordinating experience. Jim Harbaugh (HC-USD), Chip Kelly (OC- Oregon, New Hampshire), Bo Pelini (DC-LSU), Paul Johnson (HC-Navy).
There’s something that has to be said about knowing the current landscape of college football.
Great post...
I’d only add, hire somebody who won’t leave in a few years, like Harbaugh at Stanford or Hoke at SDSU.
It’s not that their moves weren’t predictable (and understandable), it’s just that we’d like a guy who will rebuild our program.
I may work with the Waves, but I'm still a Bruin!
(Formerly "HoozierDaddy")
While I think this requirement sounds good on paper
I think it’s hard to require in practice. I don’t think anyone here would mind being in Stanford football’s current situation. If we hire a HC who bails on us for a pro job and leaves us with a potential Heisman winning QB and shot at the BCS title game, sign me up. Every coach that meets the frontpagers’ reqs above (see: No UCLA football ties) will be a risk to leave in a few years imo, so it’ll be about weighing the risk of them leaving with how amazing of a candidate they are in other aspects.
Also
It’s up to the administration/Morgan Center to make a good coach want to stay. The best coaches will want the best jobs. We need UCLA football to become one of those highly desirable jobs.
took the words
from my keyboard. It’s up to UCLA to make this a desirable job. If we change the culture of how things are run it will be difficult to hire a coach away from us. What coach would want to leave a program that wins, recruits easily, located in the second biggest media market. plays in a reasonably easy division, etc.
If the money is right, I don’t see many schools being able to hire a coach away from UCLA.
+1
The CFB world we live in almost creates a best case scenario of great coaching for 4-6 years, then leaving for greener pastures. I would gladly take a coach building us back up even if he takes the $$$ later on.
by South Campus is for Lovers on Oct 24, 2011 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm fine with a guy staying for 5 years, building the franchise and handing it off
I don’t want someone to bail 2 years into a rebuilding project.
by VeniceBruin on Oct 24, 2011 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
We can only hope the new coach is so comfortable and
dedicated to success at the college level, and UCLA in particular, that he can’t be lured away by bigger $$$$ from another university or the NFL. A daunting task these days.
You guys are right,
CFB is like that these days. That’s why I said it was understandable and predictable.
If we get a guy who brings us back to respectability and then leaves after a few years, I’m ok with that. If he stays, so much the better.
I may work with the Waves, but I'm still a Bruin!
(Formerly "HoozierDaddy")
Yeah, that's the way it should go. We can't totally control who
stays or who goes, there are few Paternos and Bowdens who stay at one school for an eternity. We get someone who returns the Bruins to respectability on the field, winning seasons, vieng for the conference championship, regular national rankings, and appearances in top tier bowls not named after nuts or played on ice, I’d be content. I don’t think that is too much to ask of a program that should be high caliber.
I agree
which is why the ‘no UCLA ties’ requirement might be problematic (thought I get where it is coming from). I don’t want t a coach who might jump ship as soon as their ‘dream job’ becomes available.
It’s a weak analogy, but Tennessee hired someone they thought was an ‘up-and-comer’ when they hired Kiffykins. While they may have dodged a bullet in him leaving, hiring someone with a strong commitment to another school (or obvious NFL ambitions) means you might just have chaos. One of the nice things about Howland is that although he wasn’t a former UCLA assistant or alum, UCLA was clearly his dream job, and we don’t really have to worry about him jumping to Duke or Carolina or the NBA if a job comes available. Someone with an outside perspective but fierce loyalty to UCLA would be ideal.
by VeniceBruin on Oct 24, 2011 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
All good points in what UCLA should be looking for in replacing
CRN. I also agree with Kerckhoff405 that the new HC should come from the college ranks as NFL transplants have mixed success and we don’t need another coach learning his way around the college scene.
Great Post about the looking for the next HC.
Q: If the money is a problem in hiring a top tier coach, why not start a collection pot from the alums and fans to cover the difference in what UCLA can afford to pay the Coach?
I’m sure everyone would be willing to make some type of donation for a top tier football coach. Just imagine to upside to having a Great Coach. And is this idea even plausible?
Just throwing ideas out there.
Question on that...
Local sports radio’s been talking a lot about this since the UofA blowout. Apparently (according to local radio hosts), UCLA does not allow boosters to donate specifically to “football” because it “looks bad” in regards to even distribution among all sports. Why would they handicap themselves this way while everyone else across the country does it… is there any truth to this???
If it IS true, then they will definitely have issues staying away from the “blue light special” coach if they have to pay Rick out for next year, pay Norm out for 2 more yrs, AND pay the new coach.
On the issue of donating specifically to football
I’m not sure if I read it here or somewhere else, but besides the idea that donating just to football “looks bad,” I think there’s been studies done that show that allowing people to donate specifically to football comes at the expense of donations to other parts of the school.
While you might get an increase in overall donors, there are a lot of people who donate regardless, and when they can check off football as their donation preference, they’re going to be donating the same amount but sending their money to the football program instead of the other programs.
Oh and also
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing though, and if they started a coach fund right now I would have my checkbook out in a heartbeat.
Clarification
UCLA does take money specifically for the football program. It is just not allowed to be earmarked for coaching salaries. That money has been used to buyout contracts to supplement coaching salaries. What has been discussed on various forums is that UCLA is going to allow more of that booster/donor money to be used for coaching salaries.
THAT'S what it was!
I couldn’t remember the specifics, but yeah that was it. That’s too bad. If they opened it up for that I know tons of us who are fed up enough to get out the check books for a proven top tier guy who could make an immediate impact.
There should be no difference to cover
If we have a competent AD, he will pull the right string to get Adidas to help out more and treat us like the first-rate program we should be.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I just want the new HC to get the Bruins
to play physical on both sides of the ball. Tired of seeing them get pushed around up and down the field. I wouldn’t mind seeing Al Borges and Rocky Long as coordinators under a kick ass new HC.
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that counts" - John Wooden.
Ya got that right. Physical and disciplined. Too often some of our Bruins are most
physical after the play’s over.
Calling Plays
I dont think that’s always a good thing. Mike Gundy used to call plays at Oklahoma State, but then he hired an OC to take care of that and he has more time during the week and on gameday to focus on other things. Theres a lot more to being a coordinator or coach than calling plays and he has the ability to keep an eye on other aspects of a game instead of worrying about what the next playcall will be. He still gives his input but he has an OC to take care of the bulk of the responsibility, and it also frees up his work week by a few hours to concentrate on other things.
I believe his first year turning over these duties was last season, when Dana Holgorson was OC….this year he’s got another guy and I’d argue that his team has stepped up their performance these last two years without Gundy as playcaller.
If the the new HC does get full reign
Does this mean the end of the Pistol Offense? We brought B.Hundley specifically for this kind of offense. If we are to get a head coach, I would hope the head coach exploits his specific talents. However, would this limit our HC search to a specific field?
I disagree
that we brought in Hundley specifically for the pistol. He was recuited heavily by lots of schools that don’t run the pistol, and his potential to be a great QB is not exclusive to our “offense”.
Meant to add
I think any HC, regardless of the system they want to run on offense, would be thrilled to have him in the program.
Two Questions
Thanks BN for providing direction on this part of the problem, I like the tone of the BN post. Its positive and constructuve. Will BN take a position on who should make the decision? Also, does BN have a preference for a transition period (remove CRN now) or should CRN finish out this year and buyout his last year? I still want CRN involved at UCLA in some capacity.
The HC calling plays makes sense if the DC or OC is a young buck just coming up. I have a preference for great defensive teams. I have always enjoyed watching the great Bruin defenses of the past and it really pains me to watch what passes for defense the last few years. BenBall prepares you for the next level but if you got the horses let them run as well.
Most important
1. No UCLA ties
2. Coaches in a tough conference
3. Believes in physical, not finesse, football
4. Defensive minded
5. Proven track record of success
If you know of any candidate that meets these criteria, please fill in the blank ____________________________.
Tom Cable's available...
Not my first choice, but if Peterson says no AGAIN, and the other big names say no… Cable was the last OC that had UCLA scoring points on a regular basis, and had the Raiders showing visible improvement. Might be a good backup choice.
backup to the backup of the donkey
Tom Cable? The guy whose offense didn’t score until he told Drew Olson & Co., “all right guys, I’m out of ideas, you go ahead and do what you want.” How’s that Seahawk offense looking for you?
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Seahawks Fan
Cable has done a good job as the OL Coach, young group is getting better.
Bevell is the OC, not real impressed but I dont think any team in the NFL has a worse situation at QB/HB then the Seahawks. Need upgrade in both…
Hoping Cable is not the answer at UCLA
Not to mention
he punched another coach in the face. Anyway, we said no retreads…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
No he didn't
It’s just that the team didn’t seem to score until we were down at least 17 and had to play with desperation.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Bill Snyder
has additional point: has resurrected K-State twice.
by VeniceBruin on Oct 24, 2011 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
ah, the 'bloodlines' movement
a la Harbaughs.
Stoops might be the exception to the theory :)
I may work with the Waves, but I'm still a Bruin!
(Formerly "HoozierDaddy")
Dear adidas ...
totally as an aside — this is what our uniforms are supposed to look like. Please note the shoulder stripes.
Find the football Ben Howland
He turned a team from being soft to being physical and disciplined, which is exactly the transformation our football program needs.
by limpers on Oct 24, 2011 10:50 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
"Offense wins games. D wins Championships."
OL. QB. D. You can win a FB game by 2 points to 0.
I hate that saying
It’s dumb and it’s not really true.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Not in college
You don’t even get to play for the championship unless your team is considered REALLY GOOD by voters and the computers. Margin of victory DOES matter. If we go undefeated with every game being a 2-0 win, I bet a 1-loss SEC team jumps us to play the NC game.
Here's what the new head coach needs to do:
1. Find a good quarterback. The best times in recent UCLA football history were the late ‘80s (with Aikman under center) and the late ’90s (with #18 under center). Hell, in the one year we’ve had a good QB in the last decade we even managed to cancel out CTS and produce ten wins (‘05, with a much-improved Olson running the show). $uc was able to dominate from ’03 to ’08 in great part because they had, in succession, Carson Palmer, Matt Leinhart, John David Booty, and Mark Sanchez, all who were either good or great (with the very, VERY enjoyable exception of 13-9, in Booty’s case). The main reason Stanford is going to reach their second straight BCS bowl is because they have Andrew Luck. If you have a good-to-great college QB, you’ll never be out of any game, and you’ll always at least have a puncher’s chance against the big boys. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more important than a solid QB at the college level.
#2: …um, see #1. Next coach: find a good, durable QB, build the offense around him, and watch the accolades and trophies and recognition pour in. Easy peasy.
I really don't think defense matters as much as everyone says it does.
Cases in point:
2006 and 2007 UCLA Bruins: Fantastic defensively, featured many future NFL players on the squad. Finished a combined 13-13, thanks to guys like Ben Olson, Patrick Cowan (13-9! 13-9! …of course, he didn’t actually play ALL that well in that game, or really any in his UCLA career), Osaar Rasshan, and McLeod Bethel-Thompson.
2005 UCLA Bruins: Terrible, awful, horrendous defensively, ranked something like 350th out of 120 in the nation in run defense. Finished 10-2, even with dumba$$ CTS running the show, thanks in great part to Drew Olson’s emergence as a Heisman candidate quarterback (and yes, MJD and Marcedes, although they wouldn’t have been as good if Olson hadn’t also improved).
2010 Auburn Tigers and Oregon Ducks: Not all that great defensively; Auburn had four games where they gave up over 30 points, and one where they gave up 43. Their defensive line was good, but opposing QBs with good arms regularly shredded them (Kentucky’s Mike Hartline, Arkansas’ Ryan Mallett and even Mallett’s backup Tyler Wilson, Georgia’s Aaron Murray, etc). Oregon’s wasn’t all that much better; despite an embarrassingly easy schedule, the Ducks gave up 29 or more points four times, and everybody knows that it was the Ducks’ offense that carried them that year. Of course, both of these offensive-minded, well-quarterbacked teams ended up in the national title game.
Worry about offense (and especially QB) first. Defense comes second.
Somewhat
Both those defense flat out made plays, Oregon found ways on defense to come up big. Auburn was the same…
Offense is king but I would not abandon the importance of defense.
The 2005 defense
made just about zero plays.
Anyway…I think you guys will like the Wednesday post :)
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
For sure
I was at the game in Pullman that year, we had no business winning that. But was a few rows up when Marcedes got the TD in the back of the end zone.
As stated many times our 10-2 record that year was on a shaky foundation.
That was my first UCLA football game
Not bad times…good times.
Of course, 52-14 and then 66-19…not as good.
IMO...I would disagree with one thing...
I think we should indeed name coaches to be considered for the job. In the business field, sometimes you shop for interim CEOs or CEOs that can change the culture of an organization (called Change Management). That’s all they do. So, they normally take over an organization for a few years until they can hand over the reigns to the next CEO. I think this is what UCLA should do, find a big time Coach that can have an impact NOW. Then, we can look for someone who would continue on with the team.
by TheUniversityOfTheMasses~Reconize! on Oct 24, 2011 12:05 PM PDT reply actions
Doughnut Dan ought to be ashamed of himself by now
But then knowing his mindset, I am not sure about that even.
After the debacle on ESPN last Thursday and the lackluster overall performance of the team since the season opener, Guerrero’ infamously shabby decision, for me at least, to keep RN for another season last winter just seemed illogical at best, utterly foolish at worst. The Arizona AD, maybe even any Anderson Business School MBA candidates can give the doughnut man a lesson on personnel decision making on the spot.
Since I am on vacation in Toronto, Canada, I turned off the TV just before the brawl, inadvertently saving myself from the ensuing ultimate ugliness any Bruin fan can possibly stomach. I gritted my teeth even yesterday evening when CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 mentioned it on its newsbreak.
My season ticket’s worth cannot compare with the mega$$$$$ donations wealthy alums give routinely. But for god’s sake at least I pay every year to support my alma mater.
Is this necessary for us to endure ?
To our doughnut man, lesson#1 says when you’re in doubt, do not hesitate, Pull the trigger. If you wait, chances are you will be sorry that you did because situation will prove you wrong.
Knowing what we all know painfully, did it make any difference UCLA sacked RN last season as opposed to giving him still another season, wishing that perhaps we would see an about face turn in the football team’s performance.
Lesson#2 says money can’t buy all the happiness in the world but it sure can bring us a coach the caliber of Urban Mayer or the likes.
They need to understand, or be drilled in their frontal lobes, if necessary that UCLA football program must produce outcomes satisfactory to its fan base – first and foremost.
With a few more games left before RN leaves, I am simply dreadful, even paranoid about the possibility that the team might suffer further losses just as devastating as last Thursday’s. Honestly I pray enough is enough. But human beings are human beings, players and coaches included. Once the stake has been driven into the heart of a team, which is what the Wildcats did, to mentally surmount the loss, let alone recover from it physically enough to fight again can be literally impossible because doomsday spirit has set it already.
Imagine those that ever experienced B-52 bombing run. I am shellshocked too.
Hopefully enough of the Bruin pride survives the Tucson armageddon to make the rest of the season half way decent. The annual matchup with the Trojans will be gut wrenchingly tough to watch.
Guys
Do not ask for premium information locked behind BRO firewalls. Do not share it. Please respect the subscription based nature of a fellow Bruin’s online community. Thanks.
" Occupy Morgan Center "
We suffer enough. This time they have got to do it right.
Two more candidates to contemplate here, for what it’s worth. Remember that Oklahoma coach that won a super bowl with Aikman at Dallas. Would he be interested, and if so, how do we rate him.
Then there is that Miami coach that also coached Aikman at Dallas. They won another super bowl together too. Does he want it and if so, can he cut it ?
I was thinking of some NFL assistants. But Charlie Weis’ era at Notre Dame give me the chills.
LOLOL!!!
They ran such clean programs. They would really fit in in LA.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Neither ! I'd like Woody Hayes !
At the very least, he would dismantle the cheekbones of Cheaty Petey when he did what he did against us last year.
Geez, I still cannot get over it nor deal with it, to this day. That’s why I am so paranoid about the possible bloodbath when we play again later ihn November.
Agree on everything but the NFL coordinator possibility -- which should be ruled out
That’s the path of Charlie Weis and Paul Hackett. If hiring from the NFL, the coach should’ve had serious RECENT college coaching experience (a la Saban or Petrino), preferably head coaching. I am definitely in favor of the up and coming college assistant over the retread, I just don’t think that up-and-comer should have spent his last few years away from the college game.
Fine, Blueband, do you think ........ ( tongue in cheek )
Green Bay Packers, New England Patriots would voluntarily turn over their headcoaches for us to consider ? Their assistants can step in any day, any time. Isn’t it ????
Well, that's what the Rams did when they forced out Vermeil to hire Martz
After the Superbowl. So it’s possible.
Nevertheless, despite the Pete Carroll aberration, the NFL-to-college thing is probably the least reliable formula at any level. (Saban and Petrino, who were career college coaches and program builders with only the briefest NFL interlude, don’t count.)
Searching!
Im actually looking for charisma and football knowledge. The coach should be using a pro or spread offense. I’m looking at a coach like a Chris Petersen, Herm Edwards and maybe a Mike Leach.
by Trojanswearskirts on Oct 24, 2011 1:24 PM PDT reply actions
Chris Petersen, Herm Edwards and maybe a Mike Leach.
They will go to AZ before UCLA way to much work
Go Ducks 2011-2012
but UCLA
seems to have the program that is more likely to succeed, given their location, having some success in the past, etc. AZ and UCLA will always be basketball schools first, but Leach in particular might prefer UCLA. And Leach can make any QB the top rated passer in the country it seems, which is something the Bruins desperately need.
Who wants Herm Edwards?
And why?
Anyway, appreciate the contribution, but as far as coaching suggestions, maybe you can stick to your quacking compadres. No offense, I hope.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
People want Edwards for two solid reasons.
1. He does a heck of a commercial.
2.
Well, make that one reason.
You play. To win. The game.
Which is why. Herm is in a studio. Working as a commentator.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Thoughts on an AD search
We have all been through a Head Coach search and selection process, but what does it take to get a good AD?
I look at Michigan State’s Mark Hollis, a marketer , a person with a strong vision. You have to like what he has done with the Spartans over the past four years.
DeLoss Dodds at Texas, he’s been there since 1981, while they are a football school their basketball program does well also. He’s a coach (albeit a track coach) and a great fundraiser.
Then there is Dave Brandon at Michigan. A Michigan Man, played for Bo, served as a corporate CEO (Dominos) .
Where do we start? What attributes do we want in DG’s replacement. Any names out there that spark interest?
Go Bruins
TRM
Great questions.
We will get into this topic very soon.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Agreed on all counts
I’d also add that for me, an aggressive coach is a must. I don’t need him to be an innovative offensive genius and I really don’t care what offense we run but I want a coach who will put the ball in the hands of his playmakers and attack the endzone. Defensively, I want a coach who wants to attack the quarterback and fly to the football.
But aggressive is not the same thing as reckless. We’ve talked a lot over the past year or so about establishing an identity for our football program. I would like our identity to be that of a smart football team. If we’re going to say that we sometimes don’t get the best athletes because of our high admissions requirements, then let’s see that intelligence reflected on the field.
My thoughts.
1) No Defensive minded coaches. We not only need a coach that will develop our players and have a firm methodology, we need a guy that is going to get the fanbase excited and drive attendance numbers back up. That means offensive minded coaches. And that says Mike Leach to me.
2) We need someone that is going to see the job done and that means someone who will stick around for a while. We are in desperate need of stability. We have gone through assistants like vending machines eat quarters. That sounds like a Gary Patterson to me.
3) No coordinator promotions. I know guys like Gus Malzahn seem ready to go right of out of the box, but coordinators need time to get used to the rigors of the Head Coaches seat, and we need someone who can hit the ground running. I know Achilles said no retreads, but someone like Dick Vermeil could be the guy. Of course, he likely wouldn’t do it. Too much time is asked of Head Coaches, and he’s earned the right to relax.
As I see it, Established coaches that are available are Urban Meyer, Mike Leach and Rich Rodriquez. Rich Rod has baggage, Urban Meyer seems unattainable, and there will be stiff competition for Leach’s services. I’m also going to add Butch Davis to the list. He has a past with all the violations at UNC but the guy can flat out coach.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
I think a coordinator
would be fine if he came from a big program that is under pressure to perform, he’ll usually be in tune with what it takes to run a program.
I like all your choices except Butch Davis. Then again, maybe that’s how we break the curse since he gave UCLA the most painful defeat ever.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
One other criteria...
a coach who demands accountability and does not reward failure, lack of effot or concentration (e;g, Rosario)…To put it another way, a coach who gives playing time based upon ability and effort rather than favoritism (which I reiterate is the reason I believe this team has quit)….
LOL
Sad that that would be a criterion…it should be a given with any coach!
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
True
but if it ends up being Guerrero making the hire, these types of requirements should be documented ahead of time. We should also add that we require UCLA’s next HC to come from a football background. We realize that there are many fine water polo and volleyball coaches out there who love UCLA and would work their tails off to break into the Morgan Center coaching ranks, but turning around UCLA football requires special qualifications!
Student Here with his first post
Hello Bruins Nation.
I hope to be a voice of the student body on these parts. Trust me, as painful as it is for you faithful alumni to sit through this garbage, it’s worse as a student when your classmates accept the level of ineptitude while you boil and want to slap them sideways.
As for new coaches, I wrote an article on Bleacher Report (yes I acknowledge its shortcomings) and threw out 4 suggestions.
Leach
Sumlin of Houston
McElwain and Smart from Alabama
It appears J Gold agrees with my premise that the demise of
Rn is directly related to the lack of accountability, the playing of favorites…
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.
