Dan Patrick/Pat Forde: UCLA Must Change Coaches, Culture

by Achilles on Nov 1, 2011 2:06 PM PDT

We caught the Dan Patrick Show this morning. He had Pat Forde on as a guest. Forde, we gather from listening, recently made a switch from covering college football for ESPN to covering it for Yahoo. (ESPN staffers are not allowed on the Dan Patrick Show -- by order of ESPN, not Patrick.)

The discussed Forde's move and some other college football stuff. Eventually they started talking BCS and Boise State and then Dan Patrick brings up UCLA. This is a (very) rough transcript (you can listen to the whole thing here, the UCLA talk starts roughly at the 6:30 mark).

Dan Patrick: What are you gonna do if you're UCLA?

Pat Forde: I'd change coaches, no doubt about it.

DP: I think you've got to change the culture if you're changing coaches. You have to decide if you're all in and I just don't ... I think UCLA is sorta in with college football.

PF: I agree with that ... and damn them for being sorta in ... (some joking about how the SEC would not approve of our ambivalent approach to college football)

DP: I always thought that this was Chris Petersen's job. Is this job beneath the Boise coach?

PF: I would have said yes ... (then he talks about how conference realignment and how he might change his mind ...)

Okay, a few points.

One: Dan Patrick and Pat Forde agree that UCLA needs a culture change along with a coaching change.

Two: As good as Boise State has been, it's still quite revealing to realize that to most or many people, the UCLA job is beneath the Boise State job.

Three: With conference realignment and the big money coming in from the new media deals for the Pac 12, we now have the funds to make the changes necessary. The Pac 12 will be relatively weak next year and the right coach can turn things around and start winning right away. The time is now. We need to hire a proven head coach like Petersen, Meyer, or Leach before the new year.

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 33 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Peterson would be great

I am partial to Leach however, especially after watching that 60 minutes interview someone posted not too long ago. You just get the sense that he gets “it”. Recruiting against the big boys in the midwest (Texas, Oklahoma) and against traditional powerhouses in the SEC he was able to keep his teams winning and relevant.

Under his 10 year tenure Texas Tech had a winnnig record every single year, they went to 9 bowlgames winning 5 of them.

He comes with his share of baggage, as I am sure we all know, but IMO he has the ability to recruit but can back it up with results an offense that has been lacking in Westwood for years.

Now whether the administration is willing to put up with Leach’s history is for another post, but if you ask me, if you want results you got a guy sitting here, raves about the Southern California talent potential as noted in a previous post here on BN, we would be dumb to not take Leach into consideration and at least give him an interview and fair shot at the job.

by uclabruin34 on Nov 1, 2011 10:18 AM PDT reply actions

I don't know who Peterson is

but Chris PetersEn might be great.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Nov 1, 2011 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions

haha

sorry for the typo

by uclabruin34 on Nov 1, 2011 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions

It's not just you

A lot of people here do it. I heard that it’s one of his pet peeves, so if people want to charm him into taking the job, we’ll have to do better at the spelling!

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Nov 1, 2011 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions

Absolutely right, Tas. Come on, people, Chris Potersen isn't that tough to memorize.

by Fox 71 on Nov 1, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions

Hee hee

by Bruinator on Nov 2, 2011 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Why snip out the "perspective" joke that Forde made?

It’s kind of important to recount, because it is a reminder that CFB is not the end-all be-all.

When DP said “I think UCLA is sorta in with College Football”
Pat Forde replied (jokingly) “Yah I agree with that… and damn them [UCLA] for having enough perspective to only be sort of in.”
DP laughed and then said “Yah, what’s wrong with them, where are their priorities?”
Forde: “Yah… the SEC is disgusted with their perspective.”

It’s a funny back and forth, and I don’t think anyone here disagrees that obviously UCLA’s priorities should be as an academic institution first and foremost. However, this joke does have some truth in it, in the sense that there are some within UCLA who see prioritizing academic and athletic excellence as an either/or (hence, Chancellor Block’s silly comments about UCLA admissions hindering UCLA football).

Let’s dispel this myth once and for all:
Having a great Athletic program and having a great Academic institution are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, in an ideal situation, one helps the other. Football can and should generate enough revenue to run itself and other UCLA athletic programs, while also bringing in alumni goodwill for extra funding for the rest of the institution. Conversely, having a strong academic tradition is an excellent recruiting sell for many parents who want their kids to have both a great athletic and academic experience. These things go hand in hand.

by CPOBruin on Nov 1, 2011 1:03 PM PDT reply actions

Achilles clearly indicated that he was doing a rough transcript ...

I doubt he “snipped” anything out intentionally. No one here is suggesting we give up our academic standards. The argument has been that UCLA has used it as an excuse to excel in football more than anything else.

by Nestor on Nov 1, 2011 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions

I snipped it because ...

transcribing was taking too long.

I mentioned it because I wanted to include it —

by Achilles on Nov 1, 2011 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm just going to put this right hee-ya

Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. ~ Vince Lombardi

by MexiBruin on Nov 1, 2011 1:17 PM PDT reply actions

I want to see that in the LA Time

with a caption that reads “THE MORON DYNASTY AT THE MORGAN CENTER IS OVER”.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Nov 1, 2011 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

rec'd

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Nov 1, 2011 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Leach Bandwagon...Not me..I'll go with Petersen

Sorry, but I just cant jump on…

I will admit that I was probably too negative about Leach with regards to the James fiasco, as it is clear the James Gang is a pain in the ass, so who knows what really happened and at this point, who cares.

But if you look at his actual W-L record, there is plenty to be unimpressed about.
How about going 5-15 against the 2 best teams in his conference (OK and TX) with only 3 of the losses being in single digits and several of them being very Dorrell/Neuheisel like complete blow out losses.

Maybe Leach would be the right guy, but to me Chris Petersen has done more with less and doesnt come with the baggage…at least that we currently know of…

by WestlakeVillage Bruin on Nov 1, 2011 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions

I get what you're saying

but Petersen is doing more with less in a conference that is full of “less”.

Recruiting against Oklahoma and Texas is brutal, then having to play against them is brutal. I think Class of 66 will remind you, the defense he had was not the one he wanted.

As far as I’m concerned, Leach’s baggage is more like a fanny pack…I don’t know who would be best for UCLA though.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Nov 1, 2011 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions

I would like Leach, but I would LOVE Petersen

by bruinhoya on Nov 1, 2011 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions

I like both

I like Mike Leach for his brainy and unconventional approach. He’s a buccaneer playing chess. When he talks about making fat guys cover large territories, it’s impossible to dispute his logic. When he talks of consistently sending four and five receivers out, and the impracticality of covering them all, it’s likewise futile to refute. When he talks of probing the opponent for a half or so, in order to find out how they react to various plays and situations, it all makes perfect sense. And, when he talks of using that knowledge in the second half, you can’t wait to watch that second half.

I like Chris PetersenWithAnE because his teams are so well prepared, on both sides of the ball, for every game. The great coaching is evident. Even if the great coaching is coming from his underlings, the Broncos’ crisp games reflect positively on the HC. They’re a well-oiled machine.

I like both because they get the most out of their players. For both, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I like both because what football knuckle-draggers might call “trick plays” are actually bread-and-butter plays. They’re not tricks because they’re so well practiced and they’re part of a grand scheme.

Of course, none of these positives reflect how much each actually wants to coach at UCLA. While Leach seems to be giving off good vibes, PetersenWithAnE’s desires are unknown, at least to me. Also, when we last checked with PetersenWithAnE four years ago, he turned up his nose at the very idea of coaching in Westwood. This time around, anything less than a burning passion to coach Bruins would rule him out, for me.

Otherwise, all things being equal, I’d probably vote for PetersenWithAnE in the primaries, but I’d vote for either in the election.

by Bruinut on Nov 1, 2011 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions

It's a Tough Question

Mainly because as a program, we have to get it right this time…

I am not sure that recruiting against and playing $UC and Oregon is that much different than recruiting against and playing OU and TX.

Fair point about Boise State’s conference being “less”

by WestlakeVillage Bruin on Nov 1, 2011 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions

I think the bigger point there is

recruiting to Lubbock is insanely hard when a kid can choose to go to Austin. The point wasn’t that there were other football powers in his conference, the point was that recruiting to TTU is a difficult task.

by Chris09 on Nov 1, 2011 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions

It's like recruiting to SDSU when there's UCLA and USC

by bluebland on Nov 1, 2011 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions

More like

recruiting to the University of Barstow against UCLA and USC.

Yeah, in Texas, the University of Texas is king. Kids grow up wanting to be Longhorns, Aggies, or Sooners. Not a lot of kids dream of the Methane Fields of Lubbock.

But an awful lot of LA kids want to stay in LA, and if they have the option of Leach’s high-flyin’ offense, that would be very enticing for them.

by palafox on Nov 1, 2011 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Heck, driving through Lubbock at 75 on the highway is bad enough.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Nov 1, 2011 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Baggage

What baggage are you referring to? Shining a light on the internal politics of a shabbily run and corrupt athletics department? Because I think that is even more reason to get Leach coaching in Westwood.

Oh UCLA you sweet bitch, you've BRUINed me for anything else.

by bruin8uclap on Nov 2, 2011 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions