Poll Gives UCLA's Coach Karl Dorrell Dismal Approval Rating

by Nestor on Oct 18, 2006 10:11 AM PDT in Football

PLEASE join us in emailing this article to lonnie.white@latimes.com, brian.dohn@dailynews.com, rkuwada@ocregister.com, kpearson@pe.com, ivan.maisel@espn3.com, and bruce.feldman@espn3.com. Again, please email this post to all of these reporters and then use the tool below to email it to everyone you know who cares about UCLA football. We need to do everything we can to get the traditional media to look into the story of Karl Dorrell being on the hot seat in Westwood. GO BRUINS.

AN ASTOUNDING 8 out of 10 UCLA football fans disapprove of the way UCLA head football coach Karl Dorrell is doing his job, according to an online opinion poll released this week ahead of UCLA's crucial and historic out of conference game against powerhouse Notre Dame.

The poll, conducted by Bruins Nation, an unofficial blog (a daily web journal) run by a group of UCLA alums focused on UCLA athletics, further found that an astonishing 81 percent of respondents disapproved of how Karl Dorrell was handling his job as the leader of the once proud football program. Over 51 percent of respondents strongly disapproved of Coach Dorrell's performance as the head coach of UCLA football. (LINK)

"I can deal with a loss here and there, but when you don't even try to win the game then it's just spitting in the face of loyal fans," said a Bruin football fan who is traveling to South Bend for UCLA's game against Notre Dame. "I simply cannot believe that any fan who has actually watched the football team play a game in the last year and a half could still want Dorrell as the head coach," said another.

Karl Dorrell's overall approval rating hit a high of 50 percent in January of 2005, buoyed by his team's 10 win season in 2005, which ended with a come from behind win against Northwestern in the Sun Bowl, but has steadily evaporated due to his team's chronic underachieving and uninspiring efforts against lower ranked teams, and failure to beat Southern California and ranked teams on the road.

After more than three years in Westwood, Coach Karl Dorrell is 0-8 against teams with winning records on the road, 0-3 against arch rival Southern California, including a 19-66 blow out loss to the Trojans at the Coliseum, one of the most lopsided losses in the history of UCLA football.

Karl Dorrell now has the same winning percentage as his predecessor Bob Toledo, who was fired for constant underachievements and failure to beat arch rival Southern California. Karl Dorrell's record at UCLA is 26-17 for a winning percentage of .605, similar to Bob Toledo, who had a winning percentage of .605 with a record of 49-32. Dorrell has a 16-12 record in the Pac-10 conference, a .571 winning percentage, which is identical to Bob Toledo's .571 winning percentage from 1996 to 2002. Toledo's record in the Pac-10 conference was 32-24.

The Bruins Nation online survey was conducted between October 20 and 25 and received responses from more than 250 voters.

Bruins Nation is one of the largest team-oriented college sports-related blogs and one of the flagship college sites for SportsBlogs Nation. The site has had more than half a million visitors and averages more than 50,000 page views a week.

e-mail this page :: del.icio.us :: digg this

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Folks

Again if you are visiting BN today please make sure to cut and paste the post above and email to:

lonnie.white@latimes.com, brian.dohn@dailynews.comrkuwada@ocregister.com, kpearson@pe.com, ivan.maisel@espn3.com, bruce.feldman@espn3.com, stewart_mandel@simail.com

This is a very easy thing you can do to get the message out on how unhappy we all are with Coach Dorrell. And again please be respectful.

Thanks so much. GO BRUINS.

by Nestor on Oct 18, 2006 10:40 AM PDT 0 recs

Emails on the way

done and done.

by bluestreet on Oct 18, 2006 1:19 PM PDT 0 recs

Nice

I would love to see any responses anyone gets.

by Menelaus on Oct 18, 2006 1:30 PM PDT up 0 recs

FWIW

we have already received this email from CNNSI's Stewart Mandel:

Good stuff - but is it really necessary to have people email me this 50 times? I got it.

Clearly he got the message. We will take his name of the list anove.

by Nestor on Oct 18, 2006 1:34 PM PDT up 0 recs

Not to be a downer, but...

The Times, if they make ANY mention of this, probably won't give this the headline of "8 out of 10 UCLA fans..." They'll probably report it as "One Bruin Fan Blog Reports/ Claims That..."

Technically, it's not even accurate to say "8 out of 10 UCLA Fans" because this isn't a scientific poll of people claiming to be UCLA Fans, so just be prepared for that. Why is it not scientific? Just a minimally-educated hunch, since I took a class on Polling, Public Opinion and Voting Behavior at UCLA in 1992.

Given the history of this particular site, and the possible impression on other Bruin boards that BruinsNation posters are more anti-Dorrell than other message board posters, some backlash or disregard may result.

That being said, if you feel it can have a positive impact on bringing about change in the prgoram, by all means forward it to the Times, the Daily News, OC Register, every media outlet you can, in as rational and respected a way that you can.

Here's hoping we can get a VERY GOOD, PROVEN, MORE THAN CAPABLE coach again... just like we did with Coach Howland.

MIM

by Meriones on Oct 18, 2006 1:24 PM PDT 0 recs

Totally disagree

folks need to something proactive instead of just sitting on their behind and whining.

I am glad BN is doing its part to get the message out. Something I don't see other fans are doing.

No reason to sound so defeatist. I certainly will do my part.

by bluestreet on Oct 18, 2006 1:27 PM PDT up 0 recs

Uhm

If Time does write any story on how upset UCLA fans this will get the story out. Won't it? So far no one is writing about it. It has to start somewhere.

As far as the concern about scientific poll is concerned we get that it isn't. And we didn't make any claim that it was. It's the only poll that is out there. And the message boards certainly doesn't provide any tools to conduct such polls. So this is what we got and given the traffic we have on BN it is pretty decent sampling of what Bruin fans are feeling.

If you have a suggestion on another way to get the message out by all means, but this is a first step in getting our message out. We understand change is not coming overnight.

This is an attempt to ignite a conversation. No reason to sound like Karl Dorrell ... er... I mean a quitter before we have gotten seriously started.

by Nestor on Oct 18, 2006 1:32 PM PDT up 0 recs

Media D-Day...

... is this weekend. They're going to think he's the second coming if he wins, you know, like when Lavin constantly underachieved and then was a genius for getting to the Sweet 16 on talent along.

That's why I am hoping that we win with Dorrell showing some guts in the playcalling(unlikely) or lose (with Dorrell showing his usual timidness). I feel like a "lucky, we punted but look, they muffed it" wing would just buy KD more time as a second-rate coach.

And for the record, I think that anyone who thinks anti-KD = Racism just want to accept the status quo. The "Gutty Little Bruins" that are really a basketball school. BS.

I'll be there Saturday, and look forward to seeing KD show some guts.

by uclaike on Oct 18, 2006 1:37 PM PDT 0 recs

I meant "talent alone"

by uclaike on Oct 18, 2006 1:37 PM PDT up 0 recs

If we win this weekend ...

it will be KD time but I don't think it will provide conclusive evidence of him turning a corner. I will wait to see the end of season results. Because as we saw with Lavin every huge wins were followed by embarrassing losses.

8-9 wins and win over Southern Cal. Get that and I will lay of Dorrell for a while.

by bluestreet on Oct 18, 2006 1:40 PM PDT up 0 recs

Agreed

It is the WHOLE body of work we should be concerned with. Like one loss shouldn't get you ON the hot seat, one win shouldn't get you OFF. Lavin's tenure was tragically prolonged due to his annual second round "surprises".

by godblesstyus95 on Oct 18, 2006 2:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

I didn't see Dan Guerrero

on the list, but I took the liberty of e-mailing him as well.

by godblesstyus95 on Oct 18, 2006 1:48 PM PDT 0 recs

Eugene Nostalgia

I'm married to an OU girl, and we made the journey up to Eugene with 6 friends. Autzen was loud . . . but not that loud. Oregon was good . . . but not that good. The onside kick was ridiculous, but not that ridiculous. The one resounding thing that I left the game with that afternoon was the way the crowd cheered when out-of-town scores were announced . . . when ranked teams fell, the crowd cheered in the hopes that a victory over UCLA would improve their ranking a notch or two. I recalled that feeling once upon a time in the Rose Bowl when the Iowa and Florida games mattered to us because it affected our national ranking . . . oh, the good 'ole days.

by charnaw on Oct 18, 2006 2:01 PM PDT 0 recs

Hurts the Program

I disagree with the approach of creating negative press simply to get a coach fired. This will hurt recruiting and the program.

The negatives, particularly the play calling and the lack of emotion on the sidelines, are clear to everyone, including Mr. Guerrero. If they aren't fixed, a change will be made. We need to support our program, not drag it through the mud in the papers

by MROZE on Oct 18, 2006 2:43 PM PDT 0 recs

another oldie from the Lavin era

Keep quiet about the mess because it hurts the program.

by bluestreet on Oct 18, 2006 2:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

Hurts recruiting?

How has Dorrell's recruiting been so far? Do you think that "silent protest" is going to fool a recruit who can't see with his own eyes what is happening on the field? Do you think that a recruit will make up his mind about a school soley based on negative press born from a passionate fan base upset about the shortcomings of our HC? Finally, are we to stand idle and wait for Guerrero to make a move without putting any heat on him whatsoever? I'm sorry, but your logic doesn't hold up.

by godblesstyus95 on Oct 18, 2006 3:06 PM PDT up 0 recs

I agree with you that there is a lot of negativity

I thought about that too, that this might hurt recruiting. The thing is that most of what people are saying in here is true. Dorrell does seem in over his head, like he is learning on the job. He does have the same record exactly as Bob Toledo. He seems emotionless and intimidated at times on the field. These are all facts. The truth should be spoken, especially by those who love UCLA and the football program. All Dorrell has to do is be more agressive and sure of his team. He needs to become ruthless, like his job depends on it. It's feast or famine with NCAA football. Dorrell seems to have the football I.Q. to be a coach.

by bruin95 on Oct 18, 2006 3:22 PM PDT up 0 recs

It does hurt the program

The program is more than recruiting. Negative press is extremely damaging and all that negativity doesn't help our program and our reputation. Kids ARE influenced by the press. Their friends read the papers as do their parents friends. We don't want recruits needing to defend their decision to attend UCLA because of bad press. We don't want our current players to be put in the position of defending their coach publically. Using negative press to pressure Guerrero does more harm than good. We need acknowledge problems but be firmly supportive in the general press. Send all the letters to Guerrero you want, but let's not beat our program down in public.

by MROZE on Oct 18, 2006 4:00 PM PDT up 0 recs

So does keeping KD

Here's one place we disagree:

Using negative press to pressure Guerrero does more harm than good.

We could debate the degree all day, but, of course, negative publicity is, well, negative.

But I think your argument rests on the false premise that keeping KD around isn't harmful to the program in and of itself.

And, you're being niave to think that administration officials can be trusted to make a change in response to polite letters, without an alumni outcry which, by necessity, would create at least some negative publicity.

by Menelaus on Oct 18, 2006 4:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

I see your point that

maybe going public to the L.A. Times and CNNSI was a bad idea. Letting Guerrero know it privately would have been the best idea, but he should know it either way.

by bruin95 on Oct 18, 2006 4:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

It seems to have worked for Florida

Although negative press does hurt recruiting until the coach under fire leaves, the long term benefits of a successful campaign to replace an incompetent coach with a good coach are well worth it. I seem to remember hearing the same complaints and the same arguments when people in Florida were calling for Ron Zook's head on a platter. The negative publicity does not appear to have hurt them since they are having their best season since Spurrier left.

Although the bad publicity is not great for this next batch of recruits, I will be happy to lose one recruiting class if it means UCLA will finally have a competent head football coach. So I think that sending letters to different media outlets as well as to Guerrero is the best course of action if we really want something done about the football program.

by Rhapsode on Oct 18, 2006 5:15 PM PDT up 0 recs

Zook

Good analogy. The negative press surrounding Zook definitely played a role in the AD's decision to make a move, and it really paid off for UF. They weren't afraid to pull the trigger knowing that the guy they wanted, Meyer, was available. Hopefully Guerrero was taking notes.

by chaphill1 on Oct 18, 2006 8:01 PM PDT up 0 recs

Can you ever remember a coach

who got fired that didn't have at least some negative press that preceded it? Also, what's more damaging to a program: A bad coach getting fired (and presumably replaced with a good one) or 6-6 records every year (and getting the crap knocked out of you by your cross-town rival?)

by godblesstyus95 on Oct 18, 2006 6:16 PM PDT up 0 recs

Agree

I would trade a top 20 recruiting class for 1 win over SC right now.

babyblue98 is way off base.

by alcor805 on Oct 18, 2006 7:04 PM PDT up 0 recs

i agree

some people have made some very valid points, but i agree that it doesn't look good to go directly to the press claiming that the majority of bruins fans don't approve of dorrell. whether that claim is true or not doesn't matter, what matters is that it puts the program in a negative light, which gives a very bad impression to the national media. from a national point of view, ucla is coming off of a 10 win season, with a respectable bowl win, and is dealing with the loss of all of its offensive leaders to the draft/graduation. whether the 10 wins were impressive or not, what coach is going to want to come to a school where the alumni turn on you after two losses, both hostile road games?

with respect to sending the poll to guerrero, i don't understand why people don't give him more credit. we're talking about the guy who fired lavin and brought in howland, and the guy who hired savage. he has a good track record with his other hirings, and he wasn't afraid to pull the trigger on toledo when he wasn't getting the job done. i think dg has proven that he knows what he's doing, and if he wants to wait to see how the season turns out before making any decisions, who am i to rush him.

go bruins.

by roney85 on Oct 18, 2006 11:33 PM PDT up 0 recs

Dorrell was a cheap substitute

We should have gotten Spurrier.
What kills me about this whole thing is last year UCLA was two or three bad breaks from 6-6 instead of 10-2. Dorrell sucked last year and he still is horrible, but he was rewarded with an extension for one decent year in a down Pac-10. You can argue about the quality of the conference all you want but the Pac-10 is average at best right now.
Giving extentions for one year kills programs. Look at Alabama and the money they gave DuBose after a 10 win year- he was gone a year later because they couldn't beat Auburn same with Shula last year. Look at Bama now.
Does this sound familiar to any one?

by Ghost of seven in a row on Oct 18, 2006 10:34 PM PDT 0 recs