Bruin Expectations

by Nestor on Jan 2, 2007 5:07 AM PST in Football Comment 14 comments

I wanted to point you guys to a couple of good posts on expectations wrt to UCLA football and how they compare to expectations for another major powerhouse football programs. As pointed out yesterday, Jason, a Bruin and a (Georgia) Dawg fan (who is also a great contributor on BN) has put together his own blog: What's Bruin, Dawg. Recently, he put up this post concerning the curse of reduced expectations among certain segments of the UCLA fanbase:

UCLA's football program has been mired in mediocrity for years. And it will almost assuredly never recover from this abyss of mediocrity without extensive changes - perhaps I will be proven wrong on this, but I doubt it. Unlike the exhortations of national pundits, UCLA does in fact have a pretty proud football history - a history that includes the second-most Pac-10 championships in the conference (second to, of course, USC). This history includes Rose Bowl appearances in 1942, 1946, 1953, 1955, 1961, 1965, 1975, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1993, and 1998.

However, UCLA's football program has struggled mightily with the theme of 'reduced expectations'. It all started with Terry Donahue. Donahue had a handful of successful seasons - and by a 'handful' of successful seasons, I mean successful seasons in which this guy was playing quarterback. Apart from that, Donahue's tenure was marked by an inability to maintain any sort of momentum from year-to-year. That's typically the hallmark of poor coaching - not poor talent. For example, in 1978, Donahue led the team to a 8-3-1 record, which was followed in 1979 by a 5-6 mark.

In 1988, Donahue (Aikman) led the team to a 10-2 record; in 1989, UCLA dropped to 3-7-1, and essentially never recovered. Donahue's mantra was never to 'win national championships'; indeed, during the whole of Donahue's tenure, UCLA never seriously contended for the national title, despite ample talent. Donahue's stated goal was to compete for a Pac-10 championship, and nothing more. That's what UCLA achieved. As the years went by, all UCLA had to do was post 8 and occasional 9 win seasons, win the Pac-10, and appear in the Rose Bowl, and everyone was happy. This is what mediocrity breeds. It breeds contentment. UCLA football fans have become so complacent that merely 'competing', 'showing up', and stringing together a couple of good wins is more than enough.

Jason makes some good points here. But we are sure he is not generalizing when he is talking about the "UCLA football fans' becoming complacent with just merely showing up. We will concede that there is a segment of UCLA fans (Dorrell apologists) who in their zeal to protecting the coach (in the name of being loyal to the program) have gone out of their way to make excuses for Dorrell. They have gone out of their way to make excuses for underachieving seasons. Lot of these guys, again, are Dorrell supporters, or people close to the program with access to coaches and players, who are just happy with the status quo.

We submit that the growing majority of the UCLA football community is not happy with mediocrity. The results of our current poll is just the latest evidence and the same sentiments are being expressed by Bruin fans in the traditional media as well. There is a reason why this particular community has been experiencing explosive growth since it was launched a little more than a year and half ago. The majority of UCLA fans actually do expect our football program to compete for the Pac-10 championship for every year, and then make a legitimate run for the National title every 4-5 years.

Jason almost missed the point by saying that UCLA's program "didn't recover" after Donahue's 3-7 mark in 1989. That assertion completely misses the mark. The fact is that, following 1989, UCLA won the Pac-10 twice before Dorrell arrived in 2002. During that span, the Bruins also ran off an 8 game winning streak against the Trojans (which will never be matched in the history of this rivalry), and put together a 20 game winning streak, during which they were on the brink of appearing in the National Championship game.

Coach Toledo did change the Donahue mentality of being happy with Pac-10 championships, and established the expectations of competing for a national title. He just didn't turn out to be the right combination of a coach/chief executive that is necessary to put together successful programs in today's college football. However, he did show during that stretch from 1997-99 what can be achieved at UCLA.

FWIW these are my minimum expectations for a UCLA football program under any coach during a 5 year stretch:

8-4 (rebuild first year/ Sun Bowl)
9-3 (Holiday Bowl)
10-2 (win the Pac-10, Rose Bowl or BCS bid/)
9-3 (Holiday Bowl)
10-2 or 11-1 or 12-2 (Rose or BCS or a NC title run)

UCLA should be going to the Sun Bowl in rebuilding years, Holiday Bowl in above-average years, and Rose or BCS bowls in years with veteran groups of junior and senior leaders. UCLA should never, ever be happy or content with bowl games lesser than Sun Bowls during rebuilding seasons. And I really believe that comports with the expectations of the majority of Bruin fans (especially alums who are used to seeing this program contend for the Rose Bowl year in and year out).

So anyways, Jason makes some good points about reduced expectations and how some so-called fans have succumbed to the danger of reduced expectations, but he is missing the point, if he is implying that UCLA has a monolithic football fan base, which is just happy with a fluke or moral victories over Southern Cal, humiliations in minor bowl games, and no sign of competing for conference or national championships. Given the body of work we have built in the Bruins Nation, such a claim would be just silly. And we are sure Jason knows that. So, hopefully, Jason was referring to just a certain segment of the Bruin fan base when referring to people being content with reduced expectations.

Now, one guy who does have the pulse on Bruins Nation is Kyle from Dawg Sports. Kyle took note of Jason's observations above and also of Bruin Blue's guest post here on BN, and wrote up this analysis comparing Dorrell and Goff, former Georgia head coach (alum), who was fired for being mediocre:

Because Bruins Nation has drawn the analogy to other programs and the subject has come up before, I thought I would take a few moments to look at Coach Dorrell's time in Westwood and see how it compares to Coach Goff's tenure in the Classic City.

Both coaches got off to inauspicious starts, with each posting one .500 record and one losing season in his first two campaigns. Coach Goff began his career at Georgia with a 10-13 record, going 6-6 (with a Peach Bowl loss) in 1989 and 4-7 in 1990. Coach Dorrell commenced his stint in the City of Angels with a 12-13 ledger, going 6-7 (with a Silicon Valley Bowl loss) in 2003 and 6-6 (with a Las Vegas Bowl loss) in 2004.

Neither coach was helped by the fact that each opened with an 0-2 run against his local rival, as Georgia Tech peaked in the second half of the 1989 campaign before going undefeated in 1990 and Southern California claimed the A.P. national championship in 2003 before going undefeated in 2004.

In the finest seasons compiled by either of them, Coach Dorrell and Coach Goff each went 10-2 and claimed victory over a Big Ten squad in a bowl game with a fair degree of historical pedigree, as the 1992 Bulldogs beat Ohio State in the Citrus Bowl and the 2005 Bruins beat Northwestern in the Sun Bowl. Nevertheless, both seasons were marred by losses due to defensive lapses and the latest in a series of setbacks to conference rivals Southern California and Florida, respectively.

Coach Goff's last autumn on the job resulted in a 6-6 record in 1995, when the Red and Black concluded the regular season with a close win in a defensive struggle against nearby rival Georgia Tech but squandered the momentum thereby gained when they dropped a 34-27 decision to an A.C.C. squad, Virginia, in a Peach Bowl game played in their home state.

Coach Dorrell's fourth season on the sideline produced a 7-6 ledger in 2006, when U.C.L.A. wrapped up its scheduled slate with a close win in a defensive struggle against nearby rival U.S.C. but squandered the momentum thereby gained when the Bruins dropped a 44-27 decision to an A.C.C. squad, Florida State, in an Emerald Bowl game played in their home state.

Obviously, the analogy between the two coaches is imperfect, as Ray Goff spent seven seasons at his alma mater, posting records of 9-3 in 1991, 5-6 in 1993, and 6-4-1 in 1994.

However, the resumes of the two men are comparable, as the first four years of Karl Dorrell's stay at U.C.L.A. produced a 1-3 record against resurgent rival Southern California, just as the first four years of Ray Goff's time in Athens produced a 1-3 record against resurgent rival Florida . . . a team Coach Goff would not beat again for the remainder of his coaching career.

Furthermore, I sympathize with Nestor because I remember the point at which I came to the same conclusion about Coach Goff that a growing number of Bruins fans are reaching about Coach Dorrell.

Make sure to read the entire post from Kyle. Per Jason, Dorrell is not even worthy of comparison to a mediocre coach like Goff:

[T]here are some significant differences between the respective resumes of Goff and Dorrell, and I wanted to detail these before I get to the crux of my argument. Firstly, while Mr. Goff did have two non-winning seasons to start his career at Georgia (6-6 in 1989, 4-7 in 1990), he followed these records with marks of 9-3 in 1991, and 10-2 in 1992, ledgers which seem to imply that progress was being made. In contrast, Karl Dorrell followed his best mark of 10-2 in 2005 with a disappointing and pedestrian mark of 7-6 in 2006.

So, Mr. Goff did not have three six-loss seasons in his first four years, and showed marked improvement in years 3 and 4. There has been no such marked improvement with Dorrell's tenure. Indeed, the only consistent facet of Dorrell's tenure had been the maddening inconsistency of UCLA's play during these four years.

Well, we will let the Georgia fans hash out that particular point. FWIW Kyle concludes with this note:

Given the similarity of their respective resumes and the propriety of the regrettable fate that awaited Ray Goff, it is appropriate for U.C.L.A. to impose an expectation of "significant improvement" upon Karl Dorrell, much as Vince Dooley demanded of (but did not receive from) the man who succeeded, but could not replace, him.

If Coach Dorrell's Bruins underachieve next year as they have in three of the last four seasons, it will be time for a regime change in Westwood.

At least wrt to its end result, Kyle's analaysis is on the right track.

We are going to be writing post after post in the coming months setting up the expectations for the 2007 football season. And I don't think it is going to be a surprise for anyone in BN, that our expectations are going to be sky high. Going into this year our expectations were at least 9 wins and a victory over Southern Cal. Dorrell failed to live up to it. Nothing short of at least an appearance in a BCS bowl game will be acceptable for 2007. And right now we feel confident that if Dorrell comes up short again, UCLA is going to take action.

Word is getting around from coast-to-coast that the growing majority of UCLA football fans are getting sick and tired of mediocrity and the pimping of reduced expectations, which has been hallmark of the failed Karl Dorrell experiment in Westwood. We don't live in the Donahue (pre-internet) era any more. Times have changed.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Conservative Play Calling

Koach Karl gets a mention in Stewart Mandel's column: Conservative Play Calling

Bob O. (Signholder #3)

by TuneMan7 on Jan 2, 2007 6:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

What do you mean by expectations?

If you mean what should we expect or what are we entitled to expect, then you hit the nail on the head. It is reasonable for Bruins fans to expect that the USC game will be for the Pac-10 championship next year and nearly every year. We do need to set expectations that high. Dorrell should be fired if he doesn't meet those expectations.

That being said, let's not get too excited about the prospect of meeting our expectations next year. I expect no better than 8-5 and probably more like 7-6/. Why? Several reasons.

(1) We have no game-breaking talent on the offensive side of the ball.
(2) We have no offensive creativity (even if we did get a creative OC, his creativity will be stymied by Dorrell [side bar: don't expect us to get a good OC, and expect Dorrell to call plays next year]). This is college football--it's supposed to be fun to watch! Our style of play is unbearably boring and conservative.
(3) our defense is undersized. Not a huge problem but it did spring up from time to time this year.
(4) Our game planning and game management is largely absent, especially on the offensive side of the ball.
(5) Dorrell does a terrible job of incorporating young players into the game. I don't want to get into all the negative effects of this, but suffice it to day that very few of the incoming freshmen will have a discernible impact on games next year, and few of the redshirt freshmen will either. This is in part due to a large number of returning starters who will maintain their jobs merely by showing up. (How else to explain why some of the starters continued to play this year despite poor performance? See Keyes, Dennis.
(6) A continued pattern of inconsistent performances. Following up big performances (even in losses) with complete duds (sometimes even in wins).
(7) We play in a competitive league but have, relative to the league, average talent and a below average coaching staff. Why should we expect to be successful just because we play most of the better teams at home? We proved this year that we can lose even to mediocre teams on the road (Washington, Oregon). We were 1-4 on the road! The best we've done on the road under Dorrell was 3-2 in 2005, and that took two miraculous comebacks against Pac-10 bottom feeders Stanford and Washington and a game against a very poor SDSU team.

I am all for setting expectations high, knowing full well that we are not going to meet them. This could lead to despair, but fear not, true Bruin fans, as long as we here at BN do our job and reach out to the apathetic part of the fan base (the co-dependent Bruins), we will achieve one goal: getting rid of Dorrell when he fails to meet our expectations for what the program should be.

by BruinsRule on Jan 2, 2007 10:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Expectation v. Prediction

The points you made wrt why we will go 8-5 or 7-6 next season is more of your "prediction"

I am not get into "prediction" business here on BN. I never have.

I along with our colleagues will lay out the case why we have the expectation that with the talent already available on its roster, returing starters, and the schedule, UCLA must at least get to a BCS game this season.

We will build that case over the next few months through the off-season.

You may turn out to be right with your predictions. But if that happens UCLA will have to fire Dorrell.

by Nestor on Jan 2, 2007 10:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

New word

It's not really a new word, but I think that we should start referring to Bruins who believe what Dorrell says about progress, corner-turning, being competitive in 17-point losses etc. as "co-dependent Bruins." They are unable to see that by buying what Dorrell says, they are perpetuating the problem. I actually heard a Bruin classmate (and a big fan of the Bruins and sports in general) say with a straight face two days after the FSU game "I like our coach." When I pressed him, he said, "I think he's doing a good job." I replied, "But we are mediocre." "We've been this way for a long time." Indeed we have. And oh, does the truth hurt. We must intervene with these co-dependent Bruins and get them to see the light.

Disclaimer: In using this term, I mean no disrespect to any persons who are or who know someone who is battling a problem with addiction. It is meant merely to emphasize a point entirely unrelated to substance abuse.

by BruinsRule on Jan 2, 2007 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Donahue's downward slide

I still believe that the entire framework for UCLA's fall to mediocrity rests with Donahue's body of work beginning in 1989. Even when Toledo did show up to 'restore' the program, no one on the East Coast took UCLA seriously in the late 1990s. And let's not forget that the Pac-10 was pretty awful in the 1990s, due to USC's absolute suckage during that decade.

Part of this was the inherent 'East Coast Bias' so many of us crow about, but a lot of it also had to do with the fact that many national pundits looked at UCLA during the Toledo years and went "UCLA? National Title? Yeah, right. They haven't been serious about that for years."

Really, the last time UCLA was serious about winning the MNC in football, Tommy Prothro was coaching.

by CAJason80 on Jan 2, 2007 10:51 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

We will have to disagree

UCLA was serious about winning the NC in 98-99.

And in the following years Toledo did put together great recruiting classes, which he failed to develop in addition to losing control over the program.

UCLA was set up incredibly well after 1998. And the mindset had shifted from contendin from Pac-10 to contend for the NC. Toledo and co failed to take advantage of it.

And then when we had an opportunity to cash in after Toledo's firing by hiring a coach like Meyer, Mariucci etc, Carnesale and Blackumn stepped in and got us Dorrell.

And that's where we are today.

by Nestor on Jan 2, 2007 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I don't disagree with your assertion

that Toledo was serious about winning NCs. However, Donahue's mediocrity in the late 80s / early 90s sowed the seeds for everyone to kinda' look at Toledo like he had been stricken with the plague and go "What? National Championships? At UCLA? You're kidding, right?" The Morgan Center never fully devoted themselves to football in late 90s, and the MSM (read: ESPN) never took UCLA seriously in that first BCS season.

I think the response that Toledo got ultimately is what undid him, nevermind his complete lack of institutional control.

I've never understood so many Bruin fans' love affair with Donahue (I know you're not one of them N). Given the talent that Donahue was pulling down in the 80s, he should have produced much better results than four Pac-10 titles in 13 years. And good coaches don't have swings from 8-3-1 (1978) to 5-6 (1979), from 10-2 (1988) to 3-7-1 (1989), from 9-3 (1991) to 6-5 (1992). Was Donahue better than Dorrell? Of course. On most days, my grandmother is a better football coach than Dorrell.

"Down years" are 7-5 / 8-4. "Good years" are 10-2 and better. With the recruiting ground in California, UCLA should never be worse than 7-5 in any given year.

by CAJason80 on Jan 2, 2007 4:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

IMHO UCLA at worst should be an 8-4 team in a "rebuilding" year.

9 wins should be the minimum expectations for a program like UCLA.

BTW good post on UCLA/Georgia Tech comparison. I think you may be on to something there. Although I submit UCLA's natural advantages at least positions to be a program of more consequence than Ga Tech.

by Nestor on Jan 2, 2007 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Quit Bagging on Donahue Already.

Yeah, he had some icky seasons in the 90s.
He also had a much better record in his first 4 years than the current guy.
He also retired with a winning record against SUC.
He won more bowl games than any other Bruin HC.
He had more nine and ten win seasons than any other Bruin HC.
He is still the winningest coach in Pac-10 history (conference games). And, he's shown emotion from time to time on the old sidelines, too.

Yeah, if only this and that in '88 with Aikman, and blada di blah in '80 (when most of the frickin' Conference was on probation).
Yeah, he always talked up opponents (even the Beavers when they were perennially awful) pre-game, and seemed to believe it, too.

And due respect my Blue and Gold Bretheren and Sisteren, but Aside from the period of Light that were the Red Sanders years, and those two or three magical Prothro Seasons, before TD ours was a mediocre football program, halfway filling the Coliseum with disgruntled types waiting for first tip off.

As for Mister Nice Guy Karl - he needs to recognize he is in over his head and step aside. Or Danny G needs to move him aside, and make room for someone who can build a team, not just feed and water it. Just because its football doesn't mean we need to indulge in Lavinization longer.

The Mad Bruin

by lostnacfgop on Jan 2, 2007 1:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Donahue = The Ultimate Underachiever

Dorrell's mentor who championed the concept of playign not to lose.

I still remember this loser going for a FG in last seconds against Arizona (1992) just so he could keep a scoring streak alive (eventhough the Bruins were getting shut out and embarrassed).

Donahue was a mediocre coach who never got the best out of the incredible talent he assembled in Westwood.

by bluestreet on Jan 2, 2007 1:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

In Donahue's defense

I'm not sure of the year, but I think his first game as head coach, he beat pre-season No. 1 ASU on their home field. He did have enough "good" wins to suggest that he knew how to coach.

But in defense of realism, his teams lost a lot of games they should have won. And his play calling stunk. (I remember a game at Stanford that we lost 27-24. Terry sent Theotis Brown up the middle on 4th and 10 with about 20 seconds to go. When he survived that one, I knew he was absolutely fireproof, no matter what his teams did.)

All that said, I would rather have Terry Donahue as head coach (even today) than KD.

by Fox 71 on Jan 2, 2007 2:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

In Donahue's Defense - Part II

Just to expand on that 1976 season a bit; after that 28-3 thrashing of ASU in Tempe he then took the Bruins into Columbus for the rubber match vs. Ohio State (ranked #1 or #2 at the time; can't remeber for sure) a few weeks later that wound up in a 10-10 tie in which we were up 10-7 in the 4th quarter before the Buckeyes rallied to tie it with a late FG. Then, in the culminating game vs. $UC, if it hadn't been for that flukey fumble off of Theotis Brown's leg/knee (he had a hole so big that I could have exploded through it) that conveniently landed into Dennis Thurman's waiting arms; it might very well have been us with at least a piece of that MNC that we have all so desperately wanted.

by Minnesota Bruinfan on Jan 3, 2007 12:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

OK but...

One thing that is often overlooked is that Donahue had a much easier time keeping the talent in Southern California. In the 70's and 80's, it wasn't as easy to travel and live away from home, so players preferred to stay close to home. With cell phones, e-mails and cheap flights, that is no longer the case. I don't think Donahue had to work very hard to land top regional prospects.

by tasser10 on Jan 4, 2007 1:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Not sure that's true

I don't remember who left Southern California (capitalized, to show geography, in contrast to all lower case used to refer to that other alleged school across town) during his time, but I remember that we generally got a few guys from other areas.

The total generality of my comment proves exactly zilch, especially when coupled with the lack of any evidence to back it up.

Moreover, I think I've defended Coach Terry as much as I want. I have to say I was disappointed with him more than I was overjoyed. I remember maybe once where we upset someone else, but we were always ripe for the picking when the other team was the underdog. (His lame performance during whatever bowl game he was at has has contributed to the negative recollections I'm now conjuring up.)

by Fox 71 on Jan 4, 2007 3:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs