Dorrell's Hot Seat (Keep It Heated)

by Nestor on Jan 11, 2007 6:58 PM PST in Football Comment 13 comments

After Dorrell pulled out his only big win of his mediocre career on December 2, good vibes were flowing everywhere and the expectations for his football program's prospect in 2007 went up to a whole different level. Then of course Dorrell being Dorrell, which is a mediocre head coach, went on to lay a giant egg against washed up Florida State in Emerald Bowl. So after four years in Westwood where he was hired to compete for Pac-10 championships and beat Southern Cal, Dorrell has come up with three 6 loss seasons. Not good.

Now we are looking towards Dorrell's 5th season in Westwood, which lot of blowhards shilling for Dorrell (even before the 2006 season started) billed up as the season where UCLA is going to put it together (never mind the fact before 2006 season started Dorrell hyped this team as his best team yet). Nevertheless, here we are. We are stuck with Dorrell for one more season, once again getting ready for the expectations game.

And they are high. It should be high. With the talent and starters returning on this roster, if UCLA doesn't come up with a Pac-10 championship next season, it should immediately fire Dorrell.

Before the Emerald Bowl game ESPN gurus were projecting UCLA to compete for more than just a shot at the Rose Bowl, when they take on Southern Cal in the last regular season game of next season. The expectation still remains high even after the Emerald debacle, as in their latest rankings compiled by Mark Schlabach, they have UCLA checking in at number 20:

20. UCLA Bruins
Why: The Bruins won their last three regular-season games, including a 13-9 upset of USC, before losing to Florida State 44-27 in the Emerald Bowl. UCLA could start 10 seniors on defense next season, and coordinator DeWayne Walker proved to be a great tactician in the upset of the Trojans. Likewise, the Bruins should lose only one starter on offense -- center Robert Chai -- and two experienced quarterbacks, Patrick Cowan and Ben Olson, will battle for the starting job.

Why not: This will be a very important season for coach Karl Dorrell, who seemed to be on his way out until UCLA upset rival USC. The Bruins lose only three regulars, but two of them were All-Americans: first-team kicker Justin Medlock (28-for-32 field goals) and second-team defensive end Justin Hickman (12½ sacks).

UCLA is also showing up in top15 in Stewart Mandel's pre-season projections at CNNSI as well as other rankings as noted in our diaries. Moreover, Sporting News Matt Hayes has UCLA in his top-10:

6. UCLA: Believe it, people. The Bruins will be good -- very good. A stingy defense returns 10 starters (DE Justin Hickman is gone), and the offense loses only C Robert Chai. QB Pat Cowan did a nice job managing the game in the second half of last season, but the job belongs to Ben Olson, who was 4-1 as a starter before injuring his knee. He is an elite quarterback, and the offense will blossom next season if he stays healthy. Young LB Reggie Carter will be the best at his position in the Pac-10 -- better than anyone on USC's star-filled group.

Then again its same the Matt Hayes who wrote this piece on KD before the 2006 season, declaring that KD's 2006 team had more talent and were bigger and stronger than his previous 3. So he is kind of tool with no credibility. Anyways we are more than happy to use that kind pronouncement from a KD supporter on what kind of expectations should be set for Dorrell's fifth season.

Going back to Schlabbach's ESPN rankings, he made couple of interesting points in his blurb on UCLA.. By labeling the upcoming season a "very important" one for Dorrell, Schlabach basically lays out the gauntlet for probably the worst coach in the history of UCLA football, putting him on the hot season this off-season. Mark Schlabach then official put Dorrell on the hot seat in this followup article from bowl season:

Hot seats. These coaches could have used bowl victories to quiet the critics but didn't get them: Clemson's Tommy Bowden, UCLA's Karl Dorrell, Purdue's Joe Tiller, Oregon's Mike Bellotti and Texas A&M's Dennis Franchione.

So going into next season we shouldn't be coming across any rubbish, feel good puff pieces in the traditional media about how Dorrell is getting the job done in Westwood. Second, I thought it was interesting how the article also implies how Dorrell might have been on his way out before the game against Southern Cal. That should put to rest all the baseless assertions by Dorrell apologists during this past season, how he wasn't going anywhere and that how his job was safe.

Get ready folks. Dorrell is now on the hot seat. The huge win on December 2, 2006 did nothing to take pressure of this mediocre head coach. The expectations (deservedly) are going to be sky high going into this season, and he will not have any more excuses to hide behind should he come short against to win the Pac-10 in his fifth year in Westwood.

What's ironic is that Dorrell probably doesn't even want to be at UCLA. Even if he delivers on his expectations and win the Pac-10 next season, he will probably jump at the first opportunity of going to the NFL. Just compare the situation to our basketball coach. Our basketball coach in every opportunity he gets gushes about our university, embrace the legend of Coach Wooden, and embrace this Nation's high expectation. While on the football front all you get is having the head coach's name pop up in coaching searches for random pro and college teams in the nation (don't think it's happening just by accident ... Dorrell's name is not showing up magically in various lists). Yeah, I don't buy the BS spin (coming from his supporters) about how Dorrell is such a loyal Bruin.

So it behooves us that we do everything we can to keep up the pressure and make sure that Dorrell remains on the hot seat heading into 2007.

To date in terms of bottom line he has done nothing to earn confidence of the Bruin Nation.

We will build the case over next few months on why any head coach with reasonable competence with the current talent available on UCLA's football roster should win the Pac-10 conference in 2007. If Dorrell doesn't exhibit that competence next season and not deliver on the reasonable expectations of a Pac-10 championship in his fifth year in Westwood, we are going to put all out pressure on Dan Guerrero to pull the trigger. And if DG does not pull the trigger at that point of time, we will probably shift our focus higher than the head coaching position of UCLA football.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Insanity

I seriously have to wonder if any of these writers, who seem to think so highly of our team next season, have seen this team play more than a game or two under Dorrell? Maybe they just watched the game against SC and nothing else.

Any UCLA football fan with half a brain can see that next year's team under Dorrell will just be another disappointment. Aside from the same mediocre players getting a year older, what will be changing next season? Nothing. We'll have a favorable schedule? Great. Dorrell and the team will find a way to screw it up.

Pac 10 title? National title? Anybody who has watched this team closely over the past four years knows that the coach and the team will find a way to disappoint.

Karl Dorrell is not a winner and he has not recruited winners. Time and time again this program has failed to achieve with Dorrell. That will not magically change in the future.

by Bruin Roar on Jan 11, 2007 7:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of half-brains ...

Could someone remind me whether we played ANY complete games in 2006. My recollection is that we either played a decent first half (Washington) or a passable second half (Oregon), or the defense played well (SuC) or the offense kept up (Or maybe not). But I just can't remember a single game when the offense AND the defense played an entire game.

The truth is I can barely remember Dec. 2.

by wmacfadyen on Jan 11, 2007 9:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Despite the fact that KD will probably fall flat

and will once again find every way possible to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it doesn't change the expectations.

It is encouraging that other outlets see the potential not just next year but the potential in the program, because this makes for a damning argument if KD should blow it next year. The potential is widely recognized. It takes a coach to get the most out of it. He will have nowhere left to run after next year. No faulty argument or excuses left to hide behind. We will be watching closely.

by Tydides on Jan 11, 2007 7:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Also

The way Pom Pom had SUC playing against Michigan; and the way Dorrell embarrassed our program against Florida State, I am suppose to believe that he will the beat them for the Pac-10 title?

Everyone gets lucky once in their lives, and his special day was Dec 2nd 2006. He can't coach, plain and simple!

by abby8065 on Jan 11, 2007 9:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

And he can't recruit

I read somewhere that the Bruins amassed exactly ONE five-star recruit during KD's tenure. That one - BO - was kindly asked to sit during the dark green bowl.

I also saw a list somewhere showing how the top ranked team the past few years did in terms of five-star recruits. I don't remember the details, but there sure was a corelation. (Perhaps one of the number crunching people here could look into that and provide the details.)

We have a coach who can't recruit or coach. Basically the entire world perceives this (even those who pick UCLA's players to manage themselves into a good season.) What is it that keeps the Athletic Department from pulling the trigger and putting him and us out of our collective misery?

by Fox 71 on Jan 12, 2007 5:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We Will Only Get Rid of Him When ...

... he chooses to leave.

Short of a complete and total collapse -- like a 3 win season, he will never be fired. It is clear that we will accept mediocre 7 win seasons and that he will be immune from the consequences of a disappointing year.

Win 8 games next year, and he's safe. Because, 8 is better than this year.

And then, in 2008, he will be allowed to stay with a 5 win season because "he lost all those senior from 2007"

The standards seem to keep shifting. That's why, in a previous post, I called for a "contract for excellence" for next year. I want DG to make clear to KD, and the entire Bruin Nation, that he expects to win the Pac 10, beat sc, go to a BCS bowl and that he expects a team that "fires out" during the ENTIRE game on both sides of the ball. I want a contract to make clear that if he doesn't get all of those things, KD is gone. No excuses.

Yes, the bar should be set high for next year. Winning the Pac 10, a BCS bowl, that should be the standard. According to what we are reading, now, that should be within reach.

BUT IT WAS WITHIN REACH THIS YEAR. And, there were no consequences for failing to come close.

We lost games we should not have lost. We won one big game that no one said we would win; but it was a rivalry game and those things happen.

We had a mediocre season with players KD had recruited, a team he called his best yet, a system he had 4 years to put in place, with second and third generation coaching selections -- to replace past failures and to serve up as this year's scape goats -- and, a team that has been a "work in progress" with no evident progress.

I cannot believe that the debacle against FSU did not rekindle the flames for change. Yes, here at Bruins Nation, all of the right arguments were made -- but everywhere else it was assumed that he had earned the right to come back and try again next year.

Talk about a halo effect, the sc win seems to have blinded a big part of the Bruin family and those in the administration responsible for the program.

I loved that victory -- but really, was it an example of coaching genius? Yes, the D played well. But the offense? How many people can honestly say that they were not worried during sc's last drive?

Was it a fluke? KD had a chance to prove it was not.

The Emerald Bowl was KD's chance to show that he had really turned the corner. Instead, it proved he had thrown the program in reverse.

I was there. It was absolutely terrible. Terrible.

So, today we are caught in the perfect Catch 22. To get rid of him he needs to win 10 games so that he can go pro. He isn't capable of winning 10 games. So he won't go pro.

If he doesn't choose to leave. He will be here a while.

Oh, how we need a 10 win season next year. Not just for next year, but for the future of this program.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Jan 12, 2007 5:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Coaching means everything

That is the title of an article written by Matt Hayes, which is somewhat surprising given his prediction for UCLA next season as Nestor has shown.

However, one interesting point is how many teams won national championships with new coaches...IN THEIR SECOND YEAR!!! Jim Tressel at Ohio State, Pom Pom at U$C, Urban Meyer at Florida. Even Larry Coker did it in his FIRST season at Miami. So the old adage about needing to "build" and "grow" a program is no longer valid. But the most telling part of the article for me was the following:

I spoke with Saban about a month before his fourth season at LSU, and he said the difference between a five-loss team and a championship season is closer than anyone could imagine. He talked about chemistry, about every player knowing and accepting his role.

"If a coach can get his players to buy into it," Saban said, "he has won the battle."

Do our players buy into Dorrell? Because I know we don't.

by tasser10 on Jan 12, 2007 7:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I said my piece elsewhere

but it's nothing new. KD is a proven commodity. He is mediocre. He is bland. He is neither dead nor alive. That sort of tepid, lukewarm approach to life might possibly work in some careers,although I have yet to see such a personality who was a success at anything by any measuring device. But is absolutely will NOT work as a head football coach.

How do I know this? I offer as Head Coach Karl Dorrell as Exhibit A.

I am not willing to give him next year. He has done nothing to deserve another year at the controls. He has given the program nothing but mediocrity. He has failed to live up to the goals he set for the team or that the Athletic Director set for the team.

When I was in the corporate world, we had a word for people who failed to meet their goals on such a consistent basis. They were called ex-employees. And later as an attorney, we used that same term to describe associates (and partners) who failed constantly.

No more.

by Fox 71 on Jan 12, 2007 10:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Why Haven't We Mellowed With Age?

You and I seem to be the real hard liners -- we think KD does not deserve to come back for "one more season".

You speak from a business perspective. I speak from an academic background.

As a Professor Emeritus at a Big 10 Law School, I can tell you that Dorrell's kind of mediocirty would not be tolerated in any academic department on any campus. Were he a teacher he would be getting clear messages that his "body of work" was not meeting university standards, that he would not be granted tenure, and that he ought to find employment elsewhere.

UCLA would not tolerate this type of mediocrity in a teacher. Why UCLA will tolerate mediocrity in a coach, who is paid substantially more than any faculty member, in part BECAUSE coaches do not have job security, is beyond me.

Coaches are teachers. We expect our teachers to grow, year to year. And, we expect their students to show growth. We expect "star faculty" to attract star students.

Many great people, people of character, likeable people, are sent packing because they cannot meet traditional standards of excellence.

From your post, it is clear that the same can be said of people who don't cut it in the business world.

Sometimes, I think that us older Bruins are less tolerant of people like Lavin and Dorrell because we have seen, with our own eyes, excellence in both the football and basketball programs.

I hope we are not perceived as mean or intolerant. I just don't see why we are not looking for a new coach, now. We certainly would be looking at candidates to fill his teaching spot were he a traditional faculty member.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Jan 12, 2007 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's time to hold Guerrero accountable

We do seem to be a little more strident in calling for Coach Dorrell's departure. I think we need to be even more vocal with Guerrero, and if he's not responsive then maybe he needs to be replaced as well.

There has been talk about a "contract" for Dorrell, stating what must be accomplished next year. But why? What more needs to be demonstrated? Coach Dorrell made it clear that his minimum expectations were to compete for the conference championship and beat sc every year. He has not competed for the conference championship, and he had one win (albeit a glorious one) against sc.

One year out of four. If he were a pilot, one successful landing out of every four flights would not be a good record. Lawyers don't win every case, but no attorney I've worked with, reported to or had report to me was so thoroughly unable to compete, so absolutely unprepared, and so constitutionally unwilling to change the things that were consistently not working.

I don't think any rational person could in good faith conclude that Coach Dorrell was doing a good job, unless the definition of a "good job" is something different from what we were told it was (competing for the conference championship and beating sc). Has Dan Guerrero decided that we simply are not going to try for excellence in any sport? I was prepared to draw that conclusion until he fired Lavin and replaced him with Howland, a proven winner. But until Dan decides that the great experiment with Dorrell has run its course, then I must conclude that the real problem is with Guerrero. Dorrell is a hopeless incompetent who was put in a position that was too big and complicated for him. The fault for that hire must be on Guerrero.

DAN, LISTEN PLEASE. NO MORE DORRELL! HE'S NOT A GOOD COACH! REPLACE HIM NOW, NOT AFTER HE LEADS THE TEAM TO ANOTHER LACKLUSTER, SUB-STANDARD YEAR!

If Dan can't hear that, he's not listening.

And last but not least, what's the status of the petition? Was it presented?

by Fox 71 on Jan 12, 2007 11:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We're with you

I think a lot of us have actually seen excellence in both football and basketball (not to mention a myriad of other sports). During my time there we went to the Rose Bowl, beat JustSC every year, and won a national championship in basketball. The 90's was mostly very good in that sense.

I think as far as next season goes, however, we are resigned to the fact that Dorrell will be back, or at least I am. We are not saying that it is wise or acceptable, hence we should most certainly keep the heat on Dorrell and Guerrero so they know how serious we are. Expecting KD to be fired at this point is unrealistic unless they have the perfect candidate lined up, and even we cannot settle on one.

by tasser10 on Jan 12, 2007 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My new acronym - ABCD

Anyone But Coach Dorrell.

Here's my short list of candidates I would rather have instead of KD as head coach.

Jim Peterson
Marvin J. "Tex" McKown (football coach at my alma mater, Lynwood High, in 1964, and probably deceased at this point.)
Anyone on Nestor's list.
Nestor
SJH - class of '66
Me.
Jack Nicholson
Ronald McDonald (but not the one who molested kids)

I think you get my point.

by Fox 71 on Jan 12, 2007 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Clinical Trials

I would love to see the placebo effect on this team. i.e., a team with no head coach next year vs. a team with KD as the head coach. We'll see if he has any effect (good or most likely bad).

by tasser10 on Jan 13, 2007 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs