What We Do Not Want In Our Next Football Coach

by Nestor on Nov 30, 2007 7:43 AM PST in Football Comment 45 comments

Let's look beyond tomorrow's game against Southern Cal, the outcome of which should have no bearing on the status of Karl Dorrell's tenure at UCLA. To date we have had a number of interesting discussions on coaching candidates here on Bruins Nation, and lot of the thoughts we have posted here, have trickled into the media.

Now this is my gut feeling. My hunch right now that a coaching search process has already been underway. In fact, I will be surprised if UCLA officials find themselves (in the background) just at the start of this process, when they are officially on the market for a new coach. I'd imagine if Dan Guerrero, is a prudent and diligent AD, he has already done this preliminary research (unlike last time he didn't have a basketballs coaching search to obsess over and the football one is not going to be an unanticipated project like it was in 2002). More on that later (may be next week).

Now as this drama gets played out in public and in the back channels, I'd like to articulate our principles (and many thanks to Meriones for helping with starting the thought process on laying these points out) re. what we do no want in our next football coach. We have already had discussions on what we are looking for in our next coach here, here and here.

We are not going to accept any candidate as a viable or credible option as UCLA football's coach, if he falls into any of this following 4 categories:

1. NO RETREADS: We will not accept any coaches whose names always seem to pop up when there's a vacancy somewhere, and keep getting jobs in spite of themselves. Moreover, we don't need coaches whose name will pop up, but they will always bring some baggage. Names like Bowden, Leach, and even Francione. Yes, I included Leach's name in there. He is an interesting and colorful guy with Southern California connected. We ourselves were intrigued at times over the years, until we realized his team still hasn't showed the ability to play good defense, and he still hasn't learned to project cool, composed, and in control demeanor (see Howland and Savage) that will be necessary at high profile UCLA, located in the second largest media market in the United States.

2. NO RETIREES: College athletics and specially college football and basketball is almost a 24/7-365 day gig. I mean just look at our Coach Howland. The man doesn't let up. And we need someone like him, who is going to come here and dive right into a rebuilding project that is going to require incredible amount strategic and focused hard work, and all out commitment to restore the tradition in our program (going beyond using flowering clichés in television interviews). We will need a coach who is not going to be content with delegating recruiting efforts to talented assistants (we realize their importance). We have had enough of CEO types of coaches who have been billed as strategic "thinkers" and delegators. UCLA should not be a place where a 60 something retiree can come in and expect to sail through his name alone. There is a good chance a head coach in his 60s may not want to handle the rigors of recruiting, going straight up against the ferocious efforts of Pom Pom (or someone like Del Rio who may step in when he escapes to the NFL) leaving us vulnerable to down years when our best- recruiting assistants take other jobs ( e.g. Eric Bienemy, Tom Cable). In other words we have no interest in Rich Brooks or in Norm Chow (who by the way do not have any experience as a college head coach, that will disqualify him under our category number 4).

3. NO REPEAT OFFENDERS: This is simple. Unlike the losers across town we don't want to live with the idea of the NCAA breathing down our necks, and have a permanent target on our backs. So no Rick Neuheisel. Personally this is a tough one for me because I still have a soft sport for Coach Neuheisel, but unfortunately he brings too much baggage. And from the rumor mill, it sounds like DG could be with us on this.

4. NO "RETAINERS": This should be very simple. UCLA should not be a training ground for coaches who do not have any head coaching experience. Period. Really young coaches who still aren't battle-tested with HC experience do not need to apply for this job. That means NO to DeWayne Walker.

In addition to the four categories we outlined above, I would also add that we are not going to accept any kind of combo package, which will still fail any of those four tests outline above.

For example, a package deal of Norm Chow as HC, and DeWayne Walker as an assistant coach will not be acceptable in Bruins Nation.

Again we are not going to stay silent if the Morgan/Murphy Center brain trust once again allow one of our major program to fall into the trap of fantasyland, dreaming that some promising assistant will blossom into a head coach. We have no doubt about Chow's credentials as an offensive wizard. And DeWayne Walker through all his self promoting over the years (I have heard from sources it was him planting the WSU story in the media to make himself look more marketable) in the eyes of some delusional UCLA football fans has established himself as some kind of promising coaching prospect. But that doesn't mean the notion of Chow as HC who can come in here for 3-5 years, establish an offensive scheme, and then hand of the reins of to Walker will work. That is just silly. All these fantasy land scenarios were dreamt up with Farmer, Hazzard, Lavin, Toledo, Dorrell et al, in which UCLA administrators were looking for the easy way out buying into the romanticized notions of assistants growing into successful coaches. But we have had enough of coaches "growing" and "learning" in their positions as head coach.

There is a reason Chow was rejected by 4 schools. He has no personality whatsoever, which will be devastating in recruit trails. Yeah, I will hear some argument about Coach Howland not being all that smooth either. But Coach Howland knows how to play it straight, and had experience based on 9+ years of experience as an head coach, who turned around and built two different programs. Chow's experience is no where close to that. Moreover, I don't like the idea of a Walker hovering around as a defensive assistant -- head-coach-in-waiting -- figure. It will be imprudent for UCLA to even consider this scenario, because I doubt it will take 2 years for all the Walker lackies around the program to plant stories about how Walker is ready for prime time, looking to push the HC out of the door. The way they have acted on the BRO boards, it didn't take them that long to throw Walker's boss under the bus. And we don't need to go through that routine again in 2-3 years.

So here is my emphatic no to entertaining any combination package of Chow and Walker who fall under one of more of the categories enumerated above.

Hopefully starting Monday, the coaching search will become public. And as we get consumed in those discussions, I myself will not personally campaign for any specific coach. Sure I have thrown the name of Spurrier out there, but that was more to start the discussion. I just want to make sure there is a credible and legitimate hiring process is in place (if it hasn't been unfolding already), but I also want to make sure UCLA picks a candidate, with legitimate head coaching experience, who will be the right fit and give us the best chance to succeed. I do know that I am not going to advocate for throwing our support behind any candidate who falls under one of the four categories listed above. If UCLA picks any coach (or combination thereof), Dan Guerrero will find himself where he finds today, a divided Bruin Nation.

Hopefully he will not make that mistake.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 45 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Sorry to disagree

Since the site has always been amenable to frank discussion without name calling (save for the Dorrellista who were/are commited to mediocrity), I disagree regarding Leach. Someone with passion and fire (e.g., calling incompetent officials incompetent...wait until he sees Pac 10 officials)and one who clearly is a an offensive genius is not a retread. Granted his defense at Texas Tech has been lacking, but that should not disqualifiy him any more than Saban and Spurrier would be disqualified because this year they have significant losing streaks. I find Leach to be a significant upgrade. Furthermore, I am okay with Mariucci as well. Check out his NFL record with the 49ers. LOok at the 49ers after he left...(Of course Donahue played his usual destructive role). I am also okay with the Boise State and BYU coaches as they have proven records of success. Again, it is career wins and losses that I use as my barometer. I am sorry, I am okay with Leach or Mariucci. I am not okay with Neuheisal (destroyer of programs---Washington, Colorado), or senior citizens sucha s Brooks or Chow...Just my opinion....

by Gary72 on Nov 30, 2007 7:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Mariucci

I have no problems with. Leach I am not crazy about. I am just not sold on him.

by Nestor on Nov 30, 2007 8:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You should warm up to Leach, Nestor.

I have it on excellent authority that Mike Leach will be UCLA's next football coach. It has been a done deal for the last 10 days or so and Dorrell will be fired no matter what happens within 48 hours of the SC game.

The Air Raid is coming to Westwood.

by Passer on Nov 30, 2007 10:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good for you Passer

But a lot of people here talk about "having it on excellent authority", about being "connected to wealthy alumni", and all that jazz. We don't deal in rumors here. If you care to share your source and confirm the validity of your comment, that's one thing. Otherwise, we can't give much credence to your claim until what you say actually happens.

Personally, I think Leach with an improved Walker could work out. It's not the homerun hire I would like, but it's a definite improvement.

And get yourself another nickname! I'm Tasser! :)

by tasser10 on Nov 30, 2007 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I have a good feeling

about Leach, but only if we keep Walker as DC

by uclaov1 on Nov 30, 2007 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Walker

So from what we are hearing this guy himself floated the rumors about WSU considering him as a HC. The guy is a self promoter. If if he is the DC in next regime, I think it will be a matter of time before his supporters start campaigning for him to take over. The guy sounds a little shady and too much of a self promoter.

by Nestor on Nov 30, 2007 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Walker Should Go To

Sorry, but he has not distinguished himself in his time here.

Well documented and discussed here, so I won't say more.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Nov 30, 2007 9:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Mike Leach would be a good hire. As mentioned before, I like the idea of leach and Ken Norton Jr. working together.

I want Paul Johnson, but I would have no problem with Mike Leach. I can only imagine his time in Texas would help us recruit in Texas.

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Nov 30, 2007 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure if this is

true but I can live with a Leach hire. Mendenhall would be my top choice but Leach hasn't had a losing record yet at TT in 7 yrs (and is in the much more competitive South half of the Big 12). He is gonna need a competent DC but how can you not like his offense...

by gorams77 on Nov 30, 2007 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

OT--weather

It is raining cats and dogs right now in San Diego.

I think the forecast called for a 30% chance of rain on Saturday in L.A. That forecast may have changed. I think a nice downpour will help to keep the game close.

by Barnes2JJ on Nov 30, 2007 8:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

RB/Poway hills are getting drenched . . .

Yeah, Barnes, its comin' down up "North" too.

Hey Nestor, my soft spot for Skippy is larger than yours. I hate to see him "off" the list of replacements. I think younger people can learn things, and that Skippy shoulda been the hire in 2003 instead of Coach Crouton.

The Mad Bruin

by lostnacfgop on Nov 30, 2007 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The recent fires can't have helped...

... as loss of trees and brush has to effect drainage and the sheer integrioty of hillsides.

Good luck, everybody. Stay safe.

"Because I'm tired of it. Year after year after year after year having to choose between the lesser of 'Who cares?'"

by Meriones on Nov 30, 2007 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Has It Ever Rained During A UCLA-USC Game?

In all the years I've been following UCLA (since the late 60's), I do not ever remember it raining during a UCLA-USC game. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?

by Minnesota Bruinfan on Nov 30, 2007 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's 10:21 p.m. UCLA time

and it is still POURING down here in San Diego.

I'm praying for heavy dowpours during the game.

If we can get a few fumbles and/or SC's so-so receivers drop a few balls, we may only lose by 40.

by Barnes2JJ on Nov 30, 2007 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Chow/Walker

I will give it 2 years when we have idiots like lawman22 shilling for Walker as HC and badmouthing Chow, if that combination becomes a reality.

It's the worst idea ever.

by bluestreet on Nov 30, 2007 9:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for picking up the ball, N.

Great post.

Instead of doing the easy way, out, let's all hope that DG GETS IT RIGHT and avoids the 4 Rs above in favor of 4 DIFFERENT R's.

(1) A RECHARGE, NOT A RETREAD -- PETERSEN, BSU.

Even with the loss to Hawaii over Turkey Coma Weekend, Petersen has accomplished a lot in a very short time. I doubt that the ESPN piece on Petersen's job prospects during Thanksgiving Week was a 100% coincidence; somebody, somewhere is bound to be asking about him already.

Yes, any HC hire is a risk. Still, rather than take on a career 7-wins-per-year coach with an eye toward minimizing potential damage and blowback, why not take on a relative newcomer that actually has shown creativity, guts, the ability to maximize talent, AND a 23-2 record with a BCS WIN in less than two full years??? By contrast, KD needed more than 3 seasons to get as many Ws, and STILL hasn't sniffed the BCS.

PROS:
23-2 as HC (2nd season).
5 years as offensive coordinator (under Hawkins at BSU).
Balanced, yet aggressive offense, including different spread formations.
2006 Bryant Coach of the Year.
Former QB, good at developing QBs.
Can also develop/ maximize running backs (Ian johnson, also RB by committee)
West Coast ties (UC Davis grad, Oregon coaching tree).
Currently working on public university contract ($150,000 base).
7 total years at BSU (OC and HC) to date.
43 years. old.
Can recruit people to BOISE, IDAHO, for heaven's sake.
BSU currently 9th in Total Offense, 21st in Total Defense.

CONS:
Still only 2nd year as HC anywhere.
May be reluctant to leave BSU so early after getting his big break there.
Worked primarily in smaller media markets.

BONUS POINTS! As stated before, the best single-game resume of any candidate (Fiesta Bowl 2007). The Old Hook and Ladder AND the Old Statute of Liberty in the same down-to-the-wire Bowl Game? Are you freaking kidding me?!?

(2) A REBOOT, NOT A RETIREE -- MENDENHALL, BYU

The last time that UCLA hired a defense-first coach with actual HC experience turned out pretty darn well for us. Bronco Mendenhall could be that guy for us. The fact that he has adjusted his defensive schemes to account for different talent and recruitment concerns as DC at New Mexico and as HC at BYU is a clear plus.

PROS:
27-10 as HC of BYU (3rd season)
13+ years as defensive coordinator (incl. 2 yrs at BYU and 5 yrs at NM under Rocky Long).
Aggressive defensive style.
Big-game capability (beat Oregon in Bowl Game 2nd year).
2006 Finalist, Eddie Robinson Coach of the Year.
West Coast ties (degrees from OSU).
41 years old.
5 total years at BYU (DC and HC) to date.
Can run a program that complies with BYU's code of conduct.
BYU currently 20th in Total Offense, 9th in Total Defense.

CONS:
Still in only 3rd year as HC anywhere.
Working on restoring tradition at BYU; maybe reluctant to leave.
Mostly smaller media markets to date.
Working on private university contract, potentially higher buyout.

BONUS POINTS! One of the best sports names ever: "Bronco." Niiice.

(3) A REBUILDER, NOT A REPEAT OFFENDER -- JOHNSON, NAVY.

This pick has grown on me. Johnson has coached versions of the spread at Hawaii, and the triple option at Navy. Net result -- he WINS. Add on the fact that Navy presumably has comparable academic standards to us, and Johnson seems well-equipped to recruit, adapt, and excel.

(Note: Given reports throughout the season of Montana players getting arrested for everything from assault with a beer bottle to murder and kidnapping, as found by our own silverlakebruin, I am taking Hauck off of my personal list.)

PROS:
28-21 as HC of Navy (6th season)
2-2 in Bowl Games (W - Emerald, Poinsettia; L - Meineke and EV1)
62-10 at Georgia Southern (I-AA, finishing 1st or tied-1st in conference every season).
10+ years as HC.
10+ years as offensive coordinator (incl. 2 yrs at Navy and 7 yrs at Hawaii).
Versatile offensive expertise.
1998 Eddie Robinson Coach of the Year.
50 years old.
8 total years at Navy (OC and HC) to date.
Navy currently 16th in Total Offense.

CONS:
Perceived lower-pressure environment at Navy (come on, they're a MILITARY academy).
Slightly higher pay than other candidates ($1M vs. $900K for Mendenhall and $850K for Petersen).
May be viewed as merely an "option coach."
No apparent West Coast ties other than Hawaii.
Navy currently 107th in Total Defense.

BONUS POINTS! For a ship lost at sea, we turn to a Navy man. Not bad.

(4) NOT A RETAINER -- AGAIN, NOT A RETAINER!

After what has occurred in the Dorrell Era, not to mention the Lavin Era does this REALLY need a detailed explanation? Does anyone think that DG REALLY wants to hire another HC that has NEVER held the reins before for one of its two highest-revenue sports?

Didn't think so.

OK, now I REALLY have to get back to work.

"Because I'm tired of it. Year after year after year after year having to choose between the lesser of 'Who cares?'"

by Meriones on Nov 30, 2007 9:14 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Applause

Great post. Thanks for taking the time. Well worth taking a break from work.

by BlueReign on Nov 30, 2007 10:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice list

Those 3 are my top choices. I can be swayed to liking Leach but right now I'd rather have one of the other 3. I think Paul Johnson is my favorite.

by Raisin on Nov 30, 2007 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm all for Johnson

You forgot three of the more important facts regarding Paul Johnson, all of which make me want him to be our next head coach:

Over the past five years, Navy is #1 in fewest penalties per game. Think about what a huge difference THAT would make at UCLA (Bruce Davis vs. ASU?). Plus, a friend of mine (OL under Toledo) went to a UCLA practice this year, and was disgusted with what he saw: players walking around, equipment half-off, joking around. His quote to me was "Toledo may have been a total POS, but he never would have let us get away with that. He had us way more disciplined than that." Any coach that can get his team to focus and stay disciplined like Johnson has will be successful.
His record is actually 44-29 at Navy in the past six years, and that includes a 2-10 first season (2002). Since Navy was coming off of a 1-20 record the two years prior to his hire, I think we can cut him some slack for that one bad year. So, during the same period that Dorrell has been coaching, Johnson went 42-19. I'd say that's pretty good.
Navy has been no lower than 3rd in the nation in rushing in any of his years as head coach. I would actually say that this is a huge positive, since I believe he could actually make something out of OR. Can you picture it: an OL that actually blocks well, with OR, Moline and Bell running a triple option? I think we'd rack up some points, especially if he could improve OR's accuracy enough that he could pull off the occasional play action.

That said, the defensive and passing deficiencies Navy has shown are worrisome, and I have no idea how well or poorly he recruits. I assume recruiting at the service academies is very dissimilar to recruiting at a Pac-10 school.

Anyhow, my vote is a resounding "Hell Yeah!" for Johnson.

by cupanther on Nov 30, 2007 5:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

gotta pay up...

though, if there is any shot of getting someone worth the trouble. According to an espn piece last week, ucla is one of the worst CFB head coaching jobs in the country. Michigan State was also at the top because after you take over, "you find out that Michigan and Ohio State are in your conference." Aside from having SC across town, knock on us is that we hire "on the cheap." That's gotta change.

by bruinthug98 on Nov 30, 2007 9:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Aaaah

Look a little deeper. That ESPN piece was written by Gene Wojowcksi (sp?) former LA Times beat writer who is as uninformed and out of touch about UCLA athletics as they come. He is still going by his info. from the 90s when he used to write for the Times.

If he had a clue he'd know things should be a little different this time around and UCLA will start with 1.5 million base during its discussions w a prospective new coach.

by Nestor on Nov 30, 2007 9:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

true...

i'm soooo looking forward to monday. or maybe even sunday.

by bruinthug98 on Nov 30, 2007 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks to Dorrell

I would agree that UCLA isn't a "glamour" job right now. Emphasis right now, thanks to KDs 5 year "reign of error".

However, bringing in an experienced, proven winner and in 2-3 years that can change.

"It's not losing, it's bad defense that makes me shake" Lute Olson

by godblesstyus95 on Nov 30, 2007 3:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Marty Schottenheimer

The guy is intense and he demands great things from his players. What are your thoughts?

by bruinelder on Nov 30, 2007 9:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hmm ...

He'd be interesting. The question for me is does he have the drive and mentality of a successful college coach and would he enjoy/relish recruiting?

Has he been a college coach before? My memory goes back about 18 years - when he was the HC with the Browns. He is a very good and successful NFL coach - no doubt about that.

by Nestor on Nov 30, 2007 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't think he was ever a College Coach..

I'm just throwing out names of coaches I like. He is the polar opposite to KD. Recruiting might be an issue for him. I just love his intensity. BEAT Southern Cal!

by bruinelder on Nov 30, 2007 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Schottenheimer

will be collecting social security in about a year and a half. Great motivator, but just too old.

"It's not losing, it's bad defense that makes me shake" Lute Olson

by godblesstyus95 on Nov 30, 2007 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Another Category..

I may have missed this. (Hey, this post and the appended comments are insightful but lengthy.) I did not see, at first glance, a restriction against hiring a young, energetic, enthusiastic coach with all of the tools who will jump to the pros in a couple of years (a la Vermeil). Nothing against Dick, but it was heartbreaking to have him leave such a promising program that he started and hand over the reins to the snoozer, Mr Settle-for-Less.

The guy who is chosen will have to consider staying for at least a decade. I mean, he must want to make UCLA a national power not just burnish his resume.

by whp68 on Nov 30, 2007 10:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Which is why I am hesitant about...

... Mariucci. With respect to those who support the idea, Mariucci has only HC'd in the NCAA for one eyar before bolting for the 49ers. His record in the pros was up and down and up and down again, but that admittedly can be explained to some degree by the vastly different GMs he worked under in those years.

Mooch ain't a spring chicken, but I just don't know if the NFL is completely out of his system.

That being said, he would still likely be an improvement over current personnel.

"Because I'm tired of it. Year after year after year after year having to choose between the lesser of 'Who cares?'"

by Meriones on Nov 30, 2007 10:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points

It is impossible to argue with any of these four points. Look at what has happened at Notre Dame under the "offensive genius" named Charlie Weis.

Next week will be the most important week in UCLA athletics in a very, very, very long time. With basketball everyone knew Lavin had to go no matter what and Howland was the obvious choice. Here, there is no 100% proof Dorrell will be gone and there is no obvious choice among coaches.

by njbruin on Nov 30, 2007 11:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Chow/Weiss reference

Very good point nj. I didn't think of that. Very good point. There is no guarantee in hiring an "offensive genius" especially if the guy never had substantial HCing experience.

by Nestor on Nov 30, 2007 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed; Agreed; Agreed; Agreed

My one fear is that we hire and pay a good deserving coach then leave nothing for the assistants. That has been another sore spot for me over the years. We should have never let Al Borges or Nick Long go. Great offense, great defense. UCLA '97 is the team that should have won the National Championship not '98.

Paul Johnson for Coach in '08!

Go Bruins!

PS how many would accept Mike Leach for Coach if we brought back Ken Norton Jr. as a defensive Coordinator?

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Nov 30, 2007 11:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Norton?

I double deleted this guy a long time ago. Don't want to rehash all the details but he could have gone to any other program yet he chose SC. I'm not cool with that.

by BlueReign on Nov 30, 2007 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Norton, Jr.

Beg to differ, Blue, but Norton tried to come back to UCLA to assist KD along with a few other alums who had spent time in the NFL. KD wouldn't return anyone's calls and basically blew them off.

Norton had played under Petey at SF and built a strong relationship...also Norton went to SUC as an unpaid assistant coach (he's getting paid now).

You think we could have used Norton's NFL knowledge as an unpaid assistant? KD didn't think so...

by Bruin84 on Dec 1, 2007 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

what about brian kelly?

the guy is a proven winner.

by bruinthug98 on Nov 30, 2007 12:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Personally, I'm concerned...

... that he's only been at Cincy for one year, total. Plus, didn't he announce that he would leave his old school BEFORE their Bowl game to get the Cincy job? That seems a little TOO ambitious for me.

If I've got my facts wrong, though, please correct me.

"Because I'm tired of it. Year after year after year after year having to choose between the lesser of 'Who cares?'"

by Meriones on Nov 30, 2007 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yah...

you may be right... but he did a great job at CMU with his talent pool. a great motivator. he's charismatic and a great football mind with x's and o's. i know he's been mentioned highly for the michigan job as the "right guy," but it seems more and more they are gonna go with Les (a "Michigan man"), so i think he'd at least be a worthy consideration. i think he'd be able to build a dynasty in westwood easier than he could at cincy... just throwin it out there though.

by bruinthug98 on Nov 30, 2007 12:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It's already started

It looks like Andre Dean is going to decommit if Dorrell is fired. Huge loss.

"Katy (Texas) running back Aundre Dean hasn't decommitted to UCLA, he just told me. But Dean did say, if the UCLA coaching staff is fired, he's gone.
``I talk to Coach (Dino) Babers,'' Dean said. ``I told him exactly what I told you. If they're there, I'm good. If not, I'm not.''
Dean also is in the process of scheduling trips to three other schools. For those particular chools and more comments from Dean, read tomorrow's Daily News. "

by dorrellmoron on Nov 30, 2007 1:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Losing recruits

Listing a recruit who will not attend unless Dorrell is the coach is a list of recruits I do not want to ever set foot in the Rose Bowl wearing blue and gold...

by Gary72 on Nov 30, 2007 3:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

My sentiments exactly

We want good athletes with good football skills and intelligence. Any recruit who believes KD is the best coach for his development is clearly lacking in the latter.

To them I say -- good riddance!

by bluegold on Nov 30, 2007 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention

I'll take a well-coached 2 or 3 star recruit over a KD-coached 4 star recruit any day.

"It's not losing, it's bad defense that makes me shake" Lute Olson

by godblesstyus95 on Nov 30, 2007 5:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He'll Be Back....

...as soon as DG introduces Johnson, Mendenhall or Petersen,

by CalPolyBruin on Dec 1, 2007 8:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

LSU Interested in Dorrell

I just received a message from someone well connected to the LSU program. I'm sure he's the equivalent of a "wealthy alum", someone who eats dinner with an important person, or someone who knows someone important at LSU.

He wrote: "Steve, looks like we're gonna need a new coach. Is Dorrell available?"

I responded: "He will be, after Saturday."

Actually, the sender is very well connected to LSU, a great fan, and a good friend. Obviously, he was joking -- he knows how much we have suffered over the years.

But, it brought to the front something I've been thinking -- KD's name has not been associated with the Buzz surrounding the many coaching vacancies that are now, or will soon be available.

For example, the University of Houston lost Art Briles to Baylor. To replace him they are considering the offensive coordinator from Notre Dame. WTF? An offensive coordinator from NOTRE DAME? (BTW- Briles is a very interesting coach who, in his next assignment may be ready for a big time school.)

My point is, if we are sooo wrong in our evaluation of KD, why aren't other schools trying to scoop him up?

Why do I beat this horse?

Because, we will beat sc, today, and much of the "body of work" rhetoric will fall by the wayside, and there will be one last desperate push to save KD's job. Actually, I don't think the Dorrelista's will need a win. They will argue if we get a "moral victory" whatever that means.

Anyway, LSU, pony up, he's yours.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 1, 2007 7:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm predicting

(to quote Mike Tyson) that KD will "fade into Bolivia"

I honestly don't think any program will take a chance on him again, and he can thank Mr. Streeter for that.

It took Toledo, who was one bad call away from a BCS championship game and in my mind was a better coach than KD, nearly 5 years to land a gig at Tulane. Who's going to go after KD?

He may land on someone's sidelines as an anonymous assistant, and his name may pop up from time to time on a minority applicant list, but I honestly think today will be KDs last HC experience of his life.

"It's not losing, it's bad defense that makes me shake" Lute Olson

by godblesstyus95 on Dec 1, 2007 8:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He dug his own grave

Who'd be dumb enough to hire Doofus. He's a loser who will pull the race card after 5 years of incompetence to try to save his job. What school wants to be associated with that?

Maybe he can coach the JV team at Barstow High? Not as the head coach, the receiver's coach for the JV team at Barstow High. Sounds about right.

by Tommy Bruin on Dec 1, 2007 11:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs