Is stating facts not allowed on this site?

The subject title of the diary seems to have changed as well. It used to say something to the effect of "You Can't Handle The Truth."

I thought I was annoyed by all the dorrell bashing, but thanks for reminding me how much more I hate his supporters.  All your twisted facts are pretty much fubar'd by these facts:

1. 1-3 against Southern Cal.
   
2. No Pac-10 championships.
   
3. No BCS bowl games.
   
4. 1-10 on the road against teams with a winning record.
   
5. Worst starting 3- AND 4-year record of any UCLA football coach since WW2, including Bob Toledo who was fired.
   
6. Worse winning percentage than Bob Toledo, who was fired.
   
7. 3-11 against ranked teams.
   
8. 2-7 against top 10 teams.
   
9. Only 6 conference wins against teams over .500.
   
10. 19-14 in the Pac-10.
    
11. 8-17 against teams with a winning record.
    
12. 10 losses to unranked teams.
    
13. He has a losing record after October, 6-12.
    
14. Embarrassing losses to Wyoming, Fresno State, Arizona, Washington State at home and Southern Cal.
    
15. Only 1 big game win.
    
16. Revolving door for assistant coaches.

Just like Lavin, it's not about the teams he beat, it's about the teams he loses to...and badly.  Lavin seemingly beat a #1 team every year, but he also lost to cal states and exhibition teams.  So it doesn't matter that KD beat Cal twice (at home) and a rebuilding screwy Oklahoma without Adrian Peterson (at home).  He's 1-10 against winning teams on the road! not ranked teams, not great teams, but teams that managed to lug their carcass of a season over the .500 mark.  

2003. 6-7 while losing the last five games is not a good season.
      
2004. 6-6 with a loss to a Wyoming team that hadn't seen a bowl for somewhere near a century is not a good season.
      
2005. 10-2 is a good season.  Except when you lose to freaking Arizona by 38 points and get to watch while those pricks rush the field like they just won the national championship, and then go on to lose to sc by...wait for it...47 points??  Plus, the wins that we did get that season were miracle comebacks through the sheer talent of MD, DO, and ML, and not on coaching prowess (which dug them in the hole in the first place by conservative bs plays).  DO and ML weren't even KD recruits.  If all were fair in the world of college football, we would have lost to Washington, Cal, WSU, and Stanford, because really, we had no right winning those games based on the first 35 minutes or so of play.
      
2006. 7-6 with a home game smack down by a crappy WSU and what amounts to a home game loss to struggling FSU is not a good season.

So there you go.  I'm sure you're content being in La La land, blinded by...hell I dont even know why, how, or by what you could be blinded.  When UCLA finally gets a good football coach, you can thank the people who aren't buying the bs that you are spewing.

Side note: seriously, your post is really a wakeup call to me.  I've more or less silently put up with the KD bashing, even though it wasn't something I wanted to be hit over the head with every day.  I voted that I thought it was a bit much -- one can only take so much negativity.  But in light of your post, I'm glad BN is staying on his ass and seeking his removal, because if we relied on "fans" like you, we'd be watching UCLA Basketball lose to Team Shiznit and Cal State Nobody, instead of watching Kevin Love, DC, JS, LRMAM, LM, and everyone else tear teams apart on their way to greatness.

there is just so much trash in this post it would take a massive comment just to reply to all of it. I dont have that kind of time.  But let me offer a few responses.

"Bo Schembechler at UM went 1-4 in his first five Rose Bowls."
For the record, we would shut down DumpDorrell.com if Karl Dorrell was 1-4 in Rose Bowls!!!!  Why? Because that would mean that Dorrell won the Pac-10 most likely AND gotten to the Rose Bowl .. things that have been far out of his reach.  Apparently, this guy says that 1-4 in Rose Bowls is a negative for Schembechler when "going to 4 straight bowls" is something to glorify for Dorrell.  What a nut.  Forget that Dorrell is 1-3 in bowls ... they are no name bowls!!

"Only one losing season in 4" ... as God as my witness I never thought Id hear UCLA football talked about in this manner.

"Dorrell is building the program in the right way" ... wow. 4 OCs in 5 years. Nearly every assistant coaching position is on his 3rd coach. Worst 3 and 4 year starting coaching records in UCLA Football since WW2!! 1-10 on the road against teams with a winning record. On and on and on the "empirical facts" refute that ridiculous and untenable position.

"hasn't even been here 5 years and youre ready to throw him out the door?"  YES!!  At nearly $1 million per year he is STEALING from UCLA.  Are you effing nuts?? What do you suggest?? Give him 10 years and $10 million to fail??? I'll take that job and you can hate on me all you want!!! I have just as much experience as Dorrell had when he was hired. NONE.  There are coaches out there NOW, YESTERDAY, that have actually PROVEN themselves at smaller programs. Oh, say, for example, Urban Meyer who won a national championship in what ... 2 years. Why? Because he succeeded at smaller programs as a head coach.

Ok, I have to stop there ... this is the first post I have seen on BN arguing the case for keeping Dorrell and I dont want to overload the computers.  

These occurred separately in two different seasons, not in the same season, which would have been much more meaningful.  But, I guess just like a man with a large bald spot to hide, you have to spread the meager amount of hair over as large an area as possible.

"You can't handle the facts."

Let's roll, people.

"Karl Dorrell took over a program that was in complete disarray on and off the field and in a few years time has built up a highly respected program of high quality student athletes.  I stress student athletes, not hired guns."

Opinion, not facts.  Show me some objective data, people.

"On the field he went 10-2 by his third year.  Spin it any way you want but a loss is a loss and a win is a win.  10-2 has not happened often in UCLA football history."

Fine.  How many 12-game regular seasons has there been in UCLA history?  Hmmm?  And how did the Bruins do in the year AFTER going 10-2?

"In his fourth year he beat an SC team everyone had slotted going to the national title game and probably winning it.  SC is only the most successful program in the last five years."

Fine.  And how many victories over other winning teams does Dorrell have after October during his career?

"If you say it took him four years to beat SC you have to remember where the two programs were when he took over the helm in Westwood.  K.D. started way behind the 8 ball and now he is finally catching up."

Funny you mention the 8-ball.  How many wins did Toledo's last Bruin team finish with?

"Last year he also had to deal with grooming a quarterback that hadn't played in a live action game in 5 YEARS, watch him go down and then hand over the reigns to a backup who had never started a game in his life.  But Dorrell still managed to win the last three games and beat SC."

Note:  he handed the REINS to a QB who was a redshirt sophomore, and already in the system for 2 years prior to last season.  Explain why he had pass accuracy under 50% for most of his games.  

"The only coach in UCLA history to lead his team to four straight bowl games is Karl Dorrell."

INCORRECT.  Terry Donahue coached UCLA to EIGHT straight Bowl Games (1981-88), and won SEVEN in a row.  (1982-88)

"Only one losing season in 4 years (6-7), his first season."

Which was immediately followed by a .500 season, at 6-6, including ending the season with 2 straight losses -- $C and the Bowl game.

"The recruits coming in are only getting better.  UCLA football is being talked about again."

Yes, it is.  And several pre-season assessments include mention our incosnsitency -- on offense and in coaching turnover.

"You talk about the teams we lost to what about the teams we beat.  One of the only schools in recent history to beat USC, we beat Oklahoma and Cal twice all in the short time Dorrell's been here."

Texas beat $C -- and they got a championship for it.  Cal beat $C, and they are in the running for BCS bowls for much of the season.  We beat Oklahoma -- and how did they finish?

"Dorrell isn't looking for the quick fix.  He's thinking long term.  He wants to do it the right way and he's building the stepping stones to do so.  The stepping stones that lay a foundation so that when we do reach the top we won't be a one year wonder and fall off the cliff. We may stumble back a few steps but we'll get right back up."

And so far we have one 10-wins eason out of 4.  Take away that season, and we have .500 ball in the other 3 years.  

"Coaches use to have time to establish themselves, to instill a mentality like Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno.  They didn't win right away, nor did Tom Osborne.  It took Tom Osborne almost twenty years to win a national title and he's one of the greatest coaches of all time.  Bo Schembechler at UM went 1-4 in his first five Rose Bowls.  Sustained greatness takes time and Dorrell hasn't even been here five years and you're ready to throw him out the door?  After all the signs that we're going in the right direction."

Schembehcler coached in five Rose Bowls, back when the Big 10 and Pac 10 Champs played in it.  HOW MANY PAC-10 CHAMPIONSHIPS have we won?

"And again if you want empirical facts look at the last two years: 10-2, Beat SC with a backup quarterback. Nuff said."

By the same token, (1)  Blown out by 47 points to $C, and (2) blew how many halftime leads?

Do I like seeing any man fired from his job?  Hell no.  But if he's not doing the job he set out to do, the job he's hired to do, the job it is demanded that he do, then it's just NOT the right fit.

That's my OPINION.

You come in HERE talking about facts???

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.

MIM

to a pyromaniac and telling him not to start a fire.

Bill & Ted are either playing us or they have not read one word on this site in all of the two years of it's existence.

They are certainly not having an "Excellent Adventure" with that drivel.

aka "Bill and Ted".

Really, this guy should write for the Onion. Just Brilliant!!

when I say we all would leave to eat crow at the end of this year and admit that "Fine, Dorrell got the job done."

I don't know how many times we've said this.  Objectively, however, there's not a whole lot of hope for that to happen.

And I've said it 800 times, but I'll say it again:  The hallmark of a good coach is consistency.  If there is one word that you can use to sum up Dorrell's entire coaching tenure, it isn't improvement, it isn't successfull.

It's inconsistent.  And that was also the hallmark  of Lavin.  To use the basketball analogy, beating 1 #1 Stanford team is great, but it doesn't mean jack when you're losing to Cal State Fullerton.  That sort of 'success' just highlights a simple fact even more lucidly:  that your team has talent, but you have no idea how to effectively coach up that talent.

And that, my dear little friend, is the history of Karl Dorrell.  Respectable talent, completely inconsistent performance.