clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

A Time to Act

Some folks have emailed us and asked us why we are encouraging and linking to DD's effort to remove Dorrell this season? BTW that petition has already generated more than 400 signatures in less than a week. In any event, it is pretty clear now that Dorrell's team is not going to meet the minimum expectations for this season. So, for the fourth year in a row, a Karl Dorrell coached football team will not come close to meeting his self-imposed expectations of competing for the Pac-10 title and beating Southern Cal.

And, beating Southern Cal at this point will not matter. The damage is already done. Unless UCLA goes on a miraculous run and strings together a 4-game winning streak (including a victory in some ridiculously named bowl game), this season is shot.

So it is imperative for athletic director Dan Guerrero to make his move at the end of this season. From Dump Dorrell:

The fate of the football program for many years to come may depend on what Dan Guerrero does at the end of this year.  If DG does not fire Karl Dorrell this year then we may get stuck in a cycle of mediocrity for many years to come because it will be far more difficult to fire him later.  Next year this team will be better no matter the coach.  Even KD will be able to manage an 8-4 season.   DG won't be able to fire him then.  You cannot fire an 8-4 coach at UCLA.  Think about it.  Even if we go 4-8 this year, apologists will be saying "how can you fire a coach that last year went 10-2?"  That is their biggest argument now.  If that works for DG this year, then next year it's an impossibility to fire KD if he goes 8-4.

It's not only the apologists.  It is the national media too.  At times we have seen it this year, "grumbling from UCLA fans about Karl Dorrell, but he took them 10-2 last year ..." they have said.  If we go 8-4 next year and fire him then imagine what they will say; they will be much more aggressive and ugly.  Also, imagine the message of firing an 8-4 coach would send to coaches around the nation:  8-4 is not good enough for UCLA.  That would be acceptable if we were Miami, ND, Florida St.   But we are not, and that pains us to say.  It's another reason why we need to make a commitment to win now, during an awful year.
Another reason to let Dorrell go at the end of this season: recruiting. Considering we have less than a dozen scholarships to give out this year, recruiting is not going to take a huge hit when UCLA is in the market for a new coach (unless DG is already sending out feelers and exploring in deep background as he was during Lavin's last season). However, if Dorrell comes back next season, the program may find itself in a huge hole, as it will be in a position to give out 25+ scholies.  So, UCLA may just get stuck with Dorrell and another one of his class of above average recruits (not closing the talent gap with Southern Cal and Cal) which may further push the program towards oblivion (if it is not there already) in the following 3-4 years.

On the other hand, if UCLA fires Dorrell at the end of this season, and makes the right hire, the new coach will probably find himself in a great situation rejuvenating a comatose program, which still has talent to put together a 9-10 win season (with superior coaching) and then bring in a monster class of 25+ recruits in 2007.

Also, as has been pointed out by savvy Bruin fans, don't buy the bullsh!t about last year's 10 win season. Here is a post which put last year's "10 win" season in perspective:
There seems to be a common error regarding how many 10-win seasons UCLA has in its history. The correct answer is 7: 1946 (10-1), 1982 (10-1-1), 1987 (10-2), 1988 (10-2), 1997 (10-2), 1998 (10-2), and 2005 (10-2).

But even this is extremely misleading because UCLA played fewer than 10 games from 1919-1931, 1937, 1943, 1945, 1947, 1949-52, and 1954 (22 seasons) and only 10 games total in 1932, 1934-36, 1939-40, 1944, 1953, 1956-60, 1962-64, 1966-69, and 1971 (21 seasons). Thus, in 22 of UCLA's 87 seasons of college football, UCLA could not have won 10 games, and in 21 others, the only way UCLA could have won ten games was to go undefeated.

UCLA has only played 12 games in a season 22 times: 1938, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1981-88, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2001-05. Seven of those (31.8%) have been 10-win seasons.

In addition, as many as nine other seasons quite likely would have been ten-win seasons if the team had played more regular-season games and/or there had been the number of bowl games there are today -- for example, 1935 (8-2, no bowl), 1952 (8-1, no bowl), 1953 (8-2), 1954 (9-0), 1955 (9-2), 1957 (8-2, no bowl), 1966 (9-1, no bowl), 1969 (8-1-1, no bowl), and 1973 (9-2, no bowl).

With today's 12 or 13 game schedules, 10-win seasons are pretty common, actually. In the Pac-10 alone, there have been 7 10-win seasons just during Dorrell's tenure (the last 3 seasons) alone. USC, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, and Washington State have all accomplished it. Just in this decade, 7 Pac-10 teams (add Washington and Oregon St.) have accomplished it. Indeed, four Pac-10 teams (Washington, Oregon St., Oregon, and USC) have had 11-win seasons since 2000.

I'm not denigrating last season's record. But it is clearly being exaggerated out of proportion when it is discussed in terms of being "one of only X times in school history" we have accomplished it, as if the number of regular-season games and bowl opportunities has been the same all that time.
Whoever wrote that post, well done. That's the kind of reality based research you will not find in the traditional media, that is often too busy fellating incompetent coaching staffs, and rewriting the press releases and statements handed to them in the post game/weekly press conferences.

So let's keep the pressure on.  If you haven't done so already please sign the petition to fire Dorrell, and email this link to every friend, family members you have connected to UCLA.

As mentioned above, more that 400 signature already in less than a week. That's amazing. Let's keep it. We will get our program back sooner or later. Instead of sitting back and feeling sorry for ourselves, let's do our part in taking it back.

This is our time to act.