Brian Dohn wrote this on his blog:"Q: Now that you have had some time to assess this year's team, what is a realistic level of success for the season? If UCLA wins 8 or fewer games and loses to SC again this year, can we all agree that it is time for Karl Dorrell to go (one 10-2 season notwithstanding)?
A: First, I don't think anyone will know how good UCLA can be until Ben Olson plays for a month, but I think an 8-win season, at this point, would be quite an achievement given the stretch of games at Oregon, at Notre Dame, Washington State and at Cal.
That so many fans want Dorrell out after a 10-2 season is mind-boggling. UCLA football has never been about winning national championships, just look at its history. But since USC is on top in the city everyone wants Dorrell out. Well, for who? What coach is the administration going to pay $2 million to come in, deal with an infrastructure that causes delays (check the Spaulding Field and Pauley Pavilion renovation projects) and then get headaches when the academic folks challenge coaches on recruits whenever given the chance. Dorrell went 10-2 last season. That's 10-2. I don't care how many wins were in the fourth quarter, or what the schedule was like. UCLA won 10 games against the schedule put forth. This is usually where the woulda, shoulda, coulda stuff comes in from Dorrell's detractors, but there is no way to know if UCLA would have won at Oregon, and so. There's hypothesis, but no fact available." I'm curious to see what members of BN think of this. Especially the thing about UCLA not being a NC caliber team.