Bumped. bluestreet gives a clinic on how to respond. DumpDorrell.com is also all over this. GO BRUINS. -N
I don't get worked up over T J Simers' column in the LA Times. I used to before it just dawned on me that he is doing it just to get a rise out of sports crazy fans like us, and get us to send him angry emails or letters to the Times, further generating more visits to the Times site. It's a ploy.
So I don't really pay much attention to his articles any more. But now that I see it in the diaries, I thought I offer up some simple rebuttals to a strawman bill and ted like arguments Simers offers up, what is supposedly a famous newspaper in America (and the entire world).
Simers offers up the injury excuse for CTS, comparing his plight to that of Pom Pom in South Central:In his seven years at USC, Carroll has had to go to his second-string quarterback to start a game because of injury only once, and that was this season. No question it's contributed significantly to USC's consistent play year in and year out.
Carroll gets a break losing to Stanford and Oregon, of course, and rightfully so because of his track record at USC.
Dorrell gets no breaks, predictions from the very start of doom -- and his own gloom not helping -- carrying more weight than any sign of progress.
Poor poor CTS. What Simers forgets to mention is that Dorrell kind of brought this situation upon himself by hiring a loser OL coach from Alabama, whose line has predictably underperformed, just like it did in Tuscaloosa. He brought in a loser who got QBs killed in Bama. So it shouldn't be a surprised now his joke OL schemes is killing QBs at UCLA.
So that is on CTS, who seems to have a penchant for scapegoating his assistants.
Simers than makes the tired argument of CTS posting that "10 win" season:How many years is it now that his job has been in jeopardy -- everyone eventually getting it right? And yet in this age of college football parity, Dorrell's team went 10-2 two years ago. Uh yes. He won 10 games! Lucky for BN, bruinhoo destroyed that "10 win" argument a while back on BN:
[T]he fact that UCLA football has achieved a limited number of 10-win seasons has to be considered with the knowledge that the length of the college football season has varied throughout the years (it ain't as short as it used to be). Under the current NCAA scheduling rules, we play 12 regular season games, plus a bowl (13 total). If you really want to compare the relative strength of a 10-win season now to prior seasons (As saying "this was only UCLA's Xth 10-win season", winning percentage seems to be the most accurate means). Looking back at the history of UCLA football, starting with the PCC affiliation in 1928, we have played anywhere between 8 and 13 games in a season.
A 10 win season, in the current 13-game schedule (including a bowl) = .769 win %
In a 9-game season, a 7-2 record is the closest fit, with a .778 win%
In a 10-game season, an 8-2 (.800%), or 7-2-1 (.750%) record is the best approximation of 10 wins today.
In an 11-game schedule, an 8-2-1 record (.773%) is the most accurate point of reference to a modern 10-3 season.
A 12-game schedule is close enough to the 13-game schedule that a 10 win season is here the proper comparison.
While I am sure that we can all agree that a 10-win season is a fine accomplishment for Bruin football to achieve, those that cite the small number of such seasons in our program's history, together with having achieved one such season under the current regime as proof of the "rightness" of the program's direction must take into consideration the variance in the length of seasons in the past (ie, no matter how good a team is, it can't have a 10-win season while only playing 9 games).The whole analysis is here.
Simers then talks about 13-9 and how we have a great record at home:Last season the Bruins kept a motivated USC from playing for the national title, and in front of the UCLA faithful, the Bruins are 15-2 the last three years in the Rose Bowl. My question is with the talent UCLA has had last few years, why is that 15-2 record considered as an accomplishment. Should we be shocked and pleasantly surprised that a school like UCLA has a great home record at the Rose Bowl? And oh btw where did Simers get the info that USC was "motivated" when they took on UCLA? Because the way that game looked, it appeared their offense was unprepared and taken aback by the rare emotion shown by a CTS coached football team.
Moving on Simers talks about old Dorrellista favorite line about him finally putting together an "elite" recruiting class:Next year's recruiting class is ranked third in the nation by those who follow such things, and hired to clean up a program hurt by off-the-field problems, he's done just that. Simers skips over the fact that it took Dorrell 4 years finally putting together a top-5 class, and that happened only after bringing in convicted criminals like Eric Scott on staff. Besides, even a monkey can recruit as UCLA head coach. Everyone can look up what Coach Howland's predecessor did in his early years on the recruiting trail to reconfirm that fact.
And Simers leaves us with this bite from the CTS:"I'm not quitting," Dorrell says. "I'm a fighter, and I'm not about to hide behind any excuses, injuries or anything like that. I come from a military family, and I was taught to take what you've got and make the best of it. Except the "fighter' (or is it the "sleeper" or the "thinker", cannot keep this "stuff" straight anymore)just hid behind the excuses of penalties and then blaming the techniques of his players just yesterday. And that was just from one day.
All I can say, don't get worked over this and don't waste your time emailing Simers voicing your "outrage." Because that is exactly what he wants. If you are going to respond to it, just break it down here on this great platform. Because I get the sense, T J is reading my rebuttal right now, and it is killing him that I am not sending him an angry email so that he use it portray UCLA fans as bunch of doofuses, instead of the one he has been making excuses for last few weeks.
Don't take his bait. We are all much smarter than that.