Bumped. I have been hearing and reading a number of comments that are bringing up lot of the same issues we have discussed ad nauseum here on BN. I have been reading nonsense about how UCLA will not pay competitive $$ for a new coach, the not being able to compete against OMG Pom Pom is so awesome excuse, and the budget excuse. And, I have hearing total bullshit about how UCLA head coaching opportunity is not an attractive one. These are typically arguments that morons like Trev Albert advance every time to time. Albert tried this tack during summer time in this post and we ripped it apart. Instead of cutting and pasting the same arguments, I thought it'd be easy to bump this post. We heard lot of the same nonsense during Lavin fiasco when one blowhard after another advanced the argument that UCLA basketball will never be competitive again because of facilities, money issue, too expensive for coaches to live in blah blah blah. After four years Howland has obviously shut up those morons. We have no doubt there are plenty of top notch coaches around the country, who would be attracted to the UCLA gig. What is needed is a competent search process that is not farmed out to incompetent boobs such as Bob Field. Anyways, here is our take down of Trev Alberts making some of the tired, asinine arguments. We can use them everytime you hear some tool blathering them on TV or posting on message boards. GO BRUINS. -N
So last week I brought your attention to CSTV.com's football "analyst" Trev Albert's proclamation of Karl Dorrell doing an "incredible job" as the head coach of UCLA football program. I have some amusing followup. Apparently few Bruin fans wrote in pointing out the real Dorrell record, one of them took Alberts to woodshed:
Moreover, money has never been an issue at UCLA. It's matter of having the "will" to spend it. Under DG's leadership the culture at Morgan Center has definitely evolved a little from the penny pinching Dalis era. Otherwise, UCLA wouldn't have stepped to hire a big time basketball coach like Ben Howland and instead would have settled for coaches like Patt Douglas (of UCI). So Albert's assertion that the UCLA is not willing to pay a head coach is not based on reality. And if you shoot down that part of his argument, the whole excuse of not having commitment to facilities standing in the way of hiring a good head coach doesn't even pass the smell test. Albert wasn't done. He went on to make more disjointed argument in favor of Dorrell:
As for Dorrell not inheriting "championship excuse" that is not exactly an orginal argument either. We shredded the talent excuse long time ago.
Alberts finally ends with yet another absurd arugment:
It is not that difficult for a UCLA athletic director to come up with a list of names who have more experience and credibility than what Karl Dorrell had (or has now) when he came into Westwood. There are plenty of coaches who would be interested in leading the gold mine, which is the UCLA football program. We have already talked about numerous coaches with solid credentials who may be able to put together good careers at UCLA. The simple point here is there are plenty of coaches in America, who unlike KD have shown the ability to lead and to put together a competent football program that will compete for titles in their respective conferences.
I think to me what is really a "dangerous proposition" is that we live in a sports world we have so many "pundits" such as Trev Alberts posing as "analysts" of the game, proffering opinions on a game that is not grounded on any kind of reality. These guys are always out there hacking away with opinions favorable to incumbent regimes so that they can maintain their precious access, and in return they end up doing a total disservice not to just the fans of that specific team, but the entire game by providing a narrative that is not based on any kind of facts. It is pathetic but also dangerous because it often comes across as outside pressure on institutions to retain mediocre head coaches like Karl Dorrell, who would be replaced by now if they worked in a real life job that judged him based on tangible accomplishments, instead of judging by his "demeanor" and how he "interacts" with other people at his job.