clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

A Dangerous Proposition

New, 41 comments

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:

You should do a little more research before praising Karl Dorrell like you did in your recent notes on the Pac-10.  You said Dorrell was doing an "incredible job" as UCLA football coach. Quite the opposite is true; you are factually way off base.  What is 'incredible' about going 7-6 in his 4th season?  What is 'incredible' about peaking at 3rd place in the conference in 4 years, and he has only managed that 'incredible' feat just once?  You also said Dorrell was a "steadying influence" in Westwood. Not true. He lost nearly every recruit he had in his first class before they reached their last year of eligibility. He has lost all but one assistant coach during the 4 years he has been head coach, and in most coaching positions he is on his 3rd coach.  He is on his 4th offensive coordinator in 5 years!  What is 'steadying' about that?? - Anonymous
In response Albert wrote up a predictable bumbling, stumbling, stammering retort devoid of any facts and reality concerning the UCLA football program. Just for you I will break down Albert's "pundity" para. by para. He started with this:
I think there are certain realities of where they are right now. That fact that they're in USC's backyard is certainly part of it. I don't think it would really matter who the head coach is right now.
Uhmm ... right off the bat Albert exposes his total ignorance concerning the UCLA football program. Southern Cal has a damn good football program. But they have always been a powerhouse in the college football landscape. That hasn't stopped previous UCLA head coaches from throwing their hands up in surrender and giving up from putting together programs that have consistently contended for the Pac-10 titles, winning them, winning Rose Bowls, building a UCLA football tradition, establishing it as one of the premiere football programs in Westwood. In fact UCLA hired Dorrell specifically so that he could compete straight up against Southern Cal (which means beating Trojans at least half the time) and bring home Pac-10 titles. Those were his own expectations. The idea of using Southern Cal's dominance for Dorrell's underachieving is just absurd, and it only reasserts the fact that Dorrell has not be able to accomplish what he was hired to do in Westwood. And now this is his last year to get it done (winning a Pac-10 championship). Albert continued on to make more boilerplate excuses in defense of Dorrell:
I've always understood and have been told that because of the way UCLA is set up they historically have not been willing to pay coaches top money. You add that and USC's prominence together and then you have to fight the administration to pay top dollar for the assistants as well? If they're not willing to pay the head coach, they probably haven't made a commitment to the facilities either.
I wonder who Alberts have talked to over the years to form his basis of "understanding" wrt to UCLA football. Whoever he has been talking to certainly is not providing updated takes on UCLA football grounded on reality. Otherwise, Alberts would have noted that UCLA under DG's leadership have stepped up pretty big in terms of compensating its assistant coaches. The way UCLA stepped up during this past off-season to boost Walker's salary (fending off Weiss's advances from ND) and brought in Norvell from Nebraska indicates that these days UCLA under DG's leadership Is not going to shy away from paying big $$ for head coaches. It's not the first time we have to slap away the budget excuse

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:
So you're really fighting an uphill battle when all I've been trying to point out is that there are some bumps in the road. It's interesting to me that you point out that 7-6 was no good, yet you're upset about turnover.
Again we are not sure what the heck is Alberts trying to argue. Once again he is making an assertion without having any grasp of the totality of circumstances around Dorrell's program. He cannot grasp the fact right now Dorrell is in the middle of mediocre cycle where his constant scapegoating of assistant coaches is leading to an unstable situation around his program, where players are always having to get accustomed to new systems (which also raises the question about whether UCLA football program under Dorrell is actually grounded in some kind of basic foundation which reflects Dorrell's core ideas as the leader of this program), leading to mediocre seasons year after year.

And more bufoonery punditry from Alberts:
It's a dangerous proposition where we get into this turnover of coaches and head coaches.  We live in a world where there are just enough universities that have long and storied traditions of circulating coaches every three or four years for not winning championship. I don't know Karl Dorrell personally, but from watching him I like his demeanor, I like the way he interacts with the kids. UCLA is not exactly just coming off championship seasons when Dorrell was hired.
So yeah Dorrell is doing a great job because of "his demeanor," and the way he "interacts with the kids." In other words Alberts is making the famous Plashcke argument from couple of years ago when wrote a piece saying everything is going well in Westwood, because players feel welcome to come into Dorrell's office and share some M&Ms with him. I am sure Alberts has nothing to say about the frustrations felt by talented WRs such as Junior Taylor, who Dorrell and his offensive coaches completely misused this last year, by featuring a disorganized, chaotic, hockey style WR rotation, which ended up giving more time to walkons in key situations, while not using talents such as Taylor, Kethcum etc. Yes, Dorrell is good with his kids that he often forgets who is on his team (cough*Manny Whte*cough) on his sidelines.

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:
The point is we have 119 teams now and their fans expect their team to win the championship every year and if not it's "let's fire the coach." Well, who are you going to hire? Paying the salaries that you're apparently paying at UCLA, name me a list of coaches you'd rather have.
We have already rebutted the salary/budget excuse above. It is amusing to me that Alberts is looking for a "list," of coaches who could be a good fit at UCLA. Not sure how difficult that task is considering we have had no problem doing some basic research and coming up with list of names here on BN. Is Albers that incapable of doing his research or is he just content cutting and pasting standard talking points from some Dorrell supporter from Morgan Center bureaucrat?

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.

GO BRUINS.