On a normal game week, by this time we'd start focusing on our next opponent. We'd start looking around to read up on the Washington Huskies, and start gathering notes about their O and D.
But this is not a normal game week. Right now I just cannot muster up any interest in Saturday's game, which, by the way, I think UCLA will win. Based on what I saw from the Huskies against the Buckeyes, I think our guys will end up winning this weekend, which will lead hard core Dorrell cultists to crawl out of their little holes and make proclamations about how their coach showed a lot of character by getting the team to rebound. But anyways, I still cannot get my mind to focus on that game.
I will get back to the only topic that currently matters wrt to UCLA, which is our worthless football coach.
I know many of you will remember this article, but I thought it was worth looking up again. Jason Whitlock of ESPN of all people blew the first whistle on the Thinker:
So why don't I have a good feeling about UCLA hiring Karl Dorrell as its next head football coach?
It's a feel-good story. With the home-run hiring of Division I-A football's fourth African-American head coach, the school that produced Arthur Ashe and Jackie Robinson and employs a Hispanic athletics director just hit for the Jesse Jackson cycle. UCLA might as well be Grambling.
So why am I not shouting from the rooftops, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank Eddie Robinson, I'm free at last"?
I should be overjoyed today. I'm black. I played college football. I'm tired of seeing black assistant coaches passed over for head-coaching opportunities. Why don't I view Dorrell's hiring as a major sign of progress?
Because if Dorrell were white, I would be screaming from the rooftops, "Who the hell is this mother… and when did he become such a hotshot candidate? A 39-year-old, nondescript black NFL receivers coach would've never landed such a good job.
Now the whole article is so damn good that you really need to read the entire thing. But I cannot help posting these last few paras (emphasis mine):
It's a feel-good story. With the home-run hiring of Division I-A football's fourth African-American head coach, the school that produced Arthur Ashe and Jackie Robinson and employs a Hispanic athletics director just hit for the Jesse Jackson cycle. UCLA might as well be Grambling.
So why am I not shouting from the rooftops, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank Eddie Robinson, I'm free at last"?
I should be overjoyed today. I'm black. I played college football. I'm tired of seeing black assistant coaches passed over for head-coaching opportunities. Why don't I view Dorrell's hiring as a major sign of progress?
Because if Dorrell were white, I would be screaming from the rooftops, "Who the hell is this mother… and when did he become such a hotshot candidate? A 39-year-old, nondescript black NFL receivers coach would've never landed such a good job.
But what really caught my attention and raised my skepticism was the Los Angeles Daily News' account of how and why Dorrell landed the job. Dorrell did absolutely nothing wrong. The newspaper story just made me question exactly what the UCLA athletics department was thinking.
According to the L.A. Daily News, "Dorrell is viewed as young, handsome, fit, energetic, bright and, of course, African-American."
Take out the adjective "fit" and it sounds like I could've been UCLA's new coach. I don't think Larry Coker, Frank Beamer or Ralph Friedgen were ever young and handsome or, of course, African-American.
But the L.A. Daily News quoted a source close to the search as saying, "In today's day and age, having an African-American football coach represent your university has the potential to pay incredible dividends for the university. It's a whole brand new ballgame now."
Michigan State is still waiting to collect on those incredible dividends. What, is Trent Lott proposing legislation for kickbacks to universities with young, handsome, fit, energetic, bright and, of course, African-American head football coaches?
And the L.A. Daily News story wrapped up with this valuable bit of insight: "According to a source close to the search, Dorrell, dressed in a stylish dark suit and white shirt, had an extremely impressive interview" with UCLA's chancellor.
Why not just go out and hire Denzel? He did a great job in "Remember the Titans."
I hope Dorrell can coach football. Because I'm not confident the people he'll be working for know a damn thing about football. They won't be any help. Greg Robinson should've never been a candidate. Mike Riley, the other finalist, shouldn't have been a candidate either. He's never won anywhere and, obviously, judging by the jobs he's turned down, doesn't want the responsibility of being a head coach.
The Bruins return a great deal of talent and are expected to contend for the Pac 10 title next season. I pray Dorrell didn't just step into some ... stuff. Because if he's not ready, if he's unsuccessful at UCLA, black assistant coaches will be hearing his name, not Willingham's, every time a high-profile job becomes available.
Yes, Dorrell was expected to contend for the Pac-10 title in his first season. We all know how that has worked out. Anyways, it is pretty clear what Mr. Whitlock is getting at.According to the L.A. Daily News, "Dorrell is viewed as young, handsome, fit, energetic, bright and, of course, African-American."
Take out the adjective "fit" and it sounds like I could've been UCLA's new coach. I don't think Larry Coker, Frank Beamer or Ralph Friedgen were ever young and handsome or, of course, African-American.
But the L.A. Daily News quoted a source close to the search as saying, "In today's day and age, having an African-American football coach represent your university has the potential to pay incredible dividends for the university. It's a whole brand new ballgame now."
Michigan State is still waiting to collect on those incredible dividends. What, is Trent Lott proposing legislation for kickbacks to universities with young, handsome, fit, energetic, bright and, of course, African-American head football coaches?
And the L.A. Daily News story wrapped up with this valuable bit of insight: "According to a source close to the search, Dorrell, dressed in a stylish dark suit and white shirt, had an extremely impressive interview" with UCLA's chancellor.
Why not just go out and hire Denzel? He did a great job in "Remember the Titans."
I hope Dorrell can coach football. Because I'm not confident the people he'll be working for know a damn thing about football. They won't be any help. Greg Robinson should've never been a candidate. Mike Riley, the other finalist, shouldn't have been a candidate either. He's never won anywhere and, obviously, judging by the jobs he's turned down, doesn't want the responsibility of being a head coach.
The Bruins return a great deal of talent and are expected to contend for the Pac 10 title next season. I pray Dorrell didn't just step into some ... stuff. Because if he's not ready, if he's unsuccessful at UCLA, black assistant coaches will be hearing his name, not Willingham's, every time a high-profile job becomes available.
I think questions the new UCLA chancellor, Dan Guerrerro must ask themselves:
What does Dorrell bring to the table even as some sort of novel "social experiment"? What has Dorrell done based on any objective measures to justify continuing this "experiment"?
I am proud of the fact that UCLA is the school of Jackie Robinson.
I am proud of the fact that UCLA is the school of Arthur Ashe.
And as a proud unapologetic progressive I personally believe in the concept of affirmative action for candidates who are truly worthy of such action.
However, there is a key difference between Robinson, Ashe, and Dorrell as the head coach of UCLA football team. Those guys were immortals, who were not only trail blazers but Hall of Famers in their respective sports. Karl Dorrell, in contrast, by any objective standards, is not good at any aspect of being a modern day college football coach. I don't need to repeat the numbers here on BN at this point. You can look them up.
He is a miserable failure who is not even good enough to be a head coach at a lower D-1AA program, let alone at an institution such as UCLA. By keeping him at his job at this point, UCLA is doing more to hurt to the prospects of promising minority (not just African American) coaches, than advancing their causes.
I know folks are worrying about the "political costs" of firing Dorrell. I think if UCLA tells him to hit the road, it will not pay as big of a price in PR relations as folks think.
Given Dorrell's track record at this point, I don't think people will miss the fact how he has failed to live up to the expectations he set for himself and failed to live up to the standards of excellence that set the marker at every other facet of UCLA.
Dorrell hasn't gotten the job done. Period. So he needs to go.
And when UCLA is immersed in the next hiring process, it needs to pay more attention to that person's actual resume and accomplishments on the field, rather than their looks and physical appearance.
We just want someone like Coach Howland (and it doesn't matter what race he is) who can come in and fix our football program.
In other words, we want someone with a proven track record, who can actually coach.
We have had enough of "handsome," "fit," losers like Lavin and Dorrell destroying our money programs.
GO BRUINS.
UPDATE - N: Mandel channels BN on SI.com:
[I]t's pretty evident at this point that Karl Dorrell is never going to lead UCLA to glory (not when his best team to date can't even score a touchdown against 0-2 Utah), but will UCLA be charged with racism if it doesn't give Dorrell the same seven years as white predecessor Bob Toledo? I sure hope not
Word is getting out folks. GO BRUINS.