During this week, all the predictions and speculation on who will win and by how much is just hyperbole.  I think the more interesting conversation is on what it will take to win.  To that end I offer a simple opinion on what needs to improve for the Bruins to hang banner 12: consistent outside shooting.  This assumes that what the Bruins have done well through the tournament and all season long (strong defense without fouling, good rebounding, KL's inside game and his outlet passes) continues.  While ideally the outside scoring should come from the wing, especially Josh Shipp, it won't matter if it is Collison dropping 3's or some combination of all the players on the floor.  UCLA must present at least the threat that they can beat teams both inside and out.  Like using the run to set up the pass (or visa versa) in football, a decent outside game in basketball opens up the inside giving the Bruins' frontline more offensive rebounds and second chance scoring opportunities.  

While this may sound overly simplistic, I believe a consistent outside threat is the only thing missing from this Bruin team.  The key word in the sentence, by the way, is "consistent."  Collison is hitting 3's at greater than a 50% rate, but he doesn't look for the shoot often enough unless the shoot clock is winding down.  Similarly, Westbrook looks to drive the lane and 3's or a jump stop 15-17 footer is not much of an option.  Sure Josh is in a shooting slump, but those of us that follow the Bruins know what he is capable of.  Let's hope this is the weekend the slump ends.

No disrepect to Dump Dorrell and the efforts of all the UCLA fans who put forth pressure on UCLA to make a coaching change, but here is an alum that is willing to back up his desire for a coaching change at his aluma mater:

A former University of Washington alumnus is offering to donate $200,000 to the school if it fires football coach Tyrone Willingham and athletic director Todd Turner, the Seattle Times reported Thursday.

Ed Hansen, a 1966 graduate from the university's law school, sent the first email Oct. 30 to school president Mark Emmert, and sent a second email on Nov. 29 in which he wrote, "By this letter I hereby pledge to contribute a minimum of $100,000 towards a law school scholarship within 90 days, conditioned upon the termination of Ty Willingham as football coach.

"Also, I do not intend to contribute any further funds to the athletic department as long as these two gentlemen are employed by the University."

Here's the link to the full story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22595789/

Also, it is kind of interesting that this story is just now making it into the MSM. This alum probably would have gotten more support across the U-Dub fan base if this came out during the football season.

This is somewhat of a preemptive post. I know once UCLA makes an announcement on the next head football coach, BN and the other Boards will light up with both support and criticism of the new coach. We can easily see from all the controversy over the rumored candidates that there is no consensus pick. There have been many very passionate arguments for a variety of candidates. Unfortunately, these arguments tend to polarize fans. It is unlikely that anyone short of Tony Dungy or Steve Spurrier will be universally anointed by the divergent fan base as a "home run" hire.

There have been many very good posts that address the credentials, character and track record expectations for the next coach. I don't need to belabor those points. Unfortunately, even the mythical "home run" hire that appears to meet all the criteria might fail. Conversely, a vastly under-qualified selection could succeed beyond our wildest expectations. Given those intangibles, I am not going to jump on Dan Guerrero for his selection (yes, even if it is settling for Chocker) until we see the product that is put on the field next season.

I have been a season ticket holder for more than 30 years and I was willing to not renew my tickets next season if Dorrell had been retained. The product that Dorrell put on the field was not worth the expense and time commitment. It wasn't just the losing, or losing games against inferior teams. Dorrell coached a very boring brand of football. Boring coupled with losing does not make for an enjoyable fan experience. However, as a second generation alum and a Bruin fan from birth, even if I did give up my football tickets, I would still support the team and hope they win every game. I don't cheer for the coach, I cheer for the school. I would have given up my tickets because that is really the only mechanism I have for sending a message to UCLA about the direction of the football program.

I suppose I could have the same attitude toward next year's team if the coach that is named clearly does not meet the minimal criteria that Dan Guerrero laid out in his post-Dorrell comments. However, I am willing to give Guerrero the benefit of the doubt regardless of what I think of his ultimate selection. While I might be disappointed in the selection, Guerrero has earned some leeway. It isn't just that he hired Howland and Savage. It isn't the continued success of the non-revenue producing sports. It isn't that the athletic program appears to be in relatively good financial condition under his leadership. It is all those things. Also, for anyone who has been in management it is important to support your employee's decisions, even when you disagree. You can't hold people accountable if you micromanage their efforts to the point that they are just implementing your decisions.

Of course, with all that being said, after Dorrell, my patience will be very limited. I am not going to stay "on board" if a candidate of questionable qualifications is given the job and starts putting up Dorrellian numbers. I will give a highly qualified selection that comes in with a track record of success, a little longer to prove he can deliver at UCLA. But, even the most qualified candidate coming in, still must deliver. As loyal Bruin fans, we have struggled with a mediocre football program for some time. This is an opportunity to turn that situation around. While I will always be a Bruin, unless I see a better product on the field, as a consumer I will have no choice but to express my disappointment in the performance of the football team and let Dan Guerrero know I am disappointed in his performance by the only means available to me, withholding financial support.

I hope and have every confidence that Guerrero will make a good call. He has far more at stake in this decision than I do. I wish him luck and I give him and his selection my unqualified support until it is proven that once again UCLA has settled for mediocrity.

According to both Perelman and Dohn most of the verbal commits in next year's class will be on campus this weekend (Perelman says it will be 19 and Dohn reports 18). If Dewayne Walker wants to prove he is acting in UCLA Football's best interests, he should stand up in front of all the recruits this weekend and state flat out that regardless of the outcome of the search for a head coach, he wants to remain at UCLA. He can say he is a candidate for the job, but there are no guarantees. He should not say anything about what changes he would bring to the program if he were hired. He should only talk about wanting the job in terms of why UCLA is a great place to play (and coach) football. He should also state that his son's commitment to UCLA will stand, no matter who is selected as UCLA's next coach. Of course, he should also be honest and say that his staying (and also the rest of the coaching staff) at UCLA is dependent on the new coach asking him to stay.

This gesture would communicate the same commitment to UCLA that he and the rest of the coaching staff are asking these recruits to make. It would be a classy thing to do and would send the message that despite the unknown outcome of the head coaching search, UCLA is a place he wants to be, and therefore, it is a place these recruits should want to be. It also says that his commitment to UCLA goes beyond one man. It is a commitment to the University that he represents. He and the other coaches sold these players on playing for UCLA, not just playing Karl Dorrell. They were also sold on getting a UCLA education. Those things have not changed.

Does this sound familiar?

Welcome to this meeting of Coaching Codependents Anonymous. As you know, this is a support group for fans whose sanity is slipping while they watch their universities fumble through searches for new football coaches.

We know what it's like watching something you love go through a process so destructive to self-esteem. We understand the painful cycle. We're here to help.

You've been dealing with all the classic symptoms: the flurry of rumors about real estate transactions, the "done deal" message board posts from someone with an "impeccable source," the sting of rejection, the gibes from opposing fans. This is a place where you can let all the frustration out. Cry through your face paint if you need to, it's OK.

It is from a piece written by Pat Forde on ESPN

Since it is said that misery loves company isn't it nice to know we are not alone?

The rumors are flying fast and furious around here and elsewhere. Some credible, many laughable, but all trying to answer the one question we all want to know: who will be UCLA's next football coach?

All I can say is patience fellow Bruins. All will be revealed in good time. Some will be happy with the decision. Some will be irate. Hopefully, once it is done, we can pull together as Bruin fans and give the next coach the same support we gave Dorrell, that is, until there is evidence that Guerrero blew it.  Then we can start this all over again, but let's not wait five years. Life is too short to waste many more football season cheering for mediocrity.

Lighten up Bruin fans help is on the way (with apologies to Fox71)

Despite consistent denials, sources close to UCLA (three very wealthy and influential UCLA alums who like to eat in restaurants) are saying that Dan Guerrero will be calling a press conference to announce that Wife of Fox71 will be UCLA's next football coach. When reached for comment, Mrs. Fox issued the following statement, "I have not been asked." It is well know that Mrs. Fox does not say yes, until asked. She had previously opted out of any consideration for the job, but under pressure from Fox71 to get out of the house more and a strong desire not to have to listen to opera, she decided to reconsider her options.  Fox71 has also encouraged Mrs. Fox to take the position at UCLA by telling her, "You can't do any worse than CTS" and "Hey, for $2 million a year, I don't care what you do."

The influential alums that broke this story are telling anyone that will eat with them that once Athletic Director Dan Guerrero learned of the availability of Mrs. Fox he cancelled the contract with the expensive search firm and called off other wealthy alumni and UCLA football boosters that were wooing other potential coaching candidates. He went so far as to have Casey Wasserman's private jet diverted to Tampa from Gainsville where they were picking up Urban Meyer for a meeting with Guerrero.  According to another reliable source within the athletic department, Guerrero felt that with all the other coaching vacancies he had to move quickly to get this highly sought after coaching candidate.  Previously, Mrs. Fox was being considered as a candidate to replace Lloyd Carr at Michigan until the Wolverines figured out how to beat a Division 2 school in football.

While Mrs. Fox does not have any prior coaching experience it is well known that she writes the insightful comments credited to Fox71 on Bruins Nation and other Internet blogs. These comments were a key factor in Guerrero's decision to terminate the esteemed CTS (or as he will now be know MFP - Mrs. Fox's Predecessor). While most college football experts, including Bill and Ted, are hailing this decision as the home run hire that will take the Bruins to the next level, there are some rumors that a prior relationship between Mrs. Fox and Guerrero may have influenced his decision.

I view the celebratory comments today as a cathartic release.  The subject of Dorrell has become a hot button issue for Bruins.  While there were some here that wanted Dorrell gone before this season began, many drank the preseason kool aid (myself included) and waited to see what the "show me" season would bring.

Unfortunately, it became clear very early this season (around the second half of the BYU game IIRC) that concern began to rise that this would not be the break out year that was expected. Then came the Utah debacle. That was enough for me.  Unfortunately, it was not enough to seal Dorrell's fate.  The season plodded along and we witnessed Notre Dame, Washington State and Arizona.  Of course, those losses did not deter some from continuing to argue that Dorrell was still the right man for the job. So, in response, the anti-Dorrell Bruin fans continued to apply the pressure.  Sure, some posted comments that were personal attacks on Dorrell, but, for the most part, the arguments were well thought out and included empirical data.

Dan Guerrero did nothing to quell the debate, so as the season dragged on the vitriol on both sides continued to grow.  Now that a decision has been made, those that wanted Dorrell gone feel vindicated.  Are some of the comments inappropriate, of course.  Are they unexpected, no.  We live in a society that focuses on winning and losing.  Today, the winners in this debate are celebrating.  I hope they are not celebrating that someone lost there job, but are celebrating that the outcome they desired has been achieved and change is coming.

Unfortunately, the debates about Bruin football are not over.  Today's decision put an end to the question of will Dorrell be fired, but it has probably not put an end to the controversy surrounding UCLA football.  There will groups of fans that will have problems with the process to select the next coach.  Short of Knute Rockne, Grantland Rice, or even Red Sanders rising from the grave to become UCLA's coach, there will be some that will not be satisfied with whoever is selected.  We can also expect the Dorrellistas to make regular appearances when next season, and possibly, many seasons to come, UCLA has a less than perfect game.  The controversies will go on for years, unless the next hire turns the football program around as quickly as Cheaty Petey did at $c.

While DumpDorrell.com may be going out of business, BN still has an important role to play in the exchange of issues and concerns surrounding UCLA sports.  As fans we may not have a direct involvement in the decisions that are made by the UCLA Administration, but we do have a vested interest.  The commitment, mostly emotional, but also financial for donors and ticket buyers, gives us the right to an opinion and BN gives us a place to share it.  I hope the next big issue does not divide the Bruin Nation like the Dorrell controversy.  But, we are talking sports, which along with religion and politics are the most controversial subjects around.

I don't know how to do block quotes and I don't have time this morning to figure it out.  Here is a link to an AP story running at ESPN regarding Chris Petersen's interest in leaving BSU for another head coaching position. Boise St.'s Petersen wants to stay, but keeping options open

Here's the key graphs from the story (and if someone can clean this up with block quotes I check out the editing so next time I can do it myself):

On Monday, Petersen, said he had not been contacted about any opening. He reaffirmed his commitment to Boise State, but left the door ajar when asked if he would consider other opportunities.

"It just would probably depend on the situation," he said. "And the only reason I say that is you never say 'never.' Is there a school out there that I'm kind of going ... 'if they called?' No, there's not.

Looks like Petersen is using the classic, "Make me an offer I can't refuse" strategy.  The article mentions Georgia Tech, Nebraska and Baylor as possible suitors for Pertersen.  No mention of the Bruins...yet.  That speculation probably will not get started in the MSM until Monday.

Bumped from the diaries. Hope folks at Morgan Center read this post closely, especially that last line from 77. GO BRUINS. -N

I must admit to a large amount of Dump Dorrell fatigue (not the web site, just the subject).  The reasons for Toast's just and imminent departure are too numerous and have been discussed pretty much without end here on BN and are also taking hold in the MSM. I was putting a personal moratorium on the continued discussion because it seems so obvious why Toast is toast. Unfortunately, I keep getting riled up by the speculation that Toast could still be around next year. So as a cathartic end to my frustration with Toast, I am posting what are expect to be my final rebuttal to what I believe are the only two semi-plausible arguments still out there for retaining Toast: 1) to retain the recruits that have orally committed; and, 2) UCLA can't afford, or won't pay, for a decent replacement, plus cover the cost of Toast's buyout package.

One class of recruits is not going to make or break for UCLA football. Does it make sense to jeopardize the potential for turning around a floundering program by betting on one recruiting class? Also, why does anyone believe that keeping Toast at this point will hold this recruiting class together? With all the open speculation about the future of Toast, even if these commits are in love with playing for Toast (I know that is a dubious assumption, but one that is thrown out by the Dorrellistas), these recruits have to recognize, based on Toast's record to date, that his days as the head coach at UCLA are limited. Since many of these potential incoming freshmen would most likely redshirt next year, they have to rbe thinking that they most likely will never play a down for Toast. Therefore, if Toast is the attraction for them to come to UCLA, for that reason alone, they are probably already reconsidering their commitments.

Point two is even more ridiculous than the "keep the recruits" argument.  UCLA can not afford to keep Toast. Last year (2006) UCLA's football attendance for seven home games was 454,683.  That's an average of almost 65,000 per game. If Toast is retained and the Bruins continue to put a mediocre team on the field, attendance will drop. Assuming that average attendance drops by only 5,000 per game, which is less than 10%, at an average ticket price of around $40, UCLA will lose $200,000 per game in ticket sales. That doesn't even count lost parking and concession revenue or the financial impact from a drop in donations and lost TV revenue (since TV appearances will also most likely go down). I think these are very conservative estimates, but in ticket sales alone, the lost revenue from ten games will pay for Toast's buyout. Also, assuming the program turns around, a 10% increase in attendance is not unreasonable. That could more than pay for the increased salary of a high profile coach. If Dan Guerrero can't be convinced that Toast is toast based on his inept on field performance, then maybe the money argument will make sense to him and his fiduciary responsiblities for UCLA athletics.

While I would love to say this is the last time I will let the Dorrellistas and there unsupported arguments to retain the most inept coach UCLA has had in generations, get under my skin. But as a season ticket holder of more than 30 years, I just can not let stand any chance that Toast will not be gone by December 3. Of course, if he isn't gone, my annual donation to the Bruin Athletic Club and season tickets will be gone from the cofers of the UCLA Athletic Department

Nestor brought up the idea of DG going after Steve Spurrior to replace KD and others have proposed lists of other top flight coaching talent.  That made me think we may need to change the focus of our argument to dump Dorrell.  Instead of focusing on Dorrell's failures and his apparent lack of coaching skills, we should continue to point out that there is better coaching talent available.

DG has to recognize that even if Dorrell improves as a head coach he will only go from lousy to maybe mediocre.  As long as Dorrell is coach, UCLA football is destined to have the once in every five or ten years good season to go along with a lot of appearances in the who gives a damn bowl.  If UCLA can attract a "home run" hire, then it must be done.  The fans are upset over the team's performance under Dorrell and his innate ability to experience unfathomable losses.  However, even if some of those losses did not occur, at best, Dorrell is a mediocre coach.  As has been discussed here on BN and elsewhere, ad nausium, there is nothing in the last five years that would give even the most casual fan a good feeling that Dorrell will ultimately evolve into a good football coach.  At best, he should be considered no more than the current care taker until the right coach is found.  No opportunity to move up in coaching talent should be ignored.  In professional sports, even if your team has an all star talent on the roster, wouldn't you want the GM to trade him for the opportunity to get a hall of fame talent?  While the degree of talent may not be the same in UCLA's coaching situation, the analogy still works.  Isn't it incumbent on DG to do his due diligence to the football program by taking the short list of potential coaching candidates out of his desk draw, updating it, and start making informal inquiries?  If DG has the opportunity to hire a coach with a good track record, doesn't he owe it to all the fans to trade up?

OK Karl, I know you hang out here at BN, so I thought I could use this post to give you a suggestion for the upcoming Cal game.  I am sure others who visit this site have some ideas for you too, so feel free to visit often and use our ideas.  While some of these ideas may be wacky and unconventional, I promise you they will not result in losses worse than Utah, Notre Dame, or any of the other upsets you have experienced.  We are big UCLA supporters and are only trying to help you in your last season as UCLA's head coach.

We now know that Olson will not be available and Cowan is going to be questionable probably up until game time.  That leaves you with two options at QB: your QB converted to WR and the law firm.  How about developing a different offensive package for each of them that will take advantage of their unique skills?  They must have skills, or else you would not have them on the team, right?  I am thinking you could rotate them in and out of the game depending on field position and other game situations.  If nothing else, it will keep the Cal defense confused.   You have two weeks to prepare, so if each QB only has to learn half of the offensive scheme it is more likely that these inexperienced QBs will be successful.  It will also help take some of the pressure off them.  If necessary I can be available during the game to help you make the call on who should be in and when.  Also, if it appears that one QB's package is more successful, feel free to adjust the rotation to take advantage of the hot player.  There are no penalties thrown for a coach changing is mind.

is not possible by any objective criteria.  While still in the realm of possibilities, wining the Pac-10 should not, MUST NOT, save Dorrell.  Actually, if by some miracle (like all the other schools in the Pac-10 drop football before the season ends) UCLA wins the Pac-10, it is just further evidence that Dorrell is inept.  To win Pac-10 Dorrell would have to beat Cal, Arizona State, Oregon and $c.  In my imaginary world where this happens, then the question DG and any remaining Dorrell supporters would have to ask how a team could beat those teams and lose to Utah and the worst Notre Dame in a century.

The parallels that have drawn here on BN between Dorrell and Lavin are just too eerie.  Inconsistent play, players not well coached in the fundamentals of the sport, problems recruiting talent at all positions, losing to inferior teams then pulling off the unexpected upset and, of course, what is the most important criteria to keep your job while performing far below reasonable expectations, looking like you know what you are doing while all objective criteria demonstrates the exact opposite.

Changing head coaches is no longer a question of if, but a question of when.  Please DG, give us a coach we can be excited about.  Give us someone who will restore some pride in the football program.  Give us a coach that makes it fun to go to the games again.  DG we implore you to save UCLA football before it has sunk to a level that it is not possible to bring in a decent replacement for the embarrassment that is the current head coach.

Finally, thanks those who created Bruins Nations and keep it going.  Without this forum, where could we all go to vent.  OK, I feel little better now.

Update [2007-10-8 13:20:24 by Bruin77]: Just read the post from Bruin Core and felt I had to add this: "WE'RE #4"

There is a lot of discussion about how deep is UCLA's football tradition.  This weekend should be showing Bruin fans what tradition means to a football program.  Over 90,000 fans are expected at the Rose Bowl tomorrow.  That's as many as a $c game.  Why will so many people turn out to see UCLA play a 0-5 team?  Because that team is Notre Dame.  

Imagine playing as poorly as Notre Dame has this season and still being one of the biggest draws, if not the biggest draw, in college football.  Sure a lot of tickets were sold for this game before Notre Dame started to sink to unprecedented lows.  But, you don't hear people saying that are not going to attend.  There is an excitement around this football game that exceeds almost any game at UCLA that is not against $c.

Imagine what it would be like to be viewed by the sports world, even in a record setting off year, as an elite program and a major fan attraction.  Imagine road games where your team increases average attendance for the home team 20% or 30%.  Imagine being able to make BCS Bowl games without having to have an undefeated record.  All it takes is consistent winning and playing to your potential.  Okay, a clean image helps too, unless you are $c, then the opposite applies.  Winning builds fans.  Fans go to games or, at least, go out of their way to watch their team on television.  Fans buy all manner of items as long as the item has the team logo on it.  Fans make donations to the university.  Fans = Money and Money = More Success.

I understand that there is only one Notre Dame and no matter how many wins, conference titles and National Championships UCLA racks up, we will probably never be held in the same esteem as Notre Dame.  However, it does show us the possibilities that long term, consistent success brings to a football program.  Please don't interpret this diary as denigrating UCLA football tradition.  As many have written, we may not be the most successful program, but we have had our moments.  Unfortunately, our football history is very inconsistent.  I have a dream that someday, UCLA football will be as synonymous with success as UCLA's basketball program.  Even in the down years of UCLA basketball, opposing teams and their fans were excited to play UCLA.  Why can't it be that way in football too?

Excuse me for starting this off with a little political comment, but it is germane.  I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "January 20, 2009 - End of An Error."

All summer I checked out the countdown to kick-off clock on BN with growing anticipation of the breakout season the Bruins were going to have in football.  Since that is no longer likely to happen, I have turned my attention to the countdown to tip-off to keep my Bruin dreams alive.

Unfortunately, the countdown to basketball season does not totally help me deal with my disappointment from what we have seen so far from our football team.  I think we need a countdown to a new coach or, more appropriately, a countdown to the end of coaching mediocrity at UCLA.  I would suggest the countdown would end sometime on Sunday, December 3, 2007.  Paraphrasing the bumper sticker I saw, "December 3, 2007 - End of a UCLA Coaching Error."  Alternatively, "December 3, 2007 - A New Era In UCLA Football Begins."

Of course, what the countdown clock is labled is not important.  What is important is keeping everyone's attention on ending this era in UCLA football and making sure the attention to this critical issue is not lost when the Dorrellistas come out and try to celebrate an 8-4 or even 9-3 record. I don't even think 11-1 cuts it, when the 1 is the annually occuring humilating loss to an undermanned team for a second tier conference.

First an apology to Fox71: During the off-season Fox was steadfast in his opinion that Dorrell be fired now.  I argued that the time to fire a coach is right after the season ends, not the middle of summer.  Under normal circumstances, I still defend my logic. Firing Dorrell so close to beginning of the season would have created another Harrick/Lavin-type situation.  I felt that the timing would lead to promoting an unqualified assistant because there would be insufficient time and a limited pool of candidates to get a qualified replacement in place.  Continuing Dorrell's tenure appeared to be the only reasonable course of action.  I could not have been more wrong.

Until Saturday, I thought that Dorrell was not a bad coach, just mediocre.  Therefore, if the expectations for this football program are for something better than a 500 record year-in and year-out, Dorrell was not the man for the job.  However, I was willing to accept Dorrell as this season's caretaker.  I understood there was a risk. Dorrell might pull off another impressive record like 2005 and we would be stuck with him for another couple of year.  I did not think Dorrell would cause long term harm to the program by remaining the coach this year.  I was wrong.  It is time for a chance RIGHT NOW!

  Dorrell could win out this season (not very likely based on what happended last Saturday), but he still should be fired.  Under Dorrell UCLA is headed in the wrong direction.  For every step forward there are two or three steps backward.  He is not mediocre, he is incompetent. The loss to Utah is another in a litany of Dorrell coaching disasters.  Wyoming three years ago, Arizona and the SC blow-out two years ago, Washington, Washington State and FSU last year.  And, those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.  I am sure there are some more that I have repressed.  One significant victory (13-9) does not justify the continuation of his coaching tenure.  

As has been stated many times, Dorrell is not a bad person, just a bad coach.  Other than the Eric Scott fiasco (we still don't know why ES was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong people) Dorrell appears to be running a clean program.  However, that is not enough.  

I make my donation, I buy season tickets and I attend most home games even though I don't live in the LA area and have to get buy an airline ticket, on top of a game ticket, for every game I attend.  I have cheered for the Bruins in good times and in bad.  I deserve better than I am getting.  Now that it is so obvious (sorry I didn't get to this point sooner) it is time for Dan Guerrero to show some support for me and the rest of UCLA's fans, by demonstrating that incompetence will not be tolerated.  It is time to bench Dorrell. Put in the back-up for the rest of the season while you begin the recruitment process to fill the key weak spot on this team - Head Coach.  

I found this quote buried in an AP story titled "Opponents quivering at sight of loaded USC." (link to story)

"USC may not even be the best team in LA; if head-to-head records count, that distinction belongs to UCLA, which beat the Trojans last December." The full story is essentially the same drivel about $c's recent dominance of college football and how loaded they are with NFL caliber talent.  Yada, yada, yada.  But you gotta love the qualifier that they may not even be the best team in LA.  13-9 is more than a rallying cry for Bruin fans, it sent a very loud message across the country that, while $c is loaded with talent, they are not invincible.  

While no football fan in their right mind would think that $c is going to fall flat, they have to play 12 games like everyone else.  Upsets will happen and upsets can play on the psyche of a team.  The next thing you know, as quickly as $c was rebuilt 5 years ago, they can fall back from their recent success to become the mediocre team of the 1990's all over again.  

13-9 could be the turning point in two college football programs.  It may someday be looked at as the turning point in UCLA football that brought the program out of the hinterlands of the college football landscape and also as the game that started $c's return to mediocrity (though I must admit, as has been mentioned on BN may times, the Nut Bowl performance didn't help).  Only time will tell if $c is a monster team for the ages or if UCLA was the team that gave $c the push that had them tumble from the top.  And, only time will tell if UCLA can climb up to take their place.

Let's hope this time next year, the Jim Harbaugh's and Les Miles of the college football world are pointing at UCLA and trying to psych our team out with their preseason comments and articles are being written that discuss if UCLA is for real or the 2007 National Championship was just an aberration.  Ah, you gotta love the weeks leading up to the start of a new season.  Every team is undefeated and optimism reigns.  

There are so many posts regarding the Eric Scott situation that I was not sure where to post this.  I hope it is OK to start a new diary.  This is an important issue to discuss, but as I note below, I think it is too soon to use this sorry situation as additional fodder for the ultimate end game -- firing Dorrel.

The issues related to Eric Scott's criminal record and his current arrest are certainly grist for the blogoshere.  However, there is still much that is unknown about the circumstances of his arrest.  I believe the number of posts regarding this situation is a reflection of two issues: the embarrassment brought on the football program (we are NOT $c) and, the current favorite topic around here, Dorrell's competency.  In this case, hiring a coach with little experience and questionable background.

Regarding the first issue: if ES is guilty, or even if he was an innocent bystander and the other two arrested with him are the guilty parties, he should be fired.  With his background, even though the worst of it appears to have occurred in his teens and early 20's, he needs to be above reproach.  But none of us know the full story, so can't we wait until the facts come out before we condemn him?

On the second issues, his inexperience is definitely a reason to question Dorrell's hiring practices, but who knows if ES is a diamond in the rough.  How much experience did Ken Norton have before the TrOJies hired him?  Terry Donahue would not promote Rick Neuheisel to OC because his was inexperienced.  As it turned out Rick had some ethical issues, but they had nothing to do with him not getting the OC job.  A job he was pretty good at when he went to Colorado.  $c has two coaches in their early 30's that were considered for head coaching jobs in the NFL (sure it was the Raiders, but that is still the NFL).  ES's inexperience, in and of itself, is not the problem.  The fact that Dorrell can not always find coaches with the right credentials is, but that did not change because ES got arrested yesterday.

This could have been a great Bruin story (and might still be) of a young Bruin who turned his life around and became a successful coach.  We would be celebrating Dorrell's brilliant hire.  Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it will turn out that way, but absent the ability to bring in a top flight assistant coach, taking a chance on someone young and inexperienced, is not always bad and sometimes, brilliant.

While the entire Bruin nation wishes AA well and is disappointed that we will not see him in Blue and Gold next year, his departure may be an opportunity to make the Bruins stronger in the years to come than if he had stayed.

AA is certainly deserving of all the accolades expressed in the "thank you" posts.  With his talent and experieince, watching him with next year's team would have been a thrill.  However, given some of the rumors that have been floating around lately, his decision, along with the timing of his announcement, may benefit the Bruins in the long run more than if he stayed.  

There is at least one five star recruit that has been waiting to see the fallout from underclassmen going pro. Also, Micheal Beasley is likely to be released from his LOI to Kansas State. AA's departure opens up a scholarship.  Let's see who gets it.  While the team will obviously not be as strong without AA as it would have been with him, the real impact of his early departure may not be known for another year or two.  

If JF did not leave last year, the Bruins would not have had a scholarship to offer RW.  Bringing RW in this year ensured that there will be a quality PG to backup DC.  Also, with one year of experience, RW is in a better position to help fill the void left by AA.

For numerous reasons, mostly revolving around character, competitiveness and leadership, AA can not be easily replaced.  But, this is a time of celebration for his college career and the impact he had on rebuilding Bruin B-Ball back to an elite level.  It is also a time of excitement for all Bruin fams to see who comes next to continue what AA, JF, and, of course, BH started.