One of those people? Pete Dalis, our football genius emeritus. In fact he's the one who floated the idea to Simers. I don't know the others involved, but I assume they are related to his mindset, which shows that DG is not the only source of uninspired UCLA thinking. Hiring Sarkisian would repeat most of the flaws of UCLA's approach to football over the last few decades.

The only argument I hear in favor of Sarkisian is that he's from LA and can recruit. This "west-coast ties" theory is one of those overly inflated tropes that replaces real imagination in coach-searching. It's really no different in spirit than "he's a Bruin," which is why Sark's status as an outsider doesn't break too much in our tradition of going only after local, familiar names. Did Red Sanders have west coast ties? Did Pete Carroll? Did Urban Meyer have southern ties when going to Florida? Winning and excitement is all it takes to recruit to UCLA, and any great coach will form ties very quickly. Nor has Sark proven any special acumen and talent evaluation. His recruiting prowess is equal to Neuheisal's, as far as anyone knows.

Then there is the fact that Sarkisian hasn't looked spectacular at all at UW. He is not a superior offensive mind to Kelly, Leach, Kiffin, Rich Rod, Tedford, or Riley. He may be decent but he's clearly not spectacular, and he runs a conventional pro-style O which is hardly inspiring without tons of NFL talent.

And then there is the Nick Holt factor. Why wouldn't he bring Nick Holt with him here? And if we already have to force coordinators on him, he shouldn't be getting the job. Haven't we learned that already? Coordinators are a reflection of the head coach, and the fact that Sarkisian's top two choices for a DC were Rocky Seto and Nick Holt show that he really knows nothing about defense that he wasn't exposed to at USC. Big difference between hiring Holt (or Seto) from SC, and discovering a guy like Manny Diaz at Middle Tennessee -- as Dan Mullen did. Coincidentally, Mullen (who is also an offensive coach) still has a top 20 defense at MSU without Diaz. And it's not like Sarkisian is such an offensive genius that his cluelessness on D can be excused.

The news that Sarkisian talks spell the end of Guerrero is very good, obviously, but not enough to justify hamstringing our football program with the same old underachieving mentality that predates Guerrero. To me, a Sarkisian hire would amount to no break from our lackluster football past but merely a continuation of it.

With all the horrible publicity and anxiety surrounding our incredibly ill-conceived coaching search, I fear our fanbase is drawing the wrong conclusion about what should be done now. Every day that goes by without a coach is seen as an extra day of failure. That should not be the case. At this point, it is paramount to NOT RUSH INTO AN ASS-SAVING hire just to avoid further bad publicity, or save some mediocre recruits. That's the kind of hire that yields Moras.

If it were up to me, we would've had an organized Meyer-Petersen-Leach plan after the Arizona game, leading to Leach being our coach right now. Since that was botched for reasons that don't need to be rehashed, it's important now to take our time approaching guys who are currently employed. The impressive hires of Leach and Rich Rod could be made so quickly because they were out of work. For candidates who are employed, especially at BCS schools, a hire might not be possible until even after a bowl game. It is far more important to take every necessary measure to find a pool of QUALIFIED, TALENTED COLLEGE COACHES rather than rushing to hire an NFL mediocrity just to stop the bleeding. Ditto for begging a very poorly thought-out guy like Sumlin to take the job.

If we were truly reaching out to a group of promising candidates -- guys like Mullen and Butch Jones, or at a more secret level, Bob Stoops and who knows? -- it would take time. Time that we absolutely have to swallow at this point. Again, it might even take a bowl game to make some potential star coach available. So I urge all Bruins to make sure that the protests to the Morgan Center can't in any way be interpreted as calls for "immediate action" in a deluded attempt to temporarily shut us up. We must make clear that we demand a deliberate search of current and rising stars among college head coaches or assistants.

Panic led to the embarrassments of Sumlin and Golden, when neither of those guys should've been desperately pursued. Panic can only lead us to disaster now. There is still a way out of this mess, even with Dan Guerrero nominally "in charge," so long as we take the course that all recent history of good college hires clearly illustrates.

Just a note against misdirecting our righteous fury.

Bumped. While here at BruinsNation, we are not specifically endorsing any coach as a preferred candidate, Dan Mullen is the kind of coach if UCLA administrators should be taking a close look at. He is the kind of candidate who could potentially galvanize Bruin Nation. - BN Eds.

I know it's not BN's policy to get behind a specific coach, but I think it's time for anyone who supports Dan Mullen as our next coach to make their support known to our athletic department. Mullen is not the sure thing that would've excited us all like Petersen or Leach -- the latter of whom we could've easily had, if our AD wasn't such a small-minded ignoramus. But given what's left, I think Mullen presents the most exciting and promising choice, unless some star college coach nobody suspects (like Bobby Petrino) would be willing to switch schools.

Mullen, I believe, would be a far wiser hire than Sarkisian, Mora, Jones, Belloti, or Al Golden, the current favorite because of his connection to Gene Block. I will make my argument as concise as possible.

Every coach but a handful are "risks." But there are worthy, high reward risks and there are stupid risks (like hiring a position coach with no known acumen or playcalling experience who learned from Donahu, or hiring a guy out of coaching for 4 years).

The way to know a high reward risk is to examine the knowns and unknowns. Here is what we KNOW about Dan Mullen.

Continue reading this post »

UCLA has suffered from two major ills in its thinking about football: myopia (the idea that only guys who've coached at UCLA or USC even exist in college football and can be used as examples of anything, e.g., Walker! Cable! Sark! Chow!), and false conventional assumptions that travel in cliches (e.g. "NFL experience").

Both of these ills are now combining to make Jim Mora Jr. a viable candidate in our search and someone we are supposedly looking to offer. Here are the reasons that this would be an incredible dumb move.

1. Hasn't coached in college for 27 years.

How many times must we go through this? PETE CARROLL IS THE ONLY LIFETIME NFL COACH TO SUCCEED AT A HIGH LEVEL IN COLLEGE, AND HE CHEATED! Everyone else has been an abject failure. This is the absolute worst formula for hiring a college coach. Sherman, Wanstedt, Weis, Gailey...the list goes on and on and on.

Mora's sole college experience was one year as an assistant under Don James.

Continue reading this post »

I don't want to pile on. I'm not even angry. I've had time to adjust ever since that punt from the 37 yard line symbolized everything that has always been and was to come. I just want to report here on what it was like to be at the Rose Bowl yesterday. 

I've been at UCLA games before when the difference between losing or winning didn't seem to matter. I've never been at such a game when EVERYONE in the stadium seemed to feel that way. It was the most depressed crowd I'd ever seen. People were leaving early in a tied game, like they were changing the channel. They didn't know why they came, what they were watching, and why it somehow felt less "real" than seeing something on a screen from miles away. It did not feel like a game; it felt like some basic cable B-movie that nobody could quite understand why they made so much trouble and paid so much money to see on the big screen. 

We've talked about the eye test. Yesterday did not only fail the eye test. It failed the soul test. It failed the heart test, the spirit test, even the existence test. It was not like watching a train wreck, which would elicit real emotions. It was more like watching an empty track, waiting for something, anything to pass through. I brought 3 friends who would love to take a ride but who, unlike me, wouldn't spend months and days and years of life just idly waiting for one to show up. They represent the difference between 40k and 80k at the Rose Bowl.

Yesterday's game was Lavinesque. It was Dorrelian. I do not drop those words lightly. It was an event in which the most important matter at hand was not the win or loss but the absolute necessity for a change. It is literally better to change coaches every single year than to ever go through another game like that. Nobody who was there yesterday has any excitement about going back. The game was poisonous to the program.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. Good stuff from bluebland. - BN Eds.

The short answer: almost always. Nestor asked me to do a post on the risk-reward statistics regarding 4th down attempts, after I noted my belief that CRN should've gone for it on 4th and 2 from Houston's 30 on our first drive. That wasn't close to the worst of CRN's risk-reward crimes as a coach here, as you will see. But it was another opportunity lost to win a game by being aggressive, establishing identity, and taking leadership. Oh, and playing the odds.

Much research has been done about 4th down plays in the last few years. A couple seasons ago, Bill Billichek shocked everyone by going for it on 4th and 2 from his own 28 (with the lead) with a couple minutes left in the game. The research supported his decision. Here is a great study from Advanced NFL Stats that compresses the entire question into a simple chart.

via farm3.static.flickr.com

You should go for it in any situation at or below the blue line. This has been determined by a comparative "expected point" statistic for each decision, factoring in your chances at scoring and the value of field position. The blue line (and everything below) represents the point at which going for it has a superior "expected points" value to kicking. You can see the entire study here.

There are a few underlying premises to this study:

Continue reading this post »

UPDATE (BN Editors): Note this has been shot down on BruinReportOnline. Per Tracy Pierson the note about Greg Robinson being around Pauley is "completely false."

They shook hands and spoke right outside the gate, before Robinson went into the VIP area. I've posted this on BRO as well, in the hopes that universal outrage might help prevent this thing from happening. Unless Robinson is hired only as a position coach -- and even then. 

There could be an innocent explanation to Robinson's ubiquitous presence on campus at this time, but not likely. Some are now saying that he's strongly pursuing the job and the admin wants CRN to listen. I'm confident that CRN, if he really doesn't want him, is clever enough to play off the Fields/Donahue mafia. Though not that confident.

Nestor's prediction that we'd have to throw for 200 yards to beat Texas might seem a tad off now, but after listening to CRN's presser today I think the spirit of it still stands for the rest of the season. The Pistol is looking better and better. It's doing what we all hoped it would for the rushing game, which has shown the ability to succeed even when the other team knows what's coming -- the true mark of a great scheme.

But what we've seen the last two weeks isn't enough to make us a dynamic offense. Many questions still remain. I will list them here, in hopes that the smart folks here can help break down what needs (and does not necessarily need) to happen for us to become a good football team this year. 

1. We averaged 357 yards of offense the last two games -- a number good for 75th in the country. 

To be a top-20 offense, that number would have to go up to about 460. We've shown the ability to get 250+ rushing yards per game. The only way for rushing to go to 350+ is to have a QB who can rush for 100-150. But Prince, while competent as a dual-threat, is not elusive enough to be a Crouch-VY-Tebow type of qb.  

That extra 150-200 yards will have to come from the air. No?

2.  We will need that extra 150-200 yards. 

Today CRN referred to TOP and field-position as "weapons." That always makes me wince, because it reeks of conservatism. Field-position is only a weapon when nursing a lead. With a solid lead you can afford to be safe and patient with the ball...otherwise the only position of the field that matters is the endzone. The goal of every non-nursing drive should be points.  

In the last two games, early turnovers and tough defense helped spot us early leads that we had the privilege to nurse. We could afford to be conservative. We could afford to "manage"--and did it well. But our young defense, while improving (hopefully more and more), won't dominate the Pac 10 like it has the last two games. Not possible. 

Winning some of the tough games in this conference will require us to do what Oregon did against ASU. It will require us to do what a decent passing game could've done against Stanford. We'll have to match fire with fire and score as many points as possible. We won't have the privilege of playing it safe and passing up potentially available big-plays in fear of giving up the ball.

The most exciting thing about the Pistol so far has been how little we've actually done with it. You'd think that the now-formidable threat of our rushing attack would open up all kinds of screens, F-back plays, and play-action routes downfield. Chewing up 5-6 yards at a time is sweet, but it also leaves you open to potential drive-killing penalties and turnovers. When the defense sells out in any way, it's only prudent to capitalize by taking what they neglect.

Clearly, if we developed the ability to capitalize on overpursuing defenses, our offense would be unstoppable.

3. Can we get there?

This is where I reach out to the X-and-O experts here. Aside from the sloppiness of Prince and our receivers, is there any inherent obstacle to becoming a reliable throwing team? Why should the Pistol formation in any way prohibit improvement in our pass game, when you can run the same pass plays out of it as before, with so many easier wrinkles thrown in (like backfield catching options that were obviously not available in previous years, when everyone was busy blocking)?

The only reason I can think of is that too much practice-time was given to passing out of pro sets, rather than exclusively the pistol. Also, of course, that Prince's injury kept him from developing rhythm with his receivers. But that shouldn't be a factor anymore. Is there anything, then, that should hold us back?

It's the million dollar question with our program. It's haunted us for years. It has nothing to do with the zone defense, or with the aberrational confidence in Mr. Dragojevic (which is maddening precisely because it's an aberration). It has to do with our premature departures, and I think the topic deserves it's own thread.

Every player in the Howland era -- except Collison -- has fled to the NBA at the earliest chance. Nobody can begrudge Love and Westbrook, and it was pretty clear Westbrook would've stayed if not for his meteoric rise to lottery status. Also, Love has publicly said he would've liked to stay, but just couldn't pass up the lottery. (Dohn also wrote at the time that if not for his father Love very well might have stayed another year because he loved it so much. Worth noting in light of the suspicion that nobody has fun in our program.)

But AA's departure cost us a championship (imo) in 2008. LRMAM's departure cost us title contention last year. JH's departure crippled us at the point guard position this year. Only Farmar's departure didn't hurt, because it opened the door for Westbrook and Collison was a great replacement. In total, however, there's a definite pattern. And yes, it's a definite problem. But what's the solution?

The dilemma I see is that the early departures are due not to Howland's weakness but his strength. Through grueling, intense practices he's taught his talent to play elite defense, and once the players learn it they feel ready to move on. The prospect of improving their draft stock ten spots, from top 30 to top 20, does not outweigh a year's paycheck, and they seem to have the confidence that they can play at the next level and prove their case. Unlike at other programs, they know they can't come back and just coast for a year on coeds and alley-oops. So the incentive for returning is limited. I see no way out of this, unless Howland becomes adept at tricking his talent into remaining, which is unethical on his part. 

Now of course the early departures have claimed that their offensive abilities were "held back." Their camps will claim anything to improve draft stock. But did AA seem held back to you? Westbrook? Love? Collison? Does Honeycutt seem held back now? Sure Farmar played in a down-tempo style that year; do you wish he played in a flash-and-dash, lose in the first round offense that would've almost certainly kept him around?

Putting aside the tired old arguments about the Howland offense, which hasn't been slow much of the time, do you really believe that "showcasing" physical abilities should take precedence over efficiency and success in the offensive scheme?  

Basically, I'd like to see how people think this problem can be solved without

a) diverging fundamentally from the rigors and defensive intensity of Ben Ball (like how that's gone the last two years, by the by?)

or

b) trickiness by Howland in convincing players to stay.

Really, I'd like to know. This is doubtless a major problem. But as I see it, it's a consequence of the best of Ben Howland more than the worst. Appeasing talent and keeping them around does not seem compatible with the type of Ben Ball that teaches them fast and well and painfully. 

I think we need a thread to absorb all the brilliant ideas out there on how to fix this sickened basketball season. The more we struggle this season, the more of these ideas we are bound to hear. So I'll get the ball rolling on a few, and maybe some savvy basketball minds can add some of their own, so as not to clog every other thread for the next four months with their ingenuity. 

1. Start Bobo at the point. Think, oh think of the matchup problems.

2. Fire Howland, make Bobo player-coach. I don't know about you, but nothing gives me more hope for a player than a cute nickname.

3. Institute a 1-1-1-1-1 zone. Featuring Bobo. 

4. Run, run, run. Nothing suits our talent better than a non-stop, 100 mph offense where nobody's two feet can hit the floor at the same time. Bobo would particularly benefit from this, even if he was signaling to the bench on Sunday that he was gassed after two trips around the court. Oxygen tanks at each basket should take care of that.

Step it up, geniuses. Now is not the time to not be stupid. 

For that's what it is. Here is a great coach becoming utterly disgraced and detested because of a fatal flaw -- an inability to age gracefully, and be aware of one's limitations. 

Reading this round-up at Tomahawk Nation gave me the willies. I haven't followed the details of FSU's demise too closely -- aside from Karl Dorrel's efforts to disguise it -- but I've always been an admirer of Bowden. His wit, his candor, his amazing achievements, and his gambler's ballsiness (which even killed us up in Frisco, remember 4th and 11?) have always impressed, and while growing up FSU seemed the very model of a nonstop powerhouse.

How sad that the entire Seminole fanbase has no choice but to turn against him completely, and forfeit all goodwill to their best coach ever. How sad that a phenomenal career has been reduced to myopia, nepotism, and pathetically egotistical record-chasing. From all accounts the situation is a disaster. I don't blame the fans. But it's still depressing.

Bobby Bowden is not the only one to take this dark road. Lute Olson took it. Al Davis operates the toll booth. Joe Paterno -- who thinks he's going to die if he retires -- is also on it, though there is much more stability surrounding his situation. 

There are lessons in this sad story. What do BNers feel about it? I think It makes Coach Wooden's example all the more remarkable.   

Nothing like the morning glow of a great football victory, which gives you confidence and peace of mind the rest of the week, and makes it much more pleasant to watch the remaining weekend of games. Some key plays (in my mind) from yesterday's win that stick:

1. The Milton Knox play. His beautiful, MJD-esque move on 3rd and 10 that saved our only touchdown drive and made up for a missed block by Hasiak. Knox followed that up with another first down run, and is looking more and more like a major playmaker.

2. The goal line stand. Here's where I have some criticism. Our stop on 4th down was superb -- but I would've taken a timeout to make sure my two best DTs (by far) were in the game for that play. In 1997, Bob Toledo called a 4th down goal line running play for Jermaine Freakin Lewis at WSU because Skip Hicks was "tired." We had one timeout remaining, and that decision cost us a trip to the Rose Bowl that year. We know what happened to SC against Texas.

Maybe someone can tell me why it would've been wrong to use a timeout there, but otherwise I think nothing's more important than having your best players in for a game-deciding play. Just a thought.

3. What gave me the most hope going into yesterday's game was Jonothan Crompton. A lot is said about the balanced nature of football, but I can't get over the fact that a bad QB is almost insurmountable. For the second year in a row Crompton made his vaunted, humongous O-line look bad (at least to me). It seems that any underdog has a chance against a sub-par QB, no matter how the rest of the team matches up. (See 13-9, and almost any UCLA loss since 1998, excepting one fluky year from Drew Olson.)

4. Chuck Bullough. A very sound start from him -- after that disastrous first quarter last week. For every possession since, our defense has looked very...coordinated, with no blown plays and few schematic gaps. Then again, we're yet to face a real QB. But still promising.

5. Lane Kiffin. He looked very, very nervous on that sideline.

6. I've never in my life seen an illegal formation penalty on a field goal, an immediate safety call when the ball has obviously crossed the goal-line, or a delay-of-game penalty that came before the clock expired. Whatever.

***Forgot add, number 7: 

I think I'm ready to see Thigpen or an actual playmaker return the kicks. Austin has never impressed me as a returner -- he's extremely hesitant on kick-offs, and makes poor decisions on punts. He has some good ones now and then, but for a senior he isn't very wise, and he certainly doesn't have gamebreaking speed.

I know it's tough replacing a senior, but personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Thigpen back there (or Carroll?).

On the strength of the great and useful detailed football discussions on BN in the last few weeks, I'd like to ask the more pigskin-savvy members of this site about the most controversial call on gameday. Namely: to punt or not to punt?

The decision to go for it on 4th down is usually classified as a question of confidence. Confident, cocky coaches like Carroll do it all the time; timid, tepid coaches like Dorrel don't. But emotion and arrogance shouldn't have everything to do with it. The new wave of offensively aggressive coaches are going for it on 4th down more and more frequently as a matter of sober strategy. The decision is central to the most crucial football rift of the day: the value of possession versus field position.

I think an objective formula should be possible. The odds of making it or getting stuffed should be the easiest to figure out given the quality of the offense. To grossly simplify: Let's say that an offense facing 4th and 2 on the opposing team's 40 can be expected to score an average of 3.5 points on that drive. Punting will therefore cost 3.5 points. Is that worth 30 yards to the other team, whose drive value will be reduced from X to X? 

As you can tell, I've pulled these numbers from a hairy place, but a real formula along these lines shouldn't be too hard to devise. Yet I haven't been able to find one anywhere I've looked. Does anybody here know of one, or is any number-cruncher willing to take a crack?

The hardest variable to figure out will be field position, which remains the vaguest value in football today.