A couple of things in this article really ticked me off this morning.  For instance, Deinhart suggests that not even Peterson could do much better than Dorrell at UCLA, all else being constant.  So I've included the link, and my response.

http://www.sportingnews.com/cfootball/

As a Bruins fan, I actually appreciate an article that highlights the shortcomings of UCLA's commitment to football.  Hopefully, it will help lead to all of these issues being addressed.  However, I think the article, and the some of the responses, miss some of the big picture and a few major points.

1)    The article seems to be so focused on the negative issues that it misses (or avoids?) the big picture.  That big picture is that UCLA has so much going for it (location, academics, elite in overall athletics, elite in basketball, recruiting base, etc), that it is truly one hire away from at least being competitive again in football, if not elite.  You don't believe me?  That's fine, but just take a look at what has recently happened to UCLA basketball and baseball.  When Lavin was fired, there were articles much like this one (perhaps even written by Deinhart?).  These articles said UCLA's time is over as things have changed, high academic standards are a problem, the facilities are poor, Arizona and the east coast powers have a strong recruiting grip on So. Cal., etc.  All UCLA did was hire a great coach.  Sure, we got him for under market value, but again, all Dan Guerrero did was hire a great coach.  Look how that's turning out.  Now, let's look at baseball, where UCLA's status had been lower than it's current football status, nationally.  People said we weren't a baseball school, the stadium sucks, etc.  Guerrero hires a very good coach, and within a few years we are again on the national scene.  So, for anyone to suggest that even a Peterson hire would likely keep UCLA from doing much better than the uncompetitive, inconsistent, and uninspired teams of Karl Dorrell seems pretty foolish.

2)    The world of college football has indeed changed, and more investment is needed to be an elite team - and based on actions to date, it seems like this hasn't been lost on the current administration.  The current administration of Block and Guerrero have proven to be far superior to the previous administration of Carnesale and Dalis when it comes to a commitment to excellence in athletics (coaching changes, progress on Pauley renovation, etc.).  Guerrero says he wants excellence in his football program, and considering he has done everything he has said he would do, to date, there is no reason to NOT take him on his word.  In my opinion, Guerrero understands the opportunity cost of NOT having a strong football program, especially in such a large market as L.A. (not everyone is a SUC fan).  Lastly, all of the changes suggested by Deinhart seem (from my partial understanding of UCLA's athletic budget) to be possible within the current budget.  It's not like UCLA needs a new stadium.

3)    One could make the argument that football coaches have been underpaid while Guerrero has been AD.  However, who is going to pay the price of a Ferrari for a Yugo?  Before being hired at UCLA (hired by Carnesale, I might add), Dorrell was a position coach.  He had some less-than-successful experience as an OC - but even then he didn't even call the plays.  Deinhart says "you get what you pay for", and that is the case much of the time.  However, I would counter that with "you don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate."  And Dorrell, considering his lack of experience as a head coach and lack of success as even a coordinator, was in no position to negotiate more than what UCLA was willing to give him (he didn't deserve even what he was getting, in my opinion).  And let's also not forget that Guerrero did give sizable raises to the coordinators, even though neither of them had any real experience as coordinators (Norvell never called played and Walker had been a position coach).  So, just because Guerrero didn't pay the unproven Dorrell and his coaching staff much relative to other Pac-10 coaching staffs doesn't mean he won't pay market value for a proven, successful coaching staff going forward.

4)    What's up with all the whining from the Trojan fans?  To say that UCLA has an inflated view of itself is the biggest case of the "pot calling the kettle black" that I have ever heard.  Most of the UCLA fans I know recognize that we haven't been an elite program over time like Michigan, OSU, ND, and USC; and we don't expect to "beat USC, CAL, OREGON and the rest of the PAC-10 each year."  However, we do expect to be, at the least, competitive with these programs.  And why shouldn't we?  Afterall, before Dorrell was hired, one media service (I can't remember which one) had UCLA as the #16 team all-time in college football.  Not elite, but certainly very good.  These USC fans probably get their information on what they think "real UCLA fans" want from BRO, and are probably the same SUC fans that think the Yahoo stories regarding Reggie Bush and his family were nothing more than a witch hunt.

The bottom line is that UCLA, because of it's natural advantages and it's commitment to excellence in all it's sports programs by the current administration, has the ability, and now seemingly the will, to become an elite national power in football.  If we can get the right head coach in place, I'd bet the rest will fall into place, much like has been the case with basketball and baseball.  

Bumped again with fresh update from Fox 71 below

Bumped. While it is good news that reports rumors are surfacing that DG is talking about immediate removal of Dorrell and considering the possibility of Walker as the "interim coach," we will make something clear: we are not going to accept Walker as a permanent option at UCLA. Walker can stay through rest of the season, but we need a clean house next season. Period. GO BRUINS. -N

Nice little nugget from the Sportingnews.com, suggesting that Walker may have had a discussion with DG about becoming an interim head coach.

Perhaps all the hard work by BruinsNation and DD are paying off.

It's near the end of the article titled "If Callahan goes, Nebraska can't blow it again."

Here's the link to the full story and here is the UCLA mention:

Change is brewin' for Bruins

The next few games are critical to Karl Dorrell's future at UCLA.

A source told me that UCLA AD Dan Guerrero met with Bruin defensive coordinator DeWayne Walker last week during the team's off week to discuss the possibility of Walker taking over as interim coach this season if Dorrell is let go early.

Presumably, if Walker does well, he would be given strong consideration to become the head coach. Walker's defense has been strong since he arrived in Westwood before the 2006 season. He long has been considered a strong head coaching candidate, with his extensive background in the NFL. The guy is good.

I like the idea of firing KD now and giving Walker the interim head coaching job.  Players seem to like playing for Walker.  However, with that said, I don't "love" the idea because Guerrero may be tempted and/or pressured (for various reasons) to give any interim head coach the permanent job, and I want UCLA to hire a PROVEN HEAD COACH.

The days of UCLA "experimenting" with unproven head coaches (Lavin and Dorrell) needs to be a thing of the past.  It's just burned us too badly.  Also, DG still needs to prove to us his commitment to football.

Go Bruins!

UPDATE - N: I am glad we blockquoted the relevant excerpt. Looks like the excerpt in question has now been removed. Someone must have gotten to Dienhart. Things are happening out there folks. So please stay on these stories. And every time you notice something make sure you blockquote the germane part, instead of just linking to the story. Let's keep the heat on. GO BRUINS. -N

UPDATE II -N:From Perelman at What's Bruin:

UCLA sports information director Marc Dellins said this afternoon, "This story is categorically untrue. We have asked that it be removed from the SportingNews.com Web site." As of 1:35 p.m. Pacific time, the segment of Dienhart’s blog entry concerning UCLA had, in fact, been removed. I have no problem with this. Its a standard denial. But it certainly doesn't deny the now obvious fact that the Dorrell is now on a scorching hot seat. This kind of rumor usually doesn't come up by accident. What's that old saying, where there is smoke, there is fire. Yadi, yada, yada. GO BRUINS. -N

UPDATE III - N: Now Dienhart adds this in his comment thread (emphasis mine): UCLA admits that its A.D. met with a Bruin assistant last week for "personal development" reasons. Uhm, Karl looks like Dan might be working on "disciplining" your "resources." Get that resume polished if I were you. GO BRUINS. -N

UPDATE IV -N: As BruinCore notes in the comment thread now Dohn tries his hand at damage control: The meeting with Walker and Guerrero was scheduled weeks ago, and it was decided the end of last week was best because Guerrero was out of town early in the week, and football was having a bye.
Trying to draw some sort of significance out of the fact that a meeting took place between the two of them at an eatery in Westwood is irresponsible. It's like trying to connect dots that do not deserve to be connected.
If the meeting was so significant to the future of Karl Dorrell, why isn't the other number of meetings between Guerrero and Walker under the same could of suspicion.
Quite frankly, it was an irresponsible report that was quickly pulled. Trying to read further into it, and to suggest it had to have some validity because the two met, is irresponsible. Is there anything more damning about the validity of a report than it being pulled off the internet?
I know some folks are not happy with Dorrell, but to try and turn this into something big is my basic problem with message boards/blogs/ect. Sure Brian we have nothing to see here. I am sure there is no heat on Dorrell as you would like us to believe. And I am sure just like you told us Dorrell should get six years to prove himself at UCLA. And what's up with that dig against blog/message boards. Someone besides Karl is feeling a little insecure these days. Sheesh. GO BRUINS.

UPDATE V: From Fox 71 (emphasis from our Opera Man):

I sent Deinhart an e-mail:

"I am a hard core Bruin. Like many of my friends and fellow alums, I believe that our current coach is the worst ever at UCLA and currently the worst football coach in the country. Naturally, I was delighted to hear that you had reported that Athletic Director Guerrero had met with Defensive Coordinator Walker to discuss the idea of Walker's becoming interim coach. The obvious conclusion from that discussion is that the current coach (whose name I simply cannot bring myself to type) would be fired.

Then it came out that Sporting News had deleted the comment about the meeting and the discussion of an "interim coach."

Please clarify the situation. I assume you did not make up the entire conversation. So would you clarify the situation? What were you told? I assume you are unwilling to identify the person who gave you the information, but naturally I would like to know that as well.

Thank you."

His reply puts all this back on the front burner:

"I had a good source, believe me. But, I should have cleared things with DeWayne.

If things go south the next few weeks, things will get interesting. The defense is fine. UCLA was HOT that I posted that nugget. They do admit there was a meeting, but they say it was for "personal development." Yeah, whatever.

What does most of Bruin Nation think? If there is a change, who do you want as coach?"

What say you Mr. Dohn? GO BRUINS.

I find it silly that people are saying this season won't be a disaster IF Dorrell wins the Pac-10.  It ain't gonna happen.  Period.  Waste of time.  There's a better chance of Nestor becoming an 'SC fan than KD winning the Pac-10.

The only thing I find interesting is the similarities between Lavin's final season and KD's final season (this season).  
1) Both had embarrassing losses to pathetic out of conference opponents.  
     Lavin: Branch West, EA Sports, San Diego and Northern Arizona.  
     Dorrell: Utah, Notre Dame
2) Both started out strong in Pac-10 play.
     Lavin: Started 2-0 after beating the two pathetic Washington teams.
     Dorrell: Started 3-0 after beating three of the four worst Pac-10 teams.
3) Supporters of both of these idiots then claimed that things weren't too bad because "we can still win the Pac-10" and are "still in first place in the Pac-10.  So be positive!"  Then they accuse others (those that can see past the end of their nose) that they are just "haters" and should stop being fans if they can't enjoy a win.  

Now, we all know what happened to Lavin, as he followed up this 2-0 "success" in the Pac-10 with a dismal 3-13 run.  And that sounds about right for the rest of KD's farewell tour, also.  I expect 2-4, maybe even 1-5.  Let's face it, with this broken offense we have little hope against the big boys in the conference (CAL, UO, SUC, ASU).  Add in the fact that we suck on the road, and I see about 1 win.

So, I find it humourous that we are going through the exact same discussion (different sport) that we had less than 5 years ago: it's all very Lavinian.

Walking out of the Rose Bowl on Saturday was the worst I have felt leaving a stadium in almost a decade (I was at Miami).  So it feels awkward that I'm feeling so much better about our program than I was just 5 short days ago.  And it's all due to my belief that the Notre Dame game has sealed KD's fate.  

Why?  Well, it's mainly due to the discussions I've had with a few ex-players.  As a note, my only purpose of this diary is to share some of their comments with the Bruins Nation.  So, if you are the type of person who isn't interested in hearing second or third hand information, then please, stop reading.

Now, I carpool to the games with two ex-players, both of whom played at the end of the Donohue era.  Neither of them think KD is any good, and both have been ready to stop going to games because they can't take it (sounds like the rest of us).  So, when we all met at my car after the game (they get to go on the field), I wasn't surprised to hear them complaining about the coaching staff.  HOWEVER, what I was surprised to hear was how negative the tone is from the other ex-players.  

Together, we counted over a dozen ex-players my fellow carpoolers talked to; guys from the Donohue era, Toledo era, and even recent guys who had played for KD.  NOT ONE guy had positive things to say about KD, and especially not the few guys that had played for KD.  I hadn't realized the extent to which the ex-players (in the aggregate) want to see KD replaced.  Sure, its not all of them, and you could argue that a dozen isn't a large sample size - but it's not a small sample size either.  Many of these ex-players made comments about how small our team looks and how poor our strength and conditioning program is.  Many of them also talked about how they hadn't been coming to games because of the "sloppy football" we were playing - and that was BEFORE the on-field meltdown.  Bottom line, it's nice to see that many of the ex-players feel much like we do, even if they don't express it in the media or blog world.  

There are also a lot of rumors circulating among these ex-players.  Some of which I just heard today:

1. RUMOR from a "reliable source" in the athletic department that KD is definitely gone this year.
   
2. A separate RUMOR that he likely won't make it to the end of the season.  
   
3. RUMOR that Ken Norton Jr. was contacted about the head coaching position (not sure when this allegedly took place).

That's it.  Lastly, if any of you are ex-players, I encourage you to add to the discussion.  I understand that you don't want to say anything that could jeopardize your good standing with the alumni group, but you can post anonymously and state your thoughts in a way that wouldn't be considered "bashing".

Go Bruins!!

Hey, we got a very good class, but does anyone really think we can continue to get strong classes under KD?  Let's ask ourselves why we finally got our first good recruiting class under KD, and try to decide whether we can replicate this year's recruiting success going forward.  

Was the nice class due to KDs great coaching?  I don't think so.  We've had example after example from just this last year that suggest he doesn't put his players in a position to succeed.

Was it due to his recruiting prowess?  Nope.  The best recruiter that KD has had moved to Minnesota.  Let's not forget that Bienemy was instumental in bringing a lot of these 4 star guys we got this year into the program. Also, Bienemy was the guy that had to push KD to get more involved with the recruiting process (per Bienemy).  With Bienemy gone, does anyone think KD is getting more involved in the recruiting process?  I haven't heard or read anything to support a "yes" answer to that question. Just check out today's LA Times for the latest indictment of our lackluster recruiting efforts.  Obviously, the recruiting PROCESS is weak at best, and broken at worst.

Was the good recruiting class due to last year's 10-2 record?  Perhaps.  Take a look at WHEN these top recruits verballed (is that a word?) to UCLA.  All of them verballed before this last season even started.  From the time last season started until now we haven't been able to capitalize on even ONE 4 star recruit.  Why not?  To me, it points to weak recruiting abilities. We couldn't even capitalize in recruiting after our win against SUC.  This sure doesn't point to a strong recruiting process.

We have the potential to have a huge recruiting class for 2008, but with KD at the helm and a lack of momentum (thanks to a lackluster 7-6 season with a crappy loss in a crappy bowl against a crappy FSU), how can we have any confidence that he will bring in a top-10 recruiting class?  We can't.  

I'm interested to hear other opinions, but until I hear a persuasive contrarian argument, then my bottom line is that 1) KD sucks at recruiting, 2) his only success in recruiting came in leveraging off a VERY lucky 10-2 record, and 3) even that success is showing to be a very short-term phenomenon.

10.  Your head coach's "best team yet" gets referred to as "mediocre" and as a "creampuff" in the national media; and also needs a miracle just to qualify for a meaningless bowl game.
9.  Positive articles about your head coach have nothing to do with his coaching abilities.
8.  The best win of the season is against an average Mountain West team, and the best win against a major conference team is 4-5 (soon to be 4-7) Arizona.
7.  Some fans are thrilled when your coaches choke away a game against an overrated opponent because you were expected to get blown out.
6.  Your head coach thanks the other team for ripping your heart out.
5.  Your head coach quits on the players in close games.
4.  It takes SEVEN poor offensive performances in a row for your head coach to finally get involved in the offense.  
3.  Your head coach's apologists call your latest beating another "moral victory".
2.  The media calls your head coach a "thinker", even though after four years he still doesn't understand the basics to time management, halftime adjustments, and not burning your timeouts in the third quarter.
1.  The only time your team gets mentioned on SportsCenter is after they had the privilege to lose to a top-25 team.  
   

KARL DORRELL: Truth or Fiction?

1)  We should keep KD as our head coach because he has brought respect back to UCLA football, is a fine example to young men, and is an alumnus.  

A:  FICTION.  That sounds more like a nice administrative position than the qualifications for a head football coach.  IMO, we need a proven head football coach with integrity, not an alum with integrity.  The "alum" portion should be a bonus, not the requirement. Question: does a head coach have integrity when he blames the players for losses?

2)  Karl Dorrell's Bruins run the West Coast Offense.

A:  FICTION:  The WCO is a ball control offense that utilizes short, precision timed passes in place of much of the running game and via variable formations (Bill Walsh's thoughts on the WCO, my sentence).  KD's offense is a ball control offense, but it is mainly through running the ball.  In all seven games this year our offense has tried to establish the run early.  We have also continued to run the ball late in games, even if we are unable to establish a successful running game.  Our last 8 offensive play calls against Notre Dame were 6 running plays, 1 pass behind the line of scrimmage, and 1 pass for two yards.  Instead of rehashing the stupidity of the play calling, let me just say this: IMO, KD basically said that he has no confidence in our ability to execute a ball control offense utilizing short, precision timed passes.  This is no West Coast offense.

3)   KD is a very good offensive mind.

A:  FICTION.  Under three different offensive coordinators, KD's offenses have consistently been unimaginative, predictable, ultraconservative, plagued by poor clock management, suffocated by poor timeout management, etc.  Only under Tom Cable was the offensive line any good and did we know when to take risks.  Also, considering our receivers have been totally average during KD's tenure, one could argue that he isn't even a good receivers coach, which supposedly is his specialty.  

4)  Recruiting is on the upswing.

A:  TRUTH.  However, It is only getting better RELATIVE TO Karl's own past recruiting efforts.  It is not better relative to Tolardo's last few recruiting classes.

5)  KD has proven that he is a good coach because he went 10-2 last year and is 14-4 in his last 18 games (errr, make that 14-5 in his last 19 games).

A:  FALSE.  "10-2"  is the same as the "Steve-16" argument, because it only scratches the surface of the analysis.  We needed a lot of luck.  It took 5 comebacks to get to 10 wins, and 4 of them were against average teams (only Cal was decent).  If it wasn't for the FOUR miracle comebacks in the regular season, that team could have been 5-6 and not even have been eligible for a bowl game.  Without Tom Cable to show some guts and go for the win, how many of those games do we win with this year's offensive coaching?  Also, both of our losses were blowouts, including a loss to our rival where we didn't even show up.  Then, we needed our 5th comeback to win the Piss Bucket Bowl against an average Northwestern.  

Oh yeah, the "14-5" argument is annoying because it captures the easy part of the schedule over two years, yet the hard part of the schedule over only one year.  And if "14-4" (pre-ND) was so great, how come we couldn't even get one stinking vote for the top-25?   Which leads me to.....

6)  We are having a good year because we have a winning record, so stop complaining about KD.  

A: FALSE.   Sure, we are 4-3, but KD's "best team yet" had its best win against 4-4 Utah.  Also, our best win against an opponent in a major conference this year is 3-5 Arizona.  
"Best team yet"?  What does that say about how lucky we got last year to finish 10-2?
7)  All those second half comebacks last year prove that KD is very good at making halftime adjustments.

A: FICTION.  Third quarter scoring is a better indicator of successful halftime adjustments than looking at the entire second half for a few reasons; mainly that fatigue becomes a major factor.  Looking at 3rd quarter scoring last year and we were outscored by 31 points!  And by the way, for the second year in a row we were outscored in the third quarter by Rice.  

8)  The players are young so they deserve our praise, and mistakes should be expected.

A:  FICTION.  They deserve our praise because we are proud of them for playing their butts off, not because they are young.  Also, this is not a young or inexperienced team.  We may not have a lot of senior starters, but 9 of the 11 defensive starters are juniors, and most of those starters have a lot of experience from last year.  On offense we start 1 freshman, 3 sophomores, and the rest are upperclassmen.  Lastly, player mistakes are expected and forgiven, which is why 99% of the negative attention this team gets is focused on KD.

9)  We should all be happy about the Notre Dame outcome because we weren't expected to be able to compete.

A:  FICTION.  The reason we weren't expected to able to compete is because of KD's coaching:  inability to put away lousy teams like Rice, ultracoservative playcalling that puts our players in a position to lose, inability to beat a good team on the road, running out the clock on ourselves in Washington, coaches quitting on the players in Oregon, etc. (Whew!)  At best, someone could say (not me) is that we should be happy that we competed with Notre Dame CONSIDERING the fact that KD is our head coach.