"A quick fix can fix a lot of problems: Pete Carroll won a
national championship in his third year at USC. Jeff Tedford has
been at Cal for three years and his team is ranked No. 4. One would
expect no less from Dorrell next year. But football at UCLA is not
about winning: It’s an exercise in sociology, political
correctness gone mad” ““ Andrius Varnus.
The Daily Bruin Sports inbox tends to receive two types of
letters during football season. One criticizes columnists who
don’t support the team enough. The other echoes the
sentiments Varnus expressed a year ago.
In the past couple years, UCLA’s crosstown rival has moved
out into another dimension, its public-school neighbor has gone
from being a baby to a bully, and a handful of other programs
nationwide have been turned around overnight by some coaching
prodigy.
So why shouldn’t Karl Dorrell be expected to do the
same?
Well, for starters, Dorrell’s name is not Carroll,
Tedford, Koetter, or any other two-syllable combination that
wealthy boosters daydream about while sailing on their yachts.
His offensive system is seldom used in college football. His
play-calling chart rests in his pants instead of his hands. But
most importantly, his background and experiences are entirely
different.
Lacking head-coaching experience when he was hired, Dorrell has
had to grow into the job more than step into it. Coming from the
NFL ranks, he’s had to learn how to work with younger players
and an academic institution. Those are things a coach can’t
cram for in an all-night study session.
The fact that Carroll and Tedford have had such remarkable
success so quickly says volumes about them, but says next to
nothing about Dorrell. He may be a young Pac-10 coach in a hotbed
for recruiting, but that’s where the similarities end.
“The other coaches have been around longer than I have,
but I want to set my own standard,” Dorrell said. “Our
school has its own expectations.”
OK, so maybe Dorrell is off the mark with that remark. In every
way, he should aspire to achieve what the Trojans and Bears have.
If UCLA’s long-run expectations aren’t to run an
academically prestigious, scandal-free program and compete for a
national championship, I’d be curious to find out exactly
what they are.
Setting his clichéd comment aside though, it’s
important to recognize what Dorrell has accomplished without
grading him on a curve next to Carroll or Tedford. Since taking
over for Bob Toledo, it appears as though he’s cleaned up a
program dirtier than a Friday-morning frat house. Since his first
season, he’s continued to mold the offense into the
professional caliber it was designed for.
“People want to be around our system,” senior
quarterback Drew Olson said. “It’s an exciting time,
and we want to rebuild the excitement in our program.”
The excitement is there right now, albeit not at the same level
as USC or Cal. But for as often Dorrell is ridiculed for not being
Carroll or Tedford, it seems kind of unfair to never thank him for
not being a John Mackovic, Buddy Teevens or Kevin Gilbride.
UCLA’s standing in the conference hasn’t plummeted
like Arizona, Stanford or Washington’s in recent years.
And while that’s certainly not a reason to congratulate
Dorrell, it should at least serve as a reminder that a coaching
change isn’t always the cure-all it’s made out to
be.
Perhaps Dorrell isn’t the offensive mastermind, defensive
genius or recruiting guru that other coaches around the nation are.
That’s OK, so long as his team continues to improve and the
record reflects it.
If two years from now, the Bruins are still meandering around
the middle of the conference standings and losing third-tier bowl
games, then it will probably be time for Dorrell to go.
But even if something like that does happen, the attention needs
to be on him, not across town or up north.
E-mail Finley at afinley@media.ucla.edu if you have any
bright ideas for a good grading scale to judge coaches by.