Hooray! Finally, one loss too many has been enough and Karl Dorrell is gone as coach of the UCLA Bruins football team.
Mr. Dorrell should have been gone about two seasons ago. But, the sad reality is because Mr. Dorrell is black and there are few black head football coaches in NCAA Division I, Mr. Dorrell was given more chances than others would have been given in a similar situation.
Mr. Dorrell was 35-27, but some of his lowlights include a 1-4 record against crosstown rivals USC and one of the four Trojans victories included a close 66-19 drubbing of the Bruins. That should have gotten Mr. Dorrell fired. But it did not. How about a 13-19 record after the sixth game of the season? How about losing to an injury-depleated Utah team 44-6 and to the most abysmal Notre Dame team in most of our lifetimes?
You see, any other program in the nation, including USC would not put up with five seasons of mediocrity. But, when there is a black coach in the mix at a public university, the pressure is intense to keep him on no matter what. It is not UCLA's job to be an equal opportunity employer when they need to win games. It would have also been useful for a program of UCLA's caliber to have at least gone after a better qualified black coach. Yes, there are some.
UCLA took a big risk in hiring Karl Dorrell and stayed with him way too long. It is time to right the ship and hire the most qualified coach, not a quota.
7 comments:
64 i will disagree with ya on this one. i don't think he held on to the position any longer because he was black. five years is not terribly long at the helm. if he would of keep it after this year then we could have said his color played a part. of the early names to replace him who do you like? peterson, leach or the mooch..
I'm not sure he was fired because of his race. I think 5 years is about the amount of time college coaches usually get to prove their ability. That way, they've been able to coach their own recruits, not the recruits the previous coach brought in.
I do agree with the first commenter. If they had kept him any longer, then I would think race had a part.
I'm voting Neuheisel as the replacement...
Well, gentlemen, we will just have to disagree on this one. I just look at the facts. A bad late season record. One bowl win. No Rose Bowls. A 1-4 against USC. If USC had lost to UCLA 66-19, the USC faithful would have not let that coach leave the Coliseum without being tarred and feathered on the 50-yard line. I think that Rick Neuheisel is the logical choice. But, if we are to believe AD Guerrero, they may have to go after a really big name and leader. Not quite sure who that would be. I just hope that Lou Holtz is not in the picture as speculated in today's Left Angeles Times.
lou holtz really? there is no way neuheisel comes back is there? this could be as much as a mess as filling the michigan job!!!
I think we al agree with one thing--Dorrell was not the man for the job. Nice guy though.
Lou Holtz? Seriously? I'm not even a UCLA fan, but Lou Holtz? On TV, he's less animated than Evel Knievel. That can't be a good move for the Bruins.
Lou Holtz' name was in the Left Angeles Times. Believe me, Lou would be a disaster, but he could get some laughs.
Post a Comment