Mandate For Change: UCLA
The Catalyst: As late as Halloween 2001, Pete Carroll’s first season at USC and the next-to-last for Bob Toledo at UCLA, the Bruins were the class of the town. Seven-and-a-half years later, LA has lost more games by double digits to unranked teams since 2002 (11) than SC has lost, period. When the record is that lopsided, there are only two possible reactions: OMG U$C is teh cheaterz and Fire Karl Dorrell.

You'll get 'em next time, big guy.
- - -
The drive for mediocrity is truly the stuff of legends, or at least of things in filing cabinets that keep for a really, really long time. Dorrell's first two seasons, the Bruins were 6-7, then 6-6, and came in 4-4 against the rest of the Pac Ten each season. The league's admirable move to a round robin format in 2006 allowed him to pick up an extra game to go 5-4 that year, and 7-6 overall, a mark balanced (of course) by the 6-7 record last year. It’s like chi. Bowl games included the Silicon Valley, Las Vegas, Sun, Emerald and Las Vegas again. Even the Bruins' lone interesting season under Dorrell, 2005, was one that veered to the middle in the balance of its extremes: fantastic on offense, horrible on defense, a consistent winner but almost always in close, skin-of-the-teeth fashion; a rare loser but in grisly blowouts each time, once to a team that finished 3-8 and once by 47 points to the hated Trojans, who gained a mere 679 yards.
The gap is too big. UCLA does not have a history of contending nationally, but it does expect Rose Bowls: it played in six of them between 1975 and 1998 – three in four years from 1982-85 – and in two Fiesta Bowls and two Cotton Bowls. It won eight of those ten games. Dorrell, though, never came close to a January game. He didn’t have the players. By Rivals’ count, from 2004-07, USC signed as many five-star recruits (23) as LA signed four-star recruits, when there are about nine times as many of the latter to be had. The only question is why it took another year to pull the plug.
The New Guy(s): Rick Neuheisel has a long way to go to escape the long shadow of charlatanism: he left Colorado with more than 50 rules violations and two years’ probation in 1998, was investigated for illegal recruiting visits, reprimanded by the board of the American Football Coaches’ Association and compared to Al Capone in Slate (the NCAA got him, but only for a technicality – gambling on basketball. like Capone got nailed for tax evasion – instead of the meat of his transgressions). Even Neuheisel’s record is hard to pin down:

These were both short stays, but the pattern was the same at both: fast start, second year peak, slight decline, resignation/termination under controversy. In years one and two at both stops, Neuheisel’s teams were 38-10, and a tremendous 25-6 in-conference; in years three and four, they were 28-20 and 17-15 in conference games. Colorado was 11-1 the year before Neuheisel took over and hadn’t lost a conference game to a team that wasn’t Nebraska since 1984; the Buffaloes lost to Kansas his first year and were quickly relegated to mediocrity within the Big 12. In relative terms, his term at Washington was more successful on the field – the team he inherited was not as strong as the one he took over at Colorado, and he won that elusive Rose Bowl – but ended the same way: with the Huskies at .500 in the Pac Ten and Slick Rick dodging accusations on his way out the door.

Pete doesn’t tuck his shirt in, and neither do we.
- - -
But this is much too brief and too mixed of a record to draw any certain conclusions, other than that he can be good – three ten-plus-win seasons in eight years and a Rose Bowl is proof of that. And he has no record of producing a worse product than Dorrell. For his recruit-friendly charisma and Trojan-baiting chutzpah alone (hello, Norm Chow), Rick’s an upgrade. He’s more confident, he’s at a job he can make his own for a long time, and at least it looks like he’s trying.
Immediate Impact or Slow Burn?: Chow has the reputation of an ‘instant impact’ kind of coordinator, if he had any healthy players. Starting tackle Aleksey Lans left the team with knee injuries. Of the most experienced Bruin skill guys, Kahlil Bell missed the last five games last year, Marcus Everett missed the last nine, and the quarterbacks...my god, the quarterbacks: Ben Olson was the starter in 2006 until he was knocked out for the season; Patrick Cowan finished the year in underwhelming fashion. Olson started last year, got knocked out in the third game; Cowan started the next week and was knocked out for the following two weeks, during which Olson returned until he was knocked out of the game against Notre Dame and inept walk-on McLeod Bethel-Thompson came on to commit seven turnovers against the Irish. Cowan started the next three games, until he was knocked out against Arizona. Osaar Rashaan moved from wide receiver to start the next two weeks against Arizona State and Oregon, until he was pulled for extreme ineffectiveness in favor of a gimpy Olson. Cowan returned to start at USC until he was knocked out in the fourth quarter and replaced by Olson. Bethel-Thompson played the entire bowl game but left the team after the season. Cowan won the starting job in the spring, before he went down for the season with a non-contact ACL injury. Olson broke his foot the same day and will be out for most of the summer.
Got it? For brevity, with a little commentary from the O.C.:
Cowan missed eight games last season because of injuries to his left hamstring, right knee and left knee. He underwent arthroscopic surgery on the left knee in February. Olson missed six games because of headaches and a left knee injury.
[...]
"...The frailness of these two kids is crazy…All of a sudden you go from two senior quarterbacks to not knowing what the heck is going to happen."
- - -
Welcome to UCLA! Fully healthy, Dorrell’s team were only about average by Pac Ten standards, maybe slightly above, and inconsistent at that. Banged-up, as they frequently were, and as they’ve started the new regime, it’s vulnerable to even the lowliest outfits in this parity-driven league, as it’s proven time and again.
That aspect – the regular, usually lopsided losses to seemingly inferior teams – Neuheisel should change. His first recruiting class was second in the Pac Ten according to Rivals and within a few spots of SC in the site’s national rankings. They’re years away from narrowing that chasm on the field, but Neuheisel gives them a chance -- a the illusion of a chance, anyway, which might be the same thing. Even if he’s more Tommy Bowden than Pete Carroll, the resemblance gives the stale cross-town bit teeth for the next few years.
0 recs |
34 comments
|
Comments
Great post
To what do you attribute Smilin’ Rick’s pattern of early success and subsequent decline/resign?
Some weird system that players love for 1 year, are annoyed with in year 2, and then completely reject while he’s out breaking rules and carrying on in later years?
Or just coincidence?
And what does that auger for UCLA 2008?
Great report.
By the way, check out Bruinsnation. In a total of five comments, they have labeled you:
“lazy” “bloviating” “pompous” “conceited” “jerk” “one-trick pony” “bitter” “gas-bag” “blowhard” “moron” “doesn’t do research.”
This sort of vitriol from BN can only indicate that what you have posted is, in fact, correct.
This post is balanced...
yet it still ruffles the feathers of some. Why is that?
The “truth hurts” is in regards to those who only want to downplay Neuheisel’s past, NOT that any of the things written about you, as referenced above, are true, sorry I didn’t clarify that better. I am not surprised at the comments made towards you, its a typical reaction…
You were positive about,
well, pretty much everything going forward. But you’re making the mistake of ascribing rational thought to Bruins Nation.
by Holly Anderson on Jun 14, 2008 11:24 PM EDT reply actions
What's really bizarre
Nestor himself just wrote he’d be ecstatic if the team went 6-6 this year, and admitted the very real possibility of going 3-9/4-8. He writes off BYU as a loss - not a toss-up, but an expected loss - even though LA beat BYU last year in the regular season and should have beat them again in the bowl game. And the reaction was, “Hmmm, sobering.”
Say what? I mean, really, WTF? It’s a rational prediction, but it’s been a rational prediction for the last two years, and BN consistently wailed about how underachieving the team was - it’s the exact result that made that site explode with contempt on a daily basis. I thought they expected progress. Dorrell never had a regular season worse than 6-6 and they berated him and ran him off like a leper. But when Head Coach Richard Neuheisel The Best CEO In America™ fails to take a single step forward (that’s Nestor’s expectation, not mine), it’s cool - just give him time.
Well, there you go…
So much for their fact based arguments supported with empirical data…I couldn’t have said it better myself. It isn’t about the record ,its about not being ignored or forgotten about.
It’s not about reality, its about perception. LA has pretty much been ignored in the national discussion except for their continued under achievement. That doesn’t sit well the faithful. Neuheisel’s arrival if nothing else gets them a whole lot more attention and shifts the spot light off of USC and on to LA…that’s really what they want.
I actually went to USC...
...for law school. Nice place. But, kind sir, you can do better than that.
My post, on BN, was full of fact, with links to several articles that provides a perspective absent from SMQ’s post.
You are free to spin this as you’d like, as I’d expect from a rival, but it’s really a rather limited discussion. If you’d like to open it up, I’m happy to do so in a different, and more appropriate, forum.
Ah, I’d love to discuss this on your forum.
Oh wait, you banned me.
...For doing exactly that.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jun 15, 2008 4:29 AM EDT up reply actions
For the record
That isn’t true. I saw the comments that got you banned. You can try to re-write it as you please, but to suggest that you came by to have a thoughtful debate, and not to lob grenades, is ridiculous.
I said, in sarcastic tone, “perhaps SMQ is correct.” You banned me. Simple as that.
The truth is, if anyone posts anything remotely contrary to your nepotistic, holier-than-thou groupthink, you ban them. “Have a discussion?” Don’t be ridiculous, there are never discussions on BN, just nasty, defensive vitriol.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jun 15, 2008 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay, one more word
I’m sorry, but I just won’t waste my time debating with someone willing to outright lie to support his argument.
And, from this lovely exchange, I think we can see what kind of discussion you were interested in having. I could be wrong, given how addled I am by the nepotism and all, but I don’t think I am.
How have I lied?
I have not sworn, I have not called your mother any nasty names, I have not sworn your children to Hades, all I did was point out, (rather snarkily, I will grant you), that SMQ was probably correct in his analysis. He was.
By continuing to be defensive and myopic with regard to the situation you only add to the ridiculous view most people have with Bruinsnation.
One of the (many) reasons I say “add to:”
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jun 16, 2008 2:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Sure I could do better…
But why break a sweat when you don’t have to.
I know that you went to USC Law, you have also said many times in the past how much you enjoyed needling the USC fans during your time there. That is to be expected, as your loyalties will fall towards the undergraduate side of your life and not your time spent in grad school.
As for the spin you and I both know that it can go both ways, you can spin for and I can spin against. Where the facts play in all this is also a matter of perspective because facts always have a dash of opinion/emotion thrown in. This isn’t a court of law so emotion always finds a way to creep in.
You and I have had discussions before and for the most part they have been civil.
I’ll tell you what, you pick a time and place or as you say a different, and more appropriate, forum and we can discuss it further. Though I doubt you are really interested in that. Regardless, feel free to click my profile and shoot me an email and we will go from there.
Happy Father’s Day to you and yours!
In their defense...
I recognize that making the transition from a single-issue blog has to be a difficult one…maybe they just corrected too far in the direction of leniency. Hazard of the format, I suppose.
by Holly Anderson on Jun 15, 2008 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Please don't be so myopic
You understand that my criticism had little, or nothing, to do with your overall perspective re UCLA performance this year. Much of your post, including the detailed history of Dorrell’s underperformance, is quite accurate. That said, your treatment of Neuheisel, as I explained, is one sided. It’s just that simple. So, take whatever issue you’d like in your overall distaste for BN, but please, try to stay on topic.
I disagree
Not that I’m doing myself any favors by responding to this, since it’s obvious no one is budging from what they thought/felt to begin with. But I think I was very fair toward Neuheisel. I put his entire record up. I said the blowouts to bad and mediocre teams will most likely stop. I said he was already closing a huge gap with USC in recruiting. Clearly I think he’s going to be worth more immediate success than Nestor does.
If mentioning the dozens of well-documented violations, investigations, terminations, reprimands and bad press he’s generated in the past bothers you, for your own sake, you might want to consider remaining behind the filter of CRN Land.
Two things
First, I was very specific in my criticism. I didn’t mention anything to do with his coaching record, recruiting, etc. I could have, but for the sake of argument, let’s say I agree with all that. My beef, which was crystal clear, was that you only presented one side of the story regarding Neuheisel’s “charlatan”-esque history as you put it. You can raise other issues, I suppose, if you’d like to try to bolster your position, but that’s just changing the subject.
Second, to the point, I guess we’ll have to disagree. For instance, you seem to think that Neuheisel was fired from his jobs at both Colorado and Washington (“terminations”). Of course, that’s not accurate, as I’m sure you know. Aside from possibly picking on a typo, you’d think it would be worth mentioning that particularly in the Washington situation, there is significantly different versions of the facts out there.
Now, I understand that being fair to the guy might not make for snappy prose, and that “Slick Rick” is a joy to type, but I’ve read all the press articles, publicly available NCAA documents, etc. It’s not nearly as cut and try as you’d suggest. And I’m not the sort to just give the guy a pass out of partisan blindness, as you suggest. I wrote the book on scandal with our rivals, and have taken equally hard positions with Bruin coaches/players who get in trouble. He’s made mistakes, not question, and I’m not trying to minimize any of that. But, the guy’s no Al Capone, or whatever it is you’d like to make him out to be.
Maybe
If you aren’t willing into delve into the details of Neu’s history, then I guess it will by necessity get repetitive. So, we’ll disagree. But, and I mean this sincerely, you should read the source documents and see if the facts really support your narrative. I know you have to cover 119 teams, or at least a good subset of those, and you do a suburb job, but it may be worth the exercise on this one. And I’m happy to do what I can to help.
For the record...
Original headline to a link to this post over at an Oregon roundup site:
"Neuheisel Gives UCLA A Chance"
What’s the non-charlatan version of this story? He’s been the head coach at two schools and has admitted to recruiting violations at both of them. He had 51 recruiting violations at Colorado resulting in a two-year probation for the program. Within a month or so of his arrival at Washington, he admits to another set of 18 violations. His basic defense is that he didn’t know the rules, but considering coaches take a yearly test on the subject, that doesn’t hold much water (at least to me).
Regarding the UW gambling scandal, I agree with you. That wasn’t handled well by the administration or the NCAA and he took more heat for that than he deserved.
What’s the other side of the story regarding the violations? Was he set up by the NCAA? Was he forced into recruiting violations at the threat of termination or worse?
I read them
They don’t touch on my post except to point out that the violations were minor. There were 51 of them and then another 18 within a month at Washington. Colorado was put on probation and Washington felt compelled to do some self-regulation of its own. The man has regularly committed recruiting violations and then stated he didn’t know the rules. That’s pretty damn sketchy to me.
If you have something where the violations were trumped up or he was set up or something of that sort then I’d like to see it. Otherwise, I don’t see what the big deal was.
The details are important
First off, the end of this story isn’t me convincing you that Neu is an angel, and that he never did anything wrong. The guy made some mistakes, particularly at Colorado, and you can be sure that we’ll be watching.
But, your post is a great start on giving the guy a fairer shake. Let’s start of with the fact that the violations were minor and he was mistreated (and vindicated in measure in a lawsuit) at Washingon, two facts not mentioned in SMQ’s main post.
You see, when you dig into it, you don’t see a fraud (charlatan). Or a giant criminal (Capone). You see a cocky young coach who implemented a little too much of his law training in “pushing” the rules at Colorado, and then got the shaft at Washington.
I’m not advocating that we gloss anything over, just that both sides get aired before myth and legend become fact in public perception.
What's the myth and legend . . . .?
. . .as it applies to Coach Neuheisel? Neither of those two words are synonymous with Rick Neuheisel? (Do I have a second on that one?).
Also, I might add- what makes you think postings on a blog (albeit, SMQ is a daily must read for a lot of people, me included) has any effect on public perception? To that end, what makes you think you can single-handedly hope to change it?
by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 17, 2008 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
It's ok, I understand now
No need to reply Menalaus. An excellent commenter (on both BN and Conquest Chronicles), SuperBruinMan, broke it down for me over here:
http://www.conquestchronicles.com/2008/6/15/552663/animosity-between-smq-and
I get it now. And with that, I respect and admire what you set out to do and hoped to achieve. I sincerely do. [insert knuckle-touch here]
btw: if you do read the above link, read it knowing what was written was done in “rivalry passion” as well as sincere curiosity. none of it was written with malice. mostly, tongue-in-cheek. i’ve obtained a newfound respect in you Menalaus. Credit goes to SuperBruinMan- one of yours and our (at CC) finest commenters.
by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 18, 2008 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Insular and pack-mentality
It’s kinda funny that none of those at BN have come over here to tell you any of their thoughts. That’s not very “stand up”, IMHO. Just saying. . . . . .
by BixBeiderbecke on Jun 14, 2008 11:28 PM EDT reply actions

by 




