Ok, so we allowed a nice tribute to Dorrell stick for a few days near the top. We have to push it down now in favor of more realism. Today’s realism comes to us courtesy of Trev Alberts.
As you might already know, the great CSTV college football analyst Trev Alberts responded to one of our editor’s emails regarding his ridiculous praise of Karl Dorrell and the “incredible job” he is doing with our football program and his “steadying influence” in Westwood. Too funny. Here is the email we wrote Trev in response to that praise:
You should do a little more research before praising Karl Dorrell like you did in your recent notes on the Pac-10. You said Dorrell was doing an “incredible job” as UCLA football coach. Quite the opposite is true; you are factually way off base. What is ‘incredible’ about going 7-6 in his 4th season? What is ‘incredible’ about peaking at 3rd place in the conference in 4 years, and he has only managed that ‘incredible’ feat just once? You also said Dorrell was a “steadying influence” in Westwood. Not true. He lost nearly every recruit he had in his first class before they reached their last year of eligibility. He has lost all but one assistant coach during the 4 years he has been head coach, and in most coaching positions he is on his 3rd coach. He is on his 4th offensive coordinator! What is ’steadying’ about that?? - Anonymous
We also gave Alberts “the list” of Dorrell’s great accomplishments so he had all the hard core facts he needed to say “mea culpa” and save any little credibility he may have had. What does he go and do? He buries himself in deeper with this classic non-response response:
I think there are certain realities of where they are right now. That fact that they’re in USC’s backyard is certainly part of it. I don’t think it would really matter who the head coach is right now.
I’ve always understood and have been told that because of the way UCLA is set up they historically have not been willing to pay coaches top money. You add that and USC’s prominence together and then you have to fight the administration to pay top dollar for the assistants as well? If they’re not willing to pay the head coach, they probably haven’t made a commitment to the facilities either.
So you’re really fighting an uphill battle when all I’ve been trying to point out is that there are some bumps in the road. It’s interesting to me that you point out that 7-6 was no good, yet you’re upset about turnover.
It’s a dangerous proposition where we get into this turnover of coaches and head coaches. We live in a world where there are just enough universities that have long and storied traditions of circulating coaches every three or four years for not winning championship. I don’t know Karl Dorrell personally, but from watching him I like his demeanor, I like the way he interacts with the kids. UCLA is not exactly just coming off championship seasons when Dorrell was hired.
The point is we have 119 teams now and their fans expect their team to win the championship every year and if not it’s “let’s fire the coach.” Well, who are you going to hire? Paying the salaries that you’re apparently paying at UCLA, name me a list of coaches you’d rather have.
Huh? Where is it that Trev explains what “incredible” means? There is so much to chew on in Trev’s response. Nestor at BruinsNation covers it well so we won’t repeat, although we like how Trev hints that we are “dangerous.” The main thing that we have a beef with here at DD is the stupidity that we at UCLA have to accept the mediocrity that we are getting. These “experts” told us the same things about Lavin, and we know how that’s turned out. We also don’t like the ignorance the media displays when it comes to UCLA football tradition. This clown thinks we dont have any, so we shouldn’t expect to win. We have had many winning coaches and season under the same conditions that are apparently hindering Karl Dorrell’s “incredible” coaching abilities from giving us contenders.
Trev Alberts has permanently lost his credibility with the UCLA faithful.
