I think our football program is mediocre. And keeping Dorrell as head coach shows that we have a Commitment to Mediocrity from top to bottom.

We have placed on average #4 in the Pac-10 during Dorrell's tenure, and are #5 in overall record during that same time.

We're #4! We're #4! We're #4! Get used to it if Dorrell sticks around. And get used to hearing and seeing that slogan at the Rose Bowl.

UCLA football is stuck in a perpetual state of mediocrity, and has been for 10 years. The program seems unable to build on any successes, as any big wins / recruiting progress appears to go straight to the players' heads. Most importantly, and most frustratingly for the fans, the team appears only to play well when they are in the 'gutty little Bruins' underdog role. They do not know how to play as a favorite.

I am still sick to my stomach about the state of my Bruins. Karl Dorrell is an embarrasment to our University. He is a spiritless, emotionless LOOSER with a LOOSER mentality. The Karl Dorrell offense is in no way shape or form consistant with West Coast Offense and any refrence to such is an absolut insult to the great Bill Walsh, God rest his soul.
Besides his lousy game time decisions, his inability to hire anyone of quality or experience is worse. The only 2 good things about his tenure with UCLA was Tom Cable's offense and Dwane Walkers defense. Walker won the SC game last year and Cable led us to 10-2 two years ago. The last two offensive coaches came to UCLA having called 0 offensive plays in Div. 1 football. Inexperienced coaches leading inexperienced kids and it shows in our embarrasing play. We will continue to be the laughing stock of college football as long as this LOOSER Coach leads us into the darkness.

Mediocre. It's the only word to describe UCLA football.

To me, the way you know your program is in bad shape is to look at how you feel after wins and losses. With UCLA, wins are never as satisfying as they should be, and losses are always far more devastating than they should be.

I cannot remember a time when a UCLA football team went out and just dominated another team. But yet, I can remember plenty of times when another team came out and totally dominated UCLA.

The UCLA football program is much like the VAST MAJORITY of college football programs...somewhere in the middle of the proverbial bell curve. Unless the top donors to the program and the administration decide they want to commit to having an ELITE program, this is what we'll have for the foreseeable future. As long as the Bruins don't fall under .500, make bowl games (insert pun here), players graduate, and players as well as coaches generally stay out of legal trouble, I don't foresee any substantial changes anytime soon.

Thank you Brian for this Blog! Special teams/defense and offense make a football team right? In two of those catagories UCLA passes the test. Offensive turnover has hurt the continuity of Karls efforts and further confuses the issue wether it is the constant turnover or if indeed KD systems work in CFB.
Bottom line: If in 5 years the basic overall framework is not impressive, something is fundamentally wrong. And things as a whole ARE NOT!!!

UCLA is a mediocre program now, but we must put that in context. We are at our lowest point since WW2, and the program continues to degrade. Regardless of Karl Dorrell's personal virtues, he does not have the ability to run a D1 program. It basically boils down to his insistence on adapting his players to his system, rather than his system to his players. There is no reason UCLA should not be a top 15 program 4 years out of 5 and win the pac 10 at least once every 4 years.

The UCLA football program is in a very terrible state. They lack direction. Karl Dorrel is a pathetic hapless loser. If UCLA sticks with this guy, then the bottom is still to come. This could be the bottom; but with Karl at the helm the bottom may well be an 0-12 or 1-11 season in the near future.

Brian, even when we were bad during the Donahue and Toledo years, I don't recall being so depressed about the football program. I'll be surprised if Dorrell is still the coach at the end of the year. I believe the AD will stick to his commitment with reestablishing UCLA's elite status in football much like basketball.

We are in a state of mediocrity. UCLA has some talent, but does less with more than any program in the country. Name a program with more recruiting advantages and local talent, that does less consistantly than we do?

You blame leadership for these problems, namely KD. Consistantly we run a mediocre game plan and make head scratching choices. In a week where our starting QB is a walk on Freshman, we don't give our scholorship upperclass QB recruit (turned WR?) snappes at QB. Where is Raashan? Why not a plan B if our plan C qb flounders? At least Raashan earned a scholarship as a QB.

I am not a football genius, but I expect my team's head coach to be able to out prepare my novice fan watching mind. I am SHOCKED by how rarely that happens.

With 6:22 left on the clock last week, there was a mass exodus from the Rose Bowl when we were down by only 2 touchdowns. Need I say more?

It seems like our program is in the constant state of potential energy. We have talented players, and we've proven that we can get successful coordinators (Walker, Cable), what is missing? A head coach to turn that potential in actuality. Brian please answer, whats your take on the state of our program?? How do our players feel?

We are an above average team with a below average coach. Is my memory bad or was Pepper Rogers the last coach we hired that actually had head coaching experience? Vermiel, Donahue and Toledo were UCLA assistants and KD was some kind of assistant with the Denver Broncos.

Why can't we go out and hire a coach with a proven track record?

Don't tell me it's a money issue with UCLA averaging close to 75,000 in attendance this year!

This is a mistake-prone program, even with a senior-laden team and a 5th year head coach. Game management is still poor from the coaches perspective, and this veteran team continues to shoot itself in the foot with penalties. The hallmark of the program is inconsistency and an unwillingness to adjust. Inconsistency and stubborness is not a good combination.

Inconsistent. That word describes it all. They do not win with any consistency. The offense is inconsistent. The effort is inconsistent.

I am happy with the type of talent that the "supposed coach" is bringing in or brought in since 2006. This class especially looks really good.

Nevertheless, I think this offense needs to be scrapped, which won't happen under this "supposed coach". Thus, he needs to be released.

Pat

We've gotten to a point where when SC loses, we have a real reason to cheer at the Rose Bowl. These past 5 seasons have been the most mediocre and we don't deserve bids to the toilet bowl. The 10-2 season was a fluke (truly 6-6) since we were VERY lucky to come back in all those games. Arizona, SC, Wyoming, Florida St, Utah, and now ND (twice) exposed us as the frauds we are. I wonder if Karl & Jay know that Mcleod Baltasar Bethel-Thompson is only one guy (j/k) If ND was 118 out of 119 offensively, then we were worse than them without Ben. We need Pat to recover & save us once again!

Mediocre.
Lavin-esque.
To me this is/was pretty predictable: The bad recruiting of 2003-2005 combined with (mostly) bad coaching combine to make UCLA a bad football team.

Brian, did you ever land a job that provided you with five years at full pay to learn how to perform it? Me either. That's UCLA's commitment to a winning FB program in a nutshell.

I guess Carnesale got what HE wanted - points for hiring a minority HC - but the players only got a guy that's making $1M a year to play the part of HC.

UCLA right now is a fractured program that is capable of losing to absolutely anyone. It is two losses to Cal and Wash St. away from becoming .500 and completely broken.

I wish the players would take the initiative, march on Dan Guerrero's office, and demand he hire a HC that's actually qualified.

Biggest problem is not coach, it's talent. Recruiting has picked up - if they can hold the '08 class - but that means "not now" as well as "better in the future."

If they change coaches, they must re-recruit the '08 class starting 'way late so new HC would have to keep probably Walker and Scott or lose the class - would lose some anyway. If they KEEP KD, it will still be a couple years til the young linemen mature.

I think the program's okay - mid-Pac10 - and figures to be top three in two or three years whoever coaches.

Biggest question about KD is 'can his offense work with an inexperienced QB?'

Biggest question now is how can you win with 7 OLs, 1 WR who gets open & catches the ball, 1 TE, NO FBs and, vs ND, 1 RB? Next year's class solves RB situation and brings another good FUTURE QB but OL is key IMO

Karl Dorrell is going to be great, this isn't fast food people. We are 3-0 in pac 10. We will lose a couple pac 10 games but you are smoking crack if you think they will fire Dorrell because his team had some unfortunate injuries.

Forget my last post I dont know what the heck I am talking about, nor can I see what is in font of my face.

We are mediocre and getting worse. The worst part is that at least when we have been mediocre in the past (under Toledo) we were an exciting team to watch. We are still mediocre (and I repeat, getting worse) but we are also incredibly and painfully boring to watch. Toledo's brand of mediocrity, where we scored 40 points a game but let the opponent score 50, was more entertaining. I am having trouble watching games this season.

A coach that is dead man walking. A season on the verge of collapse. A roster that loses the vast majority of starters next years with very little depth to fill in. A high likelihood of losing our top recruits to other winning programs. A school cross town that is a perennial bcs bowl contender. Other Pac 10 schools showing vast improvements (AZ State, Stanford, etc.).

Unless we promote D Walker to head coach, keep our defensive staff in place as well as E Scott, and hire a o-coordinator that has experience running a pro style or spread offensive, we will be a lower tier pac-10 school for the next 3-5 years.

I've been trying to be fair to Coach Dorrell for the past 4 plus seasons and there were a lot of issues that could have been seen as reasons for why UCLA hasn't been successful over his tenure. Academics. Team chemistry. Recruiting. Lack of support from the admin. It's easy to see these as being reasonable excuses. But how do you excuse losing to ND at home? ND is an absolute crap football team with less experience and talent. That is the litmus test to see if a person is fit to coach at the D1 level let alone UCLA.

The WCO is garbage. It's something that only a few coordinators have a handle on even on the pro level and it would be insanity to expect college kids to gain mastery over it.

Here is a clue, how has Shanahan done without Elway and Davis? What was the final score of yesterday's Denver/Charger game? How could at the pro level with NFL players can Denver only muster 3 points at home? If the offense was that unstoppable the 49ers would have won 10 superbowls.

Bruin fans were lucky SC choked even worse over the weekend. The program was partly spared being the only laughingstock of the college football.

I’m in unchartered territory: For the first time since I have religiously followed UCLA football (dating back to the early 70s): I honestly don’t care anymore. I went to the Notre Dame game (I live in Berkeley) with manufactured enthusiasm. I found myself more interested in watching the $c game by spying into the Rose Bowl suites with my binoculars. Sadly, I wasn’t alone.

I never thought those mediocre days of attending the Pepper Rodgers coached Bruins with my Dad would ever be surpassed. Now, I understand what it must have been like with Bill Barnes.

UCLA football started to slowly die when Homer left the final time.

I don't think you can separate UCLA football from the UCLA AD. UCLA football is about as good as you can expect unless and until the administration actually commits to winning.

UCLA has an image of itself of "winning the right way," which I do not think can be accomplished consistantly in major college football. I think having a consistent winner in major college football would require a paradigm shift at the university that I am not sure the AD thinks is desirable. Think about this, would UCLA hire Erikson and let in tons of JC players if it knew that we would be in a BCS game in 3 years? Would UCLA hire Pete Carroll -- knowing that they would winn big, but have an NCAA cloud hanging over the program.

To ever be a dominant program (ie, UF, Texas, Oklahoma, SC) we need a commitment from the AD to do what it takes to win. In short, we need to be willing to accept a few handicap parking scandals. Things like that roll of the back of big time programs like it is no big deal.

It will be interesting to see if the AD sees UCLA as a Texas, Ohio State, Florida type of program that wants ultimate success in both revenue sports and is willing to do what it takes to reach those goals, or if we are happy with being a power in basketball and the minor sports, and not willing to comprimise what UCLA views are its values to win consistently in football.

The goal KD and the team had to start the season was to win the Pac-10. With 20 returning starters and over 20 seniors, this was the year. If the team goes 5-1 the rest of the way, KD can stay. Lose 2 or more games, and out he goes. My preference is for his removal as coach starting this afternoon though.

I am depressed about the state of the program. The USC loss distracted me temporarily, but that high has long since dissipated. It appears the coaches have not sufficiently prepared the backups to step in, and erred by moving Osaar to wide receiver. Ben Olson just does not have the poise or equanimity to play quarterback. I hope Patrick Cowan has a miraculous recovery. I feel very sorry for poor McLeod, who certainly did his best under the circumstances, but who never stood a chance.
On winning the "right" way: I would rather suffer a thousand such losses than turn into T. Boone Pickens Oklahome State University (see Serena Roberts' column in today's New York Times).

I am depressed about the state of the program. The USC loss distracted me temporarily, but that high has long since dissipated. It appears the coaches have not sufficiently prepared the backups to step in, and erred by moving Osaar to wide receiver. Ben Olson just does not have the poise or equanimity to play quarterback. I hope Patrick Cowan has a miraculous recovery. I feel very sorry for poor McLeod, who certainly did his best under the circumstances, but who never stood a chance.
On winning the "right" way: I would rather suffer a thousand such losses than turn into T. Boone Pickens Oklahoma State University (see Serena Roberts' column in today's New York Times).

I remember at the breakfast before the scrimmage in August, Karl Dorrell said that we had a "damn good football team." What happened? I was looking forward to competing for a national championship and now we just hope to hang on with another 6-6 year.

Leaderless is how I would describe this program. I don't blame Dorrell either. He should never have been given this job as he isn't ready (or able?) to be a successful head coach.

It is very telling that, in the same week that UCLA gives Ben Howland a $2 million per year contract, the Bruin football team is humiliated by a second winless team. We're just now paying our assistant football coaches a competitive salary. We got a bargain-basement head coach because the AD wouldn't pony up any more money. Does that sound like a commitment to making a championship football team? Where is the 2+ million for a good, experienced football head coach?

As has been pointed out, KD's teams are Lavin-esque, especially most recently. The first couple of years he would just lose when he's supposed to win. But then in that 10-2 season he actually started to win when he should have lost, and then lost (BIG) when he should have won, making the experience of losing that much worse than if he were a normal mediocre coach. Lose when you're supposed to win, then win when you're supposed to lose, that's Lavin's resume. Beat the number one team in the nation every now and then and secure your job for the next season. Recruit talented players and watch them rot and get surpassed by walk-ons and "diamonds in the rough" who weren't recruited by other major D-1 universities. I've already emailed Dan Guerrero and told him that I'm not renewing my 4 season tickets next year. I just graduated from UCLA last Spring, so he's losing a young alumni supporter awfully quick unless changes are made.

The football program is definitely middle-of-the-road. We took a chance on a young, highly inexperienced coach who we felt might be able to restore the tradition – or certainly move us back to being a perennial Top 10 team – and the results have been mediocre at best. This “feels” very similar to Lavin – everyone at first was happy with him…but as time wore on we saw how unprepared, uncoached, and uninspired we were. Its déjà vu all over again with Karl – who I hoped and wanted to succeed. Time to move on and hire someone that can indeed coach.

UCLA is in a no win situation. Dorrell has put the right people in place to compete against SC in recruiting(D. Walker and E. Scott). The defense is good, the chemistry is good, we have the #1 recruiting class, and the program is clean. Unfortunately, the offense is terrible and its dorrells O. This will be the end of him, we will lose D. Walker and a lot of recruits and have to start all over again.

I am as sick as the rest of the posters, following the loss to Notre Dame.
Where were you when KD was mentioned as a candidate for HC?
That was the appropriate time to voice your displeasure!
For the sake of the athletic program, we should rally around the football team.
The level of talent and character of the players has improved under KD.

While I fully supported Dorrell's hiring (former Bruin, Shanahan protege, etc.) & have rooted for the guy in the last 4+ years, I must now admit I was wrong. Dan Guerrero needs to step up and do the same. Dorrell seems to be a good man & has turned into a pretty good recruiter, but he simply cannot coach. There are way too many mistakes being made week after week, especially for a senior laden team. Dan Guerrero needs to prove that football is a priority for UCLA & fire Dorrell as soon as the season ends. He then needs to hire an experienced, dynamic coach. Steve Mariucci, Jim Mora II & Chris Petersen would be my top 3 candidates. I wouldn't mind seeing Neuheisel get a shot, either, if Guerrero could not pony up the $ for one of the other three. Here is hoping the AD does the only sensible thing to do at this point in order to make UCLA relevant in college football again.

Mediocre, and too many fans accept this. The perfect example was the woman in front of me as UCLA was embarassing itself on Saturday. She said as long as Dorell beats USC, he should be back. Lavin justifiably got fired despite going to Sweet 16s because his teams underachieved, and expectations for basketball are conference and national championships. It should be the same for football.

The complex offensive scheme which Dorrell brought to UCLA simply does not work at the college level. It has not worked in five years and will never be successful. Since Dorrell has no intention of ever changing the scheme, he will never be able to field a team which can compete for the Pac 10 championship. It is time for a change. I would love to see someone like Mike Leach of Texas Tech, June Jones from Hawaii or Norm Chow hired as head coach. It would also be great if Dwayne Walker could be retained as Defensive Coordinator as well as Eric Scott since he is a great recruiter. Since the administration is able to pay Ben Howland between 1.5 and 2 million per year, they should be mable to do the same for a high quality football coach.

Coach Dorrell does not have the motivational skills needed to lead UCLA football into the top tier of D1 programs. It's painfully obvious that the players do not deliver their maxiumum talent on EVERY Saturday, and ultimately that is the coach's fault. As far as the recent good recruiting classes go, most of UCLA's big "gets" are coming for Coach Walker.

UCLA's coaching answer is on the staff right now...hire Coach Walker as Head Coach and bring in a new offensive system.

I was a freshman at UCLA the same year that Ben Howland and Karl Dorrell started. In that time, I've seen two programs going in opposite directions--one toward an elite level and one mired in mediocrity. This isn't Dorrell's fault, it's the sports administration department. The students and alums will support a team that wins, but the administration isn't willing to invest in football.

I think the state of the UCLA football program is equal, or worse, to the state in which Bob Toledo left it. It is a program with no direction and no future. Both starting quarterbacks are mediocre and there appears to be only minimal depth at most positions. The coaching staff seems unable to make offensive adjustments during the game or motivate players before the game, with DeWayne Walker remaining the notable exception. Dorrell needs to go so the program can begin rebuilding. Recruits should want to attend UCLA -- a beautiful location, national media exposure, a strong conference adn proud tradition (100 titles). Mediocrity does not draw fans and since football is a revenue sport that alone should be a huge red flag for the athletic administration, regardless of their affection for Dorrell. Thanks for listening.

What do expect from an offense that had 2nd and 3rd string guys running it the majority of the game?

People are frustrated and the cranks are just piling on.

The one thing that I did notice that has me concerned. Special teams! Why wasn't #27 doubled teamed earlier in the game?

My father and I have been attending UCLA Football games since the mid to late 80's. We were at the Rose Bowl for Saturday's game against Notre Dame. At not time since we've been attending games has this program looked so offensively unprepared as they did Saturday. Despite having a third string walk on Freshman this team should have beaten an extremely below average Notre Dame team. There needs to be a change in the coaching staff in order to remedy the situation. A change is needed now.

I would like to start by asking that people recognize that while this is a public message board and we are all entitled to our opinions, respect is a powerful thing. While most of us are here because we are unhappy with KD’s coaching, please show the man enough respect to distinguish between his character and his shortcomings as head coach. Are you truly displeased with the level of integrity that he has restored to UCLA football following the Toledo years?

That being said, I too am frustrated and disappointed. To be fair, mediocrity defined UCLA football for years before KD began coaching. I think the difference is that now we are wasting talent and opportunities on a weekly basis. The compounding factor is that we do it with an offense that hasn’t become viable for five seasons now, along with inexplicable play calls in critical situations.

Like others, I wanted KD to succeed. I remember watching him play at wide-out and I have to wonder what happened to the passion that he used to exhibit. He is not singularly responsible for UCLA’s poor focus, but his lack of enthusiasm seems to have become contagious. Again, UCLA’s history of hiring first-time coaches chalks up another victim (not including the fans).

The worst part to me is that the ND game had several recruits in the stands. I know that we’re looking at great classes down the road, but the reality is that I expect there is a lot of reconsideration going on right now. KD may not be here next year, which means DW and ES could be gone, too. UCLA 2012, anyone?

Early on during Dorrell's tenure the excuse was that the team was "too young". I guess now, based upon the results, the excuse would be that the team is "too old". No more excuses. It is time for change. If nothing else, Dorrell is consistent in his inconsistency.

I liken the UCLA FB program to a half-finished building project. KD and DG have done a good job on getting the foundation down on facilities, assistant pay, academic standards and player work ethic. Unfortuneatly KD has shown that pouring the concrete is all he can do. He doesn't know anything about putting up the building. So the product looks only slightly better than a hole in the ground. The good news is that the right coach could capitalize on what is in place and finish a nice building relatively quickly.

At BCS schools like UCLA, the programs must be competitive because of the costs of running them. That is the bottom line. Dan Guerrero took a chance with KD, since he had no HC experience. But he needed to hire a man who could restore good ethical standards and he succeeded in that. Not only does a coach need to run a "clean program," he needs to have a sound football philosophy and teach that philosophy to his coaches and players. He also needs to communicate with the fans who support his program, inspire his coaches and players, be a creative and spontaneous "field general," a shrewd judge of young talent and a benevolent disciplinarian. After five years as coach of the UCLA football program, one wonders if Coach Dorrell, as fine a man as he is, is up to that challenge.

Karl Lavin needs to be fired at the end of the year but that alone does not solve the problem of UCLA football. Relax admission standards, hire a PROVEN head coach and get rid of clowns like Geoff Strand and watch it go baby!!!

From day one I have been a Dorrell supporter, believing his work ethic and committment to all things blue and gold would bring success. I for one have had more than a few jobs where my lack of experience was disregarded because of the energy and potential I could bring to the position. That being said, as growth and knowledge of ones position increase so should the ability for failure decrease, especially those of significant proportion. That, I'm afraid is far from what is happening during Dorrell's tenure. He seems to me a man running the 100 meters against world class sprinters and continually losing, changing shoes, sportwear, starting position, never to realize there are some who have it and some who never will.

From day one I have been a Dorrell supporter, believing his work ethic and committment to all things blue and gold would bring success. I for one have had more than a few jobs where my lack of experience was disregarded because of the energy and potential I could bring to the position. That being said, as growth and knowledge of ones position increase so should the ability for failure decrease, especially those of significant proportion. That, I'm afraid is far from what is happening during Dorrell's tenure. He seems to me a man running the 100 meters against world class sprinters and continually losing, changing shoes, sportwear, starting position, never to realize there are some who have it and some who never will.

UCLA is 3-0 in conference.

Defense is great.

Special teams is good.

Running game is good.

Brezell/Cowan are good.

Offensive line is Jeckl and Hyde.

Quarterback injuries are horrible.

Recruiting is good. I like what I see regarding playcalling from Norvell.

If it wasn't for the QB injuries I would be on cloud 9. Even with the QB injuries we are 3-0 in conference with a solid defense and a good running/kicking game.

UCLA is a top tier university and deserves a top tier coach. UCLA should not be providing on the job training to inexperienced and unproven coaches, that's what lesser teams are for. Coach Dorrell seems like a likeable fellow, but that is about the only edge I would give to him in a comparison with a similar bad coach: Steve Lavin. It is time to find the Ben Howland of UCLA football.

As with most organizations, mismanagement at the top results in poor results at the bottom line. KD is a symptom of the UCLA adminstration being unwilling to take reasonable steps necessary to have an excellant FB program. Here are four steps UCLA should immediately take: (1) fire Dorrell, (2) pay a name HC at least as much as Tedford makes at Cal, (3) pay assistants more and raise money for a assistant's housing endowment, and (4) make the admission requirements for FB players consistent with those at such schools as Cal, Michigan, Virginia or North Carolina. There is absolutely no reason why a player can get into Cal and not UCLA, but in the last few years it has repeatedly happened. I note that the academic standing of USC has improved dramatically in the last 5 years, yet USC's academic requirements for FB players pales in comparison to UCLA.

It's clear to everybody that Ucla football not only needs a change, but we actually need a football coach. It doesn't seem difficult. First, hopefully Dan G understands that the Lavin and Dorrell experiments do not work. Secondly, Econ 101. You need to spend some money to make money. Somebody walk in and multiply 20,000 extra tickets a game by $75.00. What does that come to and then X that by 6. You get you cash back with a coach. This is UCLA. We're supposed to understand this crap.

I'm over these guys till a change is made.

I guess it says it all when the only people supporting Dorrell are either "anonymous" or "true blue". Anyone who cares for the University and/or its football program, is passionate about the need for a change. Being embarrassed and humiliated on a yearly basis is unacceptable. I do not believe anyone is demanding a BCS Bowl every year, but UCLA should be in the mix every so often. Except for the "fluke" year of comebacks, we are lucky if we are in the mix for the Nut Bowl (and we lose that anyway)...

Karl Dorrell seems to be a bright and good man, but he has some blind spots that are guaranteeing he will never get past mediocrity. His conviction that the WCO is the way to go in the light of so much conflicting evidence makes NO SENSE! The play-calling with a 3rd-string QB is equally mind-numbing. Greatness comes from balancing determination with flexibility. Sadly, I don't think KD has what it takes. I expect next year to be a disaster and KD to be fired at the end of next season.

I think this once proud football program is falling and has been falling into mediocrity ever since we lost that 49-45 game to Miami. The talent is there, but the scheme has to change. Numerous ex professional QB's, namely Joe Montana, has stated that it is impossible to run the WCO in college because a QB needs a good 2 years to fully comprehend it. It's just absurd with the talent coming in that we have this stagnant offense. We need to go to the spread immediately!

Coach Dorrell has made great strides in cleaning up the mess that the football program had become under Bob Toledo. That said, we are at a point where change is necessary. Dorrell's offensive philosophy is unworkable and cannot be successful on a consistent basis. We will occasionally have the perfect storm of players (i.e. Drew Olson, Maurice Jones-Drew & Marcedes Lewis) that can move the ball / score / win in this offense but these situations are rare.

As much as it pains me to say, Dorrell's dogged commitment to his offense is precisely why he needs to go. We need to find another *quality* person to run this program: a person with the ability to think flexibly and alter his approach when necessary.

I think Karl Dorrell is doing a great job! We are 4-2 and if we can finish 7-5 or even 6-6, I'll be very pleased. I may even give him another extension with that kind of performance. There's no reason for UCLA to be at the top of our conference in football when there are so many other sports that we excel in. Karl has had only 5 years to recruit, so it's understandable that our 3rd string quarterback is only a walk-on who wasn't offered a scholarship anywhere. I especially enjoy how Karl likes to keep our talented athletes like Osaar out of games. He's our secret weapon. If he played, he wouldn't be a secret anymore.

Talent, Talent, Talent!

Much has been made about returning so many seniors this year, but returning a bunch of guys from a 7-6 team is misleading at best. Bottom line IMO is we need better talent - we saw that Saturday when we had Markey, Olson, Cowan out - and Moya, for that matter, if you want to consider him our starting TE. Regardless of who the coaches are, we need more recruiting classes like the one we have going this year to be competing for national championships.

In a year when any team seems capable of beating any other team, I'm willing to give the team a mulligan for losing to ND with all those guys out (sorry, there aren't a lot of contingencies you can put in place for having all those guys out AND having all those turnovers, primarily from one of the replacements), but we need to see the team getting better and "fixable" problems being fixed. I don't know that this is happening...

For those who think that poor attendance will help DG get rid of KD think again. UCLA is set to break Rose Bowl attendance records under Dorrell. Also anyone thinking that football recruits give one rip about national championships in other sports need to get a clue. There are a dozen top football programs that have very few NC in other sports and are brimming with blue chippers.

Lucky for us, KD's future is in his hands and we both know what will happen to that...

Perception is important. If it gets to such a point that UCLA's football program will benefit merely by changing head coaches, then it's time to do so. When that occurs, UCLA must hire someone who brings to the table what Karl Dorrell brought off the field but also be able to perform well on the field.

Inconsistent. Dorrell is a good representative of UCLA and has cleaned up the program (the job of an athletic director). Dorrell is not a good strategist nor motivator. UCLA loses too many games it should win. College football is more than just about talent (see Boise State and USC). It's about strategy and utilizing your players' abilities in order to be successful. UCLA's defense does not have a ton of talent, but the talent is used properly and is therefore effective. The offense has as much talent as defense, but the talent is not used effectively and therefore it is inconsistent. The program needs a coach on offense that can properly utilize the talent it has. Dorrell is supposed to be an offensive-minded coach, but has not produced the necessary results on the field. Until UCLA hires a coach that can properly utilize the talent on offense, the results will continue to be inconsistent.

I find it ironic that UCLA finally decides to open up the passing game when we have a walk-on playing QB. That was possibly the worst decision by a UCLA coach this decade.

UCLA=University of California Looking for All- american kickers

Karl is good for at least that!

The notre dame game itself is not as much of a litmus test for the program. It was a very losable game. Considering our first and second string qbs were out, our passing game was extremely limited. Also, the reality that markey and ramirez were out, bell was injured, and moline is just coming back from an injury puts a serious handicap on our ability to run the ball.
Still, even without an offense, if we had stayed conservative and relied on our defense and an occasional field goal, we could have won. We still might have lost anyway, but it would have had to be notre dame's offense that beat us.

Here's one telling point about Dorrell's tenure. In his five seasons as coach not one team has improved as the season progressed, NOT ONE. What does that say about coaching?

Inconsistent. Inept. Inexcusable. Underperforming. Underachieving. Heartbreaking.

That is what I think is the state of the UCLA FB program. What bothers me the most is that the students play their HEARTS out, only to be sabotaged by INEXCUSABLE Coaching errors. To add insult to injury, the "Coach" then throws the players under the bus and says that the players did not "execute" the plays correctly. Whatever!

Dorrell has the same look on his face as Art Shell did when Shel used to "coach" the Raiders. Both of them refused to change their offenses, even after it was clear they didn't work.

13-9 was the worst thing that happened to the UCLA FB program. Damn Trojies!! At least Dorrell was smart about it, he marched right in to Guerrero's office the next day and demanded a contract extension and raise. Now we are stuck with an overpaid Rookie Head Coach who is still trying to learn how to be a head coach 5 years into the job.

If Dorrell gets fired, please take Geoff the old cheerleader with you.

I think history has shown that defense is what leads to success in football. The best programs around the country are those with Defensive-minded coaches. You can build a program around a solid defensive foundation, which UCLA is just starting to have. That being said, I think UCLA's future head coach is already at UCLA. Dewayne Walker already has said this is where he wants to be since he is from Pasadena. Walker is bringing in ridiculous recruiting talent. He has established a respect for himself within the organization and the community. He has shown he can get HIS side of the ball to step up when it counts.

I think making Dewayne Walker head coach would be a natural fit for UCLA's program and shift the focus of UCLA football away from flashy offenses, to gritty defenses. Enough trying to be cute on offense. UCLA needs to learn straight-up smashmouth football.

our program is mediocre but i've felt we've been mediocre for the past 15-18 years barring a few exceptions. it takes a lot of money to put together a top notch program and i don't think ucla is or ever have been committed to doing so.

lastly, i think kd's deficiencies are worse because his tenure happens to come at the same time sc is on one of the best runs in college football history. if they sucked like the hackett years then i don't think anyone would really call for kd's head.

it is what it is.

I have followed UCLA football since the beginning of the Donahue era. I like Dorrell as a person and have enjoyed him at the couple of practices that I have attended. I have concerns about the offense that they run or try to run. I think that Ben Olsen is a good QB, if he could stay healthy, and would thrive in the right system. However, I don't think that he is a fit for this offense. Even the announcers have brought up the fact that he doesn't throw the short ball well. But, instead of adapting the offense to Ben's strengths, the coaches keep playing to his weaknesses. That is what disappoints me on the offensive side. I believe that he would have thrived in Bob Toledo's offense.

I used to be angry after losses like this, but now I am sad. Losses like this (and seasons like these) are what make me feel hopeless about the state of UCLA football. Much like the basketball losses under Lavin's tenure made me mad until I lost hope with the Stanford blowout (by 61 points, I think), it is hard to see UCLA challenging for a Pac-10 championship in the near future, especially under this coaching staff.

I think the "powers that be" at UCLA (and it certainly is not in the athletic dept) have to decide whether or not they want to be truely competitive in football on a regular basis.

Cal made the decision a while back to "go for it" in football and relaxed entry standards and found "ways" to pay Tedford and staff competitive salaries according to current national standards.

To me, the root of the problem rests in the laps of those above DG. As long as the current upper level administration attitude remains unchanged, I feel the result will remain the same regardless who is coaching the football Bruins.

Killing drives routinely
Again it's third and long
Really dumb decisions
Lineman blocking wrong

Defense knows what's coming
Olson's locking on
Running play up the middle
Running play gone wrong
Every single play
Looks like the one before
Love that West Coast Offense, detrimental to the score

I have resisted the "fire Dorell" calls for years, but I am converted.

This is half a team: a solid defense and an unworkable offense. And then, to call a pass (empty backfield!) on 4th & 1; and another deep in your territory with a freshman QB - that's just not thinking. Talent is there; the scheme is not.

I think Dorell is a good guy in over his head. Give the program to Walker; hire an OC who runs a more workable college offense (spread or basic pro-style) and pay competitively.

I think it is pathetic that the Pee Wee football team at halftime was 1)the only Bruin team to score a touchdown this past Saturday; 2) had the longest play from scrimmage (first and only play); 3) had better play-calling than Karl Dorrell et. al.

After the Bruins lost at Utah, I thought they couldn't possibly play a worse of a game than they did that day. I was painfully wrong. I was so excited about the prospects of this team at the start and now realistically I don't see them finishing better than 7-5. The medocrity since the glory days of the Toledo Era is eerily reminiscent of the Lavin Era.
Frankly, I don't see anything changing until the Bruins hire an experience, proven HC ala Howland. With so many players graduating this year, the next couple seasons could be bleak.

I think, in general, the UCLA football program is not as strong as we were hoping it'd be at this point, but not as weak as most believe it is, and it's still, believe it or not, improved over where it was when Dorrell inherited it.

To wit: as of this specific moment in time, UCLA's combined conference record under Karl Dorrell is 3rd-best in the Pac-10 (behind $c and Cal, and just *ahead* of Oregon), at 22-14 (.611). By contrast, in the 4 years just prior to Dorrell's arrival, UCLA's conference record was 13-19 (.406). That was 8th-best in the conference.

I think most folks who want Dorrell's head proceed as though the opposite of the above were true: that Dorrell was handed the 3rd-best team in the Pac-10, and had managed to singlehandedly drag it down to the level of 8th-place (or worse).

Dorrell's recruiting continues to improve, every single year, and, historically-speaking, recruiting is the single biggest determinant of the long-term success (or failure) of a college football program. As such, I personally expect this team to continue to improve, little by little, and succeed, more and more, over the following years. I don't know if Karl Dorrell will be here past '07 to see it happen, but, personally, I hope that he is. That may put me in the minority, but what the hey. I'm used to it.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

These are my thoughts...I am very disappointed by the way this season has gone so far. But the reason I am so disappointed is that I had greater expectations this year. I know that many people feel let down but things usually seem easier to accomplish when someone else is doing all the work. Dorrel is what he is. I don't believe he is going to be fired anytime soon. I think that if we don't agree with his techniques, we should continue to voice our opinion to DG. If we continue to be dissatisfied, then we should hit the program in its pocketbook and not attend the games. No one is forcing any of us to attend. No one is forcing any of us to watch on T.V. I think we need to stop acting like the torch-carrying villagers in Frankenstien and realize that we can voice our opinion to the department heads and move on from there, or stop investing time and money in a coaching staff that we don't have faith in.

The state of the program: As a season ticket holder (eight tix), relatively significant donor, grad and passionate fan - I have been "personally feeling" and projecting on the program: HUMILIATION. Sunday morning I opened my night stand drawer to look at my basketball tickets and burn Nov 2nd in my mind.

I am the father of a student athlete at UCLA and a taxpayer. I disagree with the strategy of other public universities, such as Cal, to spend more money on coaches and athletics than the athletic department brings in. As a taxpayer and parent, I believe that the Regents should impose a policy system-wide on athletic budgets and expenditures. They must establish ceilings. The state university system was not founded and funded to provide weekend entertainment or as a feeder system for the NFL. It is time to bring things back into perspective. If that means that public universities are at a disadvantage with private universities such as USC which has no such fiscal restraints, so be it. I would much rather my kid had a UCLA degree than a USC degree, any day – that is why he is there. The tone and content of the debate on this issue is the best indication that the situation is out of control. I salute Guerrero for showing fiscal restraint compared with the AD’s at other public universities. I hope he holds the line against the good folks who would like to hand millions of dollars to “better” coaches for the sake of their school spirit. What a colossal waste of taxpayer money. These are student athletes. They deserve a great program, but within our means. Sometimes we win the game, and sometimes we lose. Get used to it.

I tend to think that we bruin fans had set our expectations to high of KD. Has a first time head coach ever brought their team to the top of their conference year in and year out for the first 5 years? It took John Wooden over 10 years... I blame the AD for the mediocrity of the program.. not KD.. he's only capable of his potential, which we have duly found to be below average. It's time for the AD to recognize the need for change.

I follow every play - UCLA football has a great defense FINALLY and we need to retune of ourfense and We need COWAN!!!!! a running QB.
We need something other than this West Coast Offense that is "too difficult" for college kids to comprehend fully. Maybe an easier version of it - or just a different offensive scheme altogether!

I think this program is what it is...a bunch of 19-23 year old student athletes trying to play to the best of their ability. I would love to see the football team be a #1 team, sure. But they aren't. I would love to see the coaching staff come up with innovative and imaginative plays. Sometimes they do...sometimes they don't. I look at teams where winning has become the only thing that counts. Their fans boo when they lose one lousy game. That's pathetic and I hope that our team and fans never let the need to win become more important than respect and enjoyment of the pureness and honesty of college football. So... I have decided for the rest of this season to just go to the games, tailgate, hope for the best, and cheer the players on win or lose. Next year, I'll probably be back because more than anything, I love the game of football and I love the Bruins.

I feel that coach Dorrell has had the time to develop into a legitimate coach. Unfortunately, I (like MANY others) still find myself scratching my head during a game about the strategy. Often times, it appears there is none. Karl's stubborness seems to be his undoing, as he is unwilling to part with some of the philosophies that have weighed him down. After 4+ years, you pretty much get what you see; an inconsistent football program that still doesn't show progress on the field (although foundationally the program is well beyond where it was in 2002)

Howland later saw those injuries as a blessing in disguise which allowed his young team to gain invaluable experience for the Final Four run. Conversely, what did Lavin do? He consistently underacheived with multiple number one and top ranked recruiting classes and McDonald's All-Americans. I recently ran into Lavin at the Baja Cantina in the Marina and really felt like socking him for what he did to our program. I digress, Karl Dorrell is a failure because he is NOT a LEADER and as such he lacks credibility and hasn't earned respect. He is a weak butt. Howland has balls of STEEL and Dorrell has RAISINS. How can you respect a man who uses GOLY as motivating words. Howland is General Patton and Dorrell is Gomer Pyle. We need more General Patton's. On Thursday, I will be attending the BB Tip off lunch at the LAAC. I hope Guerrero will be in attendance so that I may share my perspective with him. I'll keep you posted.

When Bob Toledo led our Bruins, he let the players run ammuck(handicapped parking, SUV gifts, etc.) UCLA needed a change or would've found themselves in deeper doo doo. UCLA needed someone to clean the program up. We needed someone who valued a UCLA degree and could instill it in our players. We needed a person who bled blue and gold. We needed Karl Dorrell!
He cleaned up the program. He raised the graduation rate. He brought in young men that not only wanted to play college football, but WANTED to be BRUINS and took pride in it, which was sorely lacking in the last regime. UCLA is a top 4 PAC 10 program. We owe Karl Dorrell alot.
However, he is not a coach who can consistantly have us in the "National Title" hunt, and that's what the fans of UCLA deserve. He is the nicest guy you'll ever meet and has a heart of (blue n) gold, but we need a coach who is more technical, a football guru. He has us headed in the right direction, but we need someone to take us to the next level.
I would strongly go after Norm Chow with assurances that Dewayne Walker stays as defensive coordinator. Hey, they've worked well together before at $UC. There are only a few coaches in the history of the game that come close to the offensive genius of Chow. $UC still uses his offense and plays(they just don't know how to use it) Without Norm Chow, $UC would not be enjoying the success in recruiting that they are having. How many titles has $UC won since he left? How many Heisman quarterbackSES success has Chow been responsible for? With Chow residing in Manhattan Beach and covetting a head coaching chance, UCLA would be a perfect match. With Walker recruiting and coaching the defense and Chow recruiting and calling plays for the offense, how many #1 recruiting classes do you think UCLA would get year after year. The team has talent. We just need someone who could do something with it!

UCLA has a great bunch of kids who want to change the program from mediocrity to elite. They have bought into it. Their leader has not delivered period! He has failed to get them prepared for the gimme games! I will give KD KUDOS for cleaning up the program. He has done a great job in that respect. But as for leading this team to the "Promised Land" He lacks Leadership quality. Move Coach Walker up to HC or bring in Rick Neuhisel. Sorry KD.

I agree with "Anonymous". We should just cancel all sports and extra-curricular activities since they distract from the school's mission- to teach students.

Don't Dump Dorrell. Dump Football. Dump Sports. Dump Fun.

I was at Salt Lake and left disheartened. I was at Tucson in '05 and left in shock. Despite it all, including ND the state of UCLA football is upwardly mobile. There are some good athletes on the horizon and there are some excellent assistants in place. Termination of Dorrell at this juncture would threaten what has been put together, but how you hold the loyalty of increasingly skeptical alumni, especially those who are needed to finance a renovation of Pauley puts the AD between a very big rock and a very hard place.

Let's spend millions of dollars on a sports personality coach to restore the Bruin honor. Screw the public schools that have no libraries or books. Why should they have the basics when we need our glory. We want our honor. Our big name coach.

UCLA football is a D-1 coaching training ground, and Dorrell is burning this program down. GUERRERO needs to man up, take responsibility and fire Dorrell.

The UCLA football program is handicapped by an AD who doesn't know what it takes to be successful in college football. It is further handicapped by the AD giving contract extensions to an incompetent hire.

In short, if the coaches don't implement the veer or the option for Raashan they may not win another game until Cowan or Olson returns.

I have to disagree with the tiny minority who still see "improvement" and use this as yet another excuse to continue this failed coaching experiment. There is no objective measure on the field in which we have improved since the end of the Toledo era. Karl Dorrell by his own record is the second WORST coach since WWII. I hear bellyaching about the expectations "being too high" even though EVERYONE knew before the season that THIS WAS THE YEAR. The convergence of experience and a light schedule all coming together for KD to prove himself. Now that he has publicly embarrassed us twice in six games, we have to revise the expectations? No. That's not how it works.

If we're going to lower the bar like all these apologists want, then we might as well stop playing at the Rose Bowl and move to Drake Stadium, because a program that isn't committed to winning doesn't deserve such a fine place to play. Wake up, apologists. You were wrong, and it's time to admit it.

Well I look at it this way- We haven't had a consistent quarterback for the last two years. We just got a new offensive coordinator. We have a defensive coordinator who is making great strides with the defensive line. The program has shown improvement since Toledo. I'm going to give it one more year before I start calling for Dorrell's head. Hopefully we'll have a consistent quarterback, we already have great recruits, and Jay Norvell will be in his second year.

After 5 long years, Dorrell has not shown that he is capable of being the head coach of UCLA. The constant shuffling of offensive coordinators is proof that Dorrell's WCO is not a good one. The Notre Dame debacle is just the latest manifestation of Dorrell's inability to coach. The Irish did not win the game. UCLA gave the game to them through inept play calling on the offense. The fact that he always seem to be caught by surprise is sickening. After 5 years, he should not still be learning how to be a head coach.

UCLA's program can be summed up by the attitude before the Notre Dame game. The line constantly was, "We better not lose to Notre Dame." We all knew it was possible, just like that loss to Utah. The fear that we would lose was near the front of our minds, even if we always said that phrase in a joking way. We weren't looking forward to thrashing a terrible team. We were just hoping the team didn't let us down again. Really, the Notre Dame game wasn't a surprise, because we all knew it could happen, even if it shouldn't. If nearly everyone is half-expecting a loss to a team without a win halfway through the year, your team is not in a good place. If your team has only a couple wins itself, the whole team isn't very good. That's not the issue we have at UCLA, where we have won this season, and might win again. We have the ability to win, but we just don't. We are wildly inconsistent. Whose fault is that? The coaches. Dorrell and his staff must be gone by Dec 4.

Inconsistent and underperforming. KD’s offensive scheme has made it impossible to plug a good athlete into a position and allow him to perform well utilizing his skills. KD’s weekly analysis is always about how we made too many mistakes, missed a read, or were undisciplined. This is true, but how much of this is attributable to the scheme, play calls, and coaching. This offense is about analysis and making the perfect decision. This may be easy to see watching game film, unfortunately on the field it has resulted in paralysis by analysis.

Dorrell is an enigma. He is portrayed in the media as an honest, intelligent, and hard-working coach who also sees himself as an educator. On the field I see something which tells me that his message and his example are not getting through to his players. UCLA rarely improves during the season. The team has trouble overcoming adversity late in the season and has lost 4 or more games twice in 4 seasons. Dorrell does not take responsibility and has fired his top assistant offensive and defensive coaches multiple times in the last 4 years. Players do not take responsibility and brazenly report to the media that they "overlooked" an opponent. For these reasons Dorrell has failed as a coach and educator and should be replaced.