Leach-ing for success
Here is a story I wrote about UCLA's improving defense, and also a notebook in which offensive players are apologizing to the defense for its poor play.
On a different note, as I watched Texas Tech upset Texas on Saturday, I couldn't help but think about how badly Texas Tech coach Mike Leach wanted the UCLA job, but couldn't get a sniff because UCLA's administration believed Leach's personality is "out there" and he wouldn't be a good mix for the school.
If I remember correctly, Leach also hung a $2 million+ price tag on himself, which would have essentially taken him out of the running as well?
Texas Tech is fun to watch, but with the offensive line at UCLA, he wouldn't be having any more success right now than the current crew. Long term, I think UCLA made the right call.
Dallas,
That is incorrect. Leach would have come for less ($1.7 to $1.8 million) and UCLA offered Mike Bellotti about $2.2 million per year. But none of that mattered because UCLA's administration wanted NOTHING to do with Leach.
Kill me now Brian. Just do it. If he really would have come for less that's just terrible. Leach would have been PERFECT for Los Angeles, and its not like he's dumb; he's highly educated. Who exactly is in this part of the administration that continually acts like UCLA has the academic tradition of an Ivy?
Brian,
Could you dig up any articles you might have written regarding Leach when UCLA was searching for a new coach earlier in the year?
Brian,
If we were willing to pay Bellotti $2.2 mil, doesn't that mean we can pay more to Walker and Chow to retain them in the future, since Neuheisel is only paid $1.25 mil...$995,000 less than what we offered Bellotti?
This ran in the Daily News on Dec. 6, 2007
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: INTEREST IN LEACH LUKEWARM
Author: Brian Dohn
Staff Writer
Article Text:
UCLA is still in the exploratory phase of its football coaching search, but when the short list is compiled, Texas Tech coach Mike Leach is not expected to be on it, sources said Wednesday.
Leach built the Red Raiders into an offensive force with his spread formations and affinity for throwing the ball. He is interested in the job, sources said, but UCLA is not reciprocating such interest.
Leach has a reputation as being quirky -- and outspoken -- and that might not sit well at UCLA, sources said. Also, sources said Leach, who is scheduled to make $1.85 million next season and $2.15 million in 2010, is not salary driven and would come to Westwood for under-market value. But finances could still be an issue with hiring Karl Dorrell's replacement.
Dorrell made $600,000 annually when he was hired, and was guaranteed $850,000 this season.
Although UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero said increased revenue in the athletic department should make it possible for the school to be competitive when it comes to salaries, sources said UCLA doesn't appear willing to spend more than $2 million per season.
Meanwhile, Guerrero moved closer to hiring a search firm to aid in doing background checks and gauging the interest level of potential candidates. According to sources, there is still no official list of candidates, and there will not be one until after a search firm is hired.
Interviews could begin by the weekend, and one dark horse in the field is former UCLA offensive coordinator Tom Cable, who is now an assistant with the Oakland Raiders. He is ``highly'' interested, according to sources. Cable spent two seasons at UCLA under Dorrell, and in the second season the Bruins ranked fifth in the nation in scoring (39.1 ppg) and finished 10-2.
Cable was also instrumental in the hiring of UCLA's defensive coordinator and interim coach, DeWayne Walker, who joined the Bruins' staff shortly before Cable left to take a job with the Atlanta Falcons.
However, Cable's 11-35 mark in four seasons at Idaho will be tough for Guerrero to overlook, sources said.
My bad...that was $950,0000 less rather than $995,000. Regardless, if there is that kind of money available, we should make sure to set it aside to keep Chow and Walker around for some time.
I'd rather have some of their players...
And THAT is why UCLA football will always be mediocre
Brian,
You should also admit you were wrong about Leach as well. You had his team ranked lower than most other writers early in the year because you did not thing they could beat the better teams.
Silverlake,
Yes, I did have them ranked lower than Texas, as well as other teams, while I took a wait-and-see approach. Of course, my decision where to rank Texas Tech doesn't have a profound impact on UCLA's football program for the next five to seven years.
But exactly how does my ranking of a team reflect that I was wrong about Leach? I never said he was the wrong choice for UCLA. And I never said he was the correct choice.
Hey Kool-Aid addicts,
The reason Texas Tech is great is because they have GREAT PLAYERS. Our team would be just as bad this year if Leach was coaching because our players are lousy.
I can't believe you guys are already desiring a new coach. We have a great coaching staff, and we will be in BETTER shape than Texas TEch in a couple of years. As soon as we get rid of all these Dorrellite players.
Stop drinking Kool-Aid and face reality. Leach would have done jack for our program. We would have a HORRIBLE defense and mohawk sporting linemen.
Yo Boss, quit defending the mediocre regime currently in place and spend some time with the cat and me
Uh VB, are you sure about that Tech's got more talent...
(all recruiting class data from Rivals)
2008 UCLA #13, avg 3.5 stars
2008 TTech #45, avg 3.0 stars
2007 UCLA #40, avg 3.3 stars
2007 TTech #52, avg 2.7 stars
2006 UCLA #17, avg 3.2 stars
2006 TTech #25, avg 2.9 stars
2005 UCLA #26 avg 3.0 stars
2005 TTech #37, avg 2.7 stars
Brian, when you say "administration", do you mean the athletic department specifically or the higher ups, or both? I know Pete Dalis would've never hired somebody with a personality, but I thought Guerrero might be a little more flexible in that regard (given that he hired Howland), so I'm wondering whose fault this is.
[sigh]
Give all those T-Tech players to NeuChoWalker, and I GUARANTEE that they would be just as good under that regime. Leach is an offensive junkie. That is all he focuses on. There are so many years that he neglects defense and special teams. I mean, they have FAN kicking field goals for them. They happen to be successful THIS YEAR because they are full of seniors and offensive weapons.
And hate to burst your homer bubble, but the only team T-Tech has played this year is.. well... TEXAS. They are going to get slaughtered by Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
So again, lay off the Kool-aid and appreciate the coaching staff we have. It's not their fault our players are downright putrid.
VB, look up Tech's offense in Leach's first year, when they were coming off a streak as one of the worst programs in division 1 for a decade and had absolutely no talent, much less than UCLA does now.
The offense was phenomenal his first year, and every year. It's the defensive talent at Tech that has taken a while to upgrade, and is now the reason they are a title-contender. If Leach were here we would also be able to devote much more money to a defensive staff, since he requires no offensive coordinator. Also: his team if far, far less talented than the Longhorn team they just beat, or the Oklahoma team they beat last year.
It never got beyond the athletic department for anyone else to say yes or no. And Leach had his people practically begging for UCLA to take a look at him.
If Texas Tech had not had that great rally at the end to beat Texas, would we even be having this discussion about Leach?
Leach at UCLA this year = Rich Rodriguez at Michigan.
Texas Tech has an O-Line, UCLA doesn't.
Texas Tech has an experienced QB, UCLA doesn't.
Plus Crabtree is the best WR in the nation.
The only time to even compare UCLA and TT for this analysis is in a couple years.
Yes, if Rick can't bet OSU this weekend.
Just a couple of quick questions...
Have you seen Tech's offensive line??? Most of the guys are above 6'6" and 350 pounds and only allowed something like 3 sacks before the Texas game. Our offensive line? Not so much.
In what ways do Kevin Craft, Patrick Cowan, Ben Olson, Osaar Rashan, and Chris Forcier resemble Graham Harrell?
Just answer those 2 questions for yourself and then tell me Leach would have been able to do that down here this year.
It's stupid to compare the teams this year. I'm interested in comparing our team this year with Leach's FIRST Tech team, which still tore it up offensively.
VB,
Agree with you. Please serve all these Bruin fans some more Kool-Aid straight from your 55-gallon drum.
WOW!!! Brian,
I can't believe we didn't even give Leach a look by inviting him to an interview. This is just plain incompetent and negligent. Especially, considering we gave CRN a long hard look with his past. Not to say anything against CRN, but why not give Leach a shot too? Just plain bad.
Let me say this one .... more ... time ....
LEACH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GOOD FOR OUR PROGRAM!!!!! THE GUY IS HAS DEFENSIVELY DEFICIENT TEAMS YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT. HIS TEAMS OFTEN LOSE CLOSE GAMES AS A RESULT OF HORRIBLE SPECIAL TEAMS. HE IS A JERKWAD WHO IS WAY TOO OUTSPOKEN FOR HIS OWN GOOD. AND HE LOOKS LIKE A PLUMP LITTLE BLEACHED SMURF!!!
GIVE UP ON MIKE LEACH!!! WE HAVE A FINE COACHING STAFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
VB - how do you really feel? lol.
ROFL!!!!
I feel pissed off that these Bruin fans are already scouting out our next coach!! Stinkin' no good, fairweather, jokes of fans they all are!!!
Yah, I know. It's stupid. These people's expectations are unbelievable. Of course, they've probably never played sports themselves and will be voting for Obama, too.
I like that Obama reference. I bet you're right, as people who have played sports tend to appreciate competition and the fact that the best way to achieve - and be rewarded for - success is through hard work. That would be inconsistent with the Obama mindset.
I'm not sure I understand Dohn here. Is the implication that he thinks Leatch would have been better for the UCLA job? Does Dohn really believe that Leatch would be doing better at UCLA than the current coaches are this year? I guess I just don't understand this statement of speculation.