Of all the disappointing seasons under Karl Dorrell — and there have been many — this year might be the most excusable. Down to a third and fourth string QB at times would hamper any team, program, and coach. It’s hard enough to win with a backup — but a backup to a backup? Yeah, that’s pretty much game over. So is it justifiable and fair that Dorrell would get fired after a season ruined by injuries? Well, the argument can be made that it was heading towards disappointment with healthy QBs anyway, and that he was set up for failure to begin with, as TJ Simers says. I’ll concede that the harsh academic standards and low coaching salaries makes the job of a UCLA football coach no easy task, but it can be done better than it is.

I’d like to see Dorrell succeed in his career — I really would. I’ve just seen enough of him in Westwood. It’s been five years of mediocrity, and this season can be heading towards 5-7. I’d like to see someone who can run a respectable program that wins on a more consistent basis. Now, why people are so hot on Mike Leach from Texas Tech boggles my mind. What’s so much better about losing 50-45 than 24-20? I’m still trying to figure that one out. Dorrell is not the answer, but neither is Leach. I’m not sure who the proper replacement is, but there’s no question that a change is needed.

Related posts

• UCLA Football Keys to Success: Ditch Spring Practice
• UCLA Football Is Finally Legit
• UCLA Completes Four Passes, Beats Oregon, Dorrell Lives, Rose Bowl Alive
• Rick Neuheisel Really Wants You to Buy Season Tickets
• Karl Dorrell: Duke Football Savior?
• UCLA Settles on Rick Neuheisel

This entry was posted on Monday, November 12th, 2007 and is filed under College Football. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.