Before I go on with this article, I want to emphasize something:
I like UCLA football coach Rick Neuheisel. Very much.
I think his passion for his alma mater (class of ’84) and their football team is pronounced, and if there’s anyone on Earth who wants things in Westwood to succeed, for the Bruins to be among the elite in college football, more than Neuheisel, I’d like to meet him.
Plus he’s a great guy – having met him, I know that from personal experience.
Having said that, I’m not being an apologist for his shortcomings in the three years-plus that he’s been UCLA’s head coach.
I know and fully acknowledge that Neuheisel’s 15-23 record, including 4-14 on the road, is not good by any standard. And I also know all too well that he’s on the hot seat.
But in reading and posting on UCLA fan sites, particularly Bruin Report Online (www.ucla.scout.com), it has annoyed me to see all the doomsday downers and negative nellies who rail against the man day in and day out, wanting the man fired as soon as possible due to their belief that he’s the worst thing to ever happen to Bruin Nation since the end of Steve Lavin’s tenure as basketball coach in 2003, when UCLA finished with it’s first losing record since 1948.
Now don’t get me wrong – am I happy with how the Bruins have done on the gridiron in the Neuheisel era? No way!
Am I frustrated? Damn right I am!
But I dare say this:
Unless UCLA completely goes into the tank, firing Neuheisel may cause more problems than it solves; at least in the short term.
Here are my reasons why:
For starters, this futility is not completely Neuheisel’s fault, and never has been as he’s had to deal with key injuries and the cupboard being more or less bare when he arrived.
One has to keep in mind that he had to use a third string quarterback, Kevin Craft, in 2008 because Ben Olsen and Patrick Cowan suffered season-ending injuries on the first day of fall camp. And he lost key defensive lineman Datone Jones and center Kai Maiava for all of 2010.
Neuheisel and his staff have worked very hard in recruiting, signing classes ranked in the top 15 for three years in a row, so as far as stockpiling talent, he’s done a very good job.
Second, if, for the sake of argument, the Bruins do tank and Neuheisel is let go, things will not get better right away – that is, if the Bruins want to win now – because the ideal candidate to be the next UCLA football coach needs these qualifications:
1. To be an experienced head coach and a proven winner in the Football Bowl Subdivision – if not the BCS – because anyone who’s not will have to be given time to develop; time that these naysayers are too impatient to give.
2. To have West Coast ties if not Southern California ties, so he would have credibility among the local high schools, which is essential for recruting.
3. He has to not mind being paid less than market value, as UCLA has never paid more than $1.2 million for a coach – and never will.
That’s why big names such as Urban Meyer, who have the ability to turn things around right away, will never think of coming to Westwood, for this simple reason: The Bruins will never pay $4 and $5 million for a coach.
Which brings us to this next reason:
As long as the UCLA Athletic Department’s philosophy is what it is, considering what has happened – or about to happen – to programs like Miami, Ohio State, and crosstown rival USC – they’re not willing to risk embarrassment and scandal to win a BCS championship.
And they never will, as athletic director Dan Guerrero and his staff much prefer to emphasize overall excellence among all of its teams, rather than merely focus on football and men’s basketball.
Which is not something that a top-notch gridiron coach, who is used to powerful programs and winning, is necessarily willing to fit into.
4. He has to be willing to deal with UCLA’s very high admissions standards, which has kept many top football players from coming to Westwood over the years.
I once talked with someone from Bruin Athletics who mentioned that he knew of a lot of blue-chip players who dearly wanted to become Bruins their whole lives, but when it came time for recruitment had to be turned down because of grades and/or test scores that were not high enough, sending them to other schools where they became stars.
5. He must be willing to accept a lower standard of living in Los Angeles than he would in, say, the state of Alabama, where the last two national champions reside, as it’s a hell of a lot more expensive to live in L.A. than in Tuscaloosa, or Columbus, or Norman, OK, or Boise, ID.
That’s likely a factor in Boise State coach Chris Peterson turning down the UCLA job after Karl Dorrell was fired in 2007.
The fourth reason why getting rid of Neuheisel may not be the immediate cure-all for the Bruins’ problems is the fact that it will reflect just as badly on Guerrero, as it would mark the third football coach that he’s had to relieve of his duties.
One important thing that people don’t realize is that this is the Bruin athletic director’s first job at a major school with a football team.
His two previous AD gigs were at places without football programs: UC Irvine, a mid-major school with good basketball and baseball teams, and Cal State Dominguez Hills, a small commuter school in Carson, so while Guerrero is a UCLA alumnus (class of ’74), I’m not sure he understands what it takes to be an elite football power year in and year out.
Or if he does, I really don’t think he’s willing to do what’s needed to permanently put the Bruins up there with the Crimson Tide, the Buckeyes, the Sooners, and even the Trojans.
Plus if he fires Neuheisel after this year, he has to eat his contract and pay the coach the rest of the money owed him over his five-year, $1.2 million a year deal; Neuheisel is currently in year four.
Considering the economy and the financial struggles of UCLA and the rest of California’s public universities, what with raising tuition and cutting classes, that’s money that I’m sure the Bruins are not willing to part with.
The bottom line here, what I am trying to get at, is this:
Unless this season is a total disaster, I think that Neuheisel will be kept on and allowed to finish his five years before any decision on his future is made.
In my view, Guerrero’s way of thinking will be, “No one else who’s proven and will make an immediate impact will want the job, because they had not wanted it before, so I might as well keep Rick on.”
In the meantime, as a UCLA alum (class of ’91), a loyal Bruin football fan and a fervent member of Bruin Nation, I’m praying that things work out for Neuheisel and his team so the prospect of firing him will be a moot issue.
But I also feel that because of the university’s overall attitude concerning football, that it rather be merely good rather than sell its soul to be a great elite, Neuheisel’s dismissal will not solve the problem.
So unless the team goes 4-8, 3-9, or worse, he might as well stay.