December 12, 2005
FWAA Eddie Robinson Coach of the Year Ballot
The Football Writers Association of America announced the six finalists for the 2005 Eddie Robinson Coach of the Year Award. The six coaches nominated for the award are Texas' Mack Brown, USC's Pete Carroll, UCLA's Karl Dorrell, Central Florida's George O'Leary, Penn State's Joe Paterno, and Notre Dame's Charlie Weis.
Here's the ballot I submitted, looking from the perspective of what was expected of each team & what they've accomplished this year:
1. Paterno
2. O'Leary
3. Weis
4. Brown
5. Carroll
6. Dorrell
Looking past the feel good of Paterno making it back to glory, it's quite an amazing turn around at PSU. JoPa's team was 4-7 last year and barely warranted any looks in the pre-season. Fast forward to today - Penn State is 10-1, Big Ten co-champs, ranked #3 in the BCS and playing in the Orange Bowl. And this was a four win team last year! Say what you want about JoPa being past his prime, he's had an amazing year and deserves the Coach of the Year Award.
Comments:
posted on December 13, 2005 3:14 PM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue said:
Don't be confused by UCLA's record when evaluating Dorrell. It looks great on paper, but look at how they actually performed on the field.
UCLA played down to the level of it's competition several times this year, barely winning against teams that were much lower rated. If you rewatch some of those games, I think you'll see a trend. To me, that's not playing up to expectations.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on December 13, 2005 6:48 PM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Gotta agree with Kev. UCLA was lucky to win all those games. Kevin tried to use a more diplomatic approach. The Bruins got way behind in many games and pulled off some "miracles" as their opponents must of had some meltdowns. Good teams don't let off. So, it isn't far fetched to understand that UCLA probably wasn't beating good teams when they mounted those comebacks. They got behind to USC and Arizona by way too much to ever come back from. They are not a good team. Probably the worst 9-2 team to ever lace em' up. The recruits that they are landing, for the most part, are average at best. They cannot sustain any momentum when all of the guys surrounding their "marquee players" are not marquee at all. It takes a whole team. For instance - Reggie Bush would not average anything near 8.9 YPC if he had chosen to play at UCLA. He has a far superior offensive line to run behind at SC. On the other hand - Drew Olsen might even be better than he appears. Had he gone to USC - he might be the one totin' home the Heisman. All I know is that UCLA has many holes in the team that a few standout individuals were able to mask somewhat. That mask was torn apart against USC and Arizona. Karl Dorrell hasn't done much except figure out how to win some close games against inferior talent. Whenever UCLA has to get in "the Big Ring" - they'll be blown apart.
Tommie Trojan
Bob said:
posted on December 13, 2005 10:16 PM — 70.33.99.215 — link — abuse?
Always thought there should be at least 3 winners in all these tpye of awards. Heisman, best QB, best lineman etc.
There are so many good players today as opposed to a few when these awards first started. It is only right we pick 3 equal recipients for each award.
anonymous said:
posted on December 16, 2005 2:48 PM — 130.235.189.100 — link — abuse?
When you insult the talent level that UCLA has, you're only proving my point. The team is garbage, but they went 9-2. Dorrell took a group of "average at best" players and brought them to a 9-2 record for the first time since 1998. It certainly wasn't Drew Olson, "not marquee at all" QB, who was responsible for the 9 wins. And yes, they beat teams with inferior talent. Isn't that what every team is supposed to do? Throw in wins over Cal and a huge one over Oklahoma, and the Bruins have a great year. For crying out loud, he voted George O'Leary #2. Who did they beat? The mighty powerhouses UL-Lafayette and Tulane?
I must not be getting it. The man said he voted based on expectations compared to what the team accomplished during the year. Can you honestly say you expected UCLA to finish 9-2 and in the top 20? If you can tell me that you thought UCLA would have a 9 (or possibly 10) win season this year, then I understand this disrespect for Karl Dorrell on your ballot. If you can't, though, it's entirely reasonable to assume you have some other prejudice against the man and/or his program.
posted on December 16, 2005 6:49 PM — link — abuse?
I don't agree that UCLA has "average" talent. They can out talent a lot of teams. I still go back to UCLA playing down to the level of competition - for a good or better team - that's a coach's fault.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
anonymous said:
posted on December 12, 2005 9:31 PM — 130.235.189.100 — link — abuse?So you're implying that USC exceeded expectations better than UCLA? Do you know how mediocre UCLA has been the past few years?
I understand the Paterno vote, but I can't see how you can have Dorrell as the last man on your ballot, especially with the logic that you've given (unless, of course, you admit that you voted from east to west, which would really clarify everything).
But please, explain to me how Dorrell's Bruins underacheived this year, while Texas and USC really stunned you. I'd love to hear it.