I’ve had it with Dorrell

I’ve finally had it with Karl Dorrell. Really.

After last season, I wanted him gone, but didn’t feel too strongly about it.

That all changed today, when I read this in a Daily News story linked to in a post on Bruins Nation:

UCLA receiver Dominique Johnson’s shot to gain a redshirt for last season is nearly lost, and Dorrell said he was not optimistic the Pac-10 would side with the Bruins’ appeal.

Johnson’s 2006 season lasted three plays, all in the fourth quarter, in a season-opening win against Utah. It was learned Monday that Johnson wasn’t supposed to play, but then-receivers coach D.J. McCarthy sent Johnson into the game.

“That was a coaching error,” Dorrell said. “I didn’t know (Johnson was sent in) at the time.”

That is unacceptable. Competent head coaches would have a list of players he is redshirting before the season began and would make sure all of his assistant coaches knew about it. A competent head coach would also make sure the player knew about it. And even if the error was truly a mistake, why not play Johnson more throughout the season, so he doesn’t waste a year?

What recruit would want to play for a coach who might take a year away from your career?

Let’s just add this to list of all of Dorrell’s faults and bad decisions over the years. The Notre Dame and Florida State debacles, the constant mediocrity, the “moral victory” against USC two years ago, losing to teams they shouldn’t, not using or running plays for his best players, etc.

I’ve had it. If he doesn’t deliver a Pac-10 title, BCS bowl, or at the very least, a legitimate 10-win season (not like the lucky fluke of a 2005 season) followed by a bowl win, I want him gone. This team has 20 returning starters and obviously has talent. (13-9 anyone?) If Dorrell can’t have a big season this year, he never will.

Umpires mess up their message, again

Apparently, Bud Selig and MLB want better background checks for their umpires in light of the NBA’s recent controversy with crooked ref Tim Donaghy.

The umpires union isn’t just against this, it doesn’t even see why it’s necessary.

In a letter that was obtained by ESPN.com’s Jerry Crasnick, the umpires union wrote: “… (MLB) also has a responsibility to do what’s in the best interest of the sport and its fans — and that is to not engage in knee-jerk, misguided witch hunts against the umpires without fair negotiations”

Misguided witch hunts? I know it was a different sport, but this is an important issue right now. As a baseball fan, I’d want to be sure that none of the umpires who hold a lot of power during a game are crooked and involved with the wrong people.

Look, the umpires’ union has every right to ask for something in return for more extensive background checks. That’s how collective bargaining works. One side wants something, the other gets something else they want. The umpires should get something in return, whether it’s some more money, some more perks or something else. But to characterize this as misguided is wrong.

Background checks should be a part of officials for every major sport. And just because MLB dropped the ball originally by not having them doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have them now. The umpires need to realize that the public opinion that cares about this issue isn’t on their side — you think baseball fans want to know that even a small chance exists that baseball games are fixed?