SMQB, Special Saturday Edition: An Open Letter to UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk
The Bruins have a bye week before opening conference play against Northwestern in two weeks. The current state of Bruin football merit this.
The UCLA Bruins have now completed the non-conference portion of their schedule with an 0-3 record. By itself, an 0-3 record might not merit an open letter like this. But it’s the way UCLA has been losing, at home no less, which requires immediate action.
This morning, I sent to following to UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk via email, and I am here to encourage each of you to join me by emailing him too.
Chancellor Frenk,
As a proud alum and Bruin football season ticketholder, I am writing this morning to ask you to make a change.
Last night, the Bruins lost one of the three remaining games that they had a reasonable chance of winning. And, they didn't just lose. They were blown out by 25 points in a game they were a 15.5 point favorite to win.
Meanwhile, Athletic Director Martin Jarmond has repeatedly shown that he is either unwilling to or incapable of providing a fix for the football program.
The last time UCLA had a football season without a win was 101 years ago in 1924. I fear that 2025 is about to become another winless season. Even if this team manages to scrape a few wins together, the Bruin Gold standard is not being maintained.
While Coach Foster was a great Bruin player, he has been terrible as a head coach. He is over his head and looks like a deer caught in the headlights.
The team is off next weekend. So, the good news is they cannot lose next Saturday.
That makes now an opportune time to relieve both Director Jarmond and Coach Foster of their duties immediately.
Looking around the Rose Bowl last night, the crowd looked like there were so few people there that they could have all had a seat inside Pauley Pavilion. That's no way to run a football program.
I know you set Miami up for the success they are currently having. Please do the same for UCLA football.
Every Bruin alum, fan and season ticketholder is counting on you.
Sincerely,
Joe Piechowski
UCLA Poli Sci '94
Go Bruins.
Thanks again for supporting The Mighty Bruin. Your paid subscriptions make this site possible. Questions, comments, story ideas, angry missives and more can be sent to @TheMightyBruin on Twitter.
Reports incoming that Foster has been relieved of his duties.
After about 15 minutes of quizzing ChatGPT about the woes of the UCLA Football program, it produced the following:
UCLA Football’s Problem Isn’t on the Field — It’s in the Front Office
Another season, another slow start for UCLA football. Fans are frustrated, players are under pressure, and the spotlight inevitably falls on the coaching staff. But let’s be honest: UCLA’s football problems don’t begin on the practice field. They begin at the top.
For decades, UCLA’s leadership has treated football as something to tolerate rather than champion. That attitude shows up in empty Rose Bowl seats, sluggish support for NIL, and a string of coaching hires made without a clear, long-term vision. While rivals like USC, Oregon, and even Washington have embraced football as a core part of their institutional identity, UCLA has settled for half measures.
Consider the history. Bob Toledo’s late-1990s success fizzled after one magical season. Karl Dorrell was steady but uninspiring. Rick Neuheisel brought passion but little progress. Jim Mora briefly raised expectations, then plateaued. Chip Kelly arrived as a supposed innovator but left with little more than a middling record. Different names, different styles — yet the same outcome: mediocrity. Why? Because each coach was asked to compete in an environment where the administration’s commitment was lukewarm at best.
The Kelly era is especially telling. UCLA’s leadership kept him in place for six seasons despite a losing overall record, a non-existent recruiting presence, and fan apathy so severe that the Rose Bowl often looked like a neutral-site scrimmage. Instead of making a bold change, the administration seemed content to let mediocrity linger — projecting indifference rather than urgency.
Off the field, UCLA has been slow to adapt to the new realities of college sports. When NIL rules went into effect, other schools quickly mobilized boosters and built strong collectives. USC’s “Student Body Right” collective and Oregon’s deep-pocketed donors made immediate noise. UCLA, by contrast, stumbled out of the gate, with confused messaging and limited infrastructure. Only recently has the school begun to piece together a competitive NIL presence, and even now, it trails behind its peers.
Contrast that with USC across town. Hiring Lincoln Riley may or may not prove to be the long-term answer, but the move itself was bold. It showed a willingness to swing for the fences — to signal to fans, recruits, and the entire college football world that USC intends to matter on the national stage. Even if the experiment ultimately falls short, the message of urgency was unmistakable. UCLA, by comparison, has rarely projected that kind of ambition.
Meanwhile, Oregon leveraged Phil Knight’s financial backing into cutting-edge facilities and relentless recruiting. Even smaller programs like Utah built identity and culture with strong institutional support, turning into consistent contenders despite fewer resources. These schools projected football as essential. UCLA projected football as optional.
That difference matters. Today’s college football landscape is driven by NIL, recruiting pipelines, and fan engagement — all areas where UCLA lags. Without clear direction from the top, it’s no surprise that elite recruits often leave Los Angeles for Eugene, Columbus, or Athens. UCLA sits in one of the richest recruiting territories in the country but lacks the urgency and infrastructure to capitalize.
The move to the Big Ten illustrates the issue perfectly. On paper, it’s a financial lifeline, ensuring UCLA won’t be stranded after the Pac-12’s collapse. But competitively, it’s a step into the lion’s den — a conference dominated by schools that have invested in football with full institutional buy-in. Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin — these programs aren’t just athletic departments with good teams, they are flagship brands for their universities. UCLA, by contrast, still behaves as if football is a side hustle.
If leadership doesn’t change its mindset, no strategy will matter. A new coach here, a transfer quarterback there — these are cosmetic fixes. To revive UCLA football, the administration must project football as essential to the university’s identity. That means showing recruits and fans that the Bruins aren’t just showing up to collect Big Ten revenue checks. It means energizing NIL collectives, improving facilities, strengthening ties with local high school programs, and above all, communicating urgency and conviction.
Until UCLA’s top leadership embraces that vision, talk of “reviving” the program is pointless. Without a cultural shift at the top, football will remain in the same cycle: hopeful press conferences, occasional flashes of promise, and inevitable letdowns. Meanwhile, rivals will continue to surge ahead, leaving UCLA stuck as a cautionary tale — a program with every natural advantage, but no will from above to seize it.