While I will write Chancellor Frenk an email, I also will send him a letter as it connotes a tad extra in the way of concern. (It's just a personal habit I got into: writing my congressperson when she began to irritate me by not acquiescing to my demands!) It'll probably go into the round file, but what the hell!
Oh, and of course I shall be courteous and polite.* In fact, just like Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption, who solicited library funds from the Maine state legislature, I can keep on writing until Dr Frank relents. We might not get a new AD and coach, but he'll probably have someone go back into storage and send along some old remaindered copies of Niswonger and Fess's Accounting Principles.
*Oh, and no threats, of course. "Nice University ya got here, Doc! Be a shame if.."
You wrote a respectful yet succinct letter stating your case for a drastic change in UCLA football, starting with athletic director at the top, then head coach. Rest assured you have our complete, unreserved support. Jarmond made a lazy hire. In corporate terms, he picked an office supervisor to be the CEO of the company. How it had passed muster with the previous administration is beyond me. We can hope , at the very least, that our current chancellor can set things straight. This season will certainly deteriorate into calamity, an unwatchable feat for years to come. But given the right strong dosage, our days will come again.
An apt metaphor this, Henry. Not to pig-pile on the unfortunate DSF, I reckon he will eventually be relieved of his command, pursue his career as coach somewhere, then wake up later as a more mature individual realizing he caught lightening in a bottle "back then" and know he could do much better when he gets an opportunity at this level again. Personally, I bear no malice whatsoever towards coach DSF but, instead, feel sorry for him. He is -- almost literally -- the victim of someone's bad choice as you point out.
I wonder how many of us were given a similar opportunity early on in our careers and fumbled the ball away. (I know I have.)
Fortunately, the "small c" coach didn't fumble on the goal line during a TD drive that could have won the game. To torture this further, his was only on his own forty. He has a good heart, is a kind, sweet gentleman who loves UCLA, bleeds blue and gold, and wants to do right. He will work his way back up the ladder and emerge at a Colorado or a Tulane or some other place and will have attained sufficient FB wisdom to add W's to his record.
I hold absolutely no such sympathy for Jarmond, whom I ruefully refer to as "The Fetus" as evidence of my disdain. DSF is merely mid-level management assigned to bring in a project: make UCLA football a winner. Jarmond is responsible for rebuilding crumbling ruins back up to an edifice of some prominence; better than it was. He has consistently failed in that regard and only exacerbated the situation. (Guerror raised to the sixth power.) When he should have fired "The Chipster" (whom I consider the ultimate grifter) he gave him a raise.
Here I default again to 4merKPer's AI synopsis -- the most accurate and chilling appraisal of UCLA's "Descent into the Maelström" I have ever seen -- and say we might be *generations* away from whatever former glory we seek to achieve. I, as a codger in good standing, only have memories. I fear I shan't have any glory days to look forward to in this plane of existence.
I'd be bitter except, in grubbing for my daily crust (and snifter of "Château Thames Embankment"), I was only among the very thrifty contributors to any UCLA athletic charity. Hence, my admiration for folks like Joe and Dimitri is unbounded.
Caution--taking too much hopium can induce hallucinations of the UCLA football program being extremely competitive, regardless of their record and who they play.
Can't really tell anymore--the UCLA HC said (seriously?) after the Utah season-opening drubbing that "We were close", and then after their 3rd-straight defeat, "I can get these boys to play", so I believe he's definitely addicted to the hopium and trying to spread it. The bye week provides a temporary relief from all of the nausea.
I was at the Langham luxury hotel in Pasadena yesterday before going to the Rose Bowl for the game. I was advised the team had stayed at the hotel (i saw massage tables still set up). Does anyone know if this is true? What in Joe Bruin's name are college kids staying at such a posh resort? Especially given the athletic department's debt, and the exceptionally poor product UCLA is putting on the turf
UCLA has traditionally stayed at a hotel in Pasadena before home games, because the alternative is taking a potential hour+ bus ride a few hours before the game. I would also assume UCLA is getting a pretty significant discount for the rooms, but that’s the cost of doing business when you don’t have an on-campus stadium.
FYI....UCLA's Rose Bowl contract actually calls for the team to stay in a hotel in Pasadena the night before a game.
That was changed under Chip. I think they stayed at the Luskin Center the night before under him.
At the time, the Rose Bowl wasn't overly concerned about that provision of the contract. I spoke to the Rose Bowl GM at the time (I think it was Darrell Dunn) who called UCLA a "good partner" and he was ok if they wanted to stay in Westwood.
I think we would be better off hiring someone with head coaching experience and a reputation for building a program. Like a Curt Cignetti (Indiana) or Lance Leopold (Kansas) type.
Jeff Fisch (Washington) and Johnathan Smith (Michigan State) will obviously be at the top of the list, but I hope they look at Fresno State’s Matt Entz as well.
Now I'm reading that UCLA had a contract with UNM (apparently signed back in 2016) that cost the Bruins $1.2M to play last night's game. Wonder how many more of these "payouts-for-losses" exist. In additon to the letter-writing effort, I think the big donors also need to force major changes (money talks). The Bruins are now the only winless Big-10 team, but not sure if they've actually hit rock bottom yet. I would expect that any talented players the Bruins currently have will eventually transfer out, and maybe no new significant talent will transfer in (or be successfully recruited from high schools).
This is also a thing in college football now. You pay a lesser program to come play at your stadium because you don’t want to do a home-and-home with them. Again, it’s the cost of doing business.
Wonder how much it actually cost UNM to travel and play at the Rose Bowl. Any profit plus the victory made it a very worthwhile trip for them. So who's the lesser program now? :-(
This has been a thing for ages. Just UCLA was not usually doing it. But I would always hear about teams like Alabama, LSU paying teams like The Citadel or Eastern Tennessee State so that they have an easy 70-3 win
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.
WOW! You or AI as a source, that has to be some of the most insightful analyses going! It's almost -- no, is -- terrifying! That's cut and paste stuff for my fridge door!
Honest injun!
Thank you!
*** STILL REELING AFTER READING THIS ***
The summary paragraph is the bomb. It's been what the old BNers and now TMP had/have been advocating! If adopted post-Toledo, UCLA would have skipped literally decades of waste and confusion. Again, thank you!
You're welcome. And yeah, AI is pretty scary. Here are the prompts I used to generate the essay. For brevity I left out the interim responses from ChatGPT.
>> Given last year's record and this year's 0-3 start, what is needed to make UCLA football competitive?
>> Given UCLA's history of failed attempts at reviving football, what can you say about UCLA's top leadership?
>> Could I conclude that the particular strategy is pointless if there are no leadership changes?
>> expand it to include the points surrounding that leadership must project that football is essential
>> sharpen this for an op-ed
>> expand it as a full column with history and examples
>> rewrite this, but temper the USC point, given that Lincoln Riley may not pan out, but at least USC is hitting for the fences.
KPer, not maybe, sir, MUST BE! Perhaps when I order the large anchovy pizza sent to the Chancellor's office, I could have is slipped into the box.
Whether from AI or your own ken, it's an absolutely chilling appraisal. As I mentioned to Henry Tse, it's generational in magnitude and, to we codgers, it condemns us to only reliving our past glories without any prospect of future brighter days.
Curse these lazy louts -- chiefly "The Fetus" -- and their glad-handing of what athletic prowess UCLA had by blowing million$ on slime like "Mr 35-and-35", Chipster Kelly.
Oh and BTW, it's certainly more impressive than anything you will find on UCLA Football HQ, which despite having author names seems to be using AI to write their clickbait "articles."
Just read this now. It's as impressive as the other one you posted on the more recent article. I'm sure it derived some of its content from what BN and TMB and others have written about the program. Glad I could help out a little. LOL
Yes, the social/news media backlash, letter-writing campaign, and any other efforts to force action seem to have resulted in partial success, or maybe there's (hopefully) a part 2 yet to come.
Thank you for leading by example Joe....well done!
Joe,
While I will write Chancellor Frenk an email, I also will send him a letter as it connotes a tad extra in the way of concern. (It's just a personal habit I got into: writing my congressperson when she began to irritate me by not acquiescing to my demands!) It'll probably go into the round file, but what the hell!
Oh, and of course I shall be courteous and polite.* In fact, just like Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption, who solicited library funds from the Maine state legislature, I can keep on writing until Dr Frank relents. We might not get a new AD and coach, but he'll probably have someone go back into storage and send along some old remaindered copies of Niswonger and Fess's Accounting Principles.
*Oh, and no threats, of course. "Nice University ya got here, Doc! Be a shame if.."
Chancellor Julio Frenk,
Office of the UCLA Chancellor
2147 Murphy Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90095
(310) 825-2151
You wrote a respectful yet succinct letter stating your case for a drastic change in UCLA football, starting with athletic director at the top, then head coach. Rest assured you have our complete, unreserved support. Jarmond made a lazy hire. In corporate terms, he picked an office supervisor to be the CEO of the company. How it had passed muster with the previous administration is beyond me. We can hope , at the very least, that our current chancellor can set things straight. This season will certainly deteriorate into calamity, an unwatchable feat for years to come. But given the right strong dosage, our days will come again.
"..an office supervisor.."
{{{chortle}}}
An apt metaphor this, Henry. Not to pig-pile on the unfortunate DSF, I reckon he will eventually be relieved of his command, pursue his career as coach somewhere, then wake up later as a more mature individual realizing he caught lightening in a bottle "back then" and know he could do much better when he gets an opportunity at this level again. Personally, I bear no malice whatsoever towards coach DSF but, instead, feel sorry for him. He is -- almost literally -- the victim of someone's bad choice as you point out.
I wonder how many of us were given a similar opportunity early on in our careers and fumbled the ball away. (I know I have.)
Fortunately, the "small c" coach didn't fumble on the goal line during a TD drive that could have won the game. To torture this further, his was only on his own forty. He has a good heart, is a kind, sweet gentleman who loves UCLA, bleeds blue and gold, and wants to do right. He will work his way back up the ladder and emerge at a Colorado or a Tulane or some other place and will have attained sufficient FB wisdom to add W's to his record.
I hold absolutely no such sympathy for Jarmond, whom I ruefully refer to as "The Fetus" as evidence of my disdain. DSF is merely mid-level management assigned to bring in a project: make UCLA football a winner. Jarmond is responsible for rebuilding crumbling ruins back up to an edifice of some prominence; better than it was. He has consistently failed in that regard and only exacerbated the situation. (Guerror raised to the sixth power.) When he should have fired "The Chipster" (whom I consider the ultimate grifter) he gave him a raise.
Here I default again to 4merKPer's AI synopsis -- the most accurate and chilling appraisal of UCLA's "Descent into the Maelström" I have ever seen -- and say we might be *generations* away from whatever former glory we seek to achieve. I, as a codger in good standing, only have memories. I fear I shan't have any glory days to look forward to in this plane of existence.
I'd be bitter except, in grubbing for my daily crust (and snifter of "Château Thames Embankment"), I was only among the very thrifty contributors to any UCLA athletic charity. Hence, my admiration for folks like Joe and Dimitri is unbounded.
Persevere my dear friend!
Personally, I think Utah, UNLV and New Mexico are all playoff teams. It’s really not that dire.
Exactly! We’ll right the ship once we get to the big 10 cupcakes
Unfortunately, the ship has already sunk and trying to rearrange the deck chairs is just a complete waste of time...
Caution--taking too much hopium can induce hallucinations of the UCLA football program being extremely competitive, regardless of their record and who they play.
I hope you weren’t taking my comment seriously.
..throwing a flag! Insufficient use of sarc tags! 15 yard penalty!
;-}
Can't really tell anymore--the UCLA HC said (seriously?) after the Utah season-opening drubbing that "We were close", and then after their 3rd-straight defeat, "I can get these boys to play", so I believe he's definitely addicted to the hopium and trying to spread it. The bye week provides a temporary relief from all of the nausea.
I was at the Langham luxury hotel in Pasadena yesterday before going to the Rose Bowl for the game. I was advised the team had stayed at the hotel (i saw massage tables still set up). Does anyone know if this is true? What in Joe Bruin's name are college kids staying at such a posh resort? Especially given the athletic department's debt, and the exceptionally poor product UCLA is putting on the turf
UCLA has traditionally stayed at a hotel in Pasadena before home games, because the alternative is taking a potential hour+ bus ride a few hours before the game. I would also assume UCLA is getting a pretty significant discount for the rooms, but that’s the cost of doing business when you don’t have an on-campus stadium.
FYI....UCLA's Rose Bowl contract actually calls for the team to stay in a hotel in Pasadena the night before a game.
That was changed under Chip. I think they stayed at the Luskin Center the night before under him.
At the time, the Rose Bowl wasn't overly concerned about that provision of the contract. I spoke to the Rose Bowl GM at the time (I think it was Darrell Dunn) who called UCLA a "good partner" and he was ok if they wanted to stay in Westwood.
What is the feasibility of offering the head coaching job to D'Anton Lynn?
NO. He went to the Dark Side already.
I think we would be better off hiring someone with head coaching experience and a reputation for building a program. Like a Curt Cignetti (Indiana) or Lance Leopold (Kansas) type.
Jeff Fisch (Washington) and Johnathan Smith (Michigan State) will obviously be at the top of the list, but I hope they look at Fresno State’s Matt Entz as well.
Now I'm reading that UCLA had a contract with UNM (apparently signed back in 2016) that cost the Bruins $1.2M to play last night's game. Wonder how many more of these "payouts-for-losses" exist. In additon to the letter-writing effort, I think the big donors also need to force major changes (money talks). The Bruins are now the only winless Big-10 team, but not sure if they've actually hit rock bottom yet. I would expect that any talented players the Bruins currently have will eventually transfer out, and maybe no new significant talent will transfer in (or be successfully recruited from high schools).
This is also a thing in college football now. You pay a lesser program to come play at your stadium because you don’t want to do a home-and-home with them. Again, it’s the cost of doing business.
Wonder how much it actually cost UNM to travel and play at the Rose Bowl. Any profit plus the victory made it a very worthwhile trip for them. So who's the lesser program now? :-(
This has been a thing for ages. Just UCLA was not usually doing it. But I would always hear about teams like Alabama, LSU paying teams like The Citadel or Eastern Tennessee State so that they have an easy 70-3 win
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.
WOW! You or AI as a source, that has to be some of the most insightful analyses going! It's almost -- no, is -- terrifying! That's cut and paste stuff for my fridge door!
Honest injun!
Thank you!
*** STILL REELING AFTER READING THIS ***
The summary paragraph is the bomb. It's been what the old BNers and now TMP had/have been advocating! If adopted post-Toledo, UCLA would have skipped literally decades of waste and confusion. Again, thank you!
You're welcome. And yeah, AI is pretty scary. Here are the prompts I used to generate the essay. For brevity I left out the interim responses from ChatGPT.
>> Given last year's record and this year's 0-3 start, what is needed to make UCLA football competitive?
>> Given UCLA's history of failed attempts at reviving football, what can you say about UCLA's top leadership?
>> Could I conclude that the particular strategy is pointless if there are no leadership changes?
>> expand it to include the points surrounding that leadership must project that football is essential
>> sharpen this for an op-ed
>> expand it as a full column with history and examples
>> rewrite this, but temper the USC point, given that Lincoln Riley may not pan out, but at least USC is hitting for the fences.
>> add specific examples
And voilà. Maybe this should be sent to Frenck! 🤔
KPer, not maybe, sir, MUST BE! Perhaps when I order the large anchovy pizza sent to the Chancellor's office, I could have is slipped into the box.
Whether from AI or your own ken, it's an absolutely chilling appraisal. As I mentioned to Henry Tse, it's generational in magnitude and, to we codgers, it condemns us to only reliving our past glories without any prospect of future brighter days.
Curse these lazy louts -- chiefly "The Fetus" -- and their glad-handing of what athletic prowess UCLA had by blowing million$ on slime like "Mr 35-and-35", Chipster Kelly.
{{{spit}}}
Oh and BTW, it's certainly more impressive than anything you will find on UCLA Football HQ, which despite having author names seems to be using AI to write their clickbait "articles."
Just read this now. It's as impressive as the other one you posted on the more recent article. I'm sure it derived some of its content from what BN and TMB and others have written about the program. Glad I could help out a little. LOL
Are you really human or AI? :-)
Foster fired! your letter worked
It was a team effort. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to email Chancellor Frenk yesterday.
I emailed Frenk during the game.
You were not. I’m sure there were a flood of emails. I know probably hundreds came from BruinReportOnline.
But it sounds like the donors got involved as well and said enough is enough.
Reports incoming that Foster has been relieved of his duties.
But what about Jarmond? He should have been fired with Foster.
Yes, the social/news media backlash, letter-writing campaign, and any other efforts to force action seem to have resulted in partial success, or maybe there's (hopefully) a part 2 yet to come.
Go Bruins.