me: "now that UCLA has fired its head coach DeShaun Foster, what should its course of action be? Simply hire the best coach available? Clean house and fire the AD and any other admin? Announce a long-term strategy that comes from the Chancellor to signal UCLA takes football seriously? Any suggestions?"
ChatGPT said:
Great question — and this is really the crossroads moment for UCLA football. If all they do is replace DeShaun Foster with “the best coach available,” they risk repeating the same cycle they’ve been stuck in since the late ’90s. To break out, the course of action has to be bigger and more strategic. Here’s what I’d suggest:
1. Decide What Football Means to UCLA
The Chancellor and Regents need to make an institution-level statement: Is football a flagship program that represents UCLA nationally, or just a sideline?
Without that clarity, any hire — even a good one — will feel like window dressing.
A public commitment from the Chancellor would project to recruits, fans, and donors that UCLA finally takes football seriously.
2. Leadership Alignment (AD and Admins)
If the current Athletic Director can’t articulate or execute a bold vision, then yes, a change at AD should happen before the next coaching hire. Otherwise, you risk a mismatch where the AD hires someone just to buy time.
Even if the AD stays, the Chancellor should set non-negotiables: improved NIL structure, donor engagement, and game-day investment.
3. Build a Competitive NIL Infrastructure
UCLA cannot compete in the Big Ten without a serious NIL machine. That means organizing donors, streamlining the collective, and matching at least the middle tier of the conference.
If leadership doesn’t solve NIL, the next coach will lose every major recruiting battle to USC, Oregon, Michigan, and Ohio State.
4. Define a Program Identity
UCLA has lurched from innovator (Kelly), to motivator (Mora), to steady-but-plain (Dorrell), without ever committing to a clear football identity.
Before hiring the next coach, leadership should decide: Do we want to be a player-development program like Utah/Wisconsin, a high-octane offense like Oregon, or a blue-chip recruiter like USC?
Then, hire a coach who actually embodies that identity and can recruit to it.
5. Hire Boldly, Not Safely
Too often, UCLA has hired “safe” fits that don’t move the needle. The next hire should be someone who makes recruits, fans, and the college football world take notice — even if it’s a risk.
That doesn’t mean chasing only splashy names, but it does mean hiring someone with a vision and the energy to sell it.
6. Reconnect with Fans and Donors
UCLA has to fix the empty Rose Bowl problem. That’s not just about winning games — it’s about marketing, student engagement, and making football Saturdays an essential part of UCLA culture.
If fans don’t believe the school itself cares, they won’t show up.
📌 Bottom line:
If UCLA only hires the “best coach available” without addressing leadership alignment, NIL, and institutional commitment, the cycle will repeat. The smart play is to:
Chancellor makes a clear, public statement that UCLA is serious about football.
Either empower the AD with resources or replace them if they lack vision.
Organize NIL and donors aggressively.
Then — and only then — hire a coach who fits a long-term identity.
Knowing what I know about AI, I'm pretty sure that I helped contribute at least a little to this answer over the past eleven years. Despite that, I have to admit that reading Chat GPT's response was pretty impressive.
Wow, 67 years? I also wasn't anticipating a HC change this early, but I'm not opposed to it. The Bruins were going to have decommits and transfers at the end of the season anyway, so getting a head start on finding a proven, experienced HC and starting over is preferable than waiting at the end of the season after things get worse and even more embarrassing. For the moment, the inept AD is very fortunate to be able to pin the blame on the departing HC and remain on the job.
Sadly, there are two gigantic hurdles for UCLA Football to overcome. First, I believe I read today that the athletic department is $200 million in deficit (if this is wrong, I am sure somebody will correct the figure) but in any event, it is a very large number. With the buyout of Foster's and hopefully Jarmond's contract, that deficit will increase. At this time for the program, I could not imagine any elite or even "up and coming" coach accepting the head coaching for UCLA without a large multi million contract dollar contract with a large buyout. I do not think even the "best coach available" can be had without a major dollar commitment and certainly not on the cheap like Foster's lowest salary in the Big ten. Same for NIL money because the "decent recruits" and transfers will expect large bonuses to come to a program in shambles. Easy to say that UCLA should be willing to pay mega bucks for great coaches and top recruits but it just is not going to happen because we do not have the resources, UCLA does not have the boosters like USC and Ohio State unless one can resurrect Sam Gilbert.
Second, I am probably the oldest UCLA alum posting here. My Masters Diploma was signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan. The only time I ever saw the type of fan supporting enthusiasm like I see with Big Ten schools is during the Tommy Prothro era which was very short. I have several USC friends even though I moved from Encino to NC and I can assure everybody that the Trojans are fanatical fans willing to support NIL unlike UCLA fans. The point is I do not see bringing back large crowds to the Rose Bowl to watch a struggling UCLA Football program for many years and the current problems buried deep. And BTW, the reported last game attendance of 31K must have counted each limb of each attendee (two arms and two legs) because the game on TV, looked like a ghost town.
Don't get me wrong, I am and always will be a loyal UCLA alum until my dying day but I am also realistic and truthful. OT, be thankful for Cronin.
I'm now officially jealous. I would love to have Governor Ronald Reagan's signature on my diploma!
BTW, just for the sake of sharing, if anyone has a diploma from a Governor they don't like (especially you youngins out there that graduated since 2019), if you ever have your diploma reprinted, they will update the signature on it to the current governor.
As far as Friday's attendance goes, I do have a public records request submitted for the ticket scan totals from Friday. I don't have the information yet though because it's the weekend. Though there was a tweet from the Mighty Bruin account which said that I thought we might be able to fit the entire crowd inside Pauley Pavilion.
30 day transfer portal window opens tomorrow. Could see mass exodus. not that it matters i guess.
I think that was the rationale for hiring Foster. We see how that worked out.
Beyond Nico and Pleasant we'd care because?
Are the decision-makers smarter than AI?
me: "now that UCLA has fired its head coach DeShaun Foster, what should its course of action be? Simply hire the best coach available? Clean house and fire the AD and any other admin? Announce a long-term strategy that comes from the Chancellor to signal UCLA takes football seriously? Any suggestions?"
ChatGPT said:
Great question — and this is really the crossroads moment for UCLA football. If all they do is replace DeShaun Foster with “the best coach available,” they risk repeating the same cycle they’ve been stuck in since the late ’90s. To break out, the course of action has to be bigger and more strategic. Here’s what I’d suggest:
1. Decide What Football Means to UCLA
The Chancellor and Regents need to make an institution-level statement: Is football a flagship program that represents UCLA nationally, or just a sideline?
Without that clarity, any hire — even a good one — will feel like window dressing.
A public commitment from the Chancellor would project to recruits, fans, and donors that UCLA finally takes football seriously.
2. Leadership Alignment (AD and Admins)
If the current Athletic Director can’t articulate or execute a bold vision, then yes, a change at AD should happen before the next coaching hire. Otherwise, you risk a mismatch where the AD hires someone just to buy time.
Even if the AD stays, the Chancellor should set non-negotiables: improved NIL structure, donor engagement, and game-day investment.
3. Build a Competitive NIL Infrastructure
UCLA cannot compete in the Big Ten without a serious NIL machine. That means organizing donors, streamlining the collective, and matching at least the middle tier of the conference.
If leadership doesn’t solve NIL, the next coach will lose every major recruiting battle to USC, Oregon, Michigan, and Ohio State.
4. Define a Program Identity
UCLA has lurched from innovator (Kelly), to motivator (Mora), to steady-but-plain (Dorrell), without ever committing to a clear football identity.
Before hiring the next coach, leadership should decide: Do we want to be a player-development program like Utah/Wisconsin, a high-octane offense like Oregon, or a blue-chip recruiter like USC?
Then, hire a coach who actually embodies that identity and can recruit to it.
5. Hire Boldly, Not Safely
Too often, UCLA has hired “safe” fits that don’t move the needle. The next hire should be someone who makes recruits, fans, and the college football world take notice — even if it’s a risk.
That doesn’t mean chasing only splashy names, but it does mean hiring someone with a vision and the energy to sell it.
6. Reconnect with Fans and Donors
UCLA has to fix the empty Rose Bowl problem. That’s not just about winning games — it’s about marketing, student engagement, and making football Saturdays an essential part of UCLA culture.
If fans don’t believe the school itself cares, they won’t show up.
📌 Bottom line:
If UCLA only hires the “best coach available” without addressing leadership alignment, NIL, and institutional commitment, the cycle will repeat. The smart play is to:
Chancellor makes a clear, public statement that UCLA is serious about football.
Either empower the AD with resources or replace them if they lack vision.
Organize NIL and donors aggressively.
Then — and only then — hire a coach who fits a long-term identity.
Knowing what I know about AI, I'm pretty sure that I helped contribute at least a little to this answer over the past eleven years. Despite that, I have to admit that reading Chat GPT's response was pretty impressive.
Wow, 67 years? I also wasn't anticipating a HC change this early, but I'm not opposed to it. The Bruins were going to have decommits and transfers at the end of the season anyway, so getting a head start on finding a proven, experienced HC and starting over is preferable than waiting at the end of the season after things get worse and even more embarrassing. For the moment, the inept AD is very fortunate to be able to pin the blame on the departing HC and remain on the job.
I like that you picked up on the 67 years thing! I thought it was a fun tidbit to share.
Yes, JoeBruin, and that's just several years older than this ancient scribe!
Sadly, there are two gigantic hurdles for UCLA Football to overcome. First, I believe I read today that the athletic department is $200 million in deficit (if this is wrong, I am sure somebody will correct the figure) but in any event, it is a very large number. With the buyout of Foster's and hopefully Jarmond's contract, that deficit will increase. At this time for the program, I could not imagine any elite or even "up and coming" coach accepting the head coaching for UCLA without a large multi million contract dollar contract with a large buyout. I do not think even the "best coach available" can be had without a major dollar commitment and certainly not on the cheap like Foster's lowest salary in the Big ten. Same for NIL money because the "decent recruits" and transfers will expect large bonuses to come to a program in shambles. Easy to say that UCLA should be willing to pay mega bucks for great coaches and top recruits but it just is not going to happen because we do not have the resources, UCLA does not have the boosters like USC and Ohio State unless one can resurrect Sam Gilbert.
Second, I am probably the oldest UCLA alum posting here. My Masters Diploma was signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan. The only time I ever saw the type of fan supporting enthusiasm like I see with Big Ten schools is during the Tommy Prothro era which was very short. I have several USC friends even though I moved from Encino to NC and I can assure everybody that the Trojans are fanatical fans willing to support NIL unlike UCLA fans. The point is I do not see bringing back large crowds to the Rose Bowl to watch a struggling UCLA Football program for many years and the current problems buried deep. And BTW, the reported last game attendance of 31K must have counted each limb of each attendee (two arms and two legs) because the game on TV, looked like a ghost town.
Don't get me wrong, I am and always will be a loyal UCLA alum until my dying day but I am also realistic and truthful. OT, be thankful for Cronin.
And I thought UCLA joining the Big-10 resolved their financial issues...
Fire Martin Guerrero now!
I'm now officially jealous. I would love to have Governor Ronald Reagan's signature on my diploma!
BTW, just for the sake of sharing, if anyone has a diploma from a Governor they don't like (especially you youngins out there that graduated since 2019), if you ever have your diploma reprinted, they will update the signature on it to the current governor.
As far as Friday's attendance goes, I do have a public records request submitted for the ticket scan totals from Friday. I don't have the information yet though because it's the weekend. Though there was a tweet from the Mighty Bruin account which said that I thought we might be able to fit the entire crowd inside Pauley Pavilion.
Governor Jerry Brown Sr signature of my bachelors.
Oh, I just realized that I think mine has Governor Pete Wilson on it, which doesn't seem so bad these days.
My MBA from Cal State Channel Islands, on the other hand, has Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.