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.
Just as a point of emphasis, the athletic department debt was really just an accounting problem, so UCLA finally did the smart thing and wiped out the debt. In essence, UCLA athletics is no longer in a massive hole (whether that hole existed in the first place is more of an open debate, but ymmv on that one). UCLA also has plenty of donors who have been sitting on the sidelines for various reasons (chief among them, dissatisfaction with Jarmond/Block) who have gotten up and are being proactive now, going directly to Frenk to get things done.
As a CPA, I am troubled by a multi million dollar deficit being publicized for many years in the press and otherwise without any protest and then finding it was "just an accounting problem". According to several articles, including the June 25, 2025 article in the "LA Times" and the January 28 article in the "UCLA Wire", among many others, yearly deficits were routinely covered by the University transferring funds ("gifts") each year to cover the deficits which totaled over $218 million. As of the end of the 2024 fiscal year, the deficit was $51.85 million. We can play with words but that is not an "accounting entry", those are yearly transfer or "gifts" from the University to the athletic department. To me, appears the athletic programs have been in deficit for years and will struggle to come up with the funds needed for new coaches this season along with NIL money. Apparently, there are other universities in the same situation so this is not unique to UCLA.
I attended UCLA for the great education I was provided during the no tuition era at UCLA--just a $40 registration fee. Sports were not a factor in choosing UCLA but I certainly have enjoyed being a fan over the years, even with the ups and downs of the football and basketball programs. That being said, I wonder if the cost of maintaining these programs is going to be multi millions of dollars in ongoing deficits, as in the past, money that could be used to educate a lot of kids who otherwise could not afford a college education. Something to ponder.
One of the dirty secrets of college athletics is that the vast majority of schools at the P4 level do, in fact, make money, and then have a bevy of accounting things that put themselves in the red. UCLA athletics, for example, has to rent out facilities for events from the university (and I don't mean the Rose Bowl; Pauley Pavilion is also a rented facility, and it is UCLA proper and not the athletic department that benefits from things like concessions and merch sales). If UCLA athletics were able to put things that they directly impact onto their balance sheet, it would look much closer to even.
The other part of that is that so much of the athletic budget is covered by donations, and the last few years have seen those dry up as the athletic department has alienated big donors. It's why what is happening now is so fascinating from a neutral perspective, because it's those big donors who are deciding enough is enough and are going around the AD to the new chancellor to create necessary change.
Here's something to ponder from another session I had with ChatGPT.
Should UCLA Chase Football Glory or Double Down on Academics?
UCLA sits at a crossroads. With DeShaun Foster dismissed as head coach and the Bruins stepping into the Big Ten spotlight, the question isn’t just who leads the program next — it’s what role football should play in UCLA’s future. Should the university push for an elite football program, or accept football as secondary to its academic mission and broader athletic tradition?
The answer isn’t as simple as it once was, because the middle ground — football as a mid-tier program paired with academic excellence and Olympic sports dominance — may no longer be sustainable.
The Case for Football Glory
For better or worse, football drives the college sports economy. Elite programs like Michigan, Georgia, and Alabama generate tens of millions of dollars annually, funding not only football but entire athletic departments. Media rights contracts are increasingly structured around football performance, with playoff appearances and marquee matchups unlocking the biggest payouts.
Success in football also builds national brand recognition. Oregon, propelled by football and Nike’s backing, transformed from a regional university into a nationally recognized brand. Clemson and TCU similarly leveraged football success into surges in applications, donations, and visibility.
For UCLA, a serious football commitment could stabilize its finances. The Big Ten stage guarantees exposure, but whether UCLA is perceived as a serious player or as the conference’s weak link depends on results. If football succeeds, it fuels donor enthusiasm, strengthens NIL collectives, and provides the revenue base to sustain the broader athletic department.
The Case for Prioritizing Academics
On the other hand, UCLA is already world-class. It consistently ranks among the top public universities globally, with powerhouse programs in medicine, law, engineering, and the arts. Unlike some peers, UCLA doesn’t need football to validate its academic standing.
There’s also tradition. UCLA’s athletic identity has never revolved solely around football. Basketball’s John Wooden dynasty, Olympic champions across multiple sports, and a culture of athletic excellence define Westwood as much — if not more — than Saturday afternoons in the Rose Bowl.
The costs of competing at the top in football are staggering: coaching salaries exceeding $8–10 million, upgraded facilities, robust NIL collectives, and relentless recruiting. Even with those investments, there’s no guarantee of success, particularly in a crowded Los Angeles sports market already dominated by USC, two NFL franchises, the Lakers, Dodgers, and countless entertainment options.
The Financial Reality: The “Middle Ground” Is Collapsing
Historically, UCLA has tried to balance its priorities — keeping football respectable without turning it into an all-consuming project, while leaning on academics and Olympic sports for prestige. But that balance is eroding.
UCLA Athletics has run deficits for at least six straight years, totaling roughly $219.5 million. In FY 2024 alone, it posted a $51.85 million deficit despite a $30 million subsidy from the academic side of the university.
Olympic sports programs themselves were $34 million in the red in the most recent fiscal year, showing how dependent they are on football revenues and outside support.
Nationally, the risks are real. Following the NCAA’s “House” settlement, which added new financial obligations to athletic departments, at least 41 Olympic sports across Division I have already been cut, affecting more than 1,000 student-athletes.
Put simply: without stronger football revenues, UCLA risks a budget death spiral — deficits deepen, support costs rise, and Olympic sports, already trending downward, are forced to contract.
The Fork in the Road
This leaves UCLA with two real options:
Commit to Football — not necessarily to chase Alabama-level dominance, but to build a consistently strong, nationally relevant program that fills the Rose Bowl, excites alumni, and generates enough revenue to sustain the broader athletic ecosystem. This would require visible commitment from the Chancellor and Athletic Department, along with major investment in NIL, facilities, and long-term planning.
Accept Contraction — if UCLA chooses not to treat football as essential, it must also accept the likely consequences: declining fan interest, deepening deficits, and eventual cuts to Olympic sports. The middle path — mediocre football with thriving Olympic sports — may no longer be viable in the Big Ten era.
A Defining Decision
The choice isn’t simply “football versus academics.” UCLA’s academic excellence is secure regardless. The real question is whether UCLA wants to sustain its proud athletic identity — from John Wooden’s basketball dynasty to its Olympic champions — or risk watching it erode because football failed to provide the financial backbone.
UCLA doesn’t need to be Alabama. But it does need to decide: will it treat football as essential, or will it accept the costs of letting the entire athletic structure weaken?
do they though? Do any schools? It's all a sham in my view. None of these "student athletes" are very academic. Not at UCLA. Not at Michigan. Not at Stanford. There is a big drop from the general student body to the athletes at any school.
I remember in high school if you wanted to get into UCLA you needed at least a 1400 on the SAT, but if you were getting recruited for a sport you just needed to break 1000. Don't laugh, it was 800 for USC.
Neither did Lanning, Dillingham, Swinney, Kirby Smart and many other successful head coaches at bigger programs than UCLA. Other than Swinney, they were coordinators under big name coaches.
Foster had no head coaching experience; at least those guys were OCs. Still, it it impossible to get a candidate with successful head coaching experience?
Yes, it’s possible to get a head coache but not necessary if a high quality coordinator who has learned his craft under a successful head coach is identified. As I stated, the ones above were coordinators under good coaches with the exception being Dabo Swinney.
I had ensed that something could happen, perhaps after the Northwestern game if we lost, as I presumed they would. But the chancellor is right. Why wait to pull the trigger when we are doomed this season already ? Jarmond will assuredly be the next to let go. As I said previously, how he decided on such lazy hire and then managed to have it approved by the administration puzzles me to this day. Honestly Foster is, in corporate terms, a good office manager but to suddenly become the company CEO this early in his career is really too steep a challenge for him. I do want to hear from Jarmond, now that Foster is dismissed regarding his rationale for the latter's hiring then. Let's all beware. UCLA football faces a long hard road to recovery but at least, the initial first step has been taken.
I'm sure I'll get lambasted here, but as I see it - after 68 years in the South Bay - what the heck.....Have a look - if you haven;t - as to where Ohio State's starting QB is from; Penn State's second leading receiver. Likewise, the second and fourth leading receivers for the Longhorns, and in addition to his own kid being there, bet the mortgage, rent, or car payment that Sarkisian is hitting it HARD out here. The Lady Sooners softball roster is - and has been for quite a while now - LOADED with gals from the LA Basin, the South Bay in particular. Right, wrong, good, bad, or indifferent, the continuing effect(s) of California's anti-business attitudes, driving companies large and small to to states with better economic opportunity is a freaking reality, no matter what holmes in Sacramento has to say about it, and this has proven, and continues to be, a MAJOR problem for a UCLA athletics, a department that has been anemic in reacting to what has been occurring in this regard. The dynamic continues to - obviously - take it's toll on nearly all the athletics programs, but football and track & field have been especially vulnerable. Even "that other school" is having a tougher time getting top doggies to come there. It's SO difficult to bring in a coaching staff given the costs and logistics of living here. I mentioned this recently on this very forum, I recall when Mora was hot after one of North Dakota State's "awesome football minds" (his words) - The guy had a wife and two elementary school aged kids. While I dunno what these schnooks are making today, the ND State guy couldn't find a place to rent or lease, put his little kids in school, and be within a two bucks or a buck-and-a-half drive of campus - That coach turned Mora down, in spite of looking at what would have been a phat pay raise. Houston, we gotta BIG problem. Go Bruins!
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?
They can't transfer to another program this season. So that would be silly to enter the transfer portal.
yes they can, they just cannot play. if they do so before the next game, they can redshirt.
LOL. Like any team with full rosters will take them. Sure they can enter the transfer portal, sit there and not play. What an idea.
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.
Just as a point of emphasis, the athletic department debt was really just an accounting problem, so UCLA finally did the smart thing and wiped out the debt. In essence, UCLA athletics is no longer in a massive hole (whether that hole existed in the first place is more of an open debate, but ymmv on that one). UCLA also has plenty of donors who have been sitting on the sidelines for various reasons (chief among them, dissatisfaction with Jarmond/Block) who have gotten up and are being proactive now, going directly to Frenk to get things done.
As a CPA, I am troubled by a multi million dollar deficit being publicized for many years in the press and otherwise without any protest and then finding it was "just an accounting problem". According to several articles, including the June 25, 2025 article in the "LA Times" and the January 28 article in the "UCLA Wire", among many others, yearly deficits were routinely covered by the University transferring funds ("gifts") each year to cover the deficits which totaled over $218 million. As of the end of the 2024 fiscal year, the deficit was $51.85 million. We can play with words but that is not an "accounting entry", those are yearly transfer or "gifts" from the University to the athletic department. To me, appears the athletic programs have been in deficit for years and will struggle to come up with the funds needed for new coaches this season along with NIL money. Apparently, there are other universities in the same situation so this is not unique to UCLA.
I attended UCLA for the great education I was provided during the no tuition era at UCLA--just a $40 registration fee. Sports were not a factor in choosing UCLA but I certainly have enjoyed being a fan over the years, even with the ups and downs of the football and basketball programs. That being said, I wonder if the cost of maintaining these programs is going to be multi millions of dollars in ongoing deficits, as in the past, money that could be used to educate a lot of kids who otherwise could not afford a college education. Something to ponder.
One of the dirty secrets of college athletics is that the vast majority of schools at the P4 level do, in fact, make money, and then have a bevy of accounting things that put themselves in the red. UCLA athletics, for example, has to rent out facilities for events from the university (and I don't mean the Rose Bowl; Pauley Pavilion is also a rented facility, and it is UCLA proper and not the athletic department that benefits from things like concessions and merch sales). If UCLA athletics were able to put things that they directly impact onto their balance sheet, it would look much closer to even.
The other part of that is that so much of the athletic budget is covered by donations, and the last few years have seen those dry up as the athletic department has alienated big donors. It's why what is happening now is so fascinating from a neutral perspective, because it's those big donors who are deciding enough is enough and are going around the AD to the new chancellor to create necessary change.
I just hope we don’t get another fossilized retread like Kelly.
Here's something to ponder from another session I had with ChatGPT.
Should UCLA Chase Football Glory or Double Down on Academics?
UCLA sits at a crossroads. With DeShaun Foster dismissed as head coach and the Bruins stepping into the Big Ten spotlight, the question isn’t just who leads the program next — it’s what role football should play in UCLA’s future. Should the university push for an elite football program, or accept football as secondary to its academic mission and broader athletic tradition?
The answer isn’t as simple as it once was, because the middle ground — football as a mid-tier program paired with academic excellence and Olympic sports dominance — may no longer be sustainable.
The Case for Football Glory
For better or worse, football drives the college sports economy. Elite programs like Michigan, Georgia, and Alabama generate tens of millions of dollars annually, funding not only football but entire athletic departments. Media rights contracts are increasingly structured around football performance, with playoff appearances and marquee matchups unlocking the biggest payouts.
Success in football also builds national brand recognition. Oregon, propelled by football and Nike’s backing, transformed from a regional university into a nationally recognized brand. Clemson and TCU similarly leveraged football success into surges in applications, donations, and visibility.
For UCLA, a serious football commitment could stabilize its finances. The Big Ten stage guarantees exposure, but whether UCLA is perceived as a serious player or as the conference’s weak link depends on results. If football succeeds, it fuels donor enthusiasm, strengthens NIL collectives, and provides the revenue base to sustain the broader athletic department.
The Case for Prioritizing Academics
On the other hand, UCLA is already world-class. It consistently ranks among the top public universities globally, with powerhouse programs in medicine, law, engineering, and the arts. Unlike some peers, UCLA doesn’t need football to validate its academic standing.
There’s also tradition. UCLA’s athletic identity has never revolved solely around football. Basketball’s John Wooden dynasty, Olympic champions across multiple sports, and a culture of athletic excellence define Westwood as much — if not more — than Saturday afternoons in the Rose Bowl.
The costs of competing at the top in football are staggering: coaching salaries exceeding $8–10 million, upgraded facilities, robust NIL collectives, and relentless recruiting. Even with those investments, there’s no guarantee of success, particularly in a crowded Los Angeles sports market already dominated by USC, two NFL franchises, the Lakers, Dodgers, and countless entertainment options.
The Financial Reality: The “Middle Ground” Is Collapsing
Historically, UCLA has tried to balance its priorities — keeping football respectable without turning it into an all-consuming project, while leaning on academics and Olympic sports for prestige. But that balance is eroding.
UCLA Athletics has run deficits for at least six straight years, totaling roughly $219.5 million. In FY 2024 alone, it posted a $51.85 million deficit despite a $30 million subsidy from the academic side of the university.
Source: Los Angeles Times (May 13, 2025): https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2025-05-13/how-does-this-thing-not-sink-bob-myers-questions-ucla-athletics-finances
Source: Los Angeles Times (Jan 24, 2025): https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2025-01-24/ucla-athletics-budget-numbers
Olympic sports programs themselves were $34 million in the red in the most recent fiscal year, showing how dependent they are on football revenues and outside support.
Source: Los Angeles Times (May 13, 2025): https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2025-05-13/how-does-this-thing-not-sink-bob-myers-questions-ucla-athletics-finances
Nationally, the risks are real. Following the NCAA’s “House” settlement, which added new financial obligations to athletic departments, at least 41 Olympic sports across Division I have already been cut, affecting more than 1,000 student-athletes.
Source: Bloomberg Law (July 2024): https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/ncaa-settlement-forcing-cuts-to-college-teams-in-olympic-sports
Put simply: without stronger football revenues, UCLA risks a budget death spiral — deficits deepen, support costs rise, and Olympic sports, already trending downward, are forced to contract.
The Fork in the Road
This leaves UCLA with two real options:
Commit to Football — not necessarily to chase Alabama-level dominance, but to build a consistently strong, nationally relevant program that fills the Rose Bowl, excites alumni, and generates enough revenue to sustain the broader athletic ecosystem. This would require visible commitment from the Chancellor and Athletic Department, along with major investment in NIL, facilities, and long-term planning.
Accept Contraction — if UCLA chooses not to treat football as essential, it must also accept the likely consequences: declining fan interest, deepening deficits, and eventual cuts to Olympic sports. The middle path — mediocre football with thriving Olympic sports — may no longer be viable in the Big Ten era.
A Defining Decision
The choice isn’t simply “football versus academics.” UCLA’s academic excellence is secure regardless. The real question is whether UCLA wants to sustain its proud athletic identity — from John Wooden’s basketball dynasty to its Olympic champions — or risk watching it erode because football failed to provide the financial backbone.
UCLA doesn’t need to be Alabama. But it does need to decide: will it treat football as essential, or will it accept the costs of letting the entire athletic structure weaken?
not an appropriate question in this day and age
Michigan seems to do both football and academics quite well
do they though? Do any schools? It's all a sham in my view. None of these "student athletes" are very academic. Not at UCLA. Not at Michigan. Not at Stanford. There is a big drop from the general student body to the athletes at any school.
I remember in high school if you wanted to get into UCLA you needed at least a 1400 on the SAT, but if you were getting recruited for a sport you just needed to break 1000. Don't laugh, it was 800 for USC.
Are you going to do a coaching search hot board?
Why am I reading about Oregon OC Will Stein as potential replacement? He also has no head coaching experience!
Neither did Lanning, Dillingham, Swinney, Kirby Smart and many other successful head coaches at bigger programs than UCLA. Other than Swinney, they were coordinators under big name coaches.
Foster had no head coaching experience; at least those guys were OCs. Still, it it impossible to get a candidate with successful head coaching experience?
Yes, it’s possible to get a head coache but not necessary if a high quality coordinator who has learned his craft under a successful head coach is identified. As I stated, the ones above were coordinators under good coaches with the exception being Dabo Swinney.
I had ensed that something could happen, perhaps after the Northwestern game if we lost, as I presumed they would. But the chancellor is right. Why wait to pull the trigger when we are doomed this season already ? Jarmond will assuredly be the next to let go. As I said previously, how he decided on such lazy hire and then managed to have it approved by the administration puzzles me to this day. Honestly Foster is, in corporate terms, a good office manager but to suddenly become the company CEO this early in his career is really too steep a challenge for him. I do want to hear from Jarmond, now that Foster is dismissed regarding his rationale for the latter's hiring then. Let's all beware. UCLA football faces a long hard road to recovery but at least, the initial first step has been taken.
Oops, I had sensed that ....... Not I had ensed. LOL !!! Sorry for the typo.
I'm sure I'll get lambasted here, but as I see it - after 68 years in the South Bay - what the heck.....Have a look - if you haven;t - as to where Ohio State's starting QB is from; Penn State's second leading receiver. Likewise, the second and fourth leading receivers for the Longhorns, and in addition to his own kid being there, bet the mortgage, rent, or car payment that Sarkisian is hitting it HARD out here. The Lady Sooners softball roster is - and has been for quite a while now - LOADED with gals from the LA Basin, the South Bay in particular. Right, wrong, good, bad, or indifferent, the continuing effect(s) of California's anti-business attitudes, driving companies large and small to to states with better economic opportunity is a freaking reality, no matter what holmes in Sacramento has to say about it, and this has proven, and continues to be, a MAJOR problem for a UCLA athletics, a department that has been anemic in reacting to what has been occurring in this regard. The dynamic continues to - obviously - take it's toll on nearly all the athletics programs, but football and track & field have been especially vulnerable. Even "that other school" is having a tougher time getting top doggies to come there. It's SO difficult to bring in a coaching staff given the costs and logistics of living here. I mentioned this recently on this very forum, I recall when Mora was hot after one of North Dakota State's "awesome football minds" (his words) - The guy had a wife and two elementary school aged kids. While I dunno what these schnooks are making today, the ND State guy couldn't find a place to rent or lease, put his little kids in school, and be within a two bucks or a buck-and-a-half drive of campus - That coach turned Mora down, in spite of looking at what would have been a phat pay raise. Houston, we gotta BIG problem. Go Bruins!