Wow, what a genius list... LOL. Given that there's 100+ players on a team every year... LOL. And even more importantly, let's look at (5*?) Rosen - who got pummeled behind an iffy at best line with no one to throw to and was repeatedly injured until season ending shoulder surgery. You think other schools aren't pointing out this repeated pattern? Would Rosen had been better off going to a school where he would be surrounded by much better players instead of the school where his neighbor was the coach? Every other school is saying, "why go to UCLA at b-RUIN your career?" Are they wrong? If you're a 5* who wants to play with the best and against the best, for championships and heisman's and in huge games... well, UCLA doesn't have that. You can say "elite" all you want, being elite is different and you need the foundation to build and maintain it.
Most 4* and 5* go to schools that are already chalk full of 4* and 5* players. USC, Alabama, Notre Dame, Clemson, Oregon, Ohio St, Michigan, Georgia, etc. Some of these players want to play immediately, not ride the bench for a year or two waiting for the other 4* or 5* players to leave. These are the recruits that can be a perfect match for midrange team like UCLA. So they can get some of these players if they'd apply just a tiny bit of effort, which they don't do. Kelly doesn't like recruiting.
Maybe. And this is where the transfer portal (if it remains close to it's current form) appears to be net helping a school like UCLA... but again, no coach has been able to overcome the foundational issues and it's only getting more difficult. Put another way, you can cry for a new coach and it's Chip's fault and blah blah blah, but Chip is not being put in a position to succeed. Maybe Chip's not focusing on recruiting because he knows it's a waste of time and limited resources. The next coach will see much the same... BTW, did you know there's a bowl game played in the Rose Bowl every year? Probably not since it's been twenty-three years since UCLA has been and THIRTY-SIX years since UCLA won. So keep on doing the same thing and thinking a new coach is gonna fix it.
Kelly isn't doing very well in the portal either, never has and never will. It's a form of "recruiting", you know the 70% part of the job he accepted when coming to UCLA but decided not to do. I guess you are pleased with a 30% job performance from Kelly. Hey, I bet there are a lot of people that would love to work for you, all they have to do is work 30% of the time! I guess that's "good enough". You keep on with the Kelly's and the Mora's and the Neuheisel's and the Dorrell's. Those are your types of coaches. So, let's see, Tommy Prothro (41-18-3 and a Rose Bowl win in 5 years) wasn't able to overcome the "foundational issues"? Terry Donahue (151-74-8 and three Rose Bowls in 20 years) wasn't able to overcome the "foundational issues"? Oh, what about Dick Vermeil (15-5-3 and 1 Rose Bowl win in 2 years!) Hmm, funny, seems as if their teams won a hell of lot more games than your boy Kelly and were able to overcome the "foundational issues". Didn't seem to bother them much. Heck, even Bob Toledo had more success! It didn't seem to bother any of them. Yea Toledo is a big stretch, but Toledo was one game away from a possible National Championship try. Kelly and Toledo do have one thing in common, both very good offensive minds but are totally clueless on defense. Toledo's defenses were almost as bad as Kelly's. I said "almost".
This argument is a little disingenuous. All the successful coaches you mentioned were dealing with an era before the BCS, before the playoff. It would seem to me the inability to adjust for the new era is an administrative problem.
We weren't discussing the landscape of college football, we were discussing UCLA's particular situation with regards to the venue they play in, the fact it is 20 miles from campus and the culture and atmosphere that can be impacted by that. It has nothing to do with the BCS or CFP. Of course, it's a different time, but my guess is ALL those coaches would have adapted quite well to the changes, especially Donahue & Vermeil. The fact that the football landscape has changed is no excuse for a crappy coach. You people keep coming up with excuses, I'm just saying none, so far, have been valid.
IтАЩm pretty sure looking up at the thread we were talking about the college landscapeтАж
AndтАжReally? All the old timers would adapt? Because hearing even guys like Steve Spurrier talking about the recent Miami/Florida NIL debacle it doesnтАЩt sound like it.
Umm, no we were talking about how UCLA's situation of being so far away from the venue costs the Program a lot and was yet another excuse for the Chip Kelly apologists to essentially say no coach can be successful when having their playing venue so far away. That was the gist of the discussion, mainly because you lose that "electricity in the air" because you aren't right there with your campus next door. In addition, no I wasn't saying an 86-year-old Dick Vermeil would "adapt", but a 56-year-old Dick Vermeil certainly would. In facts, If Vermeil was younger, I'd fire Kelly and hire him, sadly too old and we never really benefitted from his coaching talent, only 2 years' worth.
Josh Rosen, Soso Jamabo, Jaelen Phillips? lol
Wow, what a genius list... LOL. Given that there's 100+ players on a team every year... LOL. And even more importantly, let's look at (5*?) Rosen - who got pummeled behind an iffy at best line with no one to throw to and was repeatedly injured until season ending shoulder surgery. You think other schools aren't pointing out this repeated pattern? Would Rosen had been better off going to a school where he would be surrounded by much better players instead of the school where his neighbor was the coach? Every other school is saying, "why go to UCLA at b-RUIN your career?" Are they wrong? If you're a 5* who wants to play with the best and against the best, for championships and heisman's and in huge games... well, UCLA doesn't have that. You can say "elite" all you want, being elite is different and you need the foundation to build and maintain it.
Most 4* and 5* go to schools that are already chalk full of 4* and 5* players. USC, Alabama, Notre Dame, Clemson, Oregon, Ohio St, Michigan, Georgia, etc. Some of these players want to play immediately, not ride the bench for a year or two waiting for the other 4* or 5* players to leave. These are the recruits that can be a perfect match for midrange team like UCLA. So they can get some of these players if they'd apply just a tiny bit of effort, which they don't do. Kelly doesn't like recruiting.
Maybe. And this is where the transfer portal (if it remains close to it's current form) appears to be net helping a school like UCLA... but again, no coach has been able to overcome the foundational issues and it's only getting more difficult. Put another way, you can cry for a new coach and it's Chip's fault and blah blah blah, but Chip is not being put in a position to succeed. Maybe Chip's not focusing on recruiting because he knows it's a waste of time and limited resources. The next coach will see much the same... BTW, did you know there's a bowl game played in the Rose Bowl every year? Probably not since it's been twenty-three years since UCLA has been and THIRTY-SIX years since UCLA won. So keep on doing the same thing and thinking a new coach is gonna fix it.
Kelly isn't doing very well in the portal either, never has and never will. It's a form of "recruiting", you know the 70% part of the job he accepted when coming to UCLA but decided not to do. I guess you are pleased with a 30% job performance from Kelly. Hey, I bet there are a lot of people that would love to work for you, all they have to do is work 30% of the time! I guess that's "good enough". You keep on with the Kelly's and the Mora's and the Neuheisel's and the Dorrell's. Those are your types of coaches. So, let's see, Tommy Prothro (41-18-3 and a Rose Bowl win in 5 years) wasn't able to overcome the "foundational issues"? Terry Donahue (151-74-8 and three Rose Bowls in 20 years) wasn't able to overcome the "foundational issues"? Oh, what about Dick Vermeil (15-5-3 and 1 Rose Bowl win in 2 years!) Hmm, funny, seems as if their teams won a hell of lot more games than your boy Kelly and were able to overcome the "foundational issues". Didn't seem to bother them much. Heck, even Bob Toledo had more success! It didn't seem to bother any of them. Yea Toledo is a big stretch, but Toledo was one game away from a possible National Championship try. Kelly and Toledo do have one thing in common, both very good offensive minds but are totally clueless on defense. Toledo's defenses were almost as bad as Kelly's. I said "almost".
This argument is a little disingenuous. All the successful coaches you mentioned were dealing with an era before the BCS, before the playoff. It would seem to me the inability to adjust for the new era is an administrative problem.
We weren't discussing the landscape of college football, we were discussing UCLA's particular situation with regards to the venue they play in, the fact it is 20 miles from campus and the culture and atmosphere that can be impacted by that. It has nothing to do with the BCS or CFP. Of course, it's a different time, but my guess is ALL those coaches would have adapted quite well to the changes, especially Donahue & Vermeil. The fact that the football landscape has changed is no excuse for a crappy coach. You people keep coming up with excuses, I'm just saying none, so far, have been valid.
IтАЩm pretty sure looking up at the thread we were talking about the college landscapeтАж
AndтАжReally? All the old timers would adapt? Because hearing even guys like Steve Spurrier talking about the recent Miami/Florida NIL debacle it doesnтАЩt sound like it.
Umm, no we were talking about how UCLA's situation of being so far away from the venue costs the Program a lot and was yet another excuse for the Chip Kelly apologists to essentially say no coach can be successful when having their playing venue so far away. That was the gist of the discussion, mainly because you lose that "electricity in the air" because you aren't right there with your campus next door. In addition, no I wasn't saying an 86-year-old Dick Vermeil would "adapt", but a 56-year-old Dick Vermeil certainly would. In facts, If Vermeil was younger, I'd fire Kelly and hire him, sadly too old and we never really benefitted from his coaching talent, only 2 years' worth.