If we do pull the trigger I hope it won’t be another retread. However the big 10 isn’t until 2024 right? So if I had to guess I’d say 8-4 or even 7-5 buys him another year. Good news is I don’t have to see the stupid SEC all over every network every weekend. Just stay off ESPN and I should be golden. Now if we could just get rid of Notre Dame all will be peachy.
We really should have 8 wins baked in just by the quality (or lack thereof) of schedule. There are a lot of REALLY weak teams on our schedule. There is not much of an excuse to not be a 5-0 team when we host Utah week 6. That said, the games that are not gimme wins are very, very tough. USC might be the easiest. If Chip is worth anything, he needs to go in and win one of those games and make this a 9 or 10 win team.
Our NC schedule is so weak, it's downright embarrassing. UCLA should not be playing subpar teams like Bowling Green, South Alabama or Alabama State. If we lose any of those games, Chip deserves to be fired immediately.
My thoughts exactly, and I agree that Dave Aranda would be the perfect coach to target. Love him as a coach and what he represents as a leader.
I think had UCLA fired Chip this past season they would have targeted him (and probably were talking with him behind the scenes) before he signed that extension with Baylor.
And that’s sad to be honest. We were pulling in 4 and 5 stars who have been consistent starters the last decade—the recruiting approach is not sound. You are in one of the top recruiting areas in America, period. If you’re UCLA you should not be losing talent like CJ Stroud and Bryce Young to schools outside the conference. And yet that’s exactly what happened with Chips slow approach and fumbling out the gate when he first got here.
What's in it for Aranda? Why would he leave Baylor football for UCLA? If - and I get that this is an "if" but it certainly seems to be the way things are going - college football restructures into an effective "Power 2" with all the "real" TV money and multiple available spots in an expanded CFP once the current rights contract is up in a few years - we now know UCLA has a seat at that table in the B1G... and it's not overly likely Baylor would (you really think aTm or Texas want to give another Texas school access to the SEC? Or that Chip & Joanna are more attractive than say Clemson, Miami, Carolina, to the SEC?) Seems like that might be something an ambitious young coach might be interested in to me...
The "What's in it for..." recruiting mindset is exactly the kind of Karl Dorrell mentality that reduces us to settling instead of competing at a higher level. I will agree with you that that is our reality right now, and it's a clear marker that Chip isn't the right guy for this program. That same argument could have been applied to *$c recruiting in recent years, but they made the splash for Lincoln Riley and I expect the So Cal HS exodus is about to change. If Chip can't bring in talent necessary to be competitive in the Pac12 (and even more talent will be required to be competitive in 2 more years), then U.C.L.A. needs to move on from Chip and leverage its seat and income in the BigTen to bring in a coach who can and will compete on Saturdays and with recruits at that level (ahem...Luke Fickell...cough, cough).
it's not a mind set, it's a fact. And it has nothing to do with recruiting. UCLA football is simply not a destination job for elite coaches. When Mora was (briefly) flying high (by some standards) there was speculation that if he continued the build the program, he would leave for a better job. That is just the reality. UCLA football is not UCLA basketball. You cannot change something like that in just a few years and it would be tough to change it in even 10 years. The comparison to USC the last several years does not make sense. USC has been garbage for most of the last 10 years (more?). But they have ALWAYS been 1-2 years away from being a national power again.
In talking to football insiders, the coaching community does not have the same outlook on the UCLA job that you do. That's what the influx of money into football has done, with facility improvements and pay raises being a factor. Even hiring Kelly was seen as a signal that UCLA wanted to take football seriously.
And again, from talking to (non-UCLA) people, someone at Dave Aranda's level, including Aranda, is not out of the question for UCLA anymore.
UCLA better be careful what is wishes for if it fires Chip. We aren’t getting Aranda. We are not getting anyone elite. We will just be getting someone else on Chip’s level.
UCLA basketball can always at least have a discussion with just about any coach. But just by being UCLA, we are limited in football coach options.
Also, since it’s on my mind…that feasibility report by the regents on UCLA leaving for the Big 10 is due in a couple of days.
What kind of litigation can we expect to see? I don’t imagine the Regents can force UCLA to stay in the PAC, but can they actually force the AD to divert money towards Berkeley or the other schools?
Regents are saying they can block UCLA but are choosing not to take action at this time. Problem is that if they did block UCLA then there would be two UC school athletic departments in financial trouble instead of one.
Heart is with the PAC, but UCLA is making the right choice to go to the BIG10 If Newsome & co really want to stop it, they should commit to fund the gap between what the Big10 pays and what the PAC pays. In the end I think it’s a bit of bark without much bite.
He's a UC Regent because he is governor. Regents claim that it within their legal rights to block UCLA. It is highly unlikely that they would block. It is more like that didn't like being kept out of the loop. So it is more about ego and micro-management, traits of bad leadership.
OK I’ve read everything I can find and given myself a day to think it over. And my considered take now is this: SCREW THE BIG 10. Newsom’s got a good point. Let those money grubbing spoiled children across town go who needs ‘em. I DGAF if we never play those nitwit cheaters again. The last thing I want to do is watch us lose in friggin Wisconsin in November in a 7-6 slog in a blizzard. We need to figure it out, not cut and run just because effing $C can’t pay their bills (how you livin’ Caruso?). I hope the regents put the kibosh on the whole deal. They have that power. Anyway that’s my take, as they say your mileage may vary.
Has anyone tried to discern what “UCLA” wants? I’ve been intimately involved since 1985. This issue is about way more than Cal, frankly your insipid comment about 4d chess is what’s silly.
Yeah i think so. UCLA wants to be at the top of the college athletics landscape. Given that the Pac 10 is on the verge of ceasing to exist, our great AD had no choice but to find a new conference. I don't know what 4D chess is, but i do not know i do not give two craps about our so called rivalry with Cal...or OSU, WSU, Washington, Stanford, Arizona for that matter.
So you realize the current direction that college football is going will not include the PAC 10/12. If you are not part of the two mega conferences, you won't have a future in the FBS. So UCLA is screwed if they stay. Otherwise, you will be watching UCLA play teams like South Alabama as conference games.
And your future in most sports will also be gone because the money will not be there. And sports is marketing for the university, so that decreases.
I'd much rather watch UCLA play Wisconsin than most of the pac 12.....OSU, WSU, ASU, Az, COL, etc.
I hope the move sticks.
Don't kid yourself, if UCLA backs out and opens up the spot, every other PAC12 school will take that spot if offered. The PAC12 is losing two schools, the question is which two.
We have the same question in front of us as Utah did ~2010.....stick with an existing smaller conference or upgrade. Now that decision is 10+yrs in the past, do you think they regret that choice?
They have a very real path to the playoffs this year by being in the PAC. If they would have stayed in the MWC, with the exact same roster, their path becomes much narrower.
If we do pull the trigger I hope it won’t be another retread. However the big 10 isn’t until 2024 right? So if I had to guess I’d say 8-4 or even 7-5 buys him another year. Good news is I don’t have to see the stupid SEC all over every network every weekend. Just stay off ESPN and I should be golden. Now if we could just get rid of Notre Dame all will be peachy.
We really should have 8 wins baked in just by the quality (or lack thereof) of schedule. There are a lot of REALLY weak teams on our schedule. There is not much of an excuse to not be a 5-0 team when we host Utah week 6. That said, the games that are not gimme wins are very, very tough. USC might be the easiest. If Chip is worth anything, he needs to go in and win one of those games and make this a 9 or 10 win team.
Our NC schedule is so weak, it's downright embarrassing. UCLA should not be playing subpar teams like Bowling Green, South Alabama or Alabama State. If we lose any of those games, Chip deserves to be fired immediately.
Looks a lot like an SEC NC schedule.
My thoughts exactly, and I agree that Dave Aranda would be the perfect coach to target. Love him as a coach and what he represents as a leader.
I think had UCLA fired Chip this past season they would have targeted him (and probably were talking with him behind the scenes) before he signed that extension with Baylor.
And that’s sad to be honest. We were pulling in 4 and 5 stars who have been consistent starters the last decade—the recruiting approach is not sound. You are in one of the top recruiting areas in America, period. If you’re UCLA you should not be losing talent like CJ Stroud and Bryce Young to schools outside the conference. And yet that’s exactly what happened with Chips slow approach and fumbling out the gate when he first got here.
What's in it for Aranda? Why would he leave Baylor football for UCLA? If - and I get that this is an "if" but it certainly seems to be the way things are going - college football restructures into an effective "Power 2" with all the "real" TV money and multiple available spots in an expanded CFP once the current rights contract is up in a few years - we now know UCLA has a seat at that table in the B1G... and it's not overly likely Baylor would (you really think aTm or Texas want to give another Texas school access to the SEC? Or that Chip & Joanna are more attractive than say Clemson, Miami, Carolina, to the SEC?) Seems like that might be something an ambitious young coach might be interested in to me...
The "What's in it for..." recruiting mindset is exactly the kind of Karl Dorrell mentality that reduces us to settling instead of competing at a higher level. I will agree with you that that is our reality right now, and it's a clear marker that Chip isn't the right guy for this program. That same argument could have been applied to *$c recruiting in recent years, but they made the splash for Lincoln Riley and I expect the So Cal HS exodus is about to change. If Chip can't bring in talent necessary to be competitive in the Pac12 (and even more talent will be required to be competitive in 2 more years), then U.C.L.A. needs to move on from Chip and leverage its seat and income in the BigTen to bring in a coach who can and will compete on Saturdays and with recruits at that level (ahem...Luke Fickell...cough, cough).
Oh. Ok. Well then let's not even ask or see what it would cost. Good strategy.
it's not a mind set, it's a fact. And it has nothing to do with recruiting. UCLA football is simply not a destination job for elite coaches. When Mora was (briefly) flying high (by some standards) there was speculation that if he continued the build the program, he would leave for a better job. That is just the reality. UCLA football is not UCLA basketball. You cannot change something like that in just a few years and it would be tough to change it in even 10 years. The comparison to USC the last several years does not make sense. USC has been garbage for most of the last 10 years (more?). But they have ALWAYS been 1-2 years away from being a national power again.
In talking to football insiders, the coaching community does not have the same outlook on the UCLA job that you do. That's what the influx of money into football has done, with facility improvements and pay raises being a factor. Even hiring Kelly was seen as a signal that UCLA wanted to take football seriously.
And again, from talking to (non-UCLA) people, someone at Dave Aranda's level, including Aranda, is not out of the question for UCLA anymore.
UCLA better be careful what is wishes for if it fires Chip. We aren’t getting Aranda. We are not getting anyone elite. We will just be getting someone else on Chip’s level.
UCLA basketball can always at least have a discussion with just about any coach. But just by being UCLA, we are limited in football coach options.
Also, since it’s on my mind…that feasibility report by the regents on UCLA leaving for the Big 10 is due in a couple of days.
What kind of litigation can we expect to see? I don’t imagine the Regents can force UCLA to stay in the PAC, but can they actually force the AD to divert money towards Berkeley or the other schools?
Newsom is going to make a run at it.
Newsom wasn't even at the meeting.
I know. LOL
Looks like the Bruins are in the clear. Nothing the regents or the conference can do. As expected.
Regents are saying they can block UCLA but are choosing not to take action at this time. Problem is that if they did block UCLA then there would be two UC school athletic departments in financial trouble instead of one.
Heart is with the PAC, but UCLA is making the right choice to go to the BIG10 If Newsome & co really want to stop it, they should commit to fund the gap between what the Big10 pays and what the PAC pays. In the end I think it’s a bit of bark without much bite.
How does Newsom even enter into it? I have read nothing outside of here about him having anything to say about it.
He's a UC Regent because he is governor. Regents claim that it within their legal rights to block UCLA. It is highly unlikely that they would block. It is more like that didn't like being kept out of the loop. So it is more about ego and micro-management, traits of bad leadership.
OK but specifically what has he said? Because I can't find anything.
OK I’ve read everything I can find and given myself a day to think it over. And my considered take now is this: SCREW THE BIG 10. Newsom’s got a good point. Let those money grubbing spoiled children across town go who needs ‘em. I DGAF if we never play those nitwit cheaters again. The last thing I want to do is watch us lose in friggin Wisconsin in November in a 7-6 slog in a blizzard. We need to figure it out, not cut and run just because effing $C can’t pay their bills (how you livin’ Caruso?). I hope the regents put the kibosh on the whole deal. They have that power. Anyway that’s my take, as they say your mileage may vary.
Has anyone tried to discern what “UCLA” wants? I’ve been intimately involved since 1985. This issue is about way more than Cal, frankly your insipid comment about 4d chess is what’s silly.
Yeah i think so. UCLA wants to be at the top of the college athletics landscape. Given that the Pac 10 is on the verge of ceasing to exist, our great AD had no choice but to find a new conference. I don't know what 4D chess is, but i do not know i do not give two craps about our so called rivalry with Cal...or OSU, WSU, Washington, Stanford, Arizona for that matter.
This makes no sense. Fix the solution literally means give us money that does not exist. Why bother?
So you realize the current direction that college football is going will not include the PAC 10/12. If you are not part of the two mega conferences, you won't have a future in the FBS. So UCLA is screwed if they stay. Otherwise, you will be watching UCLA play teams like South Alabama as conference games.
And your future in most sports will also be gone because the money will not be there. And sports is marketing for the university, so that decreases.
I'd much rather watch UCLA play Wisconsin than most of the pac 12.....OSU, WSU, ASU, Az, COL, etc.
I hope the move sticks.
Don't kid yourself, if UCLA backs out and opens up the spot, every other PAC12 school will take that spot if offered. The PAC12 is losing two schools, the question is which two.
Again, can you buy your way into heaven?
what a non sequitur.
We have the same question in front of us as Utah did ~2010.....stick with an existing smaller conference or upgrade. Now that decision is 10+yrs in the past, do you think they regret that choice?
They have a very real path to the playoffs this year by being in the PAC. If they would have stayed in the MWC, with the exact same roster, their path becomes much narrower.
From where I sit the Big 10 is a step down.
bingo