Mark Schipper reported on twitter that Jarmond was gathering money to fire Chip, which shocked the chancellor and he stopped Jarmond from firing him. Not sure how accurate his sources are on this.
Mark Schipper reported on twitter that Jarmond was gathering money to fire Chip, which shocked the chancellor and he stopped Jarmond from firing him. Not sure how accurate his sources are on this.
I've seen that story floated around in the last day, and to me it reads more like sources close to Jarmond trying to shift the blame away from him.
Fact of the matter is Jarmond has been able to get Block to sign off on a much bigger athletics move than firing Chip Kelly already; if Block was able to put a stop to this then that speaks more to a lack of conviction on Jarmond's part than anything else.
Completely agree, but we also have to remember that Block is a lame duck as well, hence his motives may be along the lines of "no major changes until the new guy gets here", but of course then why purchase the Westside pavilion and satellite campuses all in a very short period of time if you want to leave big decisions for the next guy. I'm guessing that Block had nothing to do with the retaining of the Chipster (OG), this was all on Jarmond.
Well, to be fair, for a Chancellor that doesn't consider athletics a priority but has clearly - and largely successfully - considered academic rankings and new/renovated building (Luskin, the new Engineering VI building for the Western Institute of Nanotechnology on Green Engineering and Metrology, all the new and expanded dorms, &c) a priority - purchasing the Westside pavilion is a legacy project/decision which, hell, might be named after him eventually (like Murphy Hall or Young Research Library)...
While the biggest athletic move on a macro level to the B1G was kind of a no-brainer once the wheels were in motion and the writing was on the wall - and I have no knowledge of this but I wouldn't be surprised if Caruso was in touch with Wasserman as those wheels were turning - on a decision like firing Chip, as frustrating as it is for we fans, I also wouldn't be surprised if Jarmond was told by Block - who (a) doesn't prioritize athletics on a micro level and (b) is his boss - "No - no such encumbrance or decision until your new boss is hired and conducts a top-to-bottom review of athletics." Not defending that choice AT ALL - of course from a performance standpoint he should be fired - but I suspect this is closer to the reality of the situation.
That bigger athletic move was couched as a lifeline from financial insolvency, so I’m not surprised he was able to get Block to do that.
Firing a coach to pay a buyout and go through a coaching search on the eve of retirement is not something I would imagine Block would care too much about
Mark Schipper reported on twitter that Jarmond was gathering money to fire Chip, which shocked the chancellor and he stopped Jarmond from firing him. Not sure how accurate his sources are on this.
https://x.com/5thDownCFB/status/1753227289418997901?s=20
I've seen that story floated around in the last day, and to me it reads more like sources close to Jarmond trying to shift the blame away from him.
Fact of the matter is Jarmond has been able to get Block to sign off on a much bigger athletics move than firing Chip Kelly already; if Block was able to put a stop to this then that speaks more to a lack of conviction on Jarmond's part than anything else.
Completely agree, but we also have to remember that Block is a lame duck as well, hence his motives may be along the lines of "no major changes until the new guy gets here", but of course then why purchase the Westside pavilion and satellite campuses all in a very short period of time if you want to leave big decisions for the next guy. I'm guessing that Block had nothing to do with the retaining of the Chipster (OG), this was all on Jarmond.
Well, to be fair, for a Chancellor that doesn't consider athletics a priority but has clearly - and largely successfully - considered academic rankings and new/renovated building (Luskin, the new Engineering VI building for the Western Institute of Nanotechnology on Green Engineering and Metrology, all the new and expanded dorms, &c) a priority - purchasing the Westside pavilion is a legacy project/decision which, hell, might be named after him eventually (like Murphy Hall or Young Research Library)...
While the biggest athletic move on a macro level to the B1G was kind of a no-brainer once the wheels were in motion and the writing was on the wall - and I have no knowledge of this but I wouldn't be surprised if Caruso was in touch with Wasserman as those wheels were turning - on a decision like firing Chip, as frustrating as it is for we fans, I also wouldn't be surprised if Jarmond was told by Block - who (a) doesn't prioritize athletics on a micro level and (b) is his boss - "No - no such encumbrance or decision until your new boss is hired and conducts a top-to-bottom review of athletics." Not defending that choice AT ALL - of course from a performance standpoint he should be fired - but I suspect this is closer to the reality of the situation.
Bingo. Anonymous sources strike again. I'm sure Block really cares about who is the football coach.
That bigger athletic move was couched as a lifeline from financial insolvency, so I’m not surprised he was able to get Block to do that.
Firing a coach to pay a buyout and go through a coaching search on the eve of retirement is not something I would imagine Block would care too much about
It could be true. These are frustratingly depressing days for UCLA football.