OK, don't take this wrong but.... why would an elite coach want to coach a team that has dismal fan support? You all are great fans BUT... UCLA gets way more pumped up for basketball season than football season.
I've been on campus during a weekend game and I'm not kidding, the students seem unaware there is a game on the schedule. I think the problem is that the Rose Bowl, while beautiful, is not close enough. Students need to walk to the games, not drive. If UCLA can build a stadium (and no, it looks like that's not feasible) then you aren't going to bring the students in.
Most football programs have fans tailgate around the stadium near the campus. They go to the bookstore and buy last minute spirit wear and then wear it to the games after walking over to the stadium. UCLA fans have to drive to their stadium... it's not a quick drive and it's a lot of traffic.
UCLA has got to figure out how to win with the coach they have. That will bring up fan base support. THEN you can negotiate for an elite coach. Until that happens, I don't see Meyer or Fickel coming your way. LA is one of the most expensive places in which to to live. You can make $3 million elsewhere with more money in the bank left over.
Also, UCLA has a recent history of failed coaches. There's always that one coach who thinks he can turn things around BUT... history is not on its side. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of one coach in the last 20 years that someone else just had to steal from UCLA. Terry Donahue was great. His three predecessors were lured away to other coaching positions (two NFL and one coach's alma mater). But after Donahue? Crickets chirping.
To recap, don't fire Chip. Let him give the program stability. Otherwise, UCLA is going to be known as the place where head coaches' dreams die. Like Nebraska.
Has Chip earned your respect? Probably not. He has a horrible record. But other things need to change before you can attract an elite coach. You need to have that short list and dialogue with the short list candidates. You have to know who they would feel if the job was offered. You cannot fire a head coach and THEN start looking for a replacement.
I was VERY leery of the Chip Kelly hire. The NCAA sanctions were a red flag. Plus, his zone read offense was no longer unique nor indefensible. Still, I'm surprised his record is not at least .500.
One more point.... have you ever been near a stadium and a big play happened? The crowd's roar made you run faster to get into the gates, right?
There's something about being on campus and hearing that roar. It gets people excited to get up, go out and get to the game! The band, the planes flying over, the news trucks, the smells of popcorn and hot dogs....they all lend to the sights and smells that lure us in.
You cannot smell Pasadena from Westwood, even on a clear day.
You cannot feel the excitement from Westwood.
You can't see the pageantry from Westwood.
It makes a big difference! It's what is missing at UCLA. Fans and students have to drive to see, hear and taste that college football experience.
..Lisa, a couple of points. The first is technical. Unless you're terse and laconic as our beloved Gibby is ("Chip Kelly is an idiot"), dig up your fave text editor -- preferably one with a spell check -- and compose your comments/responses using that. When edited and spell-checked to your satisfaction, cut and paste the remarks to the site. And then lobby Joe and the lads like the dickens for a site with something like Disqus commenting. It is not liked, but what it does is rather super.
Secondly, codger history. Back when I attended UCLA and mastadons roamed the campus, we were in the throes of political unrest and one segment was just trying to get through school and and land a decent job that did not involve carrying M16s through the jungles of SEA. (While some did. I ended up guarding the rice paddies of Bellevue, Nebraska from communist insurgents as well as ply a trade for the USAF.)
The other half of us saw government evil in virtually everything the university did -- from having Dow Chemicals and similar companies recruit on campus to try to shut down the various ROTC contingents.
During this time, funds were voted to build the Elvin C. "Ducky" Drake track and field stadium where it is today. Since some of the associated student funds were being committed to this endeavor, someone at the Daily Bruin started running a series on how the foundations for the light stanchions were extremely sturdy and raised the suspicion that the AD and administration was actually trying to slip a 30,000-seat football stadium in against the wishes of those who did not want student funds spent on such fiddle-faddle. A referendum was held and any such contemplations was voted down -- even if it weren't being considered.
Now my ancient brain fuzzes the facts and I may have gotten the sequence wrong, but later rumors surface that those WERE the intent of the massive foundations and that is what they were trying to do.
So, it was either stay at the Mausoleum or rent the Rose Bowl. And going to that eerie edifice that USC calls home that was surrounded by brigands, footpads, and other ne'er-do-wells always made us fear for our selves and our dates -- it did not matter WHICH side of the old edifice we sat on.
..and you COULD smell the Mausoleum on certain days.
I agree 100% that playing at the Rose Bowl is actually the biggest albatross around our football program's neck. I want opponents to fear coming to our stadium, but every team gets fired up to play in the Rose Bowl. The capacity works against us because 60K fans in a 90K stadium looks awful (and we haven't been able to put even 60K fans in the Rose Bowl for the last couple years already). We lose out on lots of revenue that we have to share with the facility and City of Pasadena. The physical separation from campus kills the important relationship between the school itself and athletics, and it obviously crushes student attendance which translates to decreased long term alumni connection with the school.
I've been stoking coal on the on-campus stadium train for years now. Bruins Nation (long before that place became the vacuum of intellect and emotion that it is now) ran a series that addressed this back in the day. Here's how it might look:
U.C.L.A. should build a 50-60K capacity stadium in the footprint where Drake is now, though I'd rotate it 90 degrees and have a partly open eastern end that looks toward Tongva (Janss) Steps and the Royce quad. It would be an epic visual. It could also double as a soccer stadium and free up some additional space on the IM field for student use, and bleacher extensions would allow the track to remain within the facility. U.C.L.A. would keep all revenues from tickets, parking, food, concessions, etc, and additional student employment. 15k seats should be reserved for students and we'd fill the stadium every week and have the biggest home field advantage akin to Oregon. Westwood businesses would welcome the infusion of fans looking for pre- or post-game entertainment. Tailgating gets alumni back on to campus and strengthens those critical bonds.
The lazy naysayers with no vision or balls or work ethic will chirp, "It will never happen! Traffic, waaahhh, neighborhood opposition, waaahhh, money, waahhhh...!" Traffic is a BS excuse. 60K people already come to campus every day of the academic year, so adding 6 Saturdays (when there isn't workweek traffic already) with a smaller influx (since many of the seats go to on-campus students) makes the traffic issue a nothing. And it's our campus so Bel Air can hide behind their gates and deal with it. We built an unnecessary hotel/conference center without their permission so we can build a stadium, too.
Money...now that's a legit issue for us. Dan left the athletic department bleeding red, and that's only gotten worse playing sports during covid without any revenue from fan attendance (never mind the fiduciary irresponsibility by the Pac12 conference). And we'd have to break that ridiculous 30 year lease with the Rose Bowl (which should still host the U.C.L.A. - *$c game every year). But if one looks with long term vision, this investment is the right one. An on-campus stadium generates more revenue for us and it becomes the focus for a deeper connection between the fanbase and the school which has significant long term financial benefits. An on-campus stadium builds a better football culture, and that better football culture helps recruiting, which helps results, which helps culture, which helps recruiting, which helps results, etc, etc. Most importantly, it creates a base for an identity, something U.C.L.A. Football has been sorely lacking for 30 years.
No offense, but this is some asinine stuff that is a complete misdiagnosis of what's going on.
Regarding fan support: UCLA actually has great fan support, as long as they put a good product on the field. This is, I think, the biggest issue: by-and-large UCLA has failed to put a good product on the field, which has led to fan apathy. This isn't unique to UCLA in the LA sports landscape - USC was posting their worst attendance marks over the past few years as they've similarly put out a bad product, while the SoCal hockey scene has seen a pretty good drop as their teams began various rebuilds. The only LA sports brands that can survive a run of bad play are the Lakers and Dodgers, and those two are major institutions. Otherwise, the rule in LA is simple: if you build a winner, the fans will come.
(Also lol at traffic being a clear problem for UCLA and no one else in this city. The Dodgers have a worse traffic issue, yet that doesn't stop them from getting people to show up. Again, a winner is going to draw people in.)
Then you get into student support. Weirdly enough, this is a more recent phenomenon that has affected almost all UCLA sports, and it isn't hard to diagnose. The athletic department under Dan Guerrero did a piss-poor job of actually building student support on-campus, and were antagonistic towards the various student groups (who can forget the debacle surrounding moving the student section for basketball games?). And it was one of the stupider traits of the Guerrero era, as it helped alienate a whole generation of UCLA alumni and artificially shrunk the potential donor pool.
When it comes to failed coaches, you're right, UCLA does have a recent track record at failures. They also have a recent track record of hiring retreads without much recent success. Karl Dorrell had never been a head coach before and it showed. Rick Neuheisel was last a head coach six years prior (and there's a lot going on there for why Rick failed that could fill a book). Jim Mora had failed at the NFL level. Chip Kelly was just coming off failing at the NFL level. Hell, Chip Kelly is the first hire that UCLA had to beat another college to make (talk about alternate history: if Florida had actually hired Kelly, you can bet they would have fired him at this point for this level of performance).
Chip Kelly's failure to this point at UCLA is ahistorical because unlike every other coach in the past few decades, there is nothing you can really say UCLA had done to hold Kelly back. The AD has bent over backward to accommodate Kelly's every whim. They have one of the best football facilities in the conference, his assistant pay pool is one of the tops in the conference, he has access to private jets. Hell, they are going into debt just to pay a ridiculous amount of money supporting his nutrition program. If all you want is a "stable" program, then they should fire Chip Kelly anyway and go hire Jay Norvell on the cheap, because he too can provide program stability at a fraction of the cost.
The craziest part to me is that I know you're a USC supporter, and you should know more than anyone that hiring coaches is, at most, a crapshoot, and the worst thing you can do is let a bad one stick around past their expiration date. USC got insanely lucky with Pete Carroll (their 4th choice) and have been floundering since. If you were taking your own advice, you'd be repeatedly stating that Clay Helton should not be fired because he gives the Trojans stability, but we both know USC fans have been trying to get him fired for years. Hell, his own alma mater isn't even considering him for their opening.
tl;dr: Chip Kelly's failures are not because of lacking fan support in any real sense of the word, and pretending that just supporting him harder will help him fix the numerous problems in his program is a fool's errand.
I don't begrudge anyone being a USC fan (I mean, who am I to tell people they've made bad life choices) but I do think it helps to know Lisa does actually want UCLA to do well, as a good UCLA pushes USC to be better. I just think her view of the situation is way off.
My mom went to UCLA, and I actually went to some of her classes with her. I love the school. I'm an SC alum but I still love UCLA. I know, weird. But it's in my blood!
Yep, SC did get lucky with Pete. But I do not advocate firing Clay even though I think he's doing a LOUSY job. Why? Who are they going to replace him with? Alumni want Meyer but that's not happening. Maybe offer him $8 mil a year and his health concerns might diminish. But unless it's Meyer or a non-retread, I don't see a new coaching hire until after next season. Schools lost so much money and for SC or UCLA to fork out a ton of money in buyouts is foolish.
Next year they both need to succeed (win the conference) or go fishing. Since they both cannot do that, one coach will be gone.
As far as fan support, I remember Mora frustrated with lack of fan support. Yes, being a winner draws the fans in but so does excitement for a new season. Empty stadiums are a bad optic, especially if you're looking for a new coach.
Finally, I actually pride myself on grammar, punctuation and spelling. I tend to be more casual in comment sections. Next time, I'll comment like Gibby.
Mora was more frustrated by a lack of admin support. He constantly had to embarrass the AD into doing the things required of a winning program. My favorite was when it was revealed he was personally funding a fleet of buses to get students to the game, forcing the AD to step in and pay money for something they should have been doing already.
But your point remains. It seems the most obvious thing in the world to provide free transportation for students to get to the football stadium to see our team play where we have a 30 year lease. But, no.
we better hope they do not fire Clay because I think they would replace him with their OC who i think has a very bright future as a HC. Would like to see him get a bigger job before USC has a chance to promote him.
I always appreciate your input on UCLA sports, Lisa. While I agree with you about the effect of a stadium off campus, we all know that this will never change; it is what it is, by now. As for UCLA figuring out how to win with Kelly, what else would you suggest we do? As Dimitri has explained, UCLA has gone overboard trying to provide what Kelly requests, and we're still embarrassed by his coaching decisions on a weekly basis. As history has proven, we're just not going to win with Kelly as our coach, so the only stability I see in our future is a stable progression of losing seasons.
I have been a fan of the the Bruins for a long time. I didn’t go to UCLA but have watch the mid 60’s. We have had poor coaches before but Kelly also has a big ego. I believe that he knows more than anyone else. To not answer questions and act like everyone else is below him is just wrong. At any other place he would be gone. I said at the start of this season he needed to go 4 and 2 with win against USC or he should be gone. I still feel that way.
UCLA won't get a big name. Stop already. Buy out Chip. Then do whatever it takes to lure Matt Campbell to Westwood. He is the best coach in college football. If you can win regularly at Iowa State - and excite a moribund fan base - you have a chane to turn things around at UCLA. Do everything possible to bring this extraordinary football coach to Westwood. But first buy out Chip. It didn't work.
In the 3 years that I went to UCLA, I went to 2 winning Rose Bowls and one we were ranked #5. I always felt we should be not just shooting for Pac 10 Championships, but National Championships. All of these years we have never met my expectations and have instead regressed. When we got Chip, I thought we got the coach that would get us back on track. While more competitive this season, the losses under him pain me badly. But at this point, who else do we get that would get us into National relevance? And that is what we should be shooting for, not replacing him just for the matter of replacing him and get second fiddle.
I'm not saying he deserves to be back, but for better or worse Chip has bought himself another year. For one thing, it was going to be hard to fire him because of covid -- a bs excuse, but one that would be used nonetheless. But more importantly, the expectations were incredibly low going into this season. I think most had us winning 1 game? Finishing 3-4, sad as it is to say, exceeded expectations by a lot, and frankly, we were a few plays from being 6-0 before the final week. They just aren't going to fire chip after that.
That said, the program is in terrible shape. Frankly, we might as well have just kept Mora. At least he was intense and could randomly pull a great class so at least we had a fighting chance.
Chip is going into his 4th year. He better pull off something pretty extraordinary next year that makes it look like the three year disaster we just endured was the "process." I think he needs to win the South to be retained, but we will see what kind of standards Jarmond has this time next year, because I do not see a division championship in our immediate future.
I told the other writers here that UCLA was going to go 3-4 before the season began. I saw Colorado and Arizona as the wins, and that UCLA would steal one from either Utah or ASU depending on how things went. So if anything UCLA lived up to my very low expectations of them!
We're stuck with Chip for at least another year, I'm sad to say. That being said; Jarmond should fire Azz(hole). Since he IS the DC as Chip made perfectly clear, we lost at least 3 games with a lead. Doesn't that fall on the DC's shoulders? Firing Azz would send a very strong signal that another losing season won't be tolerated. If i'm not mistaken, he was only signed for one more year. They could let the contract run out, but firing him would send a much stronger signal.
I think it's typical that U.C.L.A. (and maybe all U.C.) assistant coaches all have one year contracts. When Chip not only renewed Azz's contract after last year's abysmal performance, but also gave him a raise, I knew everything I needed to know about Chip's priorities with regards to our program.
Usually it's two-year contracts. That was the big scuttlebutt last year - everyone else got a two-year extension except for Azzinaro, who got a one-year. It was very-much seen as a last-chance.
Yes. Fire Chip Kelly! He's made an ass of himself and made the program a dumpster fire. 10-21 record is dogshit.
OK, don't take this wrong but.... why would an elite coach want to coach a team that has dismal fan support? You all are great fans BUT... UCLA gets way more pumped up for basketball season than football season.
I've been on campus during a weekend game and I'm not kidding, the students seem unaware there is a game on the schedule. I think the problem is that the Rose Bowl, while beautiful, is not close enough. Students need to walk to the games, not drive. If UCLA can build a stadium (and no, it looks like that's not feasible) then you aren't going to bring the students in.
Most football programs have fans tailgate around the stadium near the campus. They go to the bookstore and buy last minute spirit wear and then wear it to the games after walking over to the stadium. UCLA fans have to drive to their stadium... it's not a quick drive and it's a lot of traffic.
UCLA has got to figure out how to win with the coach they have. That will bring up fan base support. THEN you can negotiate for an elite coach. Until that happens, I don't see Meyer or Fickel coming your way. LA is one of the most expensive places in which to to live. You can make $3 million elsewhere with more money in the bank left over.
Also, UCLA has a recent history of failed coaches. There's always that one coach who thinks he can turn things around BUT... history is not on its side. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of one coach in the last 20 years that someone else just had to steal from UCLA. Terry Donahue was great. His three predecessors were lured away to other coaching positions (two NFL and one coach's alma mater). But after Donahue? Crickets chirping.
To recap, don't fire Chip. Let him give the program stability. Otherwise, UCLA is going to be known as the place where head coaches' dreams die. Like Nebraska.
Has Chip earned your respect? Probably not. He has a horrible record. But other things need to change before you can attract an elite coach. You need to have that short list and dialogue with the short list candidates. You have to know who they would feel if the job was offered. You cannot fire a head coach and THEN start looking for a replacement.
I was VERY leery of the Chip Kelly hire. The NCAA sanctions were a red flag. Plus, his zone read offense was no longer unique nor indefensible. Still, I'm surprised his record is not at least .500.
Maybe he's lost that edge?
since there is no edit button, this sentence should read: You have to know HOW they would feel if the job was offered.
One more point.... have you ever been near a stadium and a big play happened? The crowd's roar made you run faster to get into the gates, right?
There's something about being on campus and hearing that roar. It gets people excited to get up, go out and get to the game! The band, the planes flying over, the news trucks, the smells of popcorn and hot dogs....they all lend to the sights and smells that lure us in.
You cannot smell Pasadena from Westwood, even on a clear day.
You cannot feel the excitement from Westwood.
You can't see the pageantry from Westwood.
It makes a big difference! It's what is missing at UCLA. Fans and students have to drive to see, hear and taste that college football experience.
..Lisa, a couple of points. The first is technical. Unless you're terse and laconic as our beloved Gibby is ("Chip Kelly is an idiot"), dig up your fave text editor -- preferably one with a spell check -- and compose your comments/responses using that. When edited and spell-checked to your satisfaction, cut and paste the remarks to the site. And then lobby Joe and the lads like the dickens for a site with something like Disqus commenting. It is not liked, but what it does is rather super.
Secondly, codger history. Back when I attended UCLA and mastadons roamed the campus, we were in the throes of political unrest and one segment was just trying to get through school and and land a decent job that did not involve carrying M16s through the jungles of SEA. (While some did. I ended up guarding the rice paddies of Bellevue, Nebraska from communist insurgents as well as ply a trade for the USAF.)
The other half of us saw government evil in virtually everything the university did -- from having Dow Chemicals and similar companies recruit on campus to try to shut down the various ROTC contingents.
During this time, funds were voted to build the Elvin C. "Ducky" Drake track and field stadium where it is today. Since some of the associated student funds were being committed to this endeavor, someone at the Daily Bruin started running a series on how the foundations for the light stanchions were extremely sturdy and raised the suspicion that the AD and administration was actually trying to slip a 30,000-seat football stadium in against the wishes of those who did not want student funds spent on such fiddle-faddle. A referendum was held and any such contemplations was voted down -- even if it weren't being considered.
Now my ancient brain fuzzes the facts and I may have gotten the sequence wrong, but later rumors surface that those WERE the intent of the massive foundations and that is what they were trying to do.
So, it was either stay at the Mausoleum or rent the Rose Bowl. And going to that eerie edifice that USC calls home that was surrounded by brigands, footpads, and other ne'er-do-wells always made us fear for our selves and our dates -- it did not matter WHICH side of the old edifice we sat on.
..and you COULD smell the Mausoleum on certain days.
thank you for your service
You're too kind.
I agree 100% that playing at the Rose Bowl is actually the biggest albatross around our football program's neck. I want opponents to fear coming to our stadium, but every team gets fired up to play in the Rose Bowl. The capacity works against us because 60K fans in a 90K stadium looks awful (and we haven't been able to put even 60K fans in the Rose Bowl for the last couple years already). We lose out on lots of revenue that we have to share with the facility and City of Pasadena. The physical separation from campus kills the important relationship between the school itself and athletics, and it obviously crushes student attendance which translates to decreased long term alumni connection with the school.
I've been stoking coal on the on-campus stadium train for years now. Bruins Nation (long before that place became the vacuum of intellect and emotion that it is now) ran a series that addressed this back in the day. Here's how it might look:
https://youtu.be/aw5qsbzaKjk
U.C.L.A. should build a 50-60K capacity stadium in the footprint where Drake is now, though I'd rotate it 90 degrees and have a partly open eastern end that looks toward Tongva (Janss) Steps and the Royce quad. It would be an epic visual. It could also double as a soccer stadium and free up some additional space on the IM field for student use, and bleacher extensions would allow the track to remain within the facility. U.C.L.A. would keep all revenues from tickets, parking, food, concessions, etc, and additional student employment. 15k seats should be reserved for students and we'd fill the stadium every week and have the biggest home field advantage akin to Oregon. Westwood businesses would welcome the infusion of fans looking for pre- or post-game entertainment. Tailgating gets alumni back on to campus and strengthens those critical bonds.
The lazy naysayers with no vision or balls or work ethic will chirp, "It will never happen! Traffic, waaahhh, neighborhood opposition, waaahhh, money, waahhhh...!" Traffic is a BS excuse. 60K people already come to campus every day of the academic year, so adding 6 Saturdays (when there isn't workweek traffic already) with a smaller influx (since many of the seats go to on-campus students) makes the traffic issue a nothing. And it's our campus so Bel Air can hide behind their gates and deal with it. We built an unnecessary hotel/conference center without their permission so we can build a stadium, too.
Money...now that's a legit issue for us. Dan left the athletic department bleeding red, and that's only gotten worse playing sports during covid without any revenue from fan attendance (never mind the fiduciary irresponsibility by the Pac12 conference). And we'd have to break that ridiculous 30 year lease with the Rose Bowl (which should still host the U.C.L.A. - *$c game every year). But if one looks with long term vision, this investment is the right one. An on-campus stadium generates more revenue for us and it becomes the focus for a deeper connection between the fanbase and the school which has significant long term financial benefits. An on-campus stadium builds a better football culture, and that better football culture helps recruiting, which helps results, which helps culture, which helps recruiting, which helps results, etc, etc. Most importantly, it creates a base for an identity, something U.C.L.A. Football has been sorely lacking for 30 years.
Even an average coach would be better than Chip Kelly at this point.
Win with Chip Kelly? LMAO!
No offense, but this is some asinine stuff that is a complete misdiagnosis of what's going on.
Regarding fan support: UCLA actually has great fan support, as long as they put a good product on the field. This is, I think, the biggest issue: by-and-large UCLA has failed to put a good product on the field, which has led to fan apathy. This isn't unique to UCLA in the LA sports landscape - USC was posting their worst attendance marks over the past few years as they've similarly put out a bad product, while the SoCal hockey scene has seen a pretty good drop as their teams began various rebuilds. The only LA sports brands that can survive a run of bad play are the Lakers and Dodgers, and those two are major institutions. Otherwise, the rule in LA is simple: if you build a winner, the fans will come.
(Also lol at traffic being a clear problem for UCLA and no one else in this city. The Dodgers have a worse traffic issue, yet that doesn't stop them from getting people to show up. Again, a winner is going to draw people in.)
Then you get into student support. Weirdly enough, this is a more recent phenomenon that has affected almost all UCLA sports, and it isn't hard to diagnose. The athletic department under Dan Guerrero did a piss-poor job of actually building student support on-campus, and were antagonistic towards the various student groups (who can forget the debacle surrounding moving the student section for basketball games?). And it was one of the stupider traits of the Guerrero era, as it helped alienate a whole generation of UCLA alumni and artificially shrunk the potential donor pool.
When it comes to failed coaches, you're right, UCLA does have a recent track record at failures. They also have a recent track record of hiring retreads without much recent success. Karl Dorrell had never been a head coach before and it showed. Rick Neuheisel was last a head coach six years prior (and there's a lot going on there for why Rick failed that could fill a book). Jim Mora had failed at the NFL level. Chip Kelly was just coming off failing at the NFL level. Hell, Chip Kelly is the first hire that UCLA had to beat another college to make (talk about alternate history: if Florida had actually hired Kelly, you can bet they would have fired him at this point for this level of performance).
Chip Kelly's failure to this point at UCLA is ahistorical because unlike every other coach in the past few decades, there is nothing you can really say UCLA had done to hold Kelly back. The AD has bent over backward to accommodate Kelly's every whim. They have one of the best football facilities in the conference, his assistant pay pool is one of the tops in the conference, he has access to private jets. Hell, they are going into debt just to pay a ridiculous amount of money supporting his nutrition program. If all you want is a "stable" program, then they should fire Chip Kelly anyway and go hire Jay Norvell on the cheap, because he too can provide program stability at a fraction of the cost.
The craziest part to me is that I know you're a USC supporter, and you should know more than anyone that hiring coaches is, at most, a crapshoot, and the worst thing you can do is let a bad one stick around past their expiration date. USC got insanely lucky with Pete Carroll (their 4th choice) and have been floundering since. If you were taking your own advice, you'd be repeatedly stating that Clay Helton should not be fired because he gives the Trojans stability, but we both know USC fans have been trying to get him fired for years. Hell, his own alma mater isn't even considering him for their opening.
tl;dr: Chip Kelly's failures are not because of lacking fan support in any real sense of the word, and pretending that just supporting him harder will help him fix the numerous problems in his program is a fool's errand.
LOL, so Lisa is a SUC fan? No wonder she wants Chip to stay on at UCLA.
I don't begrudge anyone being a USC fan (I mean, who am I to tell people they've made bad life choices) but I do think it helps to know Lisa does actually want UCLA to do well, as a good UCLA pushes USC to be better. I just think her view of the situation is way off.
My mom went to UCLA, and I actually went to some of her classes with her. I love the school. I'm an SC alum but I still love UCLA. I know, weird. But it's in my blood!
Yep, SC did get lucky with Pete. But I do not advocate firing Clay even though I think he's doing a LOUSY job. Why? Who are they going to replace him with? Alumni want Meyer but that's not happening. Maybe offer him $8 mil a year and his health concerns might diminish. But unless it's Meyer or a non-retread, I don't see a new coaching hire until after next season. Schools lost so much money and for SC or UCLA to fork out a ton of money in buyouts is foolish.
Next year they both need to succeed (win the conference) or go fishing. Since they both cannot do that, one coach will be gone.
As far as fan support, I remember Mora frustrated with lack of fan support. Yes, being a winner draws the fans in but so does excitement for a new season. Empty stadiums are a bad optic, especially if you're looking for a new coach.
Finally, I actually pride myself on grammar, punctuation and spelling. I tend to be more casual in comment sections. Next time, I'll comment like Gibby.
LOL. There's only one way to comment like me. I am unfiltered.
Mora was more frustrated by a lack of admin support. He constantly had to embarrass the AD into doing the things required of a winning program. My favorite was when it was revealed he was personally funding a fleet of buses to get students to the game, forcing the AD to step in and pay money for something they should have been doing already.
That's awesome that Chip did that. I always thought Bruin students got free shuttles to the RB.
How did you get Chip from that, Lisa? The entire comment seems to be about Jim Mora. Perhaps revisit that editor idea? :-)
That was Mora, not Chip.
But your point remains. It seems the most obvious thing in the world to provide free transportation for students to get to the football stadium to see our team play where we have a 30 year lease. But, no.
we better hope they do not fire Clay because I think they would replace him with their OC who i think has a very bright future as a HC. Would like to see him get a bigger job before USC has a chance to promote him.
I always appreciate your input on UCLA sports, Lisa. While I agree with you about the effect of a stadium off campus, we all know that this will never change; it is what it is, by now. As for UCLA figuring out how to win with Kelly, what else would you suggest we do? As Dimitri has explained, UCLA has gone overboard trying to provide what Kelly requests, and we're still embarrassed by his coaching decisions on a weekly basis. As history has proven, we're just not going to win with Kelly as our coach, so the only stability I see in our future is a stable progression of losing seasons.
I have been a fan of the the Bruins for a long time. I didn’t go to UCLA but have watch the mid 60’s. We have had poor coaches before but Kelly also has a big ego. I believe that he knows more than anyone else. To not answer questions and act like everyone else is below him is just wrong. At any other place he would be gone. I said at the start of this season he needed to go 4 and 2 with win against USC or he should be gone. I still feel that way.
I don’t think Chip cares if he wins or loses.
UCLA won't get a big name. Stop already. Buy out Chip. Then do whatever it takes to lure Matt Campbell to Westwood. He is the best coach in college football. If you can win regularly at Iowa State - and excite a moribund fan base - you have a chane to turn things around at UCLA. Do everything possible to bring this extraordinary football coach to Westwood. But first buy out Chip. It didn't work.
Yes!
I like that suggestion.
In the 3 years that I went to UCLA, I went to 2 winning Rose Bowls and one we were ranked #5. I always felt we should be not just shooting for Pac 10 Championships, but National Championships. All of these years we have never met my expectations and have instead regressed. When we got Chip, I thought we got the coach that would get us back on track. While more competitive this season, the losses under him pain me badly. But at this point, who else do we get that would get us into National relevance? And that is what we should be shooting for, not replacing him just for the matter of replacing him and get second fiddle.
I'm not saying he deserves to be back, but for better or worse Chip has bought himself another year. For one thing, it was going to be hard to fire him because of covid -- a bs excuse, but one that would be used nonetheless. But more importantly, the expectations were incredibly low going into this season. I think most had us winning 1 game? Finishing 3-4, sad as it is to say, exceeded expectations by a lot, and frankly, we were a few plays from being 6-0 before the final week. They just aren't going to fire chip after that.
That said, the program is in terrible shape. Frankly, we might as well have just kept Mora. At least he was intense and could randomly pull a great class so at least we had a fighting chance.
Chip is going into his 4th year. He better pull off something pretty extraordinary next year that makes it look like the three year disaster we just endured was the "process." I think he needs to win the South to be retained, but we will see what kind of standards Jarmond has this time next year, because I do not see a division championship in our immediate future.
I told the other writers here that UCLA was going to go 3-4 before the season began. I saw Colorado and Arizona as the wins, and that UCLA would steal one from either Utah or ASU depending on how things went. So if anything UCLA lived up to my very low expectations of them!
9 wins or he's gone. Finishing 6-6 in year 4 should not save his job.
We're stuck with Chip for at least another year, I'm sad to say. That being said; Jarmond should fire Azz(hole). Since he IS the DC as Chip made perfectly clear, we lost at least 3 games with a lead. Doesn't that fall on the DC's shoulders? Firing Azz would send a very strong signal that another losing season won't be tolerated. If i'm not mistaken, he was only signed for one more year. They could let the contract run out, but firing him would send a much stronger signal.
I think it's typical that U.C.L.A. (and maybe all U.C.) assistant coaches all have one year contracts. When Chip not only renewed Azz's contract after last year's abysmal performance, but also gave him a raise, I knew everything I needed to know about Chip's priorities with regards to our program.
Usually it's two-year contracts. That was the big scuttlebutt last year - everyone else got a two-year extension except for Azzinaro, who got a one-year. It was very-much seen as a last-chance.