I own(ed) Kelly and will happily defend his era here anytime. Your condemnation of him is an opinion that was assigned to you by the Bruin media. What? No way! I have independence and I draw my own conclusions! Who is the troll?
No. None of that is true. Let me show you what I mean and how it works.
NIL arrives and Ucla is slow to adapt to it. They fall behind. Jarmond and Ucla won't even allow MoW ads to appear in their periodicals. Ucla sees MoW as a threat to their own fundraising. There's a battle, and as the battle wages on, Ucla falls further behind its league.
When carping begins about losing recruits due to low NIL resources, we're told it's Kelly's fault. Ucla says so, MoW says so and the Bruin media say so. Everyone says so. You say to yourself: Ah ha! I see. It's Kelly's fault. Not Jarmond's, not Ucla's, not the MoW execs, not the indifferent and cheap fans. It's Kelly!! I'm on to something here.
Now, you have no direct interaction with the facts of the matter and you don't have any idea how this whole thing works. You've been told to scapegoat Kelly, so you do. The majority of Ucla fans follow your lead and as a large group they become hostile to Kelly.
Jarmond fails to extend him beyond 2024, and the media breathlessly reports that he's looking to jump ship. Again, you're told this is unusual and an affront to Ucla. But what you're not told is this is standard operations in the coaching business. If you aren't renewed, you're being shown the door. Jarmond soft-fired Kelly but we are again scapegoating Kelly for what Ucla did.
In today's world recruiting doesn't work without NIL and since Ucla spurned it and since its fans are cheap and stupid, there were no monetary resources for Chip to tap into. This problem was assigned to him and you bought it. He was regarded as a poor recruiter as though this is a one-factor outcome. In reality, which you are ignorant of, it's a multi-factor outcome and all those failing factors complicit in the "undesirable" recruiting outcomes aren't put forward to you for consideration. Only Kelly.
Now, let's stipulate for sake of argument that Kelly is a poor recruiter (not in evidence, but we'll go with it). He regularly loses out on top talent. How then does Ucla have a top 25 offense, with 2022 being top 10? How does that gap get closed between poor recruiting and excellent statistical results? Coaching, my friends.
We just soft-fired one of the best offensive coaches to ever walk on campus because public opinion was rallied behind Jarmond by a complicit Bruin media to convince you that evil Chip was the source of all your problems.
Ucla is the problem. The fans are too stupid to build and maintain a top football program. The bueaucrats, to include Jarmond and his predecessor Danno are too incompetent to play a leading role in the sport. And the sycophantic Bruin media is too shallow and biased toward their own incomes to give us a balanced view of the facts.
We've been duped again.
Now, y'all own Foster. I'm out. In 2 years the media will begin saying "I told you he wasn't ready". In three years they'll be asking for his job.
Only by stubbornly funding MoW, despite their incompetence can we compete with the universities---not the #1 public university, sniff, sniff, but the troglodyte knuckle dragging sucky universities---who truly know what it takes to build and maintain long term support for and success in football. If you give money to WAF, you're just funding more salary and pension for the bureaucrats. You're investing in stupidity, hubris and sanctimony. But you won't get results you want. If you fund MoW, your funding talent on the field. You choose.
Hold your nose and donate to MoW.