In Reply to: At what point does Chip Kelly's actual performance at UCLA . . . posted by BluBlood on February 20, 2024 at 14:54:49
No one can agree upon what his, or any HC's performance standard should be.
His critics cite his .500 record, his supporters (me) cite his 25 - 13 record in the last 3 years after the rebuild.
His critics cite poor NIL results and blame him 100% for that. I cite the head of MoW complaining as recently as October 2023 that Ucla was among the last schools to get an NIL program started in football, and that Jarmond and WAF resisted MoW early on because they saw it as a threat to their own fundraising.
His critics cite empty RBs. I cite crappy scheduling (for TV) and the soaring cost of attendance. Cost of attendance since 2013 has risen at an annual compound rate of 12.5%. Costs are up 3x since then. When you raise the cost of something, you get less of it. People stopped coming because the price was outrageous. TV looked terrible because Jarmond moved everyone to the shady side, away from TV line of sight. How is any of this Chip's fault? It isn't. But the water-carrying suck-up for access Bruin media tells you it's all Chip. And the stupid Ucla fans nod and believe because they're told to.
Notice that Ucla is keeping seat prices flat this year? They are beginning to recognize, belatedly, that they got way out over their skis. They've completely mismanaged the business of the program including the RB venue.
We aren't told that part of the story, are we?
His critics cite lack of recruiting. I cite the lack of NIL as the core problem where Ucla itself played a major detrimental role. I also cite Chip's successful portal recruiting and guess that Chip used whatever NIL he had there rather than in HS recruiting.
Critics can't equate his "poor" recruiting with his post rebuild winning record and the statistical success of his offenses, the worst of which was top 30 and the best was top 10. Either those recruits were better than thought, or the coaching made them so.
His critics cite his lack of engagement with media. I say, who cares? Bruin media is parasitic. They subtract rather than add to the program. If you're subscribed, cancel.
So, in general, Chip is blamed for every manner of failure in the football program, while Jarmond and his pension sucking Ucla bureaucrat colleagues get off scot free, blameless. I reverse this equation and place all of the blame on Jarmond and Ucla itself. Jarmond doesn't have what it takes. He's a government program administrator.
Chip did what I wanted done. He recruited solid people and players, he ran a clean ship, his practices were works of art, so I'm told. He did everything right except one thing.
He lost to lowly ASU and Cal this year. That cost him his job even though, due to injuries, he was playing a 3rd string QB during all or most of those games. No program can win with a third string QB. Nonetheless, a loss is a loss and fans will punish you for each one.
Chip came up those two games short of a contract extension.
Chip in 2023 bet his job on Dante Moore and he lost that bet big time. Had he gone with Garbs, the season might've been far more successful and we'd be talking about something else. I blame Chip for that mistake, I hold him accountable for that. It was decision, he had the best information with which to make it and he screwed it up. Fire-able offense? Not in my book.
Firing Chip (yes, he was fired) will prove to be a large setback for us. Foster seems like a nice guy and I want him to succeed, but it's BS to think he'll be great off the bat, all passion aside. The program is going to go through another 5 year walkabout. This will be Jarmond's doing.
Ucla football is run like a government program, not like a business. Ucla isn't smart enough to build a quality football program. This wasn't always true but it definitely is now.
It's complete hubris to say the program is mediocre because Ucla doesn't give it priority. That assumes Ucla has the talent to make it work if only they chose to. No. They don't. They don't have the ability to make football work here. Jarmond and crew are stupid to business. They're political infighters. They aren't the right people for the task. They're better suited to running social welfare program, a government program, than a dynamic and competitive business. A government program is what they've turned Ucla football into.