Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Show your support for what this community means to you:
Choose a Donation Amount
(required for credit)
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

What Happened to UCLA Football?


  • GreenRiverGatorzGreenRiverGatorz Posts: 5,492
    10,000 Awesomes 5,000 Up Votes 5000 Comments 250 Answers
    You can't live in Westwood and simultaneously be a tuff football player. The flaccidity is inescapable.
  • Fire_Marshall_BillFire_Marshall_Bill Posts: 14,547
    Standard Supporter 10,000 Up Votes 5,000 Awesomes 10000 Comments
    They haven't been UCLA since the 90s. Mora Jr. had a few above average seasons but it's been forever since they made Rose Bowls.

    We need at least one of the LA schools to be good and the NCAA to hammer cheating U of hO like they should have years ago.
  • alumni94alumni94 Posts: 830
    Sixth Anniversary 250 Answers 500 Awesomes 500 Up Votes
    I want to like Jim Mora as a person, but if you look at his head coaching career and see where his team was predicted to be and where they ended up, he always ended up on the wrong side. He is a under-achiever as a head coach.
  • alumni94 said:

    I want to like Jim Mora as a person, but if you look at his head coaching career and see where his team was predicted to be and where they ended up, he always ended up on the wrong side. He is a under-achiever as a head coach.

    Yah i wanted to like him too, but then it turns out that he just isn't a head coach. A sequence of odd events and he somehow winds up as the head coach of a pretty good NFL team which buys him street cred for getting college jobs... but then, somehow he absolutely loses his team in the locker room like almost nobody i have ever seen. What a dumpster fire ~ We are lucky as hell ~ we dodged a bullet big time.
  • regarding the UCLA program, the devolving issue is primarily with the administration. The school is run by the University of California board of directors which controls the politics and funding for both Cal and UCLA. Like the UW, the true business of the UCLA and Cal programs is to solicit and service huge research and development grants and contract with the government, military and private companies.

    I don't know the numbers for UCLA and Cal, but i'm guessing they are in the same ballpark as UW... as i recall, UW as an example has logged over a billion a year in grants and contracts for the last 5 years... Everything else including the stipend from the state, athletics, tuition etc is chump change in comparison and the discussion of needing to control educational costs, needing help from the state, needing the additional income from a high percentage mix of out of state and foreign students is just a diversion to maintain the illusion that these schools are in the business of educating students to provide tomorrows leaders and all of the other horse crap that gets dealt with that storyline.

    By the way, i'm not intending to criticize, I'm just more interested in a more accurate narrative.

    I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine ion Oakland a couple of years ago on the subject of providing the required funding for UCLA and Cal to be high level competitors athletically... he was the public relations director for the board of directors for the University of California network of schools which oversees Cal Berkeley, UCLA, Cal San Diego and the other affiliated state schools and he reported directly to the Chairman of the Board.

    After me giving him good-natured UW style crap regarding the recent UCLA and Cal debacle in sports including the facilities shortfall, I asked him what in the world the problem was.

    His discussion centered on the boards belief that they are not in the business of athletics [no kidding] and that what the board is interested in is a broad-based egalitarian athletic program across all sports with the ideal that the collective teams could compete within the realm of student-athletes in the old tradition.

    The bottom line is there is no money or appetite for upgrades to facilities, the pool of coaching salary levels is below average and likely will not change and there is no commitment to winning in the money revenue sports.

    Simply put, what they care about are the research contracts and that is it... everything that supports that is of interest, everything else is a red herring.

  • Doog_de_JourDoog_de_Jour Posts: 3,970
    Swaye's Wigwam 10,000 Awesomes 2,500 Up Votes 2500 Comments
    I’m curious if this is the case, are the athletic boosters at UCLA doing anything about it? Or do they no care?
  • DawgsCanDanceDawgsCanDance Posts: 21
    Swaye's Wigwam 10 Comments 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    edited July 30
    Here are the salary figures for UCLA... the figures are not super low in comparison to run of the mill pac12 teams but pale in comparison to national power teams so there you go.

    Throw in the aging rose bowl which UCLA does not own and is located an hour away in good mid-day traffic and you have an uncomfortable facilities issue that really can't be solved because there is no cheap real estate development option local to the campus and no financial appetite to build one.

    They are in a financial self-imposed box.

    Chip Kelly's is in the third year of a five-year deal, worth 23.3 million, with a $9 million reciprocal buyout.
    Offensive coordinator and offensive line coach Justin Frye just signed a two-year deal on Feb. 13th worth $700,000 per season.
    Defensive coordinator Jerry Azzinaro signed a one-year contract on February 25th, calling for a salary of $700,000 over the next year.
    Brian Norwood, the new assistant head coach, defensive passing game coordinator and defensive backs coach, signed a two-year deal on Feb. 6th that gets him $500,000 per year.
    Inside linebackers coach Don Pellum will make $400,000 a year, and signed a two-year contact on February 12th.
    Quarterbacks coach Dana Bible signed a two-year deal on Feb. 10th worth $450,000 per year.
    Receivers coach Jimmie Dougherty will earn $340,400 per season after signing his two-year deal on February 7th.
    Tight ends coach Derek Sage signed his two-year contract on Feb. 12th worth $450,000 per year.
    The salary of running backs coach DeShaun Foster is $290,400 per year, after he signed a two-year contact on February 13th. \

    Even so, given the recruiting footprint they should still be killing it in recruiting and developing NFL players and fortunately for us, with a few exceptions they are spectacularly failing on all fronts.

  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Posts: 25,662
    10,000 Up Votes 10,000 Awesomes 25000 Comments Seventh Anniversary
    edited July 31

    I'll save you all the time.

    1) When Miles Jack left, their defense went from mediocre to a dumpster fire

    2) Great quarterback play hid many of the flaws at the skill positions, but saying Hundley and Rosen were great is a giant leap.

    3) Mora's recruits underperformed and Chip hasn't upped the quality.

    4) The commentator is a huge Eagles fan, so he pretty much hates Chip anyway.

    Defense was bad with Myles Jack. One year they were 80th in points allowed with a defense full of NFL players. A couple of them are even very good NFL players.

    Chip hit the jackpot at Oregon. He had a system that was rolling and he upped the quality of the program.

    Now, his offense is dated and different. He still hates recruiting. His defense sucks. UCLA is historically soft. Chip seems very lazy and he’s made a lot of money. He will always have his Oregon legacy and a net worth of tens of millions, provided he wasn’t retarded with his money.
Sign In or Register to comment.