|
|
Post by bvrbred on Nov 13, 2023 12:32:47 GMT -8
I agree, but I can't understand why. UCLA is a good school in a big market, so it should be easy to recruit good men, much easier than OSU or WSU. So this would imply that what is missing is a good coach. Yet they stick with Chip for 6 years? I can't understand why. It's as if they've become complacent. UCLA does not have the investment in football that USC has. It has always been the way. They may be in a big market, but they don't have the support behind their team. Their football practice fields aren't even 100 yards. They also play their home games a long way from campus and don't get the support from their student body. It's not quite as easy of a job as it seems. If you look at the records of coaches going back 30 years, that has to be true. Since Terry Donahue left (1995) the only coaches who have made major bowls are Toledo (1 Rose, 1 Cotton), and Mora (1 Alamo, 1 Holiday). Kelly was invited to the Holiday but the game didn't take place. Dorrell's best was the Sun. Neuheisel's best was the Kraft Fight Hunger. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Nov 13, 2023 15:17:21 GMT -8
I agree, but I can't understand why. UCLA is a good school in a big market, so it should be easy to recruit good men, much easier than OSU or WSU. So this would imply that what is missing is a good coach. Yet they stick with Chip for 6 years? I can't understand why. It's as if they've become complacent. UCLA does not have the investment in football that USC has. It has always been the way. They may be in a big market, but they don't have the support behind their team. Their football practice fields aren't even 100 yards. They also play their home games a long way from campus and don't get the support from their student body. It's not quite as easy of a job as it seems. I'm not sure that a comparison with USC is appropriate. Certainly, USC and UCLA are on different levels. But UCLA in the 80s and 90s was a formidable team, with presumably the same practice fields and same issue with the stadium and the student body. As for the investment in the football program, what exactly does that mean? After all, Chip isn't cheap. And I'm sure Mora wasn't either. Where is the lack of investment? |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Nov 13, 2023 15:49:15 GMT -8
UCLA does not have the investment in football that USC has. It has always been the way. They may be in a big market, but they don't have the support behind their team. Their football practice fields aren't even 100 yards. They also play their home games a long way from campus and don't get the support from their student body. It's not quite as easy of a job as it seems. I'm not sure that a comparison with USC is appropriate. Certainly, USC and UCLA are on different levels. But UCLA in the 80s and 90s was a formidable team, with presumably the same practice fields and same issue with the stadium and the student body. As for the investment in the football program, what exactly does that mean? After all, Chip isn't cheap. And I'm sure Mora wasn't either. Where is the lack of investment? I think you answered your own question. OSU was formidable in the 80's and early 90's in basketball with the same arena. Facilities, recruiting budget.....etc. They're a basketball school. It takes a lot more investment in football to win now then it did back then. Paying a football coach is only part of it. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Nov 13, 2023 16:23:59 GMT -8
I'm not sure that a comparison with USC is appropriate. Certainly, USC and UCLA are on different levels. But UCLA in the 80s and 90s was a formidable team, with presumably the same practice fields and same issue with the stadium and the student body. As for the investment in the football program, what exactly does that mean? After all, Chip isn't cheap. And I'm sure Mora wasn't either. Where is the lack of investment? I think you answered your own question. OSU was formidable in the 80's and early 90's in basketball with the same arena. Facilities, recruiting budget.....etc. They're a basketball school. It takes a lot more investment in football to win now then it did back then. Paying a football coach is only part of it. Good analogy. Got it. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Nov 13, 2023 19:59:37 GMT -8
UCLA's problems with their football program are an eternal mystery. There are tons of great recruits in Southern California, USC can only sign 85 of them every 4 years, and UCLA is very highly thought of. But the kids go elsewhere. A few years ago, there were 3 Orange County quarterbacks ranked in the top ten nationally, and USC seemed set at that position. Bryce Young went to Alabama, Stroud to Ohio State, and DJ to Clemson.
Oh well, may they become Big 10 doormats.
|
|
