In Reply to: If you remember, coaches weren't exactly beating down posted by ej on April 22, 2026 at 16:21:20
And aside from the surprising Covid year tourney run, have found him to be about what I expected, though I didn't expect he would be nearly as big the jackarse he proven to be.
And the same, "who else are we going to get?" argument was used by many to justify keeping Chip Kelly well past his expiration date (which to me was before he even arrived at UCLA), and which gave him the extra time he needed to fully run the program into the ground and leave UCLA holding the ball of sh!t he created as he skedaddled off for greener pastures. That you can't imagine anyone much better than Cronin wanting the job doesn't somehow make Cronin any better than he actually is, which as already pointed out is "pretty good." For what Cronin is being paid by UCLA, I would guess there are quite a few coaches with
"pretty good" resumes who would consider coming to UCLA, and perhaps some that might be even a tad better than pretty good and might also have a bit more potential upside than the guy who has shown his ceiling to be inline with his stature.
While time will tell what kind of results he is able to deliver, I think the general consensus is already that UCLA Football is in better hands with Chesney than it was when Chip bailed. I think at a certain point, continuing to pay top dollar for a relatively decent product is worth questioning and considering making a change. I think bringing someone in with a different energy than CMC could help to move the needle on the all important NIL side of things as well. The fact that there is going to be a degree of risk with any hire isn't a valid argument for staying the course on something that doesn't promise to work better than pretty good. And while the Wooden Dynasty is obviously in the distant past, the standard of striving for excellence at UCLA should remain the same. Regardless of whether that standard is consistently met, the goal should never be to simply be okay.