In Reply to: Good job of summary of UCLA football's current issues posted by KirklandBruin on September 18, 2024 at 11:20:11
These guys are morons. They thought getting rid of Chip would help even though it was abundantly clear that would be a mistake. It's proved to be a mistake of colossal proportions, the impact of which will linger here for years.
They're finally waking up to the fact that the systemic problem we have isn't the coach or the players, it's Morgan Center, and behind that it's Ucla.
They naively think they'll see some sort of Renaissance for Bruin football because the chancellor will suddenly get behind the program as Young was back in the day. That's a stupid fantasy, the kind of mindless mental masturbation that typifies the Ucla fan base. It'll never happen.
If the new chancellor retains Jarmond it will be the signal that Ucla supports mediocrity in football and it will then just be a matter of time until we get booted from the big time and go extinct.
If the new chancellor fires Jarmond, that by itself would mean nothing. Replacing him with a football first, hands on, full-throated unapologetic supporter of football with business and profit experience would be needed to signal a positive change for us. Replacing Jarmond with another Jarmond, a lifelong government services bureaucrat, would be a death knell for the program.
We need a forklift upgrade to our system. We need the existing Morgan Center forklifted out of football and replaced by a team of autonomous, non-Ucla contract executives with smallish salaries and meaningful performance bonuses based on wins and losses. If incentive contracts are good enough for coaches, why wouldn't they be good for the executives?