In Reply to: This article says UCLA suffered the sharpest decline in the Power 5 posted by TJJ on August 18, 2025 at 17:51:50
The article correlates attendance results to coaching stints. Dumb. Might as well correlate attendance results to individual players. Also dumb.
This is a multi-factor cause-effect dynamic. For instance, if ticket prices were $5 each, we'd see greatly changed results, probably far greater attendance regardless of opponent or starting time or coach or team quality. If the attendance results are undesirable, that can only mean the weight of each factor is not being managed properly by those in control.
So, who has direct control over these factors?
The permanent regime at Morgan Center. Jarmond's made so many disastrous venue management choices, scheduling decisions and pricing mistakes it would take a few pages to list them all.
But, by all means, let's put all of this on the coaches. That feels better, doesn't boys? After all, this complicated, mult-factor management stuff kinda hurts my head. Feels too much like work.
Let's stay dumb about it. Let's not hold elite Ucla accountable! Let's keep adoring them despite their pathetic failure and their ongoing destruction of the program! Let's resist all thoughts of change. Trojie! Troll! Haha, wafj
If you can remove the pro-Ucla (anti-coach) bias, you'll observe the easily seen fact that the Pac12 was deteriorating during this measurement period. Six of the losers are Pac12---half the conference. Only 1 Pac12 team is a winner, Utah, which had its Rose Bowl teams then.