...while a bad coach makes a team 30% worse
(per a soccer manager)
This makes a lot of sense to me. A bad coach is disproportionally deleterious than a good coach is good.
We'll all be on Chesney Watch as the season unfolds. I have no basis for this opinion, but my sense is the Ucla talent isn't top 10% in the country. QB play is so crucial to a team's success (on both sides of the ball, and in the kicking game, too), and I'm just not convinced (until i see it in the face of live fire) that Nico has the downfield touch and accuracy to find and complete those 20 to 30 strikes downfield on a regular basis (80% of the time) that gash the D, create chunk plays, demoralize the opponent to an extent, and fire up the fanbase.
So if Ucla punches above its weight, that's the 10% lift a good coach provides.