In Reply to: Re: Concerns about a "big" posted by barrya on May 05, 2026 at 14:53:03
I get the concern, but I’m not as worried about the money side as most people. UCLA doesn’t have the kind of “blank check” resources that a handful of programs—like Louisville—can throw around, and that’s just reality. There are probably only five or six schools operating at that level. But beyond that tier, I think UCLA is competitive with just about everyone else.
To me, it comes down to approach as much as dollars. Look at what Bob Chesney is doing with the football program—he’s showing how far the right mindset and a smart, strategic plan can take you. Of course, UCLA isn’t going to win every head-to-head battle when another school is offering significantly more money. That’s just the landscape now. But there’s no value in dwelling on that, and I don’t buy the idea that the highest payroll automatically wins championships. There are too many examples across sports that prove otherwise.
Even in baseball, teams like the Mets consistently outspend everyone and don’t have the results to match. And the Dodgers—who spend big—were still one strike away from being eliminated by a team with a much smaller payroll. Money matters, but it’s not everything.
I also think UCLA still has a strong pitch. If you’ve watched Chesney’s press conference after spring practice, he did a great job laying out why this is a place players should want to be—and more importantly, he’s backing it up. Yes, UCLA will lose some players when the financial gap is too large, but there are plenty of players out there. The top programs can’t sign all of them.
In some ways, NIL may actually help a program like UCLA. Players today are thinking differently. Instead of sitting and waiting their turn at a place like Duke, they might choose to come to UCLA, earn comparable—or even better—money, and actually play. That combination of opportunity and exposure still carries a lot of weight, and UCLA can offer both at a high level.
At the end of the day, schools might spend big on a handful of elite players, but they’re not going to pay millions for depth guys who won’t see the floor. That’s where roster construction and development matter.
As for the bigs, I agree that last season left an impression, but I think it’s part of a larger trend. Over the past few years, the big men brought in haven’t consistently fit how Cronin wants to play. My sense is that if he truly prioritized that position, he would’ve landed one by now. It feels more like a matter of value—he’s not going to commit major resources to a player who may not outperform guys already on the roster.
You can look at someone like Johnson as an example—a player coming from a major program with experience who still couldn’t crack the rotation. The same goes for others like Jamerson and Kyle. That suggests it’s not just about bringing in size but about finding the right fit for the system.
I've linked Chesney's presser. Everyone who hasn't seen it should, but if you can care less about football, at least watch from the 8-minute mark to about 10:30. That's what I believe is important to this recruiting debate.