In Reply to: I don't post often on the football side posted by Cachorro on October 08, 2024 at 10:15:24
1) I don't think many are really calling for Foster's dismissal yet. I think it's more of a realization that he is so incompetent that we assume his firing is inevitable.
2) I think people were so done with Chip that they wanted to buy into the initial marketing of DF. Whereas Chip was aloof and uninterested in selling the program to anyone, DF would be the young, energetic guy who loves UCLA and would be a good salesman for the program. UCLA released some photo ops of him meeting with donors, and some people really wanted to believe. The problem is that Foster is not energetic or charismatic, and does not appear to be igniting donor interest.
3) Vegas doesn't "feel" anything about UCLA. They set a line to draw bettors in, and bettors move the line up and down. The lines and bets are not merely an indicator of how inherently good/talented or bad/untalented UCLA is, to the extent that winning or losing against the spread indicates whether a coach is doing a "good" or "bad" job. For one thing, particularly after Hawaii, the lines were set based on the widespread belief that Foster is *not a good coach*. Thus to argue that "we are better than Vegas thinks, and therefore Foster is not thaaat bad" makes no sense. The best you can say is that Foster is not quite as bad as the betting public thinks.
4) Similarly, the season has only gone "as expected" if you factor in a preconceived (i.e., poor) opinion of DF going into the season. If you place DF against a hypothetical, well-qualified, reasonable hire, I think we are doing much, much worse. This team can't hardly score at all, and has not been competitive in the second half of any of our 4 losses except for a few minutes here and there.
5) Bieniemy is a complete failure. We went from being one of the best rushing teams in the FBS for several years running to being one of the absolute worst. We can barely score. His offense appears too complicated. Kids don't care if he was a hanger-on for Super Bowl teams. What is his track record for success in college, or as an OC? If EB was so good in the NFL, why is he working under DF instead of in the pros?
6) IMO, "doing our part" means getting this thing over as quickly as possible. Of course, DF has to be given a reasonable chance to succeed. This means probably at least 2 years, but if he wins 1-2 this year, I'd say it's plenty clear that he has no chance here. He's not exactly getting the shaft; he will collect millions to go sit on his couch or coach RB's at San Diego St.
Lastly, we've been having this debate for decades here, heard it all before. Coach needs X number of years, "his" players, better fan support, new assistants, etc. Looking for microscopic improvements, silver linings, corner turnings, moral victories, and beating dumbed down expectations.
Let me ask you this: what is the mechanism by which DF can succeed at UCLA? Brilliant X's and O's? No. Inspiring people and selling the program to donors and recruits? No. A sugar daddy like Phil Knight? No. The relationships or cache in the coaching community to attract great assistants? No.
The guy has no chance. If you disagree, save this post and let's revisit later to see how it turned out.