In Reply to: I don't post often on the football side posted by Cachorro on October 08, 2024 at 10:15:24
You miss a few key points:
1. At no point did any pundits, any posters on this board or any of the others or the pay sites suggest either that Foster was qualified to be a head coach or that his hire represented in any way, shape or form a good one. When his name first started getting tossed around as a candidate, many thought it was laughable, hoped it was a joke, but this is UCLA Football where we long ago stopped doing insanely stupid things in jest.
2. Yes he inherited a deeply flawed roster, so with all these things running against the program our genius AD elects to put us in even a bigger hole by hiring an inexperienced and abjectly underqualified legacy with the personality of worn out block of concrete (some worn out blocks of concrete may be insulted by this comparison).
3. Our AD is arguably among the most worthless and unqualified of any in the country. He conducted an "exhaustive" 37 hour coaching search before bowing to the players (many of whom a qualified coach - see Indiana's coach - would have gladly let walk away from the program in favor of brining in his own guys who better fit the system - again, current system on Offense is nothing like previous one and current Defense is just nonexistent. In short this hire represented laziness, lack of vision, and a total lack of leadership on the part of Jarmond.
4. While many fans were happy to see Chip go (and would have liked to have seen it happen much sooner as a result of our AD having taken decisive action as opposed to allowing Chip to screw us even more than he had the previous 6 years of his illustrious tenure), the Four Pillars of Incompetent Leadership aren't exactly going to keep an already reeling fanbase energized in face of one embarrassing defeat after another. Regardless of who we are losing to, the fact that we are not even competitive in any of the games is EMBARRASSING for a program that once upon a time actually mattered
It was evident in season 1 that Chip was going to run the program into the ground, yet so many said, he deserves at least 3 years, oh give him another year, one more year and then we'll really know, he earned another season because we be SUC - lost to every team with .500 record but we beat SUC, Chip got 6 years and $30 million+. It took all of one game to see that hiring Dorrell was a mistake, He got 5 years. It took one season to see that Neu was not the guy, he got 4 years. It was obvious that Mora was checked out 2 years before he was let go, but he got to stay long enough to do 2 years worth of additional damage to the program. Sometimes it just makes sense to own your mistakes and say "hey, I f'd up, but here's what I'm going to do to fix it" and cut losses in order to move forward. We have now seen this show several times before and don't need 2-3 years to confirm where we already know this is already headed.
Landing Bienemy was hardly a huge coup. His track record when he was actually responsible for calling plays was pretty dismal. Moreover, the fact that after being a part of the Dorrell's West Coast Offense experiments at both UCLA and CU, neither of which gave any reason for hope whatsoever, he came back to UCLA and thought, "hey yeah, let's try it again" speaks volumes.
So yeah, this ship isn't sinking, it's already sunk, and calling Foster to replaced is hardly rash, it is far more measured and logical than what you are proposing.