In Reply to: If Chesney was stepping in at Wisconsin, I would agree with you. posted by BluBlood on May 11, 2026 at 14:19:04
I'm not demanding it, I'm just stating that if UCLA can't turn it around by the end of 2027, we are likely to be f*cked.
It has nothing to do with how good or bad Chesney is, just that the timeline for the next Iteration of CFB conference/TV musical chairs is very likely to be based upon if we look like a team which should be in the haves and not the have nots of college football.
This could be a super conference, or the B1G going to a massively tiered revenue structure designed so that the top brands always get richer and the bottom feeders (which would include us), get a smaller and smaller chunk of the pie.
No matter how bad 'SC is over the next couple of years, they're in. That does not appear to be the case for UCLA.
And it is important to note that UCLA's best football years (late 60's-late 90's) were mostly driven by UCLA having a money advantage due to being in LA and on TV more than other schools (or at least still leveraging that pull, as the CFA imploded in the early 90's).