[Goose]

[
UCLA
Mora's UCLA classes by 247sports (# nationally, # Pac 12)
2012: #18, #4
2013: #7, #1
2014: #18, #3
2015: #12, #2
2016: #13, #2
2017: #20, #4

Chip Kelly's classes
2018: #19, #4
2019: #85, #11 (so far - it's probably too early for this to be meaningful, especially with only 8 recruits)

Finally, a university's appeal to a football player is generally most dependent on the football program itself and not a strong function of the university's appeal to students broadly across the nation. After all, Alabama has the top recruiting class most every year.

Over the years, UCLA has always recruited "pretty well". No matter who the coaches were, they seem to get a fair number of good athletes. What is not to like? Westwood, a good school, and some good history. The problem has always been that UCLA always seems to lack something, no matter what they do get. Traditionally, it has been offensive line being composed of quick but not very big guys, and the same problem has appeared intermittently on the defense. Even in years that they appear not to have these issues, there are injuries and then they do. The fact Kelly was able to have a good class in his first year with a late start on recruiting shows that the UCLA name does mean something.
Unfortunately for Kelly, UCLA seems destined to always play second fiddle to USC. No matter what they do, it seems this is always so. Maybe Kelly can change that, but I doubt it. He will be under lots of pressure to win and win big now. I think the new "big money" at UCLA has little if any patience with trying to change the culture by evolution. Lots of pretty good coaches have come to UCLA, started out well, seemed to be going in the right direction, and then "crashed and burned". This has happened even during periods where USC was not, in fact, very good. I would be surprised if Kelly was not the next one in that line. There is just too much USC "legend" to overcome. If, OTOH, Kelly is successful, he definitely deserves a place in the coaching pantheon.

[Goose]

[
UCLA
Mora's UCLA classes by 247sports (# nationally, # Pac 12)
2012: #18, #4
2013: #7, #1
2014: #18, #3
2015: #12, #2
2016: #13, #2
2017: #20, #4

Chip Kelly's classes
2018: #19, #4
2019: #85, #11 (so far - it's probably too early for this to be meaningful, especially with only 8 recruits)

Finally, a university's appeal to a football player is generally most dependent on the football program itself and not a strong function of the university's appeal to students broadly across the nation. After all, Alabama has the top recruiting class most every year.

Over the years, UCLA has always recruited "pretty well". No matter who the coaches were, they seem to get a fair number of good athletes. What is not to like? Westwood, a good school, and some good history. The problem has always been that UCLA always seems to lack something, no matter what they do get. Traditionally, it has been offensive line being composed of quick but not very big guys, and the same problem has appeared intermittently on the defense. Even in years that they appear not to have these issues, there are injuries and then they do. The fact Kelly was able to have a good class in his first year with a late start on recruiting shows that the UCLA name does mean something.
Unfortunately for Kelly, UCLA seems destined to always play second fiddle to USC. No matter what they do, it seems this is always so. Maybe Kelly can change that, but I doubt it. He will be under lots of pressure to win and win big now. I think the new "big money" at UCLA has little if any patience with trying to change the culture by evolution. Lots of pretty good coaches have come to UCLA, started out well, seemed to be going in the right direction, and then "crashed and burned". This has happened even during periods where USC was not, in fact, very good. I would be surprised if Kelly was not the next one in that line. There is just too much USC "legend" to overcome. If, OTOH, Kelly is successful, he definitely deserves a place in the coaching pantheon.