[Goose]

1699898991[/url]']
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/plaschke-uc...00255.html

Newspaper articles like this one don't necessarily mean much, but it does seem like UCLA is at best stuck in mediocrity. Kelly has about an 8.6 million buyout, which doesn't look like much in today's football world. However, UCLA athletics has a large structural deficit (or so they say) and spending that much to get rid of a coach would have issues. Kelly has had 6 years or so, and things aren't improving. If anything, they are getting worse.

Of course, replacing Kelly would both cost money and not necessarily produce much better results. UCLA has replaced several coaches that had better records than Kelly, but none of them put UCLA in the "top tier", which is where they believe they should be. I can see a scenario where Kelly defeats USC and is given another year. If he loses to USC, it is much harder to see how UCLA chooses to retain him, given his results and trajectory.

In this era of bloated salaries and buyouts, it is the donors who call the shots (see Texas A&M, etc.).  The Bruin donor community will fund the buyout if they decide it is time for Kelly to go.

True, but at UCLA things haven't turned out to be that simple. The "new" coach and assistants will cost more than Kelly et al, but the boosters will pay that too. However, it will be the "unexpected costs" of many million dollars that won't get covered that will be the problem. UCLA went through this when they brought Kelly in. No reason to expect anything different this time around. The increasing deficit in the department is the issue the AD will have to explain. It will be interesting to see what affect the supposed B1G "windfall" will have at UCLA. Apparently, even this isn't going to solve the problem, and that is without really knowing what the cost increases in other sports will actually be.

[Goose]

1699898991[/url]']
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/plaschke-uc...00255.html

Newspaper articles like this one don't necessarily mean much, but it does seem like UCLA is at best stuck in mediocrity. Kelly has about an 8.6 million buyout, which doesn't look like much in today's football world. However, UCLA athletics has a large structural deficit (or so they say) and spending that much to get rid of a coach would have issues. Kelly has had 6 years or so, and things aren't improving. If anything, they are getting worse.

Of course, replacing Kelly would both cost money and not necessarily produce much better results. UCLA has replaced several coaches that had better records than Kelly, but none of them put UCLA in the "top tier", which is where they believe they should be. I can see a scenario where Kelly defeats USC and is given another year. If he loses to USC, it is much harder to see how UCLA chooses to retain him, given his results and trajectory.

In this era of bloated salaries and buyouts, it is the donors who call the shots (see Texas A&M, etc.).  The Bruin donor community will fund the buyout if they decide it is time for Kelly to go.

True, but at UCLA things haven't turned out to be that simple. The "new" coach and assistants will cost more than Kelly et al, but the boosters will pay that too. However, it will be the "unexpected costs" of many million dollars that won't get covered that will be the problem. UCLA went through this when they brought Kelly in. No reason to expect anything different this time around. The increasing deficit in the department is the issue the AD will have to explain. It will be interesting to see what affect the supposed B1G "windfall" will have at UCLA. Apparently, even this isn't going to solve the problem, and that is without really knowing what the cost increases in other sports will actually be.