The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

I said this over on the re-alignment board...
Kelly is trying to coach at a school that has NOT had a head football coach last more that six years since Terry Donahue retired back in 1996. That's almost 25 years. A couple of those coaches lasted less than three years. Some of them were actually fired after WINNING seasons and campaigns; most notably Bob Toledo.

That means that every time a coach got a system established and "his" players established in a recruiting pipeline...boom...they're gone. The whole house is torn down and a new coach has to start over again. That's where Chip Kelly is right now: he's had one season and one game to recruit and establish "his" system. And already, people are lighting the torches to get rid of him.

And lets be honest: UCLA is a "Basketball" brand, USC is historically the "Football" brand in LA. So UCLA doesn't immediately "get" the benefit of the doubt with local players. Can UCLA be good? Certainly. But that's not a guarantee...

And here's the kicker...I'm not a "Chip Kelly" fan. I hated him at Oregon and in both his stops in the NFL (San Fran and Philly). So I could care less about "Chip Kelly" actually succeeding. But I also don't want to hear UC's win being devalued.

(08-30-2019 04:40 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:15 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:02 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 11:27 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 10:15 AM)ucbandguy Wrote:  From Pat Ford's article on Yahoo. Perhaps aimed toward Pac 12 audience.

https://sports.yahoo.com/chip-kellys-gre...01682.html

A couple of cherry picked quotes below.

"Kelly credited the Bearcats and their fans after the 24-14 defeat dropped his UCLA record to 3-10. He talked about injuries and academic issues that kept several of his players off the field in this season opener. He mentioned, several times, how young his team is — 48 new players, by his accounting, and a total of 87 freshmen and sophomores."

"I saw a guy who was dealt a difficult hand — but also dealt $23 million over five years to make it better, sooner rather than later. I saw a guy who had to make fundamental changes to his offensive personnel — but in game 13 of the Kelly tenure the Bruins recorded their lowest yardage output since Nov. 3, 2016. I saw a guy who correctly pointed out the quality of his opponent here — but also made it sound like Nippert Stadium is a venue on par with Bryant-Denny or Death Valley in terms of hostility."

Some good quotes in there for us Bearcat fans.
Also, didn't Kelly complain last year about how young his team was? I wonder how long he can get away with that line?

I read this article that compares kelly to Fickell and wonder; do you ever take a retread. Other than Urban Meyers, it appears that these retreads do not have the belly burn as an up and comer.

I think that's way too simplistic. How do you define a "retread"? By some definitions/accounts, Fickell was a retread himself.

For me, a retread is a coach that has a large amount of success at a job. Subsequently they bomb either in the same job or another and quit. They resurface in a "lesser job." I never considered Fickell a retread because he never has been to the top of the mountain. This is why I never supported, on this board, Charlie Strong as a coaching candidate as opposed to Luke Fickell.

Since we are talking west coast college football, Pete Carroll was a pretty good "retread" pick at USC, no?

But back to CLF. Fickell was a very successful DC and became the (interim) Head Football Coach at The Ohio State University for a full season of games and lead them to one of the worst seasons in their recent history. Yes of course I get that there were extenuating circumstances there, but that's kind of my point about trying to define and stereotype "retreads". And it appears Fickell himself considers this his "second act".

Nick Saban was a retread.

Bobby Petrino was great at Western Kentucky. He was decent 2nd time around at Louisville too.

Louisville is where it is today because of retread Howard Schnellenberger. He won a national championship at Miami, took a year off, and then took a job with a team that played a minor league baseball stadium (Louisville played at the Bats' stadium until 1997).

Lou Holtz turned around a struggling South Carolina program after being essentially fired from Notre Dame & taking two years off.

Charlie Strong has done well at USF so far.

(08-30-2019 11:22 AM)JUSTGOPLAY Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 08:28 AM)ucbandguy Wrote:  First - Just because Nippert has a big sound system, that does not mean it should be blasting all the time. I was on the 50 yard line, and it was just too loud.

The sound system was playing while the QB's were calling plays. Just NO.

The PA was blasting while the band was playing. NO. This is a college football game. If I want to hear a sound system covering everything, I can go down and watch the bungles. Or find an arena fb game.

Does someone want to start a sound system thread. I will go and rant there too.

Our season tix are in the Bearcat Lair, the sound system is so loud down there your ears bleed. Our crew has been going down to the student section, which is a friggin' blast, since Dantonio was the coach....Nippert at Night is the greatest....UCLA football fans may be the nicest people on the planet. They had a pretty sizable contingent at the game. We spent time before the game with a man and wife that drove from LA to Cincy. They were on a two week vacation, and headed to Nashville then Memphis on their way back home. The guy said " Man, sorry about stealing your basketball coach". All we could reply was "No No No, he's all yours we're good".

The sound system usage is abusive to fans.

(08-30-2019 04:52 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  That's where Chip Kelly is right now: he's had one season and one game to recruit and establish "his" system. And already, people are lighting the torches to get rid of him.

Honestly, I think Chip Kelly is more "in name only." He seems gassed at this point in his career. I think the NFL chewed him up and spit him out. He had a good thing going in Oregon but that seems ages ago. In terms of lighting the torches, is that not typical at any program that wants to win? He's now 3-10 at UCLA and this follows the 2017 Jim Mora season of 6-7, preceeded by seasons of 4-8 and 8-5. I get it. Fans and alumni want to win and win now. They want to see signs of improvement. Heck, there were folks on this Board that were openly questioning the hiring of Luke Fickell after his 4-8 campaign in Year 1. It's on Chip to motivate his players and find a way to adapt his "system" to the talent he has and not the other way around. That's why he gets paid the big bucks and the expectations are also big.

(08-30-2019 04:52 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I said this over on the re-alignment board...
Kelly is trying to coach at a school that has NOT had a head football coach last more that six years since Terry Donahue retired back in 1996. That's almost 25 years. A couple of those coaches lasted less than three years. Some of them were actually fired after WINNING seasons and campaigns; most notably Bob Toledo.

That means that every time a coach got a system established and "his" players established in a recruiting pipeline...boom...they're gone. The whole house is torn down and a new coach has to start over again. That's where Chip Kelly is right now: he's had one season and one game to recruit and establish "his" system. And already, people are lighting the torches to get rid of him.

And lets be honest: UCLA is a "Basketball" brand, USC is historically the "Football" brand in LA. So UCLA doesn't immediately "get" the benefit of the doubt with local players. Can UCLA be good? Certainly. But that's not a guarantee...

And here's the kicker...I'm not a "Chip Kelly" fan. I hated him at Oregon and in both his stops in the NFL (San Fran and Philly). So I could care less about "Chip Kelly" actually succeeding. But I also don't want to hear UC's win being devalued.

Yeah, it's odd that a school with such poor historical performance has such high expectations.

(08-30-2019 05:32 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:52 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  That's where Chip Kelly is right now: he's had one season and one game to recruit and establish "his" system. And already, people are lighting the torches to get rid of him.

Honestly, I think Chip Kelly is more "in name only." He seems gassed at this point in his career. I think the NFL chewed him up and spit him out. He had a good thing going in Oregon but that seems ages ago. In terms of lighting the torches, is that not typical at any program that wants to win? He's now 3-10 at UCLA and this follows the 2017 Jim Mora season of 6-7, preceeded by seasons of 4-8 and 8-5. I get it. Fans and alumni want to win and win now. They want to see signs of improvement. Heck, there were folks on this Board that were openly questioning the hiring of Luke Fickell after his 4-8 campaign in Year 1. It's on Chip to motivate his players and find a way to adapt his "system" to the talent he has and not the other way around. That's why he gets paid the big bucks and the expectations are also big.

Plain and simple - UCLA needs a QB. Additionally they need to dance less and play real football. Seems to me like California personified.

(08-30-2019 05:52 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:52 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I said this over on the re-alignment board...
Kelly is trying to coach at a school that has NOT had a head football coach last more that six years since Terry Donahue retired back in 1996. That's almost 25 years. A couple of those coaches lasted less than three years. Some of them were actually fired after WINNING seasons and campaigns; most notably Bob Toledo.

That means that every time a coach got a system established and "his" players established in a recruiting pipeline...boom...they're gone. The whole house is torn down and a new coach has to start over again. That's where Chip Kelly is right now: he's had one season and one game to recruit and establish "his" system. And already, people are lighting the torches to get rid of him.

And lets be honest: UCLA is a "Basketball" brand, USC is historically the "Football" brand in LA. So UCLA doesn't immediately "get" the benefit of the doubt with local players. Can UCLA be good? Certainly. But that's not a guarantee...

And here's the kicker...I'm not a "Chip Kelly" fan. I hated him at Oregon and in both his stops in the NFL (San Fran and Philly). So I could care less about "Chip Kelly" actually succeeding. But I also don't want to hear UC's win being devalued.

Yeah, it's odd that a school with such poor historical performance has such high expectations.

Because they backed up the truck to hire a name coach. Image expectations if we'd hired Pitino to get us over the hump in basketball. Same principle with UCLA FB.

(08-30-2019 04:40 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:15 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:02 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 11:27 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 10:15 AM)ucbandguy Wrote:  From Pat Ford's article on Yahoo. Perhaps aimed toward Pac 12 audience.

https://sports.yahoo.com/chip-kellys-gre...01682.html

A couple of cherry picked quotes below.

"Kelly credited the Bearcats and their fans after the 24-14 defeat dropped his UCLA record to 3-10. He talked about injuries and academic issues that kept several of his players off the field in this season opener. He mentioned, several times, how young his team is — 48 new players, by his accounting, and a total of 87 freshmen and sophomores."

"I saw a guy who was dealt a difficult hand — but also dealt $23 million over five years to make it better, sooner rather than later. I saw a guy who had to make fundamental changes to his offensive personnel — but in game 13 of the Kelly tenure the Bruins recorded their lowest yardage output since Nov. 3, 2016. I saw a guy who correctly pointed out the quality of his opponent here — but also made it sound like Nippert Stadium is a venue on par with Bryant-Denny or Death Valley in terms of hostility."

Some good quotes in there for us Bearcat fans.
Also, didn't Kelly complain last year about how young his team was? I wonder how long he can get away with that line?

I read this article that compares kelly to Fickell and wonder; do you ever take a retread. Other than Urban Meyers, it appears that these retreads do not have the belly burn as an up and comer.

I think that's way too simplistic. How do you define a "retread"? By some definitions/accounts, Fickell was a retread himself.

For me, a retread is a coach that has a large amount of success at a job. Subsequently they bomb either in the same job or another and quit. They resurface in a "lesser job." I never considered Fickell a retread because he never has been to the top of the mountain. This is why I never supported, on this board, Charlie Strong as a coaching candidate as opposed to Luke Fickell.

Since we are talking west coast college football, Pete Carroll was a pretty good "retread" pick at USC, no?

But back to CLF. Fickell was a very successful DC and became the (interim) Head Football Coach at The Ohio State University for a full season of games and lead them to one of the worst seasons in their recent history. Yes of course I get that there were extenuating circumstances there, but that's kind of my point about trying to define and stereotype "retreads". And it appears Fickell himself considers this his "second act".

I am not sure of your point. You named Pete Carroll, I could probably name a list a mile long of unsuccessful retreads. And again, I would not consider Fickell a retread, because he never had success in the first place. It is my idea that the retread does not have the burn because they are already accomplished. They made their mark and now are unwilling to do what it takes to get back to top form. Whether Luke Fickel considers it a second bite at the apple is immaterial. He never made it before.

(08-30-2019 06:48 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 05:32 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:52 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  That's where Chip Kelly is right now: he's had one season and one game to recruit and establish "his" system. And already, people are lighting the torches to get rid of him.

Honestly, I think Chip Kelly is more "in name only." He seems gassed at this point in his career. I think the NFL chewed him up and spit him out. He had a good thing going in Oregon but that seems ages ago. In terms of lighting the torches, is that not typical at any program that wants to win? He's now 3-10 at UCLA and this follows the 2017 Jim Mora season of 6-7, preceeded by seasons of 4-8 and 8-5. I get it. Fans and alumni want to win and win now. They want to see signs of improvement. Heck, there were folks on this Board that were openly questioning the hiring of Luke Fickell after his 4-8 campaign in Year 1. It's on Chip to motivate his players and find a way to adapt his "system" to the talent he has and not the other way around. That's why he gets paid the big bucks and the expectations are also big.

Plain and simple - UCLA needs a QB. Additionally they need to dance less and play real football. Seems to me like California personified.

They need a QB, but overlooked is their offensive line was getting dominated as well. They rushed for what 62 yards on the night, most coming on one drive later in the game? The QB was getting hurried and sacked all night.

(08-30-2019 07:05 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:40 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:15 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:02 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 11:27 AM)rosewater Wrote:  I read this article that compares kelly to Fickell and wonder; do you ever take a retread. Other than Urban Meyers, it appears that these retreads do not have the belly burn as an up and comer.

I think that's way too simplistic. How do you define a "retread"? By some definitions/accounts, Fickell was a retread himself.

For me, a retread is a coach that has a large amount of success at a job. Subsequently they bomb either in the same job or another and quit. They resurface in a "lesser job." I never considered Fickell a retread because he never has been to the top of the mountain. This is why I never supported, on this board, Charlie Strong as a coaching candidate as opposed to Luke Fickell.

Since we are talking west coast college football, Pete Carroll was a pretty good "retread" pick at USC, no?

But back to CLF. Fickell was a very successful DC and became the (interim) Head Football Coach at The Ohio State University for a full season of games and lead them to one of the worst seasons in their recent history. Yes of course I get that there were extenuating circumstances there, but that's kind of my point about trying to define and stereotype "retreads". And it appears Fickell himself considers this his "second act".

I am not sure of your point. You named Pete Carroll, I could probably name a list a mile long of unsuccessful retreads. And again, I would not consider Fickell a retread, because he never had success in the first place. It is my idea that the retread does not have the burn because they are already accomplished. They made their mark and now are unwilling to do what it takes to get back to top form. Whether Luke Fickel considers it a second bite at the apple is immaterial. He never made it before.

Was Double Tee a retread?

(08-30-2019 05:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:40 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:15 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:02 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 11:27 AM)rosewater Wrote:  I read this article that compares kelly to Fickell and wonder; do you ever take a retread. Other than Urban Meyers, it appears that these retreads do not have the belly burn as an up and comer.

I think that's way too simplistic. How do you define a "retread"? By some definitions/accounts, Fickell was a retread himself.

For me, a retread is a coach that has a large amount of success at a job. Subsequently they bomb either in the same job or another and quit. They resurface in a "lesser job." I never considered Fickell a retread because he never has been to the top of the mountain. This is why I never supported, on this board, Charlie Strong as a coaching candidate as opposed to Luke Fickell.

Since we are talking west coast college football, Pete Carroll was a pretty good "retread" pick at USC, no?

But back to CLF. Fickell was a very successful DC and became the (interim) Head Football Coach at The Ohio State University for a full season of games and lead them to one of the worst seasons in their recent history. Yes of course I get that there were extenuating circumstances there, but that's kind of my point about trying to define and stereotype "retreads". And it appears Fickell himself considers this his "second act".

Nick Saban was a retread.

Bobby Petrino was great at Western Kentucky. He was decent 2nd time around at Louisville too.

Louisville is where it is today because of retread Howard Schnellenberger. He won a national championship at Miami, took a year off, and then took a job with a team that played a minor league baseball stadium (Louisville played at the Bats' stadium until 1997).

Lou Holtz turned around a struggling South Carolina program after being essentially fired from Notre Dame & taking two years off.

Charlie Strong has done well at USF so far.

I think a retread has had to have had two characteristics: an accomplished high level position followed by a washout. Saban, Petrino, and Schnellenberger never washed out. Lou Holtz was a retread and had good seasons at usc but his overall record was 33-37, kinda meh. I think Charlie Strong is running USF into the ground as a classic retread like CTT. He was gifted a good program but trending downward.

(08-30-2019 07:12 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 07:05 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:40 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:15 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:02 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I think that's way too simplistic. How do you define a "retread"? By some definitions/accounts, Fickell was a retread himself.

For me, a retread is a coach that has a large amount of success at a job. Subsequently they bomb either in the same job or another and quit. They resurface in a "lesser job." I never considered Fickell a retread because he never has been to the top of the mountain. This is why I never supported, on this board, Charlie Strong as a coaching candidate as opposed to Luke Fickell.

Since we are talking west coast college football, Pete Carroll was a pretty good "retread" pick at USC, no?

But back to CLF. Fickell was a very successful DC and became the (interim) Head Football Coach at The Ohio State University for a full season of games and lead them to one of the worst seasons in their recent history. Yes of course I get that there were extenuating circumstances there, but that's kind of my point about trying to define and stereotype "retreads". And it appears Fickell himself considers this his "second act".

I am not sure of your point. You named Pete Carroll, I could probably name a list a mile long of unsuccessful retreads. And again, I would not consider Fickell a retread, because he never had success in the first place. It is my idea that the retread does not have the burn because they are already accomplished. They made their mark and now are unwilling to do what it takes to get back to top form. Whether Luke Fickel considers it a second bite at the apple is immaterial. He never made it before.

Was Double Tee a retread?

Encyclopedia Britannica has his face as the classic retread look. Coach with head phones listening to Waylon Jennings on the side line.

(08-30-2019 07:18 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 07:12 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Was Double Tee a retread?

Encyclopedia Britannica has his face as the classic retread look. Coach with head phones listening to Waylon Jennings on the side line.

Retread twice removed.

(08-30-2019 07:05 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:40 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:15 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:02 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 11:27 AM)rosewater Wrote:  I read this article that compares kelly to Fickell and wonder; do you ever take a retread. Other than Urban Meyers, it appears that these retreads do not have the belly burn as an up and comer.

I think that's way too simplistic. How do you define a "retread"? By some definitions/accounts, Fickell was a retread himself.

For me, a retread is a coach that has a large amount of success at a job. Subsequently they bomb either in the same job or another and quit. They resurface in a "lesser job." I never considered Fickell a retread because he never has been to the top of the mountain. This is why I never supported, on this board, Charlie Strong as a coaching candidate as opposed to Luke Fickell.

Since we are talking west coast college football, Pete Carroll was a pretty good "retread" pick at USC, no?

But back to CLF. Fickell was a very successful DC and became the (interim) Head Football Coach at The Ohio State University for a full season of games and lead them to one of the worst seasons in their recent history. Yes of course I get that there were extenuating circumstances there, but that's kind of my point about trying to define and stereotype "retreads". And it appears Fickell himself considers this his "second act".

I am not sure of your point. You named Pete Carroll, I could probably name a list a mile long of unsuccessful retreads. And again, I would not consider Fickell a retread, because he never had success in the first place. It is my idea that the retread does not have the burn because they are already accomplished. They made their mark and now are unwilling to do what it takes to get back to top form. Whether Luke Fickel considers it a second bite at the apple is immaterial. He never made it before.

Fickell was very successful as a DC (national assistant coach of the year in 2010), but then had a terrible year as HC. Sounds like it fits your definition:

"For me, a retread is a coach that has a large amount of success at a job. Subsequently, they bomb either in the same job or another."

Does that mean OSU shouldn't have rehired him as DC because he presumably lost his burn? Does it apply to ADs? How does Mike Bohn fit in this retread assumption?

Or is this just for HC jobs? If I understand you correctly, you'd prefer a guy who has failed at the level you are hiring for over a guy who has been successful in the same level job but subsequently struggled for whatever reason. Well, I'll give you this: you will always have a huge pool to hire from because most people won't already have been successful at the level you are looking to hire from.

Long live King Retread!

^^^^
Hold the phone!

(08-30-2019 07:40 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 07:05 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:40 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:15 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:02 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I think that's way too simplistic. How do you define a "retread"? By some definitions/accounts, Fickell was a retread himself.

For me, a retread is a coach that has a large amount of success at a job. Subsequently they bomb either in the same job or another and quit. They resurface in a "lesser job." I never considered Fickell a retread because he never has been to the top of the mountain. This is why I never supported, on this board, Charlie Strong as a coaching candidate as opposed to Luke Fickell.

Since we are talking west coast college football, Pete Carroll was a pretty good "retread" pick at USC, no?

But back to CLF. Fickell was a very successful DC and became the (interim) Head Football Coach at The Ohio State University for a full season of games and lead them to one of the worst seasons in their recent history. Yes of course I get that there were extenuating circumstances there, but that's kind of my point about trying to define and stereotype "retreads". And it appears Fickell himself considers this his "second act".

I am not sure of your point. You named Pete Carroll, I could probably name a list a mile long of unsuccessful retreads. And again, I would not consider Fickell a retread, because he never had success in the first place. It is my idea that the retread does not have the burn because they are already accomplished. They made their mark and now are unwilling to do what it takes to get back to top form. Whether Luke Fickel considers it a second bite at the apple is immaterial. He never made it before.

Fickell was very successful as a DC (national assistant coach of the year in 2010), but then had a terrible year as HC. Sounds like it fits your definition:

"For me, a retread is a coach that has a large amount of success at a job. Subsequently, they bomb either in the same job or another."

Does that mean OSU shouldn't have rehired him as DC because he presumably lost his burn? Does it apply to ADs? How does Mike Bohn fit in this retread assumption?

Or is this just for HC jobs? If I understand you correctly, you'd prefer a guy who has failed at the level you are hiring for over a guy who has been successful in the same level job but subsequently struggled for whatever reason. Well, I'll give you this: you will always have a huge pool to hire from because most people won't already have been successful at the level you are looking to hire from.

No, I did not say anything like that. I want a guy that is successful at a lower level and has an upward trajectory. I think you are being intentionally argumentative. You know the Fickell hire was on an interim basis. He was hired deep into the year by Ohio State because of necessity. He was not ready but was the best OSU could do on such short notice. He had many of his best players suspended from the team. To try to characterize this as a retread situation is just silly. As far as hiring retreads as assistants, Idk or care.

(08-30-2019 06:48 PM)Bcatbog Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 05:32 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 04:52 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  That's where Chip Kelly is right now: he's had one season and one game to recruit and establish "his" system. And already, people are lighting the torches to get rid of him.

Honestly, I think Chip Kelly is more "in name only." He seems gassed at this point in his career. I think the NFL chewed him up and spit him out. He had a good thing going in Oregon but that seems ages ago. In terms of lighting the torches, is that not typical at any program that wants to win? He's now 3-10 at UCLA and this follows the 2017 Jim Mora season of 6-7, preceeded by seasons of 4-8 and 8-5. I get it. Fans and alumni want to win and win now. They want to see signs of improvement. Heck, there were folks on this Board that were openly questioning the hiring of Luke Fickell after his 4-8 campaign in Year 1. It's on Chip to motivate his players and find a way to adapt his "system" to the talent he has and not the other way around. That's why he gets paid the big bucks and the expectations are also big.

Plain and simple - UCLA needs a QB. Additionally they need to dance less and play real football. Seems to me like California personified.

Figuratively and literally...One of the Bruin Linemen was literally dancing to the jumbotron music out on the field in between plays.

Thus, the hand wringing in Los Angeles...

@ Cincinnati L
San Diego St
#4 Oklahoma
@ #23 WSU
@ Arizona
Oregon St
@ #24 Stanford
Arizona St
Colorado
@ #14 Utah
@ USC
Kalifornia

(08-30-2019 07:20 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 07:18 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 07:12 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Was Double Tee a retread?

Encyclopedia Britannica has his face as the classic retread look. Coach with head phones listening to Waylon Jennings on the side line.

Retread twice removed.

Recycled re-tread.