Saunders Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 Quote CollegeFootballNews: UCLA 2024 Preview You’re here reading this hoping to learn a little something about UCLA football. Maybe you’re looking for an insider's professional take on what life will be like now that the program - a program that should be FAR better at college football - is in the Big Ten. With that, the official CFN corporate stance on your 2024 UCLA Bruins is ... “Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Ummmmmmmm.” You have a first time head coach in DeShaun Foster - (side note: I instinctively type Watson after DeShaun EVERY time, so when I don’t catch it like I just did, please be kind) - and he’ll need time and room to grow into the gig … And Eric Bieniemy is his offensive coordinator - a guy who could easily be the head man for some NFL team as we speak. The coaching will be fine. The Bruins lost a ton of talent to the pros and the transfer portal … https://collegefootballnews.com/news/ucla-college-football-preview-best-players-top-transfers-season-prediction-win-total-2024 More to come... Quote Link to comment
deedsker Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 On 6/7/2024 at 8:13 AM, Mavric said: With Chip Kelly leaving, I didn't realize DeShaun Foster was their head coach. I didn't even know he was a coach. Dude was a beast back in the day. This is one where we need to grab a W once the back end of the schedule kicks off. This one sets the tone after tOSU if we are still just average or if we can get back to being a contender in the conference. 1 Quote Link to comment
brophog Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 One of the toughest on the schedule to get a feel for. A lot to like, especially on offense, but with a new head coach you tend to lose a few that you otherwise wouldn't. It's not a typical first time head coaching hire, either. Not only was Foster never a coordinator, something that is generally the case before becoming a head coach, he's only ever been a RB coach and only at UCLA with a one year stint at Texas Tech. Not a head coach or coordinator at a lower division level, no experience coaching other positions. It was a difficult hire due to how late in the cycle it was, and while they interviewed quite a few people, there's certainly a well deserved sentiment that they settled on the in house guy. He's also ridiculously cheap for a P4 head coach at only $3 million this year (his former boss, Chip Kelly, will make $2 million as OC at OSU). He could be a tremendous head coach and we just don't know it, but there's definitely ample cause to have some doubt. 1 Quote Link to comment
deedsker Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 25 minutes ago, brophog said: One of the toughest on the schedule to get a feel for. A lot to like, especially on offense, but with a new head coach you tend to lose a few that you otherwise wouldn't. It's not a typical first time head coaching hire, either. Not only was Foster never a coordinator, something that is generally the case before becoming a head coach, he's only ever been a RB coach and only at UCLA with a one year stint at Texas Tech. Not a head coach or coordinator at a lower division level, no experience coaching other positions. It was a difficult hire due to how late in the cycle it was, and while they interviewed quite a few people, there's certainly a well deserved sentiment that they settled on the in house guy. He's also ridiculously cheap for a P4 head coach at only $3 million this year (his former boss, Chip Kelly, will make $2 million as OC at OSU). He could be a tremendous head coach and we just don't know it, but there's definitely ample cause to have some doubt. Which was also funny that, after Chip left, I just chalked it up as a W. Then FPI and what not comes out and there they sit at a spot or two above us. It will be interesting to see what changes in the overall style and team coordination from Kelly to Foster. I am guessing this may be more of a W in my general feel as you dig through the specifics again with personnel and coaching changes. I guess I am more confused on why they are still listed so high in preseason models. 1 Quote Link to comment
Caliborn72 Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 10 minutes ago, deedsker said: Which was also funny that, after Chip left, I just chalked it up as a W. Then FPI and what not comes out and there they sit at a spot or two above us. It will be interesting to see what changes in the overall style and team coordination from Kelly to Foster. I am guessing this may be more of a W in my general feel as you dig through the specifics again with personnel and coaching changes. I guess I am more confused on why they are still listed so high in preseason models. They return basically everyone on offense which I think is why the models like them. Their whole OLine I believe, leading WRs, RBs, QB. They lose their 2 monster edge rushers but return everyone else in the front 7 that was very good last year and their DC is quickly becoming a hot commodity. But they have one of the most brutal schedules I’ve ever seen. A situation where a really excellent year 1 for the new coach might be 5 wins. 1 Quote Link to comment
brophog Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Vegas has UCLA at 5.5 FPI has UCLA in the 5.5-6.5 range. It's not so much FPI overrates UCLA as it underrates Nebraska. Not only does UCLA's returning production help them in these models, but they've won 8+ games the last 3 years and previous seasons weigh heavily in these models until current season data starts to take over. Nebraska, with 7 straight losing seasons, obviously takes a big hit in those models. Other factors do suggest Nebraska can be in for a big improvement, which is why many people think that will happen, it's just many of the preseason models don't take those factors into a lot of consideration. Quote Link to comment
deedsker Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 9 minutes ago, brophog said: Vegas has UCLA at 5.5 FPI has UCLA in the 5.5-6.5 range. It's not so much FPI overrates UCLA as it underrates Nebraska. Not only does UCLA's returning production help them in these models, but they've won 8+ games the last 3 years and previous seasons weigh heavily in these models until current season data starts to take over. Nebraska, with 7 straight losing seasons, obviously takes a big hit in those models. Other factors do suggest Nebraska can be in for a big improvement, which is why many people think that will happen, it's just many of the preseason models don't take those factors into a lot of consideration. Yeah, but that is schedule related. FPI has UCLA 40 and Nebraska 41. In the wins thread, Kelly Ford has UCLA 32 and Nebraska 42. Have the record at 5.5-6.5 for UCLA and Neb 6.5-5.5 just means Nebraska has an easier schedule, but not considered as good as UCLA. 1 Quote Link to comment
brophog Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 7 hours ago, deedsker said: Have the record at 5.5-6.5 for UCLA and Neb 6.5-5.5 just means Nebraska has an easier schedule, but not considered as good as UCLA. In these preseason models, past season data plays an enormous role. Kelley Ford, like FPI, SP+, and many other models, weighs the past few seasons as a component of the preseason model. Some drop that data off faster than others as the season progresses, and that's a big point of contention. UCLA won 8, 9, 8, 3 games whereas Nebraska won 5, 4, 3, 3 games. Obviously that component is going to heavily favor UCLA in these models. The question is, how important is that when one coach is on Year 2 and the other is on Year 1. Rhule at least has some history of improving programs he's taken over, so that's at least something to draw inference from. Foster has no head coaching experience. He could win 3 and he could win 10, it's really hard to say. Quote Link to comment
Kayvan Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 Wow, this team looks baddddddd 1 Quote Link to comment
presidentjlh Posted September 21 Share Posted September 21 Yeah we’re gonna struggle with these guys too with how they’re playing LSU. Quote Link to comment
Kayvan Posted September 21 Share Posted September 21 3 minutes ago, presidentjlh said: Yeah we’re gonna struggle with these guys too with how they’re playing LSU. I think it’s fair to say that teams will have good days and more frequent bad days with the parity we are seeing these days. Plus, Michigan is giving it to USC so far. Maybe it’s LSU that is really bad. Quote Link to comment
The Dude Posted September 22 Share Posted September 22 18 hours ago, presidentjlh said: Yeah we’re gonna struggle with these guys too with how they’re playing LSU. They did okay in the first half. They're certainly not as good as Illinois. 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.