What does success look like for Bob Chesney in Year One?
Personally, I hate that question. I roll my eyes when I hear it.
Yes, a head coach is ultimately measured by wins and losses. That’s it, that’s the job. And lord knows, the UCLA fanbase and university have been starving for wins. Real, tangible victories. Something sustainable. Not just a couple of empty 8-4 seasons that Chip Kelly so graciously gave this program toward the end of his tenure. (Sarcasm intended.)
And I think we’d all like to Men in Black ourselves and erase the last two seasons from our collective memory. That’s what I’m going to do anyway.
That brings us to where we are today. It’s a strange feeling walking around Spaulding Field now that Chesney is running the show.
He’s small in stature, but the energy he brings to the building is as infectious as any giant could ever provide. There is a pulse around UCLA football right now that hasn’t been felt around these parts since the early days of Jim Mora.
And maybe that’s the real point.
Before UCLA can become a consistent winner, it has to become something again.
What does that something look like? What the hell does that even mean?
Sure, the Bruins can go out and collect a handful of wins this season. That could very well start against Cal. And that would be awesome for the trajectory of the program — a massive shot in the arm to begin the Chesney era.
But before UCLA can really win, it has to build an identity from the studs up. That’s what the last eight months have been about, since the moment Chesney and his staff arrived in Westwood. No skipping steps. They have been laying that foundation, but now it’s time to put it in the fire.
Are they going to wilt? Or are they going to harden and be forged in the fire through the inevitable ups and downs of a long season?
Maybe that’s the strange part of writing this as someone who once wore the UCLA uniform and now covers the program for a living.
I have a rooting interest in seeing UCLA football matter again, but I also have a job to do. I have to watch this team without letting nostalgia, optimism or disappointment cloud what is actually happening in front of me.
And that’s why I’m less interested in predicting the final record than I am in figuring out what this program actually is.
Growing up around this brand and university, you learn early on what the actual standard is here. A standard that, let’s be honest, the rest of the programs uphold pretty well, while our revenue flagship has spun its wheels.
Three double-digit-win seasons since the turn of the century. Three. The last one came in 2014.
Since 2000, UCLA football is 167–154. That’s .520 football over a quarter-century.
While other sports across campus continue to hang banners and compete for national titles year in and year out — from the women’s basketball program breaking through to capture the ultimate prize, to the consistent success found at Jackie Robinson Stadium and Easton Stadium, from water polo, volleyball, soccer and gymnastics — football has spent too much of this century watching from afar.
And that’s the standard at UCLA. You look across campus or through the school’s history and see what sustainable excellence looks like.
Football hasn’t lived up to it, not even close.
We’ve been nationally irrelevant because we forgot that you can’t skip steps.
It’s the ghost of John Wooden teaching that true success is peace of mind attained only through self-satisfaction in knowing you made the effort to do the best of which you’re capable.
Is that what this football program has done lately?
It’s the echoes of Terry Donahue’s golden years in Westwood, and Bob Toledo’s ’97 and ’98 seasons, when UCLA football wasn’t just an old legacy brand name relying on Southern California sunshine, but rather a tough, disciplined machine that oozed swagger that nobody wanted to play.
When was the last time UCLA football was actually fun? Was dominant? And not just a flash in the pan? Not just a random upset here, a thrilling comeback there, or a few awesome moments before sliding right back into mediocrity? Not even just a solid season that ended with eight or nine wins?
Instead, it’s just been laborious and, at times, downright pathetic.
That’s what hurts most to admit as an alum of the school and an alum of the football program. We’ve been nationally irrelevant because we forgot that you can’t skip steps.
We thought Chip Kelly would just come in here and automatically turn the program into Oregon 2.0. But then he stopped recruiting and started skipping steps. Then DeShaun Foster was handed the reins in another rushed process, which is a large part of why the man who made that decision is no longer employed here. Corners were cut and steps were skipped.
So for me, that’s what this season is actually going to be about.
Whether UCLA goes 8-4, 6-6, or better or worse, the record alone won’t dictate success to me right now. I want to see whether Chesney and this staff are finally laying a foundation with real substance.
Are the Bruins tougher? Are they more disciplined? Do they play with an identity that is unmistakably their own?
When things go wrong, because they will, does the team respond differently than it has in years past? When was the last time UCLA football had a true identity?
Do the players believe in what they’re building enough that, by November, we can look at this team and say: I know what UCLA football is now.
Those are the things I’ll be watching, because yes, while the wins are still the goal and always will be, they are the product.
This year, I’m watching to see if UCLA finally starts building the machine that produces that product, year in and year out, and make it unflappable.
#UCLA #football #win
