Bob Chesney Is a Great Coach. UCLA’s Leadership Might Destroy Him Anyway

Mark Haines on December 13, 2025

UCLA made a strong coaching hire inside a broken institutional structure.

Bob Chesney brings an elite program-building résumé to Westwood. He’s 131-51 overall (.720) across four levels of college football. He rebuilt every program he touched. And at James Madison, he went 21-5 in two years, won the Sun Belt, earned the program’s first bowl victory ever, and landed a CFP berth as the #12 seed.

The question isn’t whether Chesney can coach. It’s whether UCLA’s leadership can stop sabotaging its own program long enough for him to build something.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Here’s what Chesney accomplished at the FBS level in just two seasons:

The year-over-year progression tells the real story.

2024: 9-4, SRS 2.32, Boca Raton Bowl win
2025: 12-1, SRS 11.43, Sun Belt champion, CFP #12 seed

The SRS jump from 2.32 to 11.43 in one year? That’s program building, not inherited talent coasting.

Here’s The Concern

Zero games against ranked FBS opponents.

Schedule strength of -6.45 in 2024 and -4.03 in 2025. At UCLA in the Big Ten, he walks into a conference with Ohio State, Oregon, Penn State, Michigan, and USC on the schedule. That’s a different universe than the Sun Belt.

His profile is “elite builder against inferior competition, untested against elite competition.” His UCLA tenure will answer that open question.

The Institutional Reality

UCLA’s leadership has earned distrust, not the benefit of the doubt.

This isn’t speculation. It’s documented. The LA Times’ Ben Bolch (in his 10th season covering UCLA football) wrote in October 2025 that athletic director Martin Jarmond approached him mid-game during a blowout win at Michigan State to take credit for the team’s turnaround. Then Jarmond tried to retroactively claim his comments were “off the record” after making them in public, in front of other reporters.

Bolch’s assessment: “He’ll take credit for the cleanup, even if he helped create the spill.”

The evidence falls into four categories.

1. The Foster Sequence

This is textbook AD malpractice.

Jarmond failed to fire Chip Kelly when it was clear to even casual fans that the move was overdue. His stated reason? “Continuity and stability” for a program entering the Big Ten. Then Kelly left for Ohio State in February 2024, and Jarmond appeared surprised, even though Kelly’s job shopping had been widely reported.

What followed was worse.

The timeline:

Kelly’s departure forced a search after the coaching carousel had stopped
Jarmond self-imposed a needless 96-hour deadline
Pivoted to DeShaun Foster, a beloved RB coach who wasn’t on anyone’s list for an OC job, much less a head coaching position
Foster was fired after just 15 games and an 0-3 start
UCLA ate a $6-8M buyout

Then came the narrative shift.

On the day he dismissed Foster, Jarmond changed his story on the Kelly situation. His new line: “Many stakeholders and factors” go into a coaching change. He also acknowledged regrets about putting Foster in a situation “for which he was clearly not qualified.”

Read that again: the AD admitted he set his own head coach up to fail.

2. The Selective Appearance Pattern

Jarmond shows up for wins. He disappears for losses.

Per Bolch’s reporting, Jarmond doesn’t make a habit of attending postgame media sessions in high-profile sports unless it’s a big win or milestone victory. The pattern:

Nebraska win (2024): Jarmond was there, smiling as Foster proclaimed “he hired the right coach”
Penn State upset: Jarmond showed up in the locker room to hand Skipper the game ball
Michigan State blowout: Jarmond approached reporters mid-game to claim credit for the turnaround
UNLV loss: Nowhere to be found when Foster faced tough questions
New Mexico loss: Nowhere to be found
Athletics Hall of Fame dinner: Skipped it. Announced at the event that he had a “prior commitment.”

No leadership. Only credit-seeking.

3. The Rose Bowl Litigation

UCLA is being sued by its own landlord.

The City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl Operating Company are taking UCLA to court for allegedly exploring a move to SoFi Stadium while under contract through 2044. The amended complaints claim UCLA “coordinated” with SoFi and Kroenke to breach lease obligations. They claim UCLA’s failure to commit to the Rose Bowl for 2026 has already caused harm.

When your own landlord and host city are suing you for breach of trust, “alignment” is just a press conference word.

4. The Departure Pattern

If a coach has leverage and alternatives, UCLA is usually what he tries to leave. Not where he’s dying to go.

Chip Kelly took a pay cut and a demotion to call plays for Ohio State rather than stay in Westwood.
DeShaun Foster was used as a cheap bridge hire and scapegoated once predictable problems materialized.
Jim Mora chose Colorado State over any return to UCLA, despite being the last coach to win 10 games there.

When coaches with options consistently run from your program, that’s structural. Not coincidental.

So, Why Did Chesney Take The Job?

Because the upside is enormous and the downside is manageable.

Strip away the press conference gloss and the logic looks like this: It’s his first crack at a true power-brand job in a Big Ten/SEC world where those chairs are finite. He’s 48, not 38. UCLA beat out at least one plausible Big Ten landing spot to get him, which tells you they outbid and out-promised others in ways that materially change his career arc.

The contract:

Five years, $33.75 million
$6.75M annually through 2030
Buyout starts around $2.5M before 2029, then drops

Here’s the real calculus:

If he wins, he’s a star who either retires at UCLA or parlays it into almost anything. If he fails, he still cashes the deal and remains hirable because people will blame UCLA’s dysfunction as much as him.

From his seat, that’s a rational gamble.

Bottom Line

Bob Chesney is a good coach in a structurally compromised place.

What he can control: Scheme. Culture. Development. Recruiting effort.

What he can’t control: Whether NIL infrastructure materializes. How the AD behaves when adversity hits. Rose Bowl lease politics. Whether the same leadership that mishandled Kelly and Foster suddenly becomes competent.

UCLA made a strong coaching hire.

But until Jarmond and Frenk demonstrate sustained follow-through rather than press conference promises, skepticism isn’t cynicism. It’s due diligence. As Ben Bolch wrote, Jarmond will take credit for the cleanup, even if he helped create the spill.

BACK TO THE BLOG ARCHIVE

Blog Article

Martin Jarmond Set DeShaun Foster Up To Fail. Now UCLA’s Athletic Director Should Be The One Looking For A New Job.

Mark Haines on September 15, 2025

Martin Jarmond fired DeShaun Foster after 15 games, but the real problem sits one floor above the football offices.

UCLA’s athletic director created the perfect storm that destroyed Foster’s tenure before it began. The hasty hiring process, inadequate resources, and administrative dysfunction all trace back to one person: the man who pulled the trigger on Foster’s dismissal.

Here’s why Jarmond should be updating his resume.

The Timeline Tells The Real Story

Foster never had a fair chance at UCLA because Jarmond bungled the coaching transition from the very beginning.

In November 2023, Chip Kelly was openly shopping for coordinator jobs elsewhere. Instead of making a clean break, Jarmond let the situation drag on for nearly six weeks. Kelly finally left on February 2, 2024, just weeks before spring camp.

The damage was already done:

Recruiting class decimated
Transfer portal window missed
Staff continuity destroyed
Spring preparation compromised

Foster was told he wouldn’t be considered for the head coaching job if Kelly left. He took the running backs job with the Las Vegas Raiders. When Kelly bolted two weeks later, UCLA had no viable candidates willing to leave their current positions so close to spring practice.

Jarmond made calls to other coaches, but no one was going to abandon their team weeks before training camp.

The UCLA players rallied around Foster, and Jarmond gave him the job with little time to prepare. It was a desperation move masquerading as a feel-good story.

Foster Inherited An Impossible Situation

The numbers don’t lie about what Foster walked into at UCLA.

Financial constraints:

Reduced Big Ten revenue sharing
Limited NIL resources compared to Big Ten peers
Budget restrictions on staff expansion
Facility upgrades delayed or cancelled

Roster challenges:

Late start on transfer portal acquisitions
Minimal time to evaluate existing players
Spring practice shortened by hiring timeline
No established recruiting relationships

Administrative support:

No clear vision for Big Ten transition
Conflicting directives from university leadership
Unclear reporting structure with new chancellor

Foster went 5-10 in 15 games, but considering the circumstances, the surprise is that UCLA won five games at all.

The Zoom Call Revealed Everything

More than 100 former UCLA players held a Zoom call with Jarmond after Foster’s firing, and the conversation exposed the real problems in Westwood.

Former players told Jarmond directly:

He needs to listen more than he talks
There’s a disconnect between athletics and program traditions
Foster was active in recruiting local high schools
Previous coaches ignored alumni outreach entirely
The athletic department lacks a central point of contact for former players

“Martin was told he needs to listen more than he does,” one participant revealed.

The Zoom call wasn’t about defending Foster.

It was about confronting Jarmond’s broader failures as an athletic director. Former players demanded accountability from the person directly responsible for UCLA’s decline.

Chancellor Frenk Sees The Problem

The power struggle between Jarmond and Chancellor Julio Frenk reveals who really understands UCLA’s situation.

Frenk told the LA Times he intends to be “very involved in the athletic department and the football program, recognizing that success in a marquee sport like football can be financially advantageous for the school as a whole.”

This contrasts sharply with former Chancellor Gene Block, who was “notoriously removed from athletics.”

Frenk’s involvement signals recognition that Block’s hands-off approach failed. The new chancellor understands what Block and Jarmond missed: football success drives university-wide benefits.

Multiple sources confirm the coaching search committee will report directly to Frenk, not Jarmond.

When your boss creates a workaround to bypass your authority, it’s usually a sign your days are numbered.

Bill Plaschke Said The Quiet Part Out Loud

LA Times columnist Bill Plaschke published a scathing column arguing Jarmond should not be allowed to hire the next coach.

Plaschke blamed Jarmond for the “wreckage” of UCLA football, specifically calling out:

Mishandling Chip Kelly’s departure
The rushed Foster hiring process
Lack of adequate support for Foster
Creating systemic problems beyond coaching

When the city’s paper of record publishes a column calling for an athletic director’s removal from a coaching search, it reflects widespread institutional failure.

Plaschke captured what many UCLA stakeholders believe: the problem isn’t coaching, it’s leadership.

The Kelly Contract Extension Debacle

Jarmond’s pattern of poor decision-making extends beyond the Foster situation.

In December 2021, Kelly’s contract was subject to renewal clauses. His tenure had been unsuccessful, but Jarmond offered him a contract extension without a definitive decision deadline.

Kelly dragged out the process for months:

His representatives floated Oregon Ducks interest
Several qualified potential coaches took jobs elsewhere
UCLA missed multiple hiring cycles
Uncertainty damaged recruiting and staff retention

Good athletic directors create timelines and stick to them.

Jarmond allowed coaches to control processes that should have clear administrative deadlines. The Kelly extension saga revealed an athletic director unwilling or unable to make difficult decisions when necessary.

The Attendance Scandal

The LA Times recently reported that UCLA has been “blatantly and artificially boosting attendance numbers at games at the Rose Bowl.”

Reporter Ben Bolch obtained data from actual ticket scan machines and compared them to UCLA’s attendance announcements. The difference was usually several thousand, consistently inflated by the university.

This isn’t just bad optics.

It’s institutional dishonesty that reflects broader problems with Jarmond’s leadership. When athletic departments resort to fabricating attendance figures, it signals deeper issues with accountability and transparency.

UCLA Needs New Leadership

Foster’s firing was the inevitable result of Jarmond’s administrative failures, not coaching incompetence.

The evidence is overwhelming:

Poor timing on coaching transitions
Inadequate resource allocation
Disconnect from alumni and program traditions
Inflated attendance reporting
Loss of confidence from university leadership

Foster deserved better support. UCLA deserved better planning.

Both paid the price for organizational dysfunction that starts at the top of the athletic department.

The next coaching search faces identical systemic problems that doomed Foster unless UCLA addresses the real issue: the continued employment of Martin Jarmond as athletic director.

UCLA can fire coaches every 15 games, or they can fire the person who hires the wrong coaches for the wrong reasons at the wrong time.

The choice seems obvious to everyone except the person making the decisions.

BACK TO THE BLOG ARCHIVE