I've heard a lot of hate here against a potential Mike Belotti hire, but I wanted to throw out some "facts" and see what y'all think. Feel free to toss some back at me, against MB's hire. I want this post to be an open discussion re Mike Belotti and his (increasingly likely) hire.
Belotti is the only guy (minus peterson, who seems like a lost cause at this moment) who has been extraordinarily successful at the college level. Aside from rebuilding a once-bottom-feeding Oregon program, Belotti took that program to heights that UCLA hasn't seen in a long time. A #2 ranking in the final AP poll in 2001, in addition to a 2007 season that, aside from a Dixon injury, probably would have culminated in a BCSNCG.
Who were' Belotti's assistants who helped him achieve much of this success? None other than Chip Kelly and Chris Peterson. You don't read a book on how to coach successfully; you learn it from others. Two guys that we here at BN would die to have were both disciples of Belotti. Coincidence? You tell me.
Not only would Belotti big a big-splash hire on the West Coast, but he has recruiting connections out here as well. Belotti's recuirting classes ranked 49, 26, 12, 28, 49, 11, 19 and 23. UCLA, typically, has better recruiting classes than Oregon in all of Belotti's years. But guess who was able to develop the talent and who wasn't?
Sure, Belotti may be old, but he's only been out of the game for 3 years. And, lets be real, the game hasn't changed much in 3 years. With Belotti's desire to come to UCLA, and the price we can get him for, it will allow for more $$ to be freed up for quality assistants (which, as Belotti has showed, he can certainly develop).
What I'm wondering is, how come many here at BN have counted out Belotti? Would I preferred Peterson? Of course. Would I have preferred Leach? Of course. But out of who's remaining, Belotti should be at, or near, the top of our list.