Jon Gold had asked both of our new coordinators what they knew about UCLA as a school and a football program. Tresey's comments were telling:
Joe Tresey: "The only thing I knew is I grew up at 12 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon in November and Ohio State played Michigan and at 4 o'clock, USC played UCLA. I watched it for I don't know how many years. To me, UCLA was always a very good school, traditionally, athletically. You had the track and the basketball, the football. Growing up, we didn't have the internet, and there wasn't ESPN, so there were only a couple games on the weekend. You had the basketball games on quite a bit, and you had John Wooden. You knew you had Dick Vermiel, you had Terry Donahue. Two guys right there in our profession, you knew were great coaches. Then when you looked at who came out of UCLA over the years, from an offensive and defensive standpoint, starting with Gary Beban really. That's the first one I knew. I didn't know Jackie Robinson played football here; I knew Rafer Johnson was a great Olympian in the decathlon. But when people have that type of status, they leave a lasting impression. That's what I knew about UCLA.
Now? Nothing. Not a thing."
Tresey affirms the reality that UCLA football program has been "nothing" under the leadership of Dan Guerrero. To be fair Terry Donahue has his own share of detractors. UCLA arguably consistently underachieved during his reign losing huge games in key moments. But at least there were those key moments UCLA was involved in. Following Donahue, Bob Toledo came in and gave UCLA a taste of what real success could look like in that 20 game winning streak. Since Dan Guerrero fired him though ... we have had ... "NOTHING."
Tresey's comments give us an idea of how far UCLA football has fallen under Dan Guerrero's leadership. Under Guerrero UCLA football has become irrelevant in the national scene. It's something everyone needs to keep in mind if the Bruins are in position to look for a new football coach in the near future.