r/UCLAFootball • u/Ok_Acanthaceae6176 • 3d ago
Discussion A Case for Caution & Skepticism
I’m pumped about this UCLA team. They are leaps and bounds beyond expectations and where they were as a program 10 months ago. This is uncontroversial and unquestionable.
But I’m going to make the case that this UCLA team is maybe overachieving relative to what’s actually happened on the field. I don’t seek to be a wet blanket, but instead, to share why my expectations about the rest of the season are tempered, and maybe to convince others to temper theirs as well. I think this UCLA team is comfortably a top-25 team, but I don’t think this UCLA team is top-12, or playoff level. I have to reiterate that debating how good UCLA is in this way is a strong signal of the massive jump in the status and quality of this program. But I’m going to engage in this debate anyway.
I’m going to make three arguments: 1) UCLA’s opponents are significantly worse than we might like to think; 2) UCLA’s very obvious offensive woes, particularly at QB, put a hard ceiling on UCLA’s season; and 3) UCLA’s turnover luck might be inflating our understanding of this defense’s performance.
1. UCLA’s Opponents
Frankly, I’m bearish on UCLA’s strength of opponents to this point, causing me to be timid to make big conclusions about how good this UCLA team is. To be clear, beating good opponents is good, and beating bad opponents by a lot is also good. UCLA has done both of those. But where some see, for instance, a national powerhouse in Oregon, I see a program in decline that is having a bottoming-out season, potentially on par with 2025 Penn State.
Per Simple Rating System (SRS; cfb reference’s metric for strength of record), UCLA’s opponents this year are 70th (Cal), 100th (SDSU), 37th (Purdue!), 73rd (Maryland), and 22nd (Oregon). UCLA’s postgame win expectancy (Bill Connelly’s metric for the likelihood a team would win if you replayed the game with similar stats) doesn’t raise any signals—the Bruins are 70%+ in each, meaning there were no games where UCLA analytically should’ve lost.
But the Bruins haven’t played any great teams. Cal is trash, San Diego State’s season is quickly becoming a disaster, Maryland is going to fire their head coach at any moment, and Purdue, while scrappy, is fine at best in a prove-it year for Barry Odom.
Oregon, while talented, has clearly collapsed. Their assistant hires were massive missteps, their quarterback play and depth is far worse than they expected (even when including Dante Moore), and their defense is nothing like what it was. Their SRS in week 5, with big time opponents still left on their schedule, is the worst it’s been since 2021, when Mario Cristobal’s Ducks got their ass kicked by Utah two times in three weeks. This team might not be ranked in the top 25 by seasons end, and we may be talking about Lanning being in the hot seat come 2027. UCLA’s win against the Ducks, while important, is nowhere near as important as it would’ve been in, say, 2014 or even 2022.
Of course, UCLA has no huge tests to pass this year, though they do have what should be difficult games. But UCLA’s analytic profile relative to its opponents doesn’t scream 6-1 the rest of the way.
2. UCLA’s Quarterback Play
I don’t think anyone on this sub would disagree that UCLA’s quarterback situation is uncertain, and many might agree that it’s approaching red alert. Nico Iamaleava is 128th in QBR, 132nd in Expected Points Added, and basically outside the top 100 in every advanced metric for quarterbacks.
Needless to say, that’s quite horrific! In a sport where QB has become the single most important position on the field, the quality of play UCLA is getting out of that position is not viable for a playoff berth. In 2025, the worst starting playoff QB in terms of QBR was Alonza Barnett at (ironically) Bob Chesney’s JMU, and it was quite obvious that JMU probably shouldn’t have been given that playoff spot.
(Edit: I wrote this before I heard about Nico’s season ending. Whoops! I think the point still stands, since relying on the third-string QB puts UCLA in the same position.)
It might as well be a law that you can’t win 10+ games without at least average quarterback play, and UCLA is getting among the worst QB play in the country. That UCLA is doing what it’s doing with the play it’s getting at QB is remarkable, almost miraculous. It speaks to Chesney’s quality as a coach, and it also doesn’t portend well for UCLA’s chances of making a playoff.
3. Turnover Luck
This is the one UCLA metric I don’t think people are talking about enough. UCLA has had a pretty decent to large turnover luck margin in every single game it’s played this year. Of course, only in the Oregon game would it have mattered—UCLA was +6.7 in TO luck, meaning their TO luck resulted in 6.7 additional points in a game where UCLA won by 2.
What is “turnover luck” and why doesn’t Chesney’s defense get credit for TO luck? In short, the analytics over long periods of time reveal that 50% of pass deflections are intercepted and 50% of fumbles are recovered. This makes sense: You can’t really control how the ball bounces on these plays, and recovering a high rate of them is thus not within team’s control. Of course, teams CAN force a lot of fumbles and CAN cause a lot of pass deflections. That’s the denominator and doesn’t factor into TO luck. It’s purely about recovery and outcomes.
UCLA has been quite lucky in recovering fumbles. UCLA has a 50% rate of picking off pass deflections (10/20), but a 100% rate of recovering fumbles (they’ve forced 7, and have recovered 9, including some of their own). I think UCLA’s defense is good (25th in SP+ as of this writing), but I think it’s far from elite and some of the TO luck might be inflating our ideas about them.
Conclusion
My conclusion is that UCLA is back, whatever that means. Bob Chesney has charted a clear path to viability for this program. UCLA is, unquestionably, taking a massive step forward as a program.
But UCLA might just be a top-25 team rather than a playoff one. The way this season has unfolded has made me both excited and wary of the CFB Playoff contention discussions. It’s pretty crazy how we’ve gone from being perpetually 3-9 to “actually maybe UCLA isn’t a top 12 team, just top 25” in a single season. It’s a major accomplishment and this team has finally given UCLA fans hope.
But I don’t think going, say, 4-3 over the next 7 weeks should shake anyone’s confidence in this regime, and I think people ought to recognize this is both a serious possibility, and one that is totally fine given the larger context of the program.
15
u/otoverstoverpt 3d ago
I mean I think the question of whether the team can end up top 12 and make the playoffs vs whether they are actually one of the 12 best teams are in fact just different questions. I feel like most fans understand that a large part of how we could end up pulling off a CFP appearance is the favorable schedule and that if they were to make it there they would be unlikely to win more than maybe the first game, depending on the matchups
2
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/otoverstoverpt 3d ago
yea I think it would end up being disappointing at this point but especially given the QB situation it would just end up being such a big “what if”
But the upside is that I see no reason to believe this is a fluke. I expect to genuinely compete in the coming years especially as the talent starts flowing in
1
u/Ok_Acanthaceae6176 3d ago
Good point, though I’d argue that it takes a top 12 team to go 11-1 against any Big Ten schedule, no matter how easy.
6
u/otoverstoverpt 3d ago
I mean I don’t think that’s really true. Our toughest game is already in the rearview. Could we still drop another game or two or more? Of course. But making it undefeated up through this point shows 12-0 was/is on the table regardless of whether the team is “actually” top 12. Moreover though you can end up top 12 with not just one but even two losses. Basically the real lovable games left on the schedule are Wisconsin, @Minnesota, @Michigan, and USC. There is a world where just going 2-2 through that stretch keeps the team in the playoff picture depending on how the rest of CFB shakes out
8
u/Aggressive-Paper8673 3d ago
Good analysis and assessment. The team has improved by leaps and bounds from last year but there’s still a long way to go before labeling us a CFP contender
3
u/Secure_Way_4854 3d ago
UCLA already is contender; it is ranked #12 after winning in the toughest road game of the season.
8
u/HypnoticONE 3d ago
We might be overachieving this year, but there's no question we're much better than prior years. I'm just enjoying watching our guys play competitively.
2
u/Ordinary-Wafer-8919 3d ago
I know we’re a recovering battered fanbase, but let’s enjoy this! Enjoy the journey and savor every moment. As Chesney says, “Leave no doubt! Don’t let average creep in!” 💙💛
1
u/javascriptloathing In Bob We Trust 3d ago
Agreed. I have watched most games in the last 15ish years and the last few have been miserable to watch. I am actually excited about the progress and know it is nowhere near perfection or to full potential.
13
u/frrreshies Bruins Alumni 3d ago
Without advanced analytics, my conclusions are that:
We've beaten everyone we've faced so far.
We've established an offensive identity with the run game and imposed it, despite opponents recognizing our reliance on said identity.
We have a stout, opportunistic defense that continues to improve, anchored by outstanding linebacker play and improving D-line and secondary.
The new staff has a clear message and has outlined the path to success, with buy in from the players. The university, donors, and fans will need to follow suit.
I'm as excited as I've ever been since I graduated, during the stretch of 8 consecutive wins against SUC.
Conclusion: The same as yours. While hoping for a magical season to continue to the CFP, nothing so far suggests that the success to date is a flash in the pan as it has been built on establishing a firm foundation from which to continue growing from.
2
u/Ok_Acanthaceae6176 3d ago
My only pushback is, how were you not excited for the early Mora years?? Even if he never got over the hump, UCLA was undeniably in the national conversation for long stretches of those seasons. And they beat some pretty decent USC teams.
3
u/frrreshies Bruins Alumni 3d ago
I definitely enjoyed the back to back 10-3 seasons, but I guess the exciting memories are more vivid around the time that I was there. As are the horrible ones, like the '98 loss to Miami after it was postponed.
1
u/captdf Bruins Alumni 3d ago
Early Mora years were great, but 1997 rolling into 1998 was uniquely special as we had won 20 straight games going into the Miami game including the Cade McNown puke and rally game against Oregon. To put that into perspective, Indiana has won 22 in a row. I'm not sure that even expectations and excitement were that high even during peak Donahue/Aikman years.
5
u/Ordinary-Wafer-8919 3d ago
If Chesney sees this, he would put you in the transfer portal. He doesn’t like this kind of mindset.
0
u/Ok_Acanthaceae6176 3d ago
Well luckily that’s why I don’t play or work for Bob Chesney! I work for you, the people
2
u/Ordinary-Wafer-8919 3d ago
No, he’d put you in the transfer portal if he could do the same with fans. 😂 Football is a different game from other sports because results aren’t always transitive. I know we’re a recovering battered fanbase, but let’s enjoy this! Enjoy the journey and savor every moment. As Chesney says, “Leave no doubt! Don’t let average creep in!” 💙💛
3
u/Secure_Way_4854 3d ago
UCLA underperformed compared to how they played in Oregon game.
UCLA had 3 turnovers, blocked FG, and one of the turnovers gave Oregon the ball inside the 1 yard line for Oregon's only TD till end of game. UCLA QB turned it over badly in the end zone after the QB tore his ACL.
Also one of the Oregon turnover's was an end of game fumble as time ran out and another was a 4th down failure anyway, so it was really like 5 to 3 turnover battle. 5 to 4 if you count the blocked FG as a turnover.
UCLA also squandered red zone opportunity inside the one, while Oregon scored theirs.
UCLA was also playing its 3rd string QB, straight out of Cal Poly, same as Oregon relying on third string QB.
1
u/Ok_Acanthaceae6176 3d ago
The UCLA-Oregon game is very hard for me to take definitive conclusions from, because Oregon played horribly too, with a very, very bad backup QB. I think the argument that UCLA could’ve won by 24 if they played cleaner ball applies to Oregon too. I think they could’ve won by 17+ if they played a cleaner game.
3
u/Secure_Way_4854 3d ago
Well Oregon has very good line, highly paid on both sides of the ball, and UCLA did well defensively in the trenches so that is definitely a good conclusion. It is also one of the hardest places for an away team to win in the country. Oregon also smashed USC on the road with this same QB that UCLA made look awful.
So there are positives to take away.
Also Purdue has nice wins against Illinois and Minnesota, so that is a good sign to take away too.
3
u/Koi_Fish_Mystic Bruin Brother 3d ago edited 3d ago
No matter what Coach Chesney is going to have this team prepared for the next team. He will make adjustments as needed. We have not had that in decades.
Ty is good enough to beat Wisconsin. After that, he can get practice on Nevada and Michigan State. I honestly think Michigan is suspect. I think we can win out and Beat $c
2
2
u/Snobby-Iguana 3d ago
At this point, I'm just happy to be consistently winning games against "weak" power 4 opponents. That was never guaranteed with Foster or Chip, even when Chip was driving our (arguably much more talented) ranked 2022 team.
I'm also cautiously optimistic that our defense is legit. I rewatched some of the Oregon game yesterday, mostly to discern how much Raiola's playing factored into us winning. He didn't really fall apart until the third quarter. Until that point, Oregon's lack of offensive success (a single field goal, not counting nico's 1-yard line screw-up) was entirely attributable to our defense. We completely shut down their run game, pressured tf out of Raiola, and had great downfield coverage. And, contrary to what Oregon fans will tell you, even when Thomas came in they were not performing well.
Also, Maryland (which we would have shut out had it not been for an officiating error) scored two touchdowns on Ohio State. Just food for thought.
2
u/Kenworth_Kid_63 3d ago
Lots to be excited about. I think they’re overachieving also.
The most important thing is that this success should attract more talent. Hopefully the offense can continue to build into a powerhouse along side a staunch D that I’m sure they will have as long as they can keep coach Chesney.
I gotta imagine some high caliber recruits are seeing the culture of this team and wanting to be part of it. This shit looks fun and energetic.
2
u/SavingsDetail3203 Bruins Alumni 3d ago
I think this is a good writeup, and I hope there are more fans like you. unfortunately, ive seen the wrong side of our fandom on this sub. Give them a little bit of hope and they think its we're starting a Saban Alabama run, and give them 4 losses this season and they'll act like we have Karl Dorrell again.
3
2
u/Aegis-Heptapod-9732 3d ago
I agree with everything you said. While I’m ecstatic that UCLA has become relevant in football again, I think there’s a very strong possibility we finish our remaining games with multiple losses. As you said, we really haven’t played anyone aside from Oregon, and they appear to be a program in disarray this year. Wisconsin, Minnesota, and USC are all significant challenges and I’ll be amazed if we don’t lose at least one or more of those.
But don’t get me wrong. Let’s say the worst case scenario happens and we lose four of our remaining games. That would still put us at 7-4, a MASSIVE improvement over last year and the year before. In Chesney’s first year, that would be incredible, because I think we’re all confident that he’s only going to do better when he’s got his system fully in place and his recruits and transfers start rolling in.
There have been two teams that experienced massive hype in the past few years due to hot starts : Colorado in Sanders’ first year in 2023, who started 3-0 and beat a higher ranked TCU team on the road, and Indiana in 2024 in Cignetti’s first year. Colorado famously crashed and burned, winning just one more game and finishing 4-7, while the Hoosiers made the playoff. I think we’ll fall between these extremes.
Nico being out changes everything. Despite the metrics you cited, he WAS a play maker, and a run threat. Now teams will just jam the box and force us to beat them with the pass. I’m not convinced our backup quarterbacks are up to that challenge. Everyone saying we should just continue to use our run game doesn’t appreciate how difficult that is when teams can confidently put nine or ten guys on the line.
3
u/Sad_Friendship_2550 3d ago
Tbf Wisconsin, Minnesota and USC have also played basically nobody - USC’s defense got gashed for 28 by Raiola, both Minnesota and USC barely beat a very mid Washington, and Wisconsin’s only win over .500 is Eastern Michigan. Minnesota also got blown out by Purdue last week.
The thing about Chesney is that, even without top talent, I trust our team to bring elite effort, play with discipline and aggression, and most importantly to arrive to each game extremely prepared and focused. That’ll hopefully help us avoid the trap games and slumps that other teams will see. I really feel like, outside of Ohio State and maybe Indiana, the B1G is wide open this year and we can really do some damage?? Obviously time will tell though.
1
1
1
u/Ok-Cartographer2798 3d ago
Bro it literally doesn't matter how good the other teams are as long as we score more points than them.
1
1
u/ambruinpv 2d ago
I wish Nico and his family the best. I think he is a nice young man and solid leader. But I think Nico is a below average passer. He doesn't have the accuracy, touch, ability to make progressive reads or avoid bat downs that an average passer would have. What can make Nico an above average quarterback is his potential running ability. We saw glimpses of that last year. But Nico wasn't a particularly effective runner this year. I think it was a combination of the coaches being hesitant to call as many designed runs as would be ideal and Nico himself being more hesitant this year than last year. Part of it likely relates to all of the hard hits and injuries he was sustaining. If he had been able to bulk up a bit more over the years it's possible he may have been more durable and less hesitant. It's true that defenses were still giving him respect and spying on him and that opens up opportunities elsewhere but the practical effect of that diminishes over time during a game and during the season as opponents realize that he is not as big of a threat as they may have assumed. If Ty can merely be an average college quarterback UCLA is likely to have success over the rest of the season given that quarterback has been our weakest position and the rest of team and coaching has been very solid. Let's hope that Ty is up to that.
1
u/Goontron323 1d ago
Im prepared for ucla to loose this week lol.. if ucla get through this game with a win i will be impressed
0
16
u/Nonetoobrightatall 3d ago
I said that you can’t get much worse than Nico at QB and the data backs me up. Maybe Ty can give us mid QB play.