This is the first potential coaching candidate as part of the 10-point criteria system evaluation for each potential coaching candidate who may become the next head coach at UCLA.
If Lance Leipold were to consider becoming the next coach at UCLA, it would be a similar move to when Jonathan Smith left Oregon State to become the head coach at Michigan State.
Leipold's prospective benefits of joining UCLA.
Proven winner at the FBS level in locations where they are not accustomed to winning. As an FBS head coach, Leipold has a 61-62 record. His overall record is technically a losing one, but you have to look at what he has overcome, turning around programs at Buffalo and Kansas. He led Kansas to a bowl game in his third season, a bowl victory, and nine wins. He also won the Mid-American Conference twice while he was head coach at Buffalo, having led them to two straight bowl victories in his final two seasons there. He has a talent for turning around programs that are successful, even in difficult places that have multiple obstacles.
He would bring an offensive mindset to Westwood. Leipold's teams are known for their creative and effective offensive schemes over the year. During his last two seasons at Kansas, they averaged more than 40 points per game, and UCLA these past two seasons have failed to score many points per game. For UCLA fans who haven't witnessed consistently high-scoring offenses under coach Kelly and Foster in the previous threee years, this might be a nice change.
Player development and retention of top talent in the NIL era. Regardless of a player's recruiting level, Leipold is known for helping them reach their maximum potential. UCLA, which needs to figure out how to compete with the top tier of the Big Ten, which frequently has better-rated prospects, him being the head coach at UCLA, would benefit the football program greatly.
Here is the link to review the ten criteria points before you see how Leipold scored on our ten point scale.
Criteria No. 1: Yes
His football program has not been issued violations from the NCAA in recent years, and has had minimal off-the-field issues with his student athletes on his team, so he gets the point.
Criteria No. 2: Yes
He has demonstrated the ability and potential to be a "solid recruiter" and has navigated the current NIL landscape with all its benefits, obstacles, hurdles, and faults.
Criteria No. 3: No
Proven head coaching success is debatable on paper due to his overall record as a head coach at the FBS level. Technically, he does not have a history of high-level success as a head coach as a power four conference coach, so he doesn’t get this point, but it is close.
Criteria No. 4: No
He does not get the point as he has not coached in the Big Ten as a head or assistant coach.
Criteria No. 5: Yes
He gets the point as he has been proven to have his teams have a defined offensive identity as a football coach, and he has the proof to back it up.
Criteria No. 6: Yes
He gets the point as he has proven in overseeing the program and assembling a unified and productive coaching staff, and had developed players from being true freshmen to productive players as upperclassmen.
Criteria No. 7: Yes
He does get the point for this criteria as he has found a way to build relationships with the big-time donors and fans at a school that is widely considered a blue-blood basketball school.
Criteria No. 8: No
He is not a former player or coach at UCLA, so he does not receive the point for this criteria.
Criteria No. 9: No
He has not been a head coach in a big market, so he doesn’t get the point for this criteria.
Criteria No. 10: Yes
Relationship with UCLA is that he doesn’t have a bad relationship with UCLA, so he gets the point for this criteria.