UCLA hasn’t cared about track in a long time, and that predates the current coaching staff. This isn’t about Joanna Hayes’ competence or popularity as a coach it’s an administrative decision, not a coaching one. The reality is that UCLA’s support (or lack thereof) for track has been an institutional issue for years. If this report is true, it raises a fair question about why Johnny would post it without verified information. And if it’s not true, then putting it out there without confirmation only adds confusion to an already poorly handled situation.
Yeah they did hire a high school coach a few years ago. I heard the dude didn't get his contract renewed after only 1 year.
Yeah, they hired a high school coach with zero experience in NCAA D1 athletics as an athlete or coach. What a dumb decision.
UCLA briefly brought in a female assistant around 2018 to work with the women’s distance/XC group alongside Devin Elizondo. She was only there a very short time (essentially that one season), had minimal to no prior high-level coaching experience, and then was gone. It was very clearly an experimental / optics-driven hire, not a long-term structural coaching position.
Traditionally, UCLA has never truly cared about distance running. They’ve had a few good coaches over the years, but no one in their right mind stays long-term. The bigger and more obvious issue is that the athletic department simply does not value cross country or track & field. Given that reality, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if JG is correct and UCLA is seriously considering ditching its XC/TF programs altogether.
Yeah, they hired a high school coach with zero experience in NCAA D1 athletics as an athlete or coach. What a dumb decision.
UCLA briefly brought in a female assistant around 2018 to work with the women’s distance/XC group alongside Devin Elizondo. She was only there a very short time (essentially that one season), had minimal to no prior high-level coaching experience, and then was gone. It was very clearly an experimental / optics-driven hire, not a long-term structural coaching position.
That was Jennifer DeRego. She coached a state champion in high school, and that athlete committed to UCLA. Beyond that one standout, there wasn’t much of a résumé. From everything I saw, she didn’t really know what she was doing at the Power 5 distance level. She was only there about a year and then was either let go or moved on shortly after.
Both the UC and CSU systems in California are facing major budget cuts. Sonoma State University got rid of sports completely. I have heard of coaching layoffs at other CSU campuses. If UCLA were seeking to eliminate TF and XC to cut costs, it wouldn't surprise me. They've not been competitive in years and the BIG 10 will be dominated by Oregon, USC, Washington, and Illinois for years to come. Why field a team and give away money for perpetual 6th and 7th place conference finishes?
Traditionally, UCLA has never truly cared about distance running. They’ve had a few good coaches over the years, but no one in their right mind stays long-term. The bigger and more obvious issue is that the athletic department simply does not value cross country or track & field. Given that reality, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if JG is correct and UCLA is seriously considering ditching its XC/TF programs altogether.
They Had the #1 High School Distance Recruit at least 2 Years in aRow, Jon Butler, Eric Reynolds, And MEB, Francie Larieu for the Girls (though She also Went To long Beach State, Where she Dated Larry Greer Who Coached Orange Coast College To A State Title)
“The UCLA Athletic Department, is considering dropping the Men's and Women's Cross Country and Track and Field program”
administrative priorities skew heavily toward optics, politics, and damage control, while Olympic sports, especially track & field are treated as expendable. When leadership is more focused on managing protests, public narratives, and internal politics than on investing in student/ athlete development, the people who lose are the athletes. Track doesn’t generate headlines or donor pressure the way football or basketball does, so it gets neglected. That disconnect between “values statements” and actual support for students is exactly why situations like this feel predictable rather than shocking.
What’s being said and this is coming directly from the recruiting and coaching ecosystem is that this isn’t just rumor mill noise anymore. High-school coaches in California are openly telling athletes that concerns about UCLA’s commitment to track are real, and that message is circulating among recruits. More importantly, there’s an understanding that some UCLA coaches are being candid with their own athletes about uncertainty so they can make informed decisions about transferring. If staff genuinely believe cuts, instability, or long-term neglect are possible, then honesty isn’t just appropriate, it’s ethical. Athletes only get a narrow window for development, scholarships, and eligibility, and withholding material information would be doing them a disservice. If this is true, transparency is the bare minimum UCLA owes its student athletes and committed recruits.
Johnny Gray went to UCLA, coached there, and is an Olympic medalist. He’s not someone who posts rumors or reckless speculation. If he’s saying this publicly, it’s because it’s real. It’s always sad when any college drops track & field, but as others have said, this has been a long time coming.
Olympics Four schools don't mind a nice XC and TF team but the alumni pays the bills and only step up when Olympics medals are mentioned. It's been that way for over 100 years and won't ever change.