The Los Angeles Times posted a Q&A between Jim Mora and the paper's UCLA beat reporter Chris Foster.html on it's website. There are two exchanges that may raise some eyebrows starting with this one:

What remains to be done to put this program on a par with Oregon? "You're assuming Oregon is the measuring stick and they're not. Our measuring stick is playing to our standards. That's what we're trying to accomplish."

And the Q&A ends with this:

Past Bruins coaches have pointed to beating USC as a barometer to judge the success of the UCLA program. Is that still the case? "Of course they are our crosstown rival, but just beating USC does not make a season successful in my opinion. Our goals are more than just beating USC."

So based on those two exchanges it appears Mora generally agrees with the conclusions in this community: 2014 regular season was not a successful one for UCLA.

Mora has been around for three years. One would hope that UCLA should at least get up to Oregon standards (winning the conference and getting to the college football playoffs) by Mora's fifth season at UCLA. If he doesn't accomplish that in next two years by his own standards his tenure will not be seen as a successful one at UCLA.

What good are "standards" if one is not willing to live by them?