In Reply to: ESPN: No reason to trust Steve Alford posted by JaxxxTheBruin on July 09, 2018 at 09:31:54
I assume that you scour the internet trying to find all the interesting articles you can--as long as they have an anti-Alford headline. Or maybe there are so many of these that you have a hard time choosing which one to headline? I will go with the first option.
Alford has had two teams at UCLA which finished in the top 25 poll. If we decide that going to the Sweet Sixteen is equivalent to at least a regular season top 25 finish, he has had three. Last year's tam had less scholarship players than any school in the country, and three of them were freshman, none of whom got drafted, so I would hardly think that this team should have been expected to finish in the top 25.
If O'Neal is eligible this year, we will finish in the top 25. We probably will, even if he does not play. For the writer to somehow imply that each of those two other UCLA teams of the last five years should have finished in the top 25 but for Alford, is silly, unless one argues that the rosters were not strong enough, which was not his point.
Finally, why don't you give us a couple of names of coaches you want to see here, and who you are confident would do better? And of course someone we could reasonably hire? I am always happy to discuss or analyze prospective new coaches. I have never argued that Alford is any kind of great coach, or that there are not some clearly better coaches out there. But it is remarkable that very seldom if at all, do people who incessantly hammer at Alford, have any worthwhile suggestions as to whom we should hire. That would spoil the fun; they would actually have to get behind some iffy coach, and risk looking foolish. So they go for the wishful projection, mention no names, just ridiculously imply that there are all sorts of great coaches for UCLA just waiting for their chance to be hired here. For my part, I will look forward to the upcoming season which I think could be very good. If it is not, we may well get a new coach, but you are going to be disappointed in who it is, unless somehow UCLA comes up with $5 million a year for Donovan (more than Kelly gets in FB), or uncharacteristically makes some incredibly astute hire from the assistant or very small school ranks. I am not sure that there is one major program coach out there whom we could get, who projects any better than Alford here--unless we are able to outbid the major school which he is coaching at, and/or the other major programs who might also be bidding for him, something which UCLA has never been able to do. But I'll worry about that when the season is over, rather than keep up a steady drumbeat of anti-Alford themes.
Post a Followup