In Reply to: Great find! posted by BruinBlue1 on July 09, 2018 at 10:30:35
I think it's entirely acceptable to criticize the lackluster performance of the program under Alford without suggesting who should be hired. The two--criticism of Alford's coaching tenure at UCLA, and who should replace him--are not inexorably connected. It's certainly anyone's right to criticize Coach Alford's performance at UCLA--plenty of facts support such criticism--whether by former players, anyone else connected to the program, or even fans like us. Further, I am not being paid $750,000 a year for my ability to locate a suitable replacement. I am more than happy to suggest possible replacements--Chris Mack has been snapped up; he'd have been at the top of my list. I might consider, were I the AD, at making a run at Billy Donovan or Mark Few. Donovan might be out of our reach, but if I were getting paid big bucks to make this decision, surely I would know whether either of those two are available, along with every other decent prospect.
The only way your argument would make sense is if there aren't suitable replacements for Alford, which you touch on in your post. But I just can't believe UCLA can't do better. The fact that UCLA made an ill-conceived hire in Alford and compounded the poor judgment by tying itself to a ridiculous contract does not mean that an AD (hopefully a new one) can't make a better decision.
Maybe this year's squad will break through. I'll be the first to congratulate Coach Alford if that occurs.
Post a Followup