In Reply to: Re: We've been through this many times posted by BruinBlue1 on July 09, 2018 at 12:04:21
I think there are a couple lanes here --
1) Criticizing the coach is absolutely fair regardless of replacement options. Let's assume Steve Alford IS the best coach UCLA could get - why does that mean he's immune from criticism? "Best coach available" is far from "perfect coach." Alford isn't going to be fired until next season. That doesn't mean those who have problems with his approach have to suffer in silence.
2) "But we can't get either of those, nor indeed virtually any big name we could come up with." Good to know. In your lengthy conversations with all of those coaches, what rationales have they given? I'm not saying UCLA definitely could hire a 'big name' -- I'm just saying you and I sure as hell have no idea whether we could.
3) You're assuming UCLA's struggle with hiring coaches is due to some inherent UCLA quality, and not issues with the people doing the hiring.
4) "With the stunning exception of the Chip Kelly hire, UCLA's modus operandi seems not to involve carefully looking at potential coaches in advance, but to only fire a coach when they are absolutely forced to, and then to just look around at who might be available in that window, and then grab somebody who would fit within the financial constraints. " That is the MO *you* are promoting. You just said "let's see what Alford does this season" and then determine whether or not to fire him. So instead of deciding there is a better potential fit and aggressively pursuing, you're advocating we sit and wait to see if Steve can save his job -- and if he can't, then be forced to hire in a panic. An approach that got UCLA... Steve Alford.
Kosher's here trolling for the sake of trolling, mostly because the anti-BRO crowd and the pro-BRO crowd are equally insufferable on opposite ends of the spectrum, and this is the only moderator-less venue in which they can antagonize each other instead of having one set get banned. His posts aren't made in particularly good faith. However, the argument "you don't have a better replacement, you can't complain about Steve" is counterproductive to the entire purpose of a message board, and requires the assumption of equally perfect information by all parties to have any basis in reality, which is obviously not the case.
Post a Followup