In Reply to: How do you know who UCLA could or couldn't get? posted by Underbruin on July 09, 2018 at 18:17:30
"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."
Criticism is fair, but if Alford is the best option as this scenario posits, criticism is just p!ssing in the wind. Why bother? It's like Duke fans kvetching about K. So criticize all you like, just dont call for termination in this scenario (and wear a raincoat).
"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."
You have it backwards in this scenario. I cant prove a negative. If you are suggesting someone is coming, you have the burden of proof. Until you have some evidence that X is coming, you retain the burden of proof.
"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."
It's probably both. Not everyone college coach, dare I say most, dont want to be in LA. The successful coaches that want to be in big cities typically go for NBA jobs. Many, dare I say most, prefer being the big fish in a small pond. K had many opportunities to go to the NBA, but preferred Durham. Also Izzo, Williams, Donovan for a long time.
"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."
I got whiplash here. An AD should always have a list of candidates to contact if a vacancy occurs (either by termination or a coach leaving on his own). I imagine Dan has one, he's not incompetent. PS, we got Steve Alford bc the sexy candidates (Brad Stevens, Shaka Smart, etc) turned us down. So the most recent empirical evidence and really every coaching hire in football and hoops except Howland and Kelly, indicate that UCLA is not a top destination for hoops or football. The exceptions being Howland and Kelly. You can even look at SUC as well, even with all their history they have never been able to attract high level coaches for the football program (Pete was just dumb luck, he was like the 5th option). Everyone else in recent memory has been an meh at best -- Neuheisel, Alford, Dorrell, Toledo, Lavin, Harrick....
Post a Followup