In Reply to: Re: How do you know who UCLA could or couldn't get? posted by SehornBlew on July 10, 2018 at 18:56:22
"Criticism is fair, but if Alford is the best option as this scenario posits, criticism is just p!ssing in the wind."
Alford may or may not be the best option. Even if he IS, criticism is still fair. And I think it's fair to say there's a pretty high possibility Alford is not the best option. Basically, if the argument is "you can't criticize IF Steve is the best coach UCLA could get," then I think you're going to see a lot of criticism. Basically, there is no scenario in which criticism is completely unreasonable -- and in almost every scenario (where Alford is not, in fact, the best possible coach), it's potentially dispositive.
"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."
I'm not the one making a definitive statement. BruinBlue is making the claim, as he is *definitively stating* who UCLA can and cannot get - to wit, "[UCLA] can't get either of [Mike White or Tony Bennett]." He retains the burden of proof. The burden of proof is not on me to say UCLA can get Mike White or Tony Bennett, because I'm not claiming UCLA *definitely* could, I am disputing his claim UCLA absolutely could not. If he doesn't have that knowledge (and I feel confident he does not), he has no basis to state UCLA *can't* hire those coaches. It would be fair to argue UCLA -probably- can't hire them, but that's not the claim.
"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."
I think it's fair to say LA could be a detriment to hiring a good college coach. But again, that's not his argument. "UCLA has a history of only being able to hire someone who is either out of work, is an assistant here, used to be an assistant here, or grew up in Southern California." My point is, UCLA's hiring history is inextricably tied up with those doing the hiring. I'm not convinced UCLA is incapable of hiring a good coach, and listing prior coaches (most of whom were hired by Dan Guerrero) isn't really proof in and of itself. It's directional, but the determining factor is just as likely to be poor hiring practices as it is to be a flaw with UCLA itself (especially given that BruinBlue admits one paragraph later that he doesn't trust Guerrero to make a hire).
"I got whiplash here."
Part of that paragraph is BruinBlue's words, not mine. In his OP, BB argues that UCLA should not fire Steve, but wait for more information as to whether or not he's good enough. Then, later in the same post, he complains that UCLA's approach to replacing coaches is "to only fire a coach when they are absolutely forced to..." He can't have it both ways - if one thinks UCLA should give Alford more time, that's fine - but then it's unreasonable to argue that UCLA's hiring practices are flawed because they wait too long to fire their coaches, so UCLA will do a bad job replacing Alford and therefore shouldn't replace him.
Post a Followup