In Reply to: Let Me Get One Thing Straight... posted by 68mgr on July 10, 2018 at 22:34:11
I should also clarify - I don't think he should be fired at this point. I think it would be tremendously counterproductive given the timing, but I would have probably pursued it after the past season (depending on the feedback I received from my top potential target hires). I don't believe in a recruiting class "saving" a coach - I do think the incoming class is very good, and I'm hopeful for a good year, but to some extent there's an element of "show me" at this point. Honestly, the recruiting classes from last year and this year are, frankly, very close to what LCT has advocated, if you ask me - a mix of primarily multi-year players who are potentially high-major contributors, with 1-2 "elites" that may or may not stay for multiple seasons.
Smith 3* (upside, high-major recruit - top-150 ranked national player)
Ball 3* (mid-major, but extenuating circumstances)
Both Wilkes and Hands were guys that were seen as probable 2-year players; either or both could have gone and nobody would have been shocked, but neither was a slam-dunk 1-and-done.
O'Neal 4* (?)
Nwuba 3* (mid-major)
Brown is the only 'elite' recruit, but he's 7' and weighed 210 coming out of HS, so it wouldn't be a huge surprise if he took 2 years to go to the NBA. But even if he does, the remaining 5 players in this class (if Shareef makes it in) are all highly likely to be at UCLA for a number of years, and profile as high-major recruits. Not all will pan out, but there's a pretty good chance at least some will.
So in the past 2 seasons, UCLA has brought in seven guys that I would argue fit LCT's preference of solid, multi-year players of a high-major quality, not even including Wilkes or Hands (who will be here at least 2 seasons) or Brown (who may as well). We'll see how they do this year, and I strongly hope for a great season.
"A firing without a big name replacement in Dan's pocket will be asking for trouble."
I think that's a plausible concern, but that's kind of a different question. "Does Alford deserve to be fired?" and "Should UCLA fire Alford?" are seemingly-similar concepts, but not exactly the same -- the former looks at results, the latter at potential outcomes. I don't think "Dan G is a bad AD" is reason enough to keep CSA, it would be reason to not keep either of them.
"You ask if CSA's record is indicative of the best UCLA basketball can be? Obviously it is not and I say that because I KNOW the best UCLA ball can be because I was a small part of the Golden Age. But the game has changed in so many ways since then that merely "competing" is not good enough"
Well, right, but I think the question is whether or not some believe CSA is the best UCLA basketball can be *today* - you obviously have a vastly better idea of what its historical pinnacle looks like :) I sense a current from some who seem, fatalistically, to believe that there are environmental factors preventing UCLA from being elite. And maybe that's true. But I don't think that same fatalism should apply to giving up on attempting to reach success, which means exploring new coaching options if the current staff doesn't cut it.
Post a Followup