In Reply to: Re: I get the frustration posted by Cachorro on December 09, 2025 at 11:09:43
but I suspect UCLA/Cronin didn't have the money to bring in highly regarded high school players. No one talks definitive numbers but the sense seemed to be that after bringing in Dent and Booker and retaining Bilodeau, Dailey, Clark, and Perry the UCLA basketball coffers were thin. Look at how Michigan brought in one highly regarded transfer after another. I don't know if they brought in any freshmen. How do you think they can do that? The answer is money - lots of it.
We don't know what goes on in recruiting but I think it's safe to say money plays a huge roll. You're right. Results are what matters. And if you think Cronin isn't getting the job done sufficiently then perhaps someone else is in order. But right now UCLA has a very good coach. What's the saying - don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Right now Cronin is doing a good job and everything seems to be pointing toward progress. He has UCLA consistently be heralded as top 15. Perhaps soon he will have UCLA consistently in the top 10 conversation. From what I can tell Cronin is building his program in the correct way established a solid and perhaps sustaining foundation for his program. That kind of building takes time.
I know that sometimes the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence, but sometimes that really isn't so. Cronin is a demanding coach. He requires a lot from his players. We consistently see players come into his program and struggle to achieve what he's asking of them. That means he is asking them to go to a level they have yet to achieve. In other words he is teaching. And despite the struggles his players learn and improve. That's growth.
He isn't just bringing in super uber athletic basketball players and adjusting his schemes to simply rely on their already established skills and talents. Perhaps those guys don't want to subject them selves to a coach that is that demanding that they learn new things and grow? But, whatever it is (money, demands to expand, etc.) what Cronin is doing is solid and fundamentally good even if the "big" guys don't come. What I see is the UCLA basketball program trending upward and positive even if the pace is frustratingly slow, Cronin's personality is difficult, and the 5 stars don't come in often enough and in greater numbers.
The bottom line for me is that UCLA, right now, has a very good coach and he's building the UCLA program in a solid positive way and making progress toward what everyone agrees is the goal - being in contention for national championships. The way he's doing it takes time. Already, in his first six years he has had two teams who were either in or considered a strong candidate for the final four. That's not bad. How many schools in that time period can say that? I would venture to guess that it can't be much more than 10 or so.