The third consecutive loss to SC was certain to trigger an avalanche of criticism for Coach Steve Alford, much of it deserved.
The disaster of a season was certain to trigger calls for his head again. This was a given because of the number of Alford-haters who have been on him since he was hired.
I am neither endorsing him nor calling for his removal.
I believe UCLA’s success more than 40 years ago has worked against the team because many in our fan base continue to have unrealistic expectations and think just because of the four letters made famous four decades ago we somehow have a “right” to remain one of the elite programs of college basketball.
UCLA has become a graveyard for college basketball coaches.
We have had 9 of them since Wooden retired.
Other perennial powers like Kentucky, Duke, Kansas and North Carolina have much more longevity with their coaches. I don’t think any of them has employed more than 4-5 head coaches over the past 40 years.
Have our ADs done a poor job in identifying the right man?
Why do we have such a high coaching turnover, an average of a new coach every 4.5 years?
I think it’s a disastrous recipe to keep changing coaches at the first sign of a weakness.
UCLA fired Ben Howland after he won a Pac-12 title.
I don’t know if Steve Alford is the right man for the job. Only time can tell us that. I thought at the time it was important to give him a long range contract if only for him to feel like he could survive longer than the 4.5 average length of time our coaches get on the job.
What I do know is if we keep changing coaches, we will never be elite again.
So the bottom line is you have to make the right choice in the first place and be willing to live with some bumps in the road.
We hit some big bumps this year -- three of them against the hated ones -- but we have some help coming in next season. I would like to see how this coach works with that team. And if the talent plays to its level, well, things can turn around very fast.
The disaster of a season was certain to trigger calls for his head again. This was a given because of the number of Alford-haters who have been on him since he was hired.
I am neither endorsing him nor calling for his removal.
I believe UCLA’s success more than 40 years ago has worked against the team because many in our fan base continue to have unrealistic expectations and think just because of the four letters made famous four decades ago we somehow have a “right” to remain one of the elite programs of college basketball.
UCLA has become a graveyard for college basketball coaches.
We have had 9 of them since Wooden retired.
Other perennial powers like Kentucky, Duke, Kansas and North Carolina have much more longevity with their coaches. I don’t think any of them has employed more than 4-5 head coaches over the past 40 years.
Have our ADs done a poor job in identifying the right man?
Why do we have such a high coaching turnover, an average of a new coach every 4.5 years?
I think it’s a disastrous recipe to keep changing coaches at the first sign of a weakness.
UCLA fired Ben Howland after he won a Pac-12 title.
I don’t know if Steve Alford is the right man for the job. Only time can tell us that. I thought at the time it was important to give him a long range contract if only for him to feel like he could survive longer than the 4.5 average length of time our coaches get on the job.
What I do know is if we keep changing coaches, we will never be elite again.
So the bottom line is you have to make the right choice in the first place and be willing to live with some bumps in the road.
We hit some big bumps this year -- three of them against the hated ones -- but we have some help coming in next season. I would like to see how this coach works with that team. And if the talent plays to its level, well, things can turn around very fast.
