Unlike the other five blue bloods, UCLA has to compete with an NBA blue blood, the Lakers. Add the Clippers and USC and it’s not easy being UCLA even with all that history, top recruiting classes, prestige, location, etc.

(05-01-2019 09:08 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 08:28 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 07:32 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  Here's an in depth article on the UCLA coaching search. “We would have loved for Jay Wright to walk out on the floor, but even when we offered to double his salary, he still wasn’t coming. Nothing we can do about that. But I am proud of our effort."

https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/la-s...209bb0cbd6

There a few elite coaches that simply just refuse to move onto true, undeniable, blue blood positions because they are able to compete for national championships at their current schools, are compensated enough to feel appreciated and valued, and are in position to have full autonomy over their respective programs for many, many years to come.

Wright is in this camp. As is Few.

But it wasn't just Wright and Few who turned them down. Calipari, Beard, Barnes, and plenty more. It sounds like Cronin was their 40th choice?

UCLA has to face the fact that it's no longer a blue-blood that can get by on name alone. Kentucky and Kansas and North Carolina and Duke don't have to give up any control to a new hire. They can skimp on facilities because they'll still get the top recruits. UCLA can no longer do that.

Just not true. UCLA has invested heavily in their facilities. They spent $136 million on the Pauley Pavilion renovation and another $35 million on their state of the art basketball practice facility. At the start of the 2018-2019 NBA season, UCLA had 17 players on NBA rosters, third behind Kentucky and Duke. They just lost their three McDonald's All-Americans, who all declared early for the NBA draft.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ay-rosters

It is not about the facilities or talent. They have had a coaching/leadership problem at UCLA. They got the right head coach, but the process was bungled. They should not have fired Alford in December. They should have waited until the end of the season. They could have found their guy in two weeks. They made a bunch of pointless calls to head coaches who had no reason to leave their current jobs and may have been bad fits for UCLA. In the end, they got the right guy, they just looked really stupid and incompetent in the process of arriving at their decision.

I think part of UCLA's problem if you will is that while the other blue bloods all have had multiple great runs with different coaches, pretty much UCLA's history started and in a lot of ways ended with Wooden. Their 2nd banana if you will has been no where near as good as other programs. Caddy Works and Ben Howland the only 2 UCLA coaches that have coached at UCLA for 10 years at least....

(05-01-2019 03:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think part of UCLA's problem if you will is that while the other blue bloods all have had multiple great runs with different coaches, pretty much UCLA's history started and in a lot of ways ended with Wooden. Their 2nd banana if you will has been no where near as good as other programs. Caddy Works and Ben Howland the only 2 UCLA coaches that have coached at UCLA for 10 years at least....

Would not surprise me at all if Duke basketball after K looks very much like UCLA basketball after Wooden. And that's if they're lucky. Could be worse, they could look like Indiana basketball after Knight.

(05-01-2019 04:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 03:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think part of UCLA's problem if you will is that while the other blue bloods all have had multiple great runs with different coaches, pretty much UCLA's history started and in a lot of ways ended with Wooden. Their 2nd banana if you will has been no where near as good as other programs. Caddy Works and Ben Howland the only 2 UCLA coaches that have coached at UCLA for 10 years at least....

Would not surprise me at all if Duke basketball after K looks very much like UCLA basketball after Wooden. And that's if they're lucky. Could be worse, they could look like Indiana basketball after Knight.

It will be interesting to see where Duke goes once Coach K retires. He has absolutely adjusted his program to the one-and-done era, not unlike Calipari, but in contrast to the likes of other coaches like Izzo, Wright, Bennett and even Roy Williams. I would think those programs are most likely in better long-term shape, since you have a program that is built to be sustained over a longer period of time (rather than a roster of numerous one-and-done players). As the rules for the NBA Draft get adjusted, Kentucky and Duke will undoubtedly change the type of players they recruit and acquire.

I think Cronin will do very well at UCLA. I don't know if he will ever win a national championship while there, but he should get them consistently competitive enough to sustain deep runs in the tournament (despite the lack of postseason success at Cincinnati).

(05-02-2019 09:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 04:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 03:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think part of UCLA's problem if you will is that while the other blue bloods all have had multiple great runs with different coaches, pretty much UCLA's history started and in a lot of ways ended with Wooden. Their 2nd banana if you will has been no where near as good as other programs. Caddy Works and Ben Howland the only 2 UCLA coaches that have coached at UCLA for 10 years at least....

Would not surprise me at all if Duke basketball after K looks very much like UCLA basketball after Wooden. And that's if they're lucky. Could be worse, they could look like Indiana basketball after Knight.

It will be interesting to see where Duke goes once Coach K retires. He has absolutely adjusted his program to the one-and-done era, not unlike Calipari, but in contrast to the likes of other coaches like Izzo, Wright, Bennett and even Roy Williams. I would think those programs are most likely in better long-term shape, since you have a program that is built to be sustained over a longer period of time (rather than a roster of numerous one-and-done players). As the rules for the NBA Draft get adjusted, Kentucky and Duke will undoubtedly change the type of players they recruit and acquire.

I think Cronin will do very well at UCLA. I don't know if he will ever win a national championship while there, but he should get them consistently competitive enough to sustain deep runs in the tournament (despite the lack of postseason success at Cincinnati).

I think it's absolutely foolish to think that Duke in particular will struggle when the 1 and done era is over. OK, so they won't get the top 1 and done guys. There's still the Coach K name. He's going to get the top guys that are going to college. The only difference now is that the guys that he gets are going to stick around longer, making them tougher long term. Might be a slight adjustment- but it won't be long at all. And wouldn't be surprised if in the next year or two we see him getting some guys that aren't 1 and done types in preperation for that changeover....

(05-02-2019 09:39 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 04:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 03:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think part of UCLA's problem if you will is that while the other blue bloods all have had multiple great runs with different coaches, pretty much UCLA's history started and in a lot of ways ended with Wooden. Their 2nd banana if you will has been no where near as good as other programs. Caddy Works and Ben Howland the only 2 UCLA coaches that have coached at UCLA for 10 years at least....

Would not surprise me at all if Duke basketball after K looks very much like UCLA basketball after Wooden. And that's if they're lucky. Could be worse, they could look like Indiana basketball after Knight.

It will be interesting to see where Duke goes once Coach K retires. He has absolutely adjusted his program to the one-and-done era, not unlike Calipari, but in contrast to the likes of other coaches like Izzo, Wright, Bennett and even Roy Williams. I would think those programs are most likely in better long-term shape, since you have a program that is built to be sustained over a longer period of time (rather than a roster of numerous one-and-done players). As the rules for the NBA Draft get adjusted, Kentucky and Duke will undoubtedly change the type of players they recruit and acquire.

I think Cronin will do very well at UCLA. I don't know if he will ever win a national championship while there, but he should get them consistently competitive enough to sustain deep runs in the tournament (despite the lack of postseason success at Cincinnati).

I think it's absolutely foolish to think that Duke in particular will struggle when the 1 and done era is over. OK, so they won't get the top 1 and done guys. There's still the Coach K name. He's going to get the top guys that are going to college. The only difference now is that the guys that he gets are going to stick around longer, making them tougher long term. Might be a slight adjustment- but it won't be long at all. And wouldn't be surprised if in the next year or two we see him getting some guys that aren't 1 and done types in preperation for that changeover....

Well, the rule is changing until at least 2022; Coach K will be 75 at that point. He might still be coaching, but he may retire at that point as well.

As long as Coach K is at Duke, they will be a top-5 program - zero doubt. However, with an inevitable coaching change, possibly occurring as this shift occurs, I can see them taking a step back.

(05-02-2019 10:09 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:39 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 04:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 03:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think part of UCLA's problem if you will is that while the other blue bloods all have had multiple great runs with different coaches, pretty much UCLA's history started and in a lot of ways ended with Wooden. Their 2nd banana if you will has been no where near as good as other programs. Caddy Works and Ben Howland the only 2 UCLA coaches that have coached at UCLA for 10 years at least....

Would not surprise me at all if Duke basketball after K looks very much like UCLA basketball after Wooden. And that's if they're lucky. Could be worse, they could look like Indiana basketball after Knight.

It will be interesting to see where Duke goes once Coach K retires. He has absolutely adjusted his program to the one-and-done era, not unlike Calipari, but in contrast to the likes of other coaches like Izzo, Wright, Bennett and even Roy Williams. I would think those programs are most likely in better long-term shape, since you have a program that is built to be sustained over a longer period of time (rather than a roster of numerous one-and-done players). As the rules for the NBA Draft get adjusted, Kentucky and Duke will undoubtedly change the type of players they recruit and acquire.

I think Cronin will do very well at UCLA. I don't know if he will ever win a national championship while there, but he should get them consistently competitive enough to sustain deep runs in the tournament (despite the lack of postseason success at Cincinnati).

I think it's absolutely foolish to think that Duke in particular will struggle when the 1 and done era is over. OK, so they won't get the top 1 and done guys. There's still the Coach K name. He's going to get the top guys that are going to college. The only difference now is that the guys that he gets are going to stick around longer, making them tougher long term. Might be a slight adjustment- but it won't be long at all. And wouldn't be surprised if in the next year or two we see him getting some guys that aren't 1 and done types in preperation for that changeover....

Well, the rule is changing until at least 2022; Coach K will be 75 at that point. He might still be coaching, but he may retire at that point as well.

As long as Coach K is at Duke, they will be a top-5 program - zero doubt. However, with an inevitable coaching change, possibly occurring as this shift occurs, I can see them taking a step back.

Duke had a good history prior to Coach K though.... That's a big difference between them and UCLA.... Duke basketball didn't start with Coach K. UCLA basketball did.

Might be a similar situation to what we saw at UNC... There was a 6 year period between Dean Smith and Roy Williams.

(05-02-2019 10:09 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:39 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 04:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 03:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think part of UCLA's problem if you will is that while the other blue bloods all have had multiple great runs with different coaches, pretty much UCLA's history started and in a lot of ways ended with Wooden. Their 2nd banana if you will has been no where near as good as other programs. Caddy Works and Ben Howland the only 2 UCLA coaches that have coached at UCLA for 10 years at least....

Would not surprise me at all if Duke basketball after K looks very much like UCLA basketball after Wooden. And that's if they're lucky. Could be worse, they could look like Indiana basketball after Knight.

It will be interesting to see where Duke goes once Coach K retires. He has absolutely adjusted his program to the one-and-done era, not unlike Calipari, but in contrast to the likes of other coaches like Izzo, Wright, Bennett and even Roy Williams. I would think those programs are most likely in better long-term shape, since you have a program that is built to be sustained over a longer period of time (rather than a roster of numerous one-and-done players). As the rules for the NBA Draft get adjusted, Kentucky and Duke will undoubtedly change the type of players they recruit and acquire.

I think Cronin will do very well at UCLA. I don't know if he will ever win a national championship while there, but he should get them consistently competitive enough to sustain deep runs in the tournament (despite the lack of postseason success at Cincinnati).

I think it's absolutely foolish to think that Duke in particular will struggle when the 1 and done era is over. OK, so they won't get the top 1 and done guys. There's still the Coach K name. He's going to get the top guys that are going to college. The only difference now is that the guys that he gets are going to stick around longer, making them tougher long term. Might be a slight adjustment- but it won't be long at all. And wouldn't be surprised if in the next year or two we see him getting some guys that aren't 1 and done types in preperation for that changeover....

Well, the rule is changing until at least 2022; Coach K will be 75 at that point. He might still be coaching, but he may retire at that point as well.

As long as Coach K is at Duke, they will be a top-5 program - zero doubt. However, with an inevitable coaching change, possibly occurring as this shift occurs, I can see them taking a step back.

Coach K will be a hard act to follow. Coach K got the job at Duke when Bill Foster left Duke for South Carolina. Coach K inherited a good program from Foster. He then went 38 and 47 over the next three years, losing the last game of his third season 109-66 to Virginia. He thought he was going to get fired and fortunately he did not. The rest is history. I doubt that the next coach would survive that kind of start.

(05-02-2019 10:09 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:39 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 04:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 03:27 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think part of UCLA's problem if you will is that while the other blue bloods all have had multiple great runs with different coaches, pretty much UCLA's history started and in a lot of ways ended with Wooden. Their 2nd banana if you will has been no where near as good as other programs. Caddy Works and Ben Howland the only 2 UCLA coaches that have coached at UCLA for 10 years at least....

Would not surprise me at all if Duke basketball after K looks very much like UCLA basketball after Wooden. And that's if they're lucky. Could be worse, they could look like Indiana basketball after Knight.

It will be interesting to see where Duke goes once Coach K retires. He has absolutely adjusted his program to the one-and-done era, not unlike Calipari, but in contrast to the likes of other coaches like Izzo, Wright, Bennett and even Roy Williams. I would think those programs are most likely in better long-term shape, since you have a program that is built to be sustained over a longer period of time (rather than a roster of numerous one-and-done players). As the rules for the NBA Draft get adjusted, Kentucky and Duke will undoubtedly change the type of players they recruit and acquire.

I think Cronin will do very well at UCLA. I don't know if he will ever win a national championship while there, but he should get them consistently competitive enough to sustain deep runs in the tournament (despite the lack of postseason success at Cincinnati).

I think it's absolutely foolish to think that Duke in particular will struggle when the 1 and done era is over. OK, so they won't get the top 1 and done guys. There's still the Coach K name. He's going to get the top guys that are going to college. The only difference now is that the guys that he gets are going to stick around longer, making them tougher long term. Might be a slight adjustment- but it won't be long at all. And wouldn't be surprised if in the next year or two we see him getting some guys that aren't 1 and done types in preperation for that changeover....

Well, the rule is changing until at least 2022; Coach K will be 75 at that point. He might still be coaching, but he may retire at that point as well.

As long as Coach K is at Duke, they will be a top-5 program - zero doubt. However, with an inevitable coaching change, possibly occurring as this shift occurs, I can see them taking a step back.

A coach never wants to be the o e that follows a legend. He wants to be the guy who follows the guy who replaced the legend.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Howard closed the carousel filling the final position and then North Dakota's coach left to become an Illinois St asssistant 2 years after taking the Fighting Sioux to its first NCAA Tournament.

Arizona job will soon be open. Also still possible LSU comes back open if anything else surfaces. This could restart the domino effect into mid/late summer.

(05-02-2019 10:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:09 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:39 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 04:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Would not surprise me at all if Duke basketball after K looks very much like UCLA basketball after Wooden. And that's if they're lucky. Could be worse, they could look like Indiana basketball after Knight.

It will be interesting to see where Duke goes once Coach K retires. He has absolutely adjusted his program to the one-and-done era, not unlike Calipari, but in contrast to the likes of other coaches like Izzo, Wright, Bennett and even Roy Williams. I would think those programs are most likely in better long-term shape, since you have a program that is built to be sustained over a longer period of time (rather than a roster of numerous one-and-done players). As the rules for the NBA Draft get adjusted, Kentucky and Duke will undoubtedly change the type of players they recruit and acquire.

I think Cronin will do very well at UCLA. I don't know if he will ever win a national championship while there, but he should get them consistently competitive enough to sustain deep runs in the tournament (despite the lack of postseason success at Cincinnati).

I think it's absolutely foolish to think that Duke in particular will struggle when the 1 and done era is over. OK, so they won't get the top 1 and done guys. There's still the Coach K name. He's going to get the top guys that are going to college. The only difference now is that the guys that he gets are going to stick around longer, making them tougher long term. Might be a slight adjustment- but it won't be long at all. And wouldn't be surprised if in the next year or two we see him getting some guys that aren't 1 and done types in preperation for that changeover....

Well, the rule is changing until at least 2022; Coach K will be 75 at that point. He might still be coaching, but he may retire at that point as well.

As long as Coach K is at Duke, they will be a top-5 program - zero doubt. However, with an inevitable coaching change, possibly occurring as this shift occurs, I can see them taking a step back.

Duke had a good history prior to Coach K though.... That's a big difference between them and UCLA.... Duke basketball didn't start with Coach K. UCLA basketball did.

Might be a similar situation to what we saw at UNC... There was a 6 year period between Dean Smith and Roy Williams.

That's true, but then again Wooden started at UCLA in 1948. Few schools had a national basketball reputation before 1948. Both the NIT and the NCAA tourney were less than 10 years old, and 5 of those years were during WW2.

I can see Duke struggling soon post-K, and I suspect the guy who follows doesn’t last long. Might be smart to grab a pro guy who could and would transition back after a select period.

But it’s hard to think the program struggling long after Coach K. I could see it if the program failed to utilize any of the resources or fruits of K’s work with Team USA over the years, but could Duke be so stupid to just wash itself of that?

(05-02-2019 10:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Duke had a good history prior to Coach K though.... That's a big difference between them and UCLA....

Not an important difference. Compare Indiana with UCLA. Indiana basketball was pretty good before Knight -- Branch McCracken won 367 games and 2 national titles. If prior history was so important, IU would have sustained success after Knight better than UCLA did after Wooden, but in fact IU after Knight has been far worse than UCLA after Wooden.

The first two UCLA post-Wooden coaches had winning percentages over .800, the next two had winning percentages over .700, and every non-interim post-Wooden coach, even Alford, has had a winning percentage over .600. That's a span of 43 seasons after Wooden's retirement. IU has played only 19 seasons since Knight's departure, but in the last 11, with Crean and now Archie Miller, they are below .550 overall and well under .500 in conference during that span. That's a hard fall.

(05-02-2019 10:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Duke had a good history prior to Coach K though.... That's a big difference between them and UCLA....

Not an important difference. Compare Indiana with UCLA. Indiana basketball was pretty good before Knight -- Branch McCracken won 367 games and 2 national titles. If prior history was so important, IU would have sustained success after Knight better than UCLA did after Wooden, but in fact IU after Knight has been far worse than UCLA after Wooden.

The first two UCLA post-Wooden coaches had winning percentages over .800, the next two had winning percentages over .700, and every non-interim post-Wooden coach, even Alford, has had a winning percentage over .600. That's a span of 43 seasons after Wooden's retirement. IU has played only 19 seasons since Knight's departure, but in the last 11, with Crean and now Archie Miller, they are below .550 overall and well under .500 in conference during that span. That's a hard fall.

UCLA didn’t have to deal with the fallout from the forced removal of one of its most successful coaches, though. To have a spotlight on a program for what happened under a guy, and how toxic that period still remains for easy attacks from media and for opponents’ recruiters. Indiana may have that black eye, due or undue, for some time. And that carries far forward, unique to them, really, as they re-center.

And for those others in the region, like Kentucky, Louisville, and even Purdue and Notre Dame, they have benefited from IU’s fall from grace, making it that much harder for Indiana.

UCLA just has a bad administrative core with some other problem spots (LA media probably doesn’t help). They are just impossible to please.

And, beyond Arizona and occasionally Washington, and Gonzaga (but they recruit outside the US), the west is still pretty weak.

What may help Duke through this, whenever that happens, should it ever, is its private status. Duke is a huge program, but it’s not beholden to as many people as others could be.

(05-03-2019 12:11 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Duke had a good history prior to Coach K though.... That's a big difference between them and UCLA....

Not an important difference. Compare Indiana with UCLA. Indiana basketball was pretty good before Knight -- Branch McCracken won 367 games and 2 national titles. If prior history was so important, IU would have sustained success after Knight better than UCLA did after Wooden, but in fact IU after Knight has been far worse than UCLA after Wooden.

The first two UCLA post-Wooden coaches had winning percentages over .800, the next two had winning percentages over .700, and every non-interim post-Wooden coach, even Alford, has had a winning percentage over .600. That's a span of 43 seasons after Wooden's retirement. IU has played only 19 seasons since Knight's departure, but in the last 11, with Crean and now Archie Miller, they are below .550 overall and well under .500 in conference during that span. That's a hard fall.

UCLA didn’t have to deal with the fallout from the forced removal of one of its most successful coaches, though. To have a spotlight on a program for what happened under a guy, and how toxic that period still remains for easy attacks from media and for opponents’ recruiters. Indiana may have that black eye, due or undue, for some time. And that carries far forward, unique to them, really, as they re-center.

For how long are you going to give Indiana a free pass for that? By any reasonable measure, that free pass expired long ago. Crean was hired more than 8 years after Knight was fired. Archie Miller was hired 17 years after Knight was fired. Both were/are under .500 in conference.

UCLA also fired a head coach (Harrick) who won a national title. The coach who immediately succeeded him (Lavin) went to 4 sweet 16s in 6 seasons. The issue at UCLA is that they have boosters who think that's not good enough, so they fired Lavin, and then fired the next guy (Howland) who went to 3 straight final fours. The fact that the boosters are way too quick to put the coach on the hot seat (and the administrators are too weak to calm down the angry boosters) is why A-list coaches like Wright won't go there even if you double his salary.

To Wedge's point, UCLA did offer to nearly double Tony Bennett's salaray and he turned them down. Yes he has a good thing going at Virginia, but the potential at UCLA is much higher, and so is the money. So it had to be the coaching environment issue as Wedge noted.

Sean Miller is not going to last at Arizona. It is just taking awhile for the school to get the courage up to part ways. They are so scared of losing what looks like a top 3 in the Nation recruiting class that they are paralyzed. It would not shock me if the waited until the bulk of the class enrolled before finally terminating Miller. But the NCAA is going to smash them much harder if they don't start taking action and self penalizing. This is death penalty worthy if they fight much more.

(05-03-2019 05:09 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  To Wedge's point, UCLA did offer to nearly double Tony Bennett's salaray and he turned them down. Yes he has a good thing going at Virginia, but the potential at UCLA is much higher, and so is the money. So it had to be the coaching environment issue as Wedge noted.

Sean Miller is not going to last at Arizona. It is just taking awhile for the school to get the courage up to part ways. They are so scared of losing what looks like a top 3 in the Nation recruiting class that they are paralyzed. It would not shock me if the waited until the bulk of the class enrolled before finally terminating Miller. But the NCAA is going to smash them much harder if they don't start taking action and self penalizing. This is death penalty worthy if they fight much more.

How can the potential be higher than winning the national title?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is no higher potential than winning the national championship. That’s why throwing twice the money at Bennett won’t work. He’s already atop the mountain.