UCLA Hires....

[BearJWS]

... Steve Alford. Didn't see that one coming!
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mens...w-mexico-lobos-coach-steve-alford-sources-say

 

[aceboon]

damn, he just signed a 10 year extension and had his son coming in next year, that came out of nowhere.

 

[BearJWS]

Interestingly, Alford & UCLA share a common bond!
UCLA was upset by Ivy League Princeton in the NCAAs approx 17 years ago.
Alford's New Mexico was upset by Ivy League Harvard in the NCAAs last week.
A perfect match!

 

[superjohn]

Seems like a terrible hire.

 

[calamity17]

How does any school that wants to be big time give a coach a 10 year contract with only a 1 million dollar buyout?

 

[Jerry1714]

Seems like a terrible hire.

Is this sarcasm?

Great hire, he has always recruited LA very well, wins a lot, rebuilt New Mexico. Only knock on him is his NCAA record.

 

[tzznandrew]

Seems like a terrible hire.

Agreed. Alford feels like he's going to be the second coming of Lavin: great for a school that has low to moderate expectations. He'll get you good recruits, you'll have decent records. But if you are judging a coach by Final Fours and Titles...good luck...

 

[suzyq]

damn, he just signed a 10 year extension and had his son coming in next year, that came out of nowhere.

Didn't see it coming , but I think it will work.

 

[tzznandrew]

Only knock on him is his NCAA record.

Right....and they just fired a guy who went to 3 straight Final Fours...what's the thing that matters most to UCLA?

 

[husky99]

Any recruits?

 

[Pudge]

Saying Steve Alford is a comparable to Steve Lavin shows an utter lack of knowledge of both.

Alford is not the BRAND excitement that UCLA wants. However, at both Iowa (and before) and now New Mexico, he showed that he can be a dynamic program builder. NOT top 20 ... but fairly consistent high level. Steve Lavin, first at UCLA and now at St. John's, is a charming ne'er do well. He doesn't seem to be able to bring a Team together to play at a high level. At UCLA, he got great recruits ... and then they fizzled out regularly game by game and never winning anything of significance.

There will be kids that go to UCLA that are top prospects. The question is whether Steve Alford can coach these kids to a far higher level (cause he will have better ballplayers). Steve Lavin was simply a mess in Westwood ... and my view of Jamaica, Queens is parallel these days.

 

[Jerry1714]

Right....and they just fired a guy who went to 3 straight Final Fours...what's the thing that matters most to UCLA?

Who woulda been a better hire that they had a chance with? Romar? Gotfried? Mike brown?

 

[alexd]

Even without saying a word..the ESPN ticker seems to be questioning the decision by mentioning that he lost in the first rd this year and that he never got out of the 2nd round at Iowa or NM.

 

[Waquoit]

Right....and they just fired a guy who went to 3 straight Final Fours...what's the thing that matters most to UCLA?

And the guy before him made 5 Sweet Sixteens in 6 years.

 

[tzznandrew]

Who woulda been a better hire that they had a chance with? Romar? Gotfried? Mike brown?

I'm not sure. I don't know who they talked to (outside of Stevens) and how much money they were willing to spend. It seems like there are a lot of coaches out there who have more NCAA wins than Alford, and who haven't already failed at the Major level.

 

[BearJWS]

Gotta love UCLA thinking outside the box. They saw New Mexico get upset by Havard and said "let's hire that guy"....

 

[husky99]

Gotfried was never leaving, 3.5 mil buy out. He should fire his agent

 

[tzznandrew]

Saying Steve Alford is a comparable to Steve Lavin shows an utter lack of knowledge of both.

Alford is not the BRAND excitement that UCLA wants. However, at both Iowa (and before) and now New Mexico, he showed that he can be a dynamic program builder. NOT top 20 ... but fairly consistent high level. Steve Lavin, first at UCLA and now at St. John's, is a charming ne'er do well. He doesn't seem to be able to bring a Team together to play at a high level. At UCLA, he got great recruits ... and then they fizzled out regularly game by game and never winning anything of significance.

There will be kids that go to UCLA that are top prospects. The question is whether Steve Alford can coach these kids to a far higher level (cause he will have better ballplayers). Steve Lavin was simply a mess in Westwood ... and my view of Jamaica, Queens is parallel these days.

Lavin coached at UCLA from 1996-2003. His record was 145-78 (.650). He went to an Elite 8, four other S16s, and won 20 games all but once.

Alford took over for Tom Davis. It wasn't like Iowa sucked before he showed up there. He went 152-106 (.589) from 1999-2007. They made it out of the first round once, and only made 3 tournaments total. He got to 20 wins only 3 times. Only 3 times did he have a winning record in the B10, and twice that was 9-7. I'm not sure how you can suggest that's "building a program."

In addition to choking this year at New Mexico, he had a 30-4 team lose in the second round in 2010 to 11-seed Washington...

 

[Inyatkin]

I'm on board with the "terrible hire" thing. He couldn't get it done at Iowa but he'll make it work at UCLA? Maybe, I guess. You'd think UCLA would want something more than success at New Mexico, and it's not like they were some juggernaut, either.

 

[stick]

IMO, it's actually not a bad hire given the circumstances. Alford is by no means a great coach, but he might make a decent fit at UCLA. Alford has recruited Cal very well and will recruit it much, much better now with the UCLA brand. Everyone knew Ben Howland was dead man walking since 2011. He had lost control of the program and would surely have been canned if they hadn't bought signed the great class (overrated). Guerrero probably should have just fired him last year, but I'm sure he thought they were a potential pre-season top 5 team. Alford is leaps ahead of Steve Lavin as I'm not sure Lavin even knows how to roll out the balls for practice, let alone coach.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Let's put it this way - we wouldn't be happy with this hire.

 

[Waquoit]

Alford took over for Tom Davis. It wasn't like Iowa sucked before he showed up there.

In Davis' last season, he went to Sweet 16 losing to UConn the year they won their 1st title. That's what has colored my opinion of Alford. They force out Davis to bring him in and he wasn't any better, in fact he was worse. I bet history repeats itself.

 

[stick]

Let's put it this way - we wouldn't be happy with this hire.

True, but sometimes it's a matter of fit. Brad Stevens is obviously a very good coach, far superior to Alford. For UConn, I would take Stevens over Alford, but as crazy as it sounds, at this time and job, Alford might make the better option to clean up the mess at UCLA. If I had a choice, I'd probably still take Stevens over Alford, but at least in the short run, I'm not sure that Stevens would recruit UCLA better than Alford.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Let's put it this way - we wouldn't be happy with this hire.

Luring a coach with name recognition, high-major pedigree, and success at a good mid-major program is probably more than we'd be able to do right now given our conference situation and national perception.

 

[Woodson]

How will west coast -LA recruits respond? Is playing for UCLA the main attraction and the coach is irrelevant? Jordan McLaughlin, Bennie Boatwright, Sedrick Barefield and others are a few names that come to mind. Hopefully this hire only helps our chances with them.

On a side note, I had basically ignored recruiting under Calhoun for years - it just didn't seem like it was that big a deal.
But under Ollie, especially now at the very beginning, recruiting seems to be much much more important.