Steve Alford new UCLA coach.
Per Andy Katz.
Andy Katz says multiple sources say Steve Alford to UCLA
link?
That is actually a very good choice for UCLA. His name was never mentioned, providing further evidence pundits are as worthless as buzz said they are .
Crazy. He couldn't be who they wanted. Alford did a poor job at Iowa - took Iowa a step backwards from the Tom Davis era.
Will post when up. Katz broke it on Sportscsenter. Cut into the scheduled stories.
link??????
Quote from: boblawblog on March 30, 2013, 10:41:48 AM
link??????
on the twittersphere among all the writers.
Quote from: boblawblog on March 30, 2013, 10:41:48 AM
link??????
Just google it...took 2 seconds to find.
http://m.espn.go.com/general/story?storyId=9114861&city=losangeles
Sheesh, I'd rather have Enfield than Alford.
I'm guessing UCLA got far down their list.
More proof for many here that contract extensions mean nothing.
Alford will do well there. They'll certainly like his style of ball ;).
Quote from: MUMonster03 on March 30, 2013, 10:36:34 AM
Steve Alford new UCLA coach.
They realize New Mexico was a 3 seed and lost in the first round, right???
Thank you. No more Buzz leaving speculation for the time being, unless he takes the Minnesota job. ::)
See now that is a perfect matchup, like Calipari to Kentucky. Programs that say they are "conservative" but have absolutely no integrity whatsover.
I guess "conservative" UCLA wasn't bothered by how Alford let known rapists play for his team at Iowa, eh?
Anddddd - their forum is dead.
Listening to CBS Sports Radio talking about this. They don't seem very thrilled about it - "at best a B- hire for a once-A+ program."
They called out Buzz specifically and said that word out of Marquette was that Buzz Williams wasn't interested and they weren't going to wait around to try and make a run.
Quote from: chris006 on March 30, 2013, 10:41:11 AM
Crazy. He couldn't be who they wanted. Alford did a poor job at Iowa - took Iowa a step backwards from the Tom Davis era.
He didn't do terrible, but he was just hated by the fan base because of how big of a jerk he was to people, and by keeping Pierre Pierce on the team after his whole string of "incidents". Iowa really went downhill because they let their facilities go to crap and couldn't recruit anyone...and then Todd Lickliter happened.
I actually think this is a decent hire, but Alford has a completely atrocious tournament track record.
Perplexing hire. Alford's tournament resume stinks and his style of play at New Mexico was defensive orientated, grind it out. I thought UCLA was looking for something different. Also, goes to show you how worthless these huge contract extensions for coaches are.
Buzz to New Mexico?
Quote from: MUFanatic4Life on March 30, 2013, 10:49:08 AM
Thank you. No more Buzz leaving speculation for the time being, unless he takes the Minnesota job. ::)
Honestly did anyone really expect Buzz to go to UCLA? I think all the chatter on here was more that everyone is pissed that the sports media still thinks we are just a stepping stone.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 30, 2013, 10:55:26 AM
Buzz to New Mexico?
And taking John Dawson with him. Oh nos!
He signed a 10 year extension 2 weeks ago worth around $2 million/year with New Mexico lol
Quote from: MUFanatic4Life on March 30, 2013, 10:58:29 AM
He signed a 10 year extension 2 weeks ago worth around $2 million/year with New Mexico lol
Wow...Alford is ethically shady? Who would have thought that?
Quote from: dinger on March 30, 2013, 10:57:55 AM
Honestly did anyone really expect Buzz to go to UCLA? I think all the chatter on here was more that everyone is pissed that the sports media still thinks we are just a stepping stone.
I didn't expect him to bolt but yes I'm always annoyed that MU is seen as a stepping stone. All the UCLA and Minn. fans seemed to think they had him locked up, saying they were much better jobs than MU, which annoys me.
I think Alford has improved as a coach. If he can pull the Cali talent he should be ok. Not the bang hire but it may work out for them.
If Alford is worth 2 mil how much is Buzz worth?
Getting a lot of positive comments from people when I was out wearing my MU hat. Great publicity.
Also goes to show you what a new 10-year contract with a hefty raise is worth. Less than 2-weeks old and on the next plane out of town.
UCLA vs New Mexico though. Is that much of a choice? I know which job I take.
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 30, 2013, 11:00:38 AM
I think Alford has improved as a coach. If he can pull the Cali talent he should be ok. Not the bang hire but it may work out for them.
If Alford is worth 2 mil how much is Buzz worth?
Alford...18 years as a D1 head coach...4 tourney wins. Only S16 was with Southwest Missouri.
Buzz...6 years as a head coach...8 tourney wins. Three S16s and one E8.
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 30, 2013, 11:04:51 AM
UCLA vs New Mexico though. Is that much of a choice? I know which job I take.
If he doesn't get past the first round within 3-5 years he's toast though. Should've stayed at NM where the standards are lower and there's less pressure.
Hopefully Dick Strong is still part of our posse. Did the admin diminish his role, haven't heard much about him lately. I know Cottingham had Dick interview Buzz before he was hired, signaling a strong influence.
Quote from: MUFanatic4Life on March 30, 2013, 11:08:39 AM
If he doesn't get past the first round within 3-5 years he's toast though. Should've stayed at NM where the standards are lower and there's less pressure.
If you're a coach with any self confidence I don't know you'd shrink from leaving NM for UCLA. That is one way to look at your situation though.
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 30, 2013, 11:04:51 AM
UCLA vs New Mexico though. Is that much of a choice? I know which job I take.
If you enjoy Blue Meth than New Mexico might be a better job #heisenberg
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 30, 2013, 11:00:38 AM
If Alford is worth 2 mil how much is Buzz worth?
Paradoxically less, if you apply basic economics.
Think about it from this perspective--if the pay were equal, is the MU or UCLA job better right now? Read the threads and you'll find that most MU fans would argue that the MU job is far superior.
So pay being equal, a candidate should prefer the Marquette job. UCLA would have to pay more to compensate for the perceived disadvantages of thier opening.
I don't know what UCLA paid.
Buzz has a far greater resume than Alford plus a lot of potential as he's still very young.
If your worth to a program is determined through success plus competition for your services then...
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 30, 2013, 10:55:26 AM
Buzz to New Mexico?
I actually think that would be more plausible than Buzz to Minny. Not saying there is even a 1% chance of it happening, just commenting on how ridiculous the Gophers were.
OMG. LMFAO. Steve Alford. Good grief.
Quote from: The Equalizer on March 30, 2013, 11:14:41 AM
Paradoxically less, if you apply basic economics.
Think about it from this perspective--if the pay were equal, is the MU or UCLA job better right now? Read the threads and you'll find that most MU fans would argue that the MU job is far superior.
So pay being equal, a candidate should prefer the Marquette job. UCLA would have to pay more to compensate for the perceived disadvantages of thier opening.
I think what he was getting at was that the marginal benefit of having Buzz as opposed to Alford is greater, not commenting on what is required to land the coach.
So they swapped out Howland for Alford.
(http://www.rounds.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/nelson-muntz.gif)
"@darrenrovell: Alford 3 DAYS AGO on New Mexico: "I gave a lot to stay here. I took away incentives that I've made for 5 consecutive years.""
What a clown. Am I wrong to think Buzz would never play us like that?
Quote from: #MUBB on March 30, 2013, 11:40:53 AM
"@darrenrovell: Alford 3 DAYS AGO on New Mexico: "I gave a lot to stay here. I took away incentives that I've made for 5 consecutive years.""
What a clown. Am I wrong to think Buzz would never play us like that?
As long as a coach goes about leaving the right way (meeting with players face to face, not hiding his negotiations from the administration), I can't fault any coach for leaving for a bigger job. Players should be able to transfer as easily as coaches can move schools, but thats the NCAA's problem, not the coaches.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 30, 2013, 11:06:17 AM
Alford...18 years as a D1 head coach...4 tourney wins. Only S16 was with Southwest Missouri.
Buzz...6 years as a head coach...8 tourney wins. Three S16s and one E8.
Haven't we learned just from the last week or so the tourney is a crap shoot and always will be? We got lucky to even win one game this year and now we play for a Final Four. It's that razor thin on how your team does in the NCAAs.
There are years when top teams have got knocked out early...or years when a team that loses twice to Lipscomb, loses to Maine, Mercer, East Tennessee State, Stetson can get hot and make it to the Sweet 16. You play one bad half, bad shooting day, etc...you're done. It's not best of 7.
Who knows if this is a good hire, I'll wait my 5 years like I always do because I've seen too many Steve Lavin, Bruiser Flint, Quinn Snyder, etc hires.
I do find it interesting that UCLA is going back to an Indiana native to get the program started again. The fact he is an IU grad is also interesting.
This will be an interesting thread to "hoopin" in 5 years. He might crater and there will be "I told you so" from some or he might do very well and there will be "I told you so" from others. :D
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 30, 2013, 11:45:01 AM
Haven't we learned just from the last week or so the tourney is a crap shoot and always will be? We got lucky to even win one game this year and now we play for a Final Four. It's that razor thin on how your team does in the NCAAs.
Oh my goodness...are you kidding?
It has been 14 years since he has been in the S16...and you think that's just because the tournament is a crapshoot? Are you Alford's agent or something?
EDIT: And this is so classic Chicos....trolling me with the "lucky" angle. Not biting dude. Go seek your attention elsewhere.
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 30, 2013, 11:11:12 AM
If you're a coach with any self confidence I don't know you'd shrink from leaving NM for UCLA. That is one way to look at your situation though.
If you're a coach with any self confidence, you don't need the UCLA job to prove your status/worth. You know who you are and look for the opportunity that is best for your health and your family.
He's a bad person who frankly hasn't accomplished all that much as a coach.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 30, 2013, 11:45:01 AM
I do find it interesting that UCLA is going back to an Indiana native to get the program started again. The fact he is an IU grad is also interesting.
whats interesting about that?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 30, 2013, 11:48:56 AM
Oh my goodness...are you kidding?
It has been 14 years since he has been in the S16...and you think that's just because the tournament is a crapshoot? Are you Alford's agent or something?
EDIT: And this is so classic Chicos....trolling me with the "lucky" angle. Not biting dude. Go seek your attention elsewhere.
He's just pissy cause his 3rd favorite team is the one that is left.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 30, 2013, 11:45:01 AM
Who knows if this is a good hire, I'll wait my 5 years like I always do because I've seen too many Steve Lavin, Bruiser Flint, Quinn Snyder, etc hires.
Either way you must admit Chicos for all of the talk of the administration trying to "clean up" things this hire seems a bit strange. Alford has a bit of a checkered past at Iowa.
I think the danger here, though I understand it, is to say Howland traded for Alford. In talking to the UCLA guys I know in their department, Ben was going to get fired even if they made the Sweet 16. It would have been ballsy, but that was the deal.
The issue has never been that he isn't a solid coach, the issue is the California talent, specifically the HS and AAU coaches don't want their guys playing for him. So UCLA made the decision they were going to cut bait and they wanted someone in there that could again get the talent from the area. Is Alford the right guy? Who knows. What they had concluded was Ben was no longer the right guy and he was gone regardless.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on March 30, 2013, 12:00:11 PM
Either way you must admit Chicos for all of the talk of the administration trying to "clean up" things this hire seems a bit strange. Alford has a bit of a checkered past at Iowa.
Yup, don't disagree with you at all.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 30, 2013, 11:48:56 AM
Oh my goodness...are you kidding?
It has been 14 years since he has been in the S16...and you think that's just because the tournament is a crapshoot? Are you Alford's agent or something?
EDIT: And this is so classic Chicos....trolling me with the "lucky" angle. Not biting dude. Go seek your attention elsewhere.
LOL. I'm not trolling anything. You are in the 2% if you don't think we got lucky. Most sportswriters out there has said the same thing. It's ok. It really is, ok, to be lucky every once and awhile to win a game. I know you think we "executed" them throwing the ball away, and executed not fouling a guy when Buzz was screaming for us to foul and executed the clock stoppage so the refs could give us a free timeout ...I realize that was all executed. :D
It's ok...there's a reason why most sportswriters and fans said MU got lucky, Davidson "fell apart, choked, etc" or the politically correct "Marquette is very fortunate to have won that game" (fortunate is today's PC version of lucky). It's ok. You take it.
As for Alford, we'll find out in a number of years. It will be fun to revisit this thread, one way or another. Personally, I have no idea. I think UCLA could have done better, but only the future tells the story.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 30, 2013, 12:04:12 PM
I think the danger here, though I understand it, is to say Howland traded for Alford. In talking to the UCLA guys I know in their department, Ben was going to get fired even if they made the Sweet 16. It would have been ballsy, but that was the deal.
The issue has never been that he isn't a solid coach, the issue is the California talent, specifically the HS and AAU coaches don't want their guys playing for him. So UCLA made the decision they were going to cut bait and they wanted someone in there that could again get the talent from the area. Is Alford the right guy? Who knows. What they had concluded was Ben was no longer the right guy and he was gone regardless.
Conclusion: The UCLA athletic department caved to a bunch of pseudo pimps. Nice work.
Quote from: Aughnanure on March 30, 2013, 11:59:08 AM
He's just pissy cause his 3rd favorite team is the one that is left.
Hardly, my favorite team is left. Nothing at all to be pissy about. Marquette flag flying outside the house right now (I don't own a IU or KU flag). MU t-shirt and hat on, about to go to my son's game and will be sitting in my MU chair. Office is filled with MU stuff, not a single IU or KU piece of memorabilia. It isn't close. Nice try, though. ;)
Edit: My son after his game today...exhausted, but sitting in his favorite and my favorite chair.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/154999_10200995617595922_1057444283_n.jpg)
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on March 30, 2013, 12:09:09 PM
Conclusion: The UCLA athletic department caved to a bunch of pseudo pimps. Nice work.
You may be right, but considering what had happened there the last 4 years and their struggles, that's the decision they made. I don't know if I would characterize HS coaches at pseudo pimps, or even all AAU coaches, but it's the nature of the beast. Slimy, to be sure.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on March 30, 2013, 12:09:09 PM
Conclusion: The UCLA athletic department caved to a bunch of pseudo pimps. Nice work.
It's a smart move if you can't attract talent. One of the primary functions of a head coach is to recruit and if he can't do that because of burning relationships, then he isn't doing his job. This is one reason why i am happy that Buzz builds relationships. Relationships lead to recruits, recruits lead to wins.
If you want a scary thought, one UCLA guy I spoke to said Barnes was on the list. They were trying to see if he wanted out because of being on the "hot seat" even though they have gone to the NCAAs something crazy under him.
Imagine the panic here this morning if UCLA had hired Barnes.
For the record, did not say whether Barnes was interested or if he was even contacted.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 30, 2013, 12:16:43 PM
If you want a scary thought, one UCLA guy I spoke to said Barnes was on the list. They were trying to see if he wanted out because of being on the "hot seat" even though they have gone to the NCAAs something crazy under him.
Imagine the panic here this morning if UCLA had hired Barnes.
For the record, did not say whether Barnes was interested or if he was even contacted.
I might've lost it if that happened.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 30, 2013, 11:48:56 AM
Oh my goodness...are you kidding?
It has been 14 years since he has been in the S16...and you think that's just because the tournament is a crapshoot? Are you Alford's agent or something?
EDIT: And this is so classic Chicos....trolling me with the "lucky" angle. Not biting dude. Go seek your attention elsewhere.
agreed, stupid comment by chicos...no one argues that there isn't a great deal of luck in the ncaa tourney, but by that logic, to be consistently unlucky says a great deal about a coach...to be consistently lucky must mean something as well.
i get the "lucky" argument pertaining to a FGCU situation, but not to a coach who has been in the tourney multiple times without being able to live up to their seeding.
Tough job, UCLA is not for everyone. Lots of glory, lots of crap.
Bring in Aaron Gordon, have a great 2013-14 and a year from now people would be praising this hire.
Quote from: avid1010 on March 30, 2013, 12:48:45 PM
agreed, stupid comment by chicos...no one argues that there isn't a great deal of luck in the ncaa tourney, but by that logic, to be consistently unlucky says a great deal about a coach...to be consistently lucky must mean something as well.
i get the "lucky" argument pertaining to a FGCU situation, but not to a coach who has been in the tourney multiple times without being able to live up to their seeding.
Then take it up with most sport writers. Not stupid at all. We got lucky to win that game...and that is ok.
Even Buzz said so...I guess buzz made a stupid comment. LOL
Sorry if it has been posted.
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9114861/ucla-bruins-hire-new-mexico-lobos-coach-steve-alford (http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9114861/ucla-bruins-hire-new-mexico-lobos-coach-steve-alford)
So this clears the way for Buzz to MN!
Seriously, didn't Alford just sign an extension and then he left.
It's very telling that they didn't even try to pursue Buzz. Things keep turning up warrior.
Alford signed a ten year deal the Wednesday before NM lost to Harvard.
Apparently, his 10 year extension didn't go into effect until Monday.
Quote from: KipsBayEagle on March 30, 2013, 02:19:49 PM
It's very telling that they didn't even try to pursue Buzz. Things keep turning up warrior.
Wasn't there something about an insanely high buyout with the exception of a few schools for Buzz. I may be remembering something else, but I thought there was something like this talked about last year.
Help me .... How is Alford an upgrade over Howland?
I don't see it.
Luck plays a role on almost all of these one or two possession games. That said, it is also true that good luck is made. At the intersection of opportunity and preparation. Favorite coach's phrase, and it is true in all things.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 30, 2013, 02:33:59 PM
Help me .... How is Alford an upgrade over Howland?
I don't see it.
AAU and HS coaches in California didn't want their kids playing for Howland any more. If you can't get the talent, then you have to go. He may not be an upgrade, but he's got a fighter's chance to get the recruits that the coaches out here no longer wanted to play for Howland (or stick around and thus transfer).
That's the thinking anyway.
Quote from: LloydMooresLegs on March 30, 2013, 02:35:09 PM
Luck plays a role on almost all of these one or two possession games. That said, it is also true that good luck is made. At the intersection of opportunity and preparation. Favorite coach's phrase, and it is true in all things.
I don't disagree with that. Though there are some sporting events where you just close your eyes, politely thank God and realize you got one. Mets against Red Sox, MU vs Davidson, etc. No shame in it.
Quote from: Jet915 on March 30, 2013, 02:22:59 PM
Apparently, his 10 year extension didn't go into effect until Monday.
That is correct. Deal was not signed, just announced. My bad.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 30, 2013, 02:41:36 PM
AAU and HS coaches in California didn't want their kids playing for Howland any more. If you can't get the talent, then you have to go. He may not be an upgrade, but he's got a fighter's chance to get the recruits that the coaches out here no longer wanted to play for Howland (or stick around and thus transfer).
That's the thinking anyway.
Howland coudn't get talent?
UCLA signed 4 top 100 recruits last season, including #2 and #5.
Not to mention...Kevin Love. Russell Westbrook. Jrue Holiday.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 30, 2013, 02:57:20 PM
Howland coudn't get talent?
UCLA signed 4 top 100 recruits last season, including #2 and #5.
Not to mention...Kevin Love. Russell Westbrook. Jrue Holiday.
Love, Holiday, Westbrook all long ago. Massive transfers the last few years. Parker threatening to transfer two weeks ago. Anderson also pondering a transfer or jumping to NBA. Already lost Smith to a transfer earlier this year.
The recent class he signed, most are not from California and most wanted to leave or are leaving.
Quote from: MURFC on March 30, 2013, 10:47:12 AM
They realize New Mexico was a 3 seed and lost in the first round, right???
Desperate is as desperate does!
Quote from: MURFC on March 30, 2013, 10:47:12 AM
They realize New Mexico was a 3 seed and lost in the first round, right???
If it wasn't luck, a miracle, etc, MU as a 3 seed would have lost in the first round, too. A 2 seed lost in the first round. A 1 seed lost in the second round. NCAA = crap shoot.
"It goes back to the four letters," Alford said. "It's UCLA. I think if it's anywhere else, this is not a decision that would have been made."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 30, 2013, 09:32:04 PM
"It goes back to the four letters," Alford said. "It's UCLA. I think if it's anywhere else, this is not a decision that would have been made."
Odd/ironic choice of words considering that Alford is merely using UCLA as a stepping stone to become Crean's replacement in the next 5 years.
There is no way UCLA will have the success like they had in the 60s and 70s. First, they only had to win 4 games back then and winning their conference put them in what we call the sweet 16 today. Their first 2 games were always a cake walk being in the Western regionals and their only tough games were in the final 4. To put it in perspective it would be like the Yankees winning 5 World Series Championships in a row like they did from 1949-1953. Today it just isn't going to happen, though they came really close from 1996-2000; not winning in 1997.
Coach crean chimes in on his respect and admiration of Steve Alford in a pandering tweet to the I4 faithful. I too respect and admire a guy who intimidates a rape victim so a basketball player can continue to play basketball.
https://twitter.com/tomcrean/status/319126324281221121 (https://twitter.com/tomcrean/status/319126324281221121)
Dan Bernstein wrote a nice article about Alford. He is an awful person.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/03/31/bernstein-ucla-hired-a-scumbag/ (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/03/31/bernstein-ucla-hired-a-scumbag/)
Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on April 02, 2013, 12:28:29 PM
Dan Bernstein wrote a nice article about Alford. He is an awful person.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/03/31/bernstein-ucla-hired-a-scumbag/ (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/03/31/bernstein-ucla-hired-a-scumbag/)
Not that I disagree, but Dan Bernstein isn't exactly a shining example of human decency.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 02, 2013, 12:56:27 PM
Not that I disagree, but Dan Bernstein isn't exactly a shining example of human decency.
Did he hang up on you?
all the obvious about Alford being said, why would he want to go to UCLA? It's a state school, dependent on the board of regents allocation of non-existant tax dollars among the entire UC system, in a state that's absolutely bankrupt. There is no upside to the spending on the program, rather, there is a potentiallty huge downside. They may be flying standby soon. Alford had better cash his check every day at noon.
http://deadspin.com/meet-steve-alford-uclas-future-former-basketball-coac-465601430
Quote from: Pakuni on April 02, 2013, 12:56:27 PM
Not that I disagree, but Dan Bernstein isn't exactly a shining example of human decency.
I forgot, hosting a radio show is just as bad, in regards to human decency, as protecting a criminal and intimidating a sexual assault victim.
I think USC made the smart hire in light of UCLA settling for Alford. At lease there is a potential for 'lightning in a bottle'.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 02, 2013, 12:56:27 PM
Not that I disagree, but Dan Bernstein isn't exactly a shining example of human decency.
The same Dan Bernstein who is on the board of directors for the Children's Oncology Services One Step Camp and organizes countless events for the group?
The same Dan Bernstein who raises awareness about CTE in children playing football?
The same Dan Bernstein who was one of the few media members in the country to go hard on Penn State during the Sandusky scandal?
http://www.onestepcamp.org/about/board-of-directors/
Quote from: TallTitan34 on April 02, 2013, 03:30:38 PM
The same Dan Bernstein who is on the board of directors for the Children's Oncology Services One Step Camp and organizes countless events for the group?
The same Dan Bernstein who raises awareness about CTE in children playing football?
The same Dan Bernstein who was one of the few media members in the country to go hard on Penn State during the Sandusky scandal?
http://www.onestepcamp.org/about/board-of-directors/
Bernstein may be a pompous a$$ who thinks he's smarter than everyone, but deep-down he's a good guy...if that makes sense.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 03, 2013, 08:37:35 AM
Bernstein may be a pompous a$$ who thinks he's smarter than everyone, but deep-down he's a good guy...if that makes sense.
Makes perfect sense. I would never want to spend any time with him, but he's not really a bad person like Alford is.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on April 03, 2013, 08:43:18 AM
Makes perfect sense. I would never want to spend any time with him, but he's not really a bad person like Alford is.
Bingo.
Being an a-hole doesn't make you a terrible person... it just makes you an a-hole.
I like Boers and Bernstein, but on days when Danny is in a bad mood or especially combative, I have to turn it off. He gets himself worked up and he can't stop. But, most of the time, that is the most intelligent sports radio you are going to find.
Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on April 02, 2013, 01:58:40 PM
I forgot, hosting a radio show is just as bad, in regards to human decency, as protecting a criminal and intimidating a sexual assault victim.
Because that's
exactly what I said.
You all can choose to believe what you want about Bernstein. I'm confident in my knowledge here, and it has nothing to do with what he says on the radio.
But he sits on the board of a charity, and Lord knows no a-hole has ever been involved in a charity.
Quote from: Red Stripe on April 03, 2013, 10:02:12 AM
now there is an oxymoron!
well, I said "most intelligent sports radio", which is like saying the "tallest midget", or whatever other cliche you want to use.
:)
Quote from: sixstrings03 on March 30, 2013, 11:56:57 AM
whats interesting about that?
Wooden and Knight didn't like each other. Wooden was on record saying he would not want any of his kids or his friends kids to ever play for Knight. So to have a Knight player now leading UCLA (Wooden is now deceased) is interesting.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 03, 2013, 10:43:38 PM
(Wooden is now deceased)
You should warn people before you drop bombs like that
Quote from: MUsoxfan on April 04, 2013, 12:34:26 AM
You should warn people before you drop bombs like that
There are people here that think we didn't get lucky to beat Davidson....so I have to handhold a few folks and take nothing for granted. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 04, 2013, 01:05:12 AM
There are people here that think we didn't get lucky to beat Davidson....so I have to handhold a few folks and take nothing for granted. ;)
Actually, that's one of the finer points I can recall you making
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 04, 2013, 01:05:12 AM
There are people here that think we didn't get lucky to beat Davidson....so I have to handhold a few folks and take nothing for granted. ;)
We were the better team, and we won......When the chips were down, we were tougher and deeper.
Same with Butler. CBS flashed the number of substitutions early in the 2nd half. MU had 3X the substitutions of Butler. I knew we would grind them down.
Tougher and deeper...No luck involved.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 04, 2013, 01:05:12 AM
There are people here that think we didn't get lucky to beat Davidson....so I have to handhold a few folks and take nothing for granted. ;)
Depends on your definition of "lucky."
One could make the argument that Davidson was lucky enough to be in the lead in the waning minutes of the game... so the outcome wasn't a matter of MU getting lucky, it was a matter of Davidson's luck running out.
I got lucky once.
Quote from: Benny B on April 04, 2013, 12:24:54 PM
Depends on your definition of "lucky."
One could make the argument that Davidson was lucky enough to be in the lead in the waning minutes of the game... so the outcome wasn't a matter of MU getting lucky, it was a matter of Davidson's luck running out.
I'm using the definition that many sportswriters are using when writing about the game.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0709-steve-alford-20130709-30,0,1105902.story
That's crazy
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 10, 2013, 01:01:32 PM
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0709-steve-alford-20130709-30,0,1105902.story
That's crazy
Parrish Misses the Mark on Critique of UCLA, Alford Buyout (http://latenighthoops.com/parrish-ucla-alford/)
I'm with Mr. Parrish (though I didn't read his article until just now), not only not necessary but also if he bombs, you're on the hook. I don't get it. A lot of us scratching their head. Good for Alford, he's set no matter what happens. For UCLA, beyond silly IMO.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/22697267/why-uclas-buyout-clause-in-steve-alfords-contract-makes-no-sense-for-ucla
solid 3 month + hoopaloopin' there CBB. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 10, 2013, 01:58:16 PM
I'm with Mr. Parrish (though I didn't read his article until just now), not only not necessary but also if he bombs, you're on the hook. I don't get it. A lot of us scratching their head. Good for Alford, he's set no matter what happens. For UCLA, beyond silly IMO.
Let's stick to the point of contention - is it necessary to have assurances that Alford won't bolt after a few successful years. You say no, I say yes. Why do you believe Alford wouldn't consider other options? Just that beautiful in sunny LA?
The worst part is that media jumps on stuff like this only because someone else has brought out the facts (i.e., LA Times in this case). There are other contracts far "worse" than this. Recently a university gave another coach even more favorable buyout terms but without the mirror provisions.
Is Alford's buyout "unusually high"? Sure, but so is what he'd owe UCLA. The amount he'd owe UCLA IS unheard of.
Is the amount UCLA would pay Alford "unheard of"? Certainly not. Media doesn't attack the other school(s) because they haven't had someone spell out the reality for them.
Anyway.. I find it all incredibly fascinating. If UCLA is committed to sticking with Alford and giving him a long leash / period of time to get things going strong, then no problem with the buyout (I am NOT saying I think Alford is a guy they should or should not do this with, but that's their call). Impressive they were able to get him to commit so strongly as well. Very rare.
Jay, I agree completely. But putting this in there, UCLA actually strengthened their side. Parrish's reasoning is basically "They're UCLA...they should be above that." Which is dumb.
I mean, what if Crean get's sh*tcanned in a couple years at IU...and Alford does well at UCLA? It is hardly inconceivable that he would have interest in returning home to his alma mater. And the Parrish's of the world would be bemoaning the fact that coaches can move all the time.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 11, 2013, 09:35:19 AM
Let's stick to the point of contention - is it necessary to have assurances that Alford won't bolt after a few successful years. You say no, I say yes. Why do you believe Alford wouldn't consider other options? Just that beautiful in sunny LA?
The worst part is that media jumps on stuff like this only because someone else has brought out the facts (i.e., LA Times in this case). There are other contracts far "worse" than this. Recently a university gave another coach even more favorable buyout terms but without the mirror provisions.
Is Alford's buyout "unusually high"? Sure, but so is what he'd owe UCLA. The amount he'd owe UCLA IS unheard of.
Is the amount UCLA would pay Alford "unheard of"? Certainly not. Media doesn't attack the other school(s) because they haven't had someone spell out the reality for them.
Anyway.. I find it all incredibly fascinating. If UCLA is committed to sticking with Alford and giving him a long leash / period of time to get things going strong, then no problem with the buyout (I am NOT saying I think Alford is a guy they should or should not do this with, but that's their call). Impressive they were able to get him to commit so strongly as well. Very rare.
This is a guy that got booted from Iowa and settled at New Mexico....exactly WHERE is he going to go from UCLA? Even if he is successful in the next few years, where is he going to go?
This was totally unnecessary and a poor business decision by UCLA. They are getting absolutely worked here locally in the media on this, as they should be. It just doesn't make sense.
I guess you and Sultan view things a lot differently than those of us in the sports world. What can I say, the rest of us aren't seeing it....totally unnecessary, especially if it goes the other way and Alford bombs. Now they are stuck with him. I think he will do just fine, by the way, which is another reason this is unnecessary, but if he bombs, they are stuck.
As Mike DeCourcey said this morning, no one leaves UCLA for another job. It hasn't happened in 30 years and that was driven by Larry Brown cheating and going to the NBA.
ESPN's Eamonn Brennan says the same thing. http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/86177/ucla-bruins-have-low-self-esteem
CBS Gary Parrish same thing yesterday.
LA Times blasting it. MAKES. ZERO. SENSE. UCLA gave up all their control on this AND they are telling the world they believe they are a stepping stone program. UCLA. Wow. https://twitter.com/DanWolken/status/354415152235421698
More local articles on this from Yahoo, the Times, etc.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/basketball/la-sp-dwyre-steve-alford-20130711,0,946263.column
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/steve-alford-massive-buyout-ensures-ucla-stuck-one-154329581.html
http://www.bruinsnation.com/2013/7/8/4505904/ucla-chianti-dan-guerrero-mislead-alford-contract
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 11, 2013, 09:35:19 AM
If UCLA is committed to sticking with Alford and giving him a long leash / period of time to get things going strong, then no problem with the buyout (I am NOT saying I think Alford is a guy they should or should not do this with, but that's their call). Impressive they were able to get him to commit so strongly as well. Very rare.
IF the people in charge of MU think Buzz is really the guy to lead MU, I think they should try to do something similar.
It's a risky proposition, but in reality it gives both sides a great deal of security.
They know the coach won't bolt for greener pastures, and the coach knows he won't get shittcanned for 1 sub .500 season.
But, the school has to make sure it's the right guy. That's the hard part.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 11, 2013, 09:55:42 AM
This is a guy that got booted from Iowa and settled at New Mexico....exactly WHERE is he going to go from UCLA? Even if he is successful in the next few years, where is he going to go?
Your thinking is so flawed and naive. You believe the world of college coaching is rational? If a guy that "got booted from Iowa and settled at New Mexico" can then move into the lead role at the glorious, oh-so-wonderful UCLA, then why in the world can't he / wouldn't he potentially leave elsewhere in a few years?
Maybe he'd want to go somewhere that the media isn't as hostile and he can do his job without as much (unwarranted) scrutiny. Maybe he'd want to go somewhere he can make MORE money?
You can link opinions from young men that write articles for small pay as their career, but it's not a compelling argument.
How do you argue that NO ONE would ever leave UCLA, then say the last guy SHOULD HAVE left UCLA? (Without any logic is how.)
Chicos, there are two different points here.
1. Should UCLA have given Alford such a generous buy-out? I agree that is kind of a dumb thing to do and roasting them over that makes sense.
2. Should UCLA put such a large buy out of Alford's contract in there? I simply don't see what harm that does...but simply saying "no one leaves UCLA," "now this makes them a stepping stone program," and "they have low self-esteem" are dumb statements. Just dumb. Who cares if no one left UCLA before? That doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. They were right to protect themselves.
Now the real question is, during the negotiations, how much of #1 did UCLA have to give up in order to get #2? Is that really worth it? Those are the smart questions to ask.
The Eisenberg article hints at that. The Dwyre article is the typical stuff written by an old sports writer who falls back on cliches - comparing Alford's pay, etc. to Wooden is nonsensical. The Bruinsnation one outlines #1, but never addresses #2.
Quote from: Terror Skink on July 11, 2013, 10:13:21 AM
Chicos, there are two different points here.
1. Should UCLA have given Alford such a generous buy-out? I agree that is kind of a dumb thing to do and roasting them over that makes sense.
2. Should UCLA put such a large buy out of Alford's contract in there? I simply don't see what harm that does...but simply saying "no one leaves UCLA," "now this makes them a stepping stone program," and "they have low self-esteem" are dumb statements. Just dumb. Who cares if no one left UCLA before? That doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. They were right to protect themselves.
Now the real question is, during the negotiations, how much of #1 did UCLA have to give up in order to get #2? Is that really worth it? Those are the smart questions to ask.
The Eisenberg article hints at that. The Dwyre article is the typical stuff written by an old sports writer who falls back on cliches - comparing Alford's pay, etc. to Wooden is nonsensical. The Bruinsnation one outlines #1, but never addresses #2.
Yes! Exactly. I am talking about #2 only.
The reality is #1 may have come about in large part due to the position that many schools put themselves in. They are so eager to announce that they have made a hire (which is usually them folding under the pressure of media and fans) that they do so before an agreement is entered into.
This puts the school into a difficult negotiating position. They need to come to terms with the coach... that's often why you see things like #1 occurring. I have zero issue with people criticizing Alford's favorable terms in a termed w/o cause scenario.
However, this idea that UCLA is the greatest thing in the world and no coach would ever want to leave is beyond bizarre.
So,
if I understand this correctly, UCLA and Steve Alford have put in language that will force the other to honor the terms of the contract.
Am I getting it?
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 11, 2013, 10:18:17 AM
However, this idea that UCLA is the greatest thing in the world and no coach would ever want to leave is beyond bizarre.
Yes. And frankly is part of their problem. And the Dwyre article hints at that..."if it was good enough for Wooden, it should be good enough for Alford." It's a larger version of the same thing Marquette went though - "hey, it worked for Al."
Yeah the contract as a whole may have sucked and UCLA may regret it. But again, what if Crean was gone from IU in a couple years and Alford manages to get UCLA to the Final Four...you don't think it's possible that IU backs up a Brinks truck to bring him back? They will look good making sure they are protected.
Quote from: mu-rara on July 11, 2013, 10:29:46 AM
So,
if I understand this correctly, UCLA and Steve Alford have put in language that will force the other to honor the terms of the contract.
Am I getting it?
No. Every contract has buy out provisions. Coaches who leave early aren't (usually) not "honoring the terms of the contract." They are exercising their rights other other parts of the contract.
Quote from: mu-rara on July 11, 2013, 10:29:46 AM
So,
if I understand this correctly, UCLA and Steve Alford have put in language that will force the other to honor the terms of the contract.
Am I getting it?
Effectively , yes. As Sultan comments, many contracts have such provisions - however, they do little to nothing to keep either party from terminating the agreement early. THIS one is unique in that regard.
"If anything, this contract is refreshing. A contract that has a term of employment that has some meaning. Image that." (http://latenighthoops.com/parrish-ucla-alford/)
You'll often hear schools say, "we need to extend the contract with coach so and so for recruiting!" That's usually nonsense. However, UCLA and Alford can actually say, "hey.. we're not like the other schools.. our marriage is such that we're far more committed than other schools.. coach Alford is here to stay for awhile... and we've got the contract to prove it."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 11, 2013, 09:55:42 AM
I guess you and Sultan view things a lot differently than those of us in the sports world.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on July 11, 2013, 09:59:47 AM
IF the people in charge of MU think Buzz is really the guy to lead MU, I think they should try to do something similar.
It's a risky proposition, but in reality it gives both sides a great deal of security.
They know the coach won't bolt for greener pastures, and the coach knows he won't get craptcanned for 1 sub .500 season.
But, the school has to make sure it's the right guy. That's the hard part.
For MU, it makes sense. For UCLA, it doesn't. MU has been a stepping stone school for a long time. Not a little stepping stone school, but one nonetheless. Most schools are. Problem is, Buzz would be a fool to do it as it limits his options.
For Alford, it was a slamdunk for him to do it, gives him guaranteed money at a school where the chances of him leaving are about 1%.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 11, 2013, 10:13:05 AM
Your thinking is so flawed and naive. You believe the world of college coaching is rational? If a guy that "got booted from Iowa and settled at New Mexico" can then move into the lead role at the glorious, oh-so-wonderful UCLA, then why in the world can't he / wouldn't he potentially leave elsewhere in a few years?
Maybe he'd want to go somewhere that the media isn't as hostile and he can do his job without as much (unwarranted) scrutiny. Maybe he'd want to go somewhere he can make MORE money?
You can link opinions from young men that write articles for small pay as their career, but it's not a compelling argument.
How do you argue that NO ONE would ever leave UCLA, then say the last guy SHOULD HAVE left UCLA? (Without any logic is how.)
I guess Yahoo Sports, ESPN, SI, CBS, etc, etc...we're all naive but "LateNightHoops" has it nailed.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 11, 2013, 10:18:17 AM
Yes! Exactly. I am talking about #2 only.
The reality is #1 may have come about in large part due to the position that many schools put themselves in. They are so eager to announce that they have made a hire (which is usually them folding under the pressure of media and fans) that they do so before an agreement is entered into.
This puts the school into a difficult negotiating position. They need to come to terms with the coach... that's often why you see things like #1 occurring. I have zero issue with people criticizing Alford's favorable terms in a termed w/o cause scenario.
However, this idea that UCLA is the greatest thing in the world and no coach would ever want to leave is beyond bizarre.
And I'm talking about #1....as was Parrish, the LA Times, ESPN, SI, etc, etc, etc. It was stupid, really stupid, on UCLA's part. UCLA isn't Marquette or Long Beach State or Illinois or George Washington. People don't leave UCLA. I know you think it is bizarre to think UCLA isn't the greatest thing...look, they have pressures and all kinds of other things that turn off people from going there in the first place, but those that do land there and take up the challenge seldom leave. It's happened once in 30 years and he went to the NBA. Whether it's football, soccer, volleyball, baseball, basketball, etc...coaches typically don't leave UCLA unless they retire, get fired or go to the pros. There are exceptions, but it is rare.
The outrage and head scratching is from UCLA's POV....no way they had to do this and saddle themselves. It's something a stepping stone school would do. It lowers their prestige. There is a reason why Louisville has no buy out clause, Kentucky's is a fraction of UCLAs, etc. Duke, UNC...same thing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 13, 2013, 01:17:25 PM
I guess Yahoo Sports, ESPN, SI, CBS, etc, etc...we're all naive but "LateNightHoops" has it nailed.
Yep. It happens. For another UCLA example, go look at the reporting on Ben Howland's buyout.
Everyone else had it wrong - Late Night Hoops had it nailed. (http://latenighthoops.com/ucla-buyout/)
Here's another one everyone else had wrong recently - the start of basketball practice. LNH had it correct. (http://latenighthoops.com/ncaa-practices-leg-2013/)
If you don't think "mainstream media" and people in general aren't flat out wrong with regularity, you're naive. It happens incredibly often. Feel free to continue believing a big "SI" or "Yahoo", "USA Today" or "ESPN" next to a story means the information in a story is correct or well understood by the writer, but you'll be wrong.
You're good at searching old articles and posts - go ahead and check. The issue is that often journalists don't do much more than report information obtained from others. They don't understand contracts, finance, law, etc.
And you're wrong on Parrish - he was saying that there is no reason for UCLA to desire a large buyout payment from Alford if he wanted to leave, because he would never want to leave. That is #2.
Imagine if Alford had a couple of great seasons at UCLA, has a stellar class come in.. and decides he wants to leave elsewhere for more money and a different opportunity. And, UCLA doesn't have the large buyout protection.. instead, they have something more typical.. maybe they get $1MM from Alford in return for him terminating early. The school would be crucified. But... I'm not sure there's anything short of winning national championships they won't be criticized for... which is all the more reason to believe UCLA isn't the dreamy perfect spot that no one would ever leave, as you believe.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 11, 2013, 10:13:05 AM
Your thinking is so flawed and naive. You believe the world of college coaching is rational? If a guy that "got booted from Iowa and settled at New Mexico" can then move into the lead role at the glorious, oh-so-wonderful UCLA, then why in the world can't he / wouldn't he potentially leave elsewhere in a few years?
Maybe he'd want to go somewhere that the media isn't as hostile and he can do his job without as much (unwarranted) scrutiny. Maybe he'd want to go somewhere he can make MORE money?
You can link opinions from young men that write articles for small pay as their career, but it's not a compelling argument.
How do you argue that NO ONE would ever leave UCLA, then say the last guy SHOULD HAVE left UCLA? (Without any logic is how.)
+1. Up until a few days ago, Alford was widely considered as the heir apparent in Bloomington. One would think that an alum who is "in the sports world" should have known this.
Quote from: Benny B on July 15, 2013, 09:32:01 AM
+1. Up until a few days ago, Alford was widely considered as the heir apparent in Bloomington. One would think that an alum who is "in the sports world" should have known this.
This is so erroneous it is funny. Just because some fans think that is the case, IU was never close and hasn't been close to Alford coming over in ages. Just because someone is "widely considered" you have to ask who in the hell is doing the considering, because it isn't the folks at IU.
Quote from: Jay Bee on July 13, 2013, 02:22:58 PM
Yep. It happens. For another UCLA example, go look at the reporting on Ben Howland's buyout.
Everyone else had it wrong - Late Night Hoops had it nailed. (http://latenighthoops.com/ucla-buyout/)
Here's another one everyone else had wrong recently - the start of basketball practice. LNH had it correct. (http://latenighthoops.com/ncaa-practices-leg-2013/)
If you don't think "mainstream media" and people in general aren't flat out wrong with regularity, you're naive. It happens incredibly often. Feel free to continue believing a big "SI" or "Yahoo", "USA Today" or "ESPN" next to a story means the information in a story is correct or well understood by the writer, but you'll be wrong.
You're good at searching old articles and posts - go ahead and check. The issue is that often journalists don't do much more than report information obtained from others. They don't understand contracts, finance, law, etc.
And you're wrong on Parrish - he was saying that there is no reason for UCLA to desire a large buyout payment from Alford if he wanted to leave, because he would never want to leave. That is #2.
Imagine if Alford had a couple of great seasons at UCLA, has a stellar class come in.. and decides he wants to leave elsewhere for more money and a different opportunity. And, UCLA doesn't have the large buyout protection.. instead, they have something more typical.. maybe they get $1MM from Alford in return for him terminating early. The school would be crucified. But... I'm not sure there's anything short of winning national championships they won't be criticized for... which is all the more reason to believe UCLA isn't the dreamy perfect spot that no one would ever leave, as you believe.
We agree to disagree. LateNightHoops, whomever they are, are free to opine like anyone. Those of us in the business think UCLA made a silly move...Alford is loving it...guarantee for him....silly for UCLA on all levels. Alford isn't going anywhere and you've tied the university's hands. Plus, you've let everyone know what you think of your ability to keep a coach at UCLA...which is now they have stepping stone mentality like Alford is on his way out in the next 5 years. Not happening. IU doesn't want him and hasn't wanted him in years....for those behind the scenes the reasons are obvious. People are not beating down his door which is why it was so surprising of the hire in the first place. As I said, I think he'll do fine...UCLA could have done worse (and better), but the idea that Alford is going to leave in 5 years for a BETTER job isn't going to happen.
To each their own.
Chicos,
What do you think a wise buyout for Tom Crean is? School owes him X.. he owes school X.
Asking what your opinion is,.. i.e., "doesn't need to be more than a mil or so if he leaves because he wouldn't"... "school needs to offer him a huge buyout if they fire him because he commands it. so $197 million"..
Whatever your thoughts are...
Quote from: Jay Bee on August 09, 2013, 01:12:11 PM
Chicos,
What do you think a wise buyout for Tom Crean is? School owes him X.. he owes school X.
Asking what your opinion is,.. i.e., "doesn't need to be more than a mil or so if he leaves because he wouldn't"... "school needs to offer him a huge buyout if they fire him because he commands it. so $197 million"..
Whatever your thoughts are...
If he agrees to leave peacefully, Crean gets $2 million, if they have to fire him he owes the university $2 million...seems fair to me.