Steve Alford new UCLA coach.

[Benny B]

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.

[wildbill sb]

I got lucky once.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0709-steve-alford-20130709-30,0,1105902.story

That's crazy

[Jay Bee]

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

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[ZiggysFryBoy]

solid 3 month + hoopaloopin' there CBB.   

[Jay Bee]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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.)

[GGGG]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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.

[mu-rara]

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?

[GGGG]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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."

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."

[jmayer1]

I guess you and Sultan view things a lot differently than those of us in the sports world. 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[ChicosBailBonds]

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%.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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.

Here's another one everyone else had wrong recently - the start of basketball practice. LNH had it correct.

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

+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.