Bear Down Wildcats

Someone cue the circus music.

Dan Guerrero is a fucking moron.

I can’t understand why UCLA alums/boosters put up with that guy.

Go all in on beard, Bennett, and if not, go romer or uci and call it a day.

CalStateTempe wrote:Dan Guerrero is a fucking moron.

I can’t understand why UCLA alums/boosters put up with that guy.

Go all in on beard, Bennett, and if not, go romer or uci and call it a day.

Totally agree

CalStateTempe wrote:Dan Guerrero is a fucking moron.

I can’t understand why UCLA alums/boosters put up with that guy.

Go all in on beard, Bennett, and if not, go romer or uci and call it a day.

Beard and Bennett would both say no.

ChooChooCat wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:Dan Guerrero is a fucking moron.

I can’t understand why UCLA alums/boosters put up with that guy.

Go all in on beard, Bennett, and if not, go romer or uci and call it a day.

Beard and Bennett would both say no.

Yes and thats why I totally agree with CalState's strategy as UCLA would look even more stupid!

https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-uc ... story.html" target="_blank

Wow

I was depressed after reading that article and I hate ucla basketball

Newportcat wrote:Wow

I was depressed after reading that article and I hate ucla basketball

Increasingly, UCLA hoops and football (and Berkeley) are beginning to more resemble programs at other UCs. With the exceptions of Irvine (this year) and Santa Barbara (here and there in the past), how often have you discovered San Diego or Davis or Riverside in the NCAA tournament? Hardly at all, if ever. UCLA is an elite public academic institution first and foremost. This is the identity of the UC system, for which I worked for a number of years. The heyday of UCLA and Berkeley as first-rate hoops/football programs is long past, occasionally revived for a span but then brought back to its default mediocrity, or even irrelevance.

UCLA is actually in a much tougher spot than Berkeley, situated in a massive sports market with so much competition for eyeballs and so little memory of John Wooden. The regional advantage will always be there. There are tons of elite players coming out of SoCal, and there always will be. But compared to jobs in true college towns, smaller cities with robust fan support, thriving college sports culture, and exorbitant investment in hoops and football...it's just hard for UCLA to keep up. Pair that with some bad hires and mismanagement from Guerrero, and it all makes sense.

Dixon's buyout is far too high. That's part of the problem. But the deeper problem is that better coaches aren't even candidates. Bennett and Beard don't need UCLA, and you can be damn sure Calipari doesn't. You know who does? Earl freaking Watson. But UCLA sees itself as better than Watson.

A rare post from RC97 in which less than 90% of it is actual bullshit

Why didn't UCLA go after Musselman? He did a pretty good job at Nevada

Ouch

84Cat wrote:Why didn't UCLA go after Musselman? He did a pretty good job at Nevada

Apparently there is stuff that would come up in his background check that of course the SEC is just fine with.

Beachcat97 wrote:

Newportcat wrote:Wow

I was depressed after reading that article and I hate ucla basketball

Increasingly, UCLA hoops and football (and Berkeley) are beginning to more resemble programs at other UCs. With the exceptions of Irvine (this year) and Santa Barbara (here and there in the past), how often have you discovered San Diego or Davis or Riverside in the NCAA tournament? Hardly at all, if ever. UCLA is an elite public academic institution first and foremost. This is the identity of the UC system, for which I worked for a number of years. The heyday of UCLA and Berkeley as first-rate hoops/football programs is long past, occasionally revived for a span but then brought back to its default mediocrity, or even irrelevance.

UCLA is actually in a much tougher spot than Berkeley, situated in a massive sports market with so much competition for eyeballs and so little memory of John Wooden. The regional advantage will always be there. There are tons of elite players coming out of SoCal, and there always will be. But compared to jobs in true college towns, smaller cities with robust fan support, thriving college sports culture, and exorbitant investment in hoops and football...it's just hard for UCLA to keep up. Pair that with some bad hires and mismanagement from Guerrero, and it all makes sense.

Dixon's buyout is far too high. That's part of the problem. But the deeper problem is that better coaches aren't even candidates. Bennett and Beard don't need UCLA, and you can be damn sure Calipari doesn't. You know who does? Earl freaking Watson. But UCLA sees itself as better than Watson.

Totally and completley agree

UCLA and CAL are nothing like they were 20-30 years ago. The UC System as a hole is not either. Sports are just not important like they once were

With UCLA you have to look back on when they were dominant under Wooden. LA was very different then. UCLA basketball was king and USC football was king. Lakers were a shell of what they became in the 80's. You could get to Westwood on a Thursday night easily.

To take it one step further, one massive benefit of this change has been The University of Arizona. We have increasingly been able to attract a higher quality out of state student from California because how difficult it is to get into the UC System. Those out of state students have paid increasingly larger sums of money for tuition helping to keep U of A afloat and brought tremendous development in and around the school. For every UCLA graduate I meet out here, I bet I meet 4 times as many U of A grads. Easily. It's honestly funny but I know very few UCLA grads. I can not tell you the amount of people I know who went to UCLA or Cal or USC and now have kids going to Arizona as those schools have become impossible to get into to.

U of A has benefitted from it a lot as has U of Oregon and UW, etc.

Now I look at UCLA and Arizona and to me I think Arizona is a far better job. Not even close. At Arizona a men's basketball coach is a fucking God. Runs the city. And boosters/alumni/school president will support you completely. At UCLA they are a nobody in a major market but with fans who demand huge amounts of success but with an administration that does not really care. It is a fucked job in many ways for an established coach.

And you are forced to live in LA which is so fucked and miserable.

They need to hire Russ Turner from UCI and call it a day.

Did I just read they hired Rick Barnes?

Newportcat wrote:Did I just read they hired Rick Barnes?

I mean that feels like a good hire in some ways but a little meh in other ways

Clearly they wanted an established coach

Barnes is a way better hire than Dixon, imo.

How many years UCLA want out of him? 5?

Maybe an elder statesman who knows his way around a big athletic department is just what they need right now. He’ll recruit well.

Barnes at UCLA is good for the Pac, imo.

Beachcat97 wrote:Maybe an elder statesman who knows his way around a big athletic department is just what they need right now. He’ll recruit well.

Barnes at UCLA is good for the Pac, imo.

They could hire you and recruiting would not be a problem. Recruiting has never been the issue with UCLA.

ChooChooCat wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:Maybe an elder statesman who knows his way around a big athletic department is just what they need right now. He’ll recruit well.

Barnes at UCLA is good for the Pac, imo.

They could hire you and recruiting would not be a problem. Recruiting has never been the issue with UCLA.

Very true

UCLA basketball is like usc football. Even in down years they still recruit well

Barnes is old but established and I think has done a very good job at Tennessee

He is in some ways more on the upswing from that then Dixon is right now

Just never heard his name but not a bad hire at all

Honestly like it more then Dixon

Barnes reminds of Jim Harrick a little.

Barnes reminds of Count Dracula a little more.

azgreg wrote:

Newportcat wrote:Did I just read they hired Rick Barnes?

I would not be surprised in the least if Barnes is just using UCLA to feather his nest at Tennessee.

This is code for his agent has right?

Kruger not as good as Barnes.

zonagrad wrote:If we're defining retread coaches, I think Rick Barnes belongs in that category. I think it's safe to say most thought his move to Tennessee was an uninspiring hire. And he's had a really solid two years in Knoxville.

So this aged well in just a few days.

dmjcat wrote:

azgreg wrote:

Newportcat wrote:Did I just read they hired Rick Barnes?

I would not be surprised in the least if Barnes is just using UCLA to feather his nest at Tennessee.

He just got an extension last year so I don’t think this is him floating a rumor to get another one.

For UCLA though I don’t get the interest in Barnes. You’re going to have him for what? 5 years before he retires? Seems counterproductive.

I know everyone wants to make fun of UCLA but if Shit went down with CSM.... who else would we be looking at?

There just aren't many decent hires out there right now.

So hiring an older guy like Barnes might be a good plan if there aren't many good options right now but hopefully in 5 years when he's ready to retire a new crop of up and coming candidates emerges.

Barnes is a good coach, always has been. Same for Kruger. But man, neither guy is gonna move the needle for UCLA fans. But there’s no doubt both are way better than Alford. But UCLA is now a major rebuilding job. If you’re a top recruit, does this excite you?

Alieberman wrote:I know everyone wants to make fun of UCLA but if Shit went down with CSM.... who else would be looking at?

There just aren't many decent hires out there right now.

There'd be plenty of interest in the AZ job. Other threads have produced realistic lists, with some names more controversial than others.

The point, though, is that I don't think the UCLA job has the same kind of appeal as the AZ job. Not to say that the AZ job is *that* much more desirable (I'll leave that to others to argue over), but I do think there's better athletic infrastructure in place at AZ. Who knows how much the recent scandal (scandals?) have impacted interest in the AZ job?

If UCLA gets Barnes, they're getting a proven winner.

zonagrad wrote: But UCLA is now a major rebuilding job. If you’re a top recruit, does this excite you?

It's true. Not sure if posted elsewhere, but Wilkes and Hands are both going pro and have hired agents. They've got a few nice pieces returning, but this is the biggest rebuilding project they've had in a while.

zonagrad wrote:Barnes is a good coach, always has been. Same for Kruger. But man, neither guy is gonna move the needle for UCLA fans. But there’s no doubt both are way better than Alford. But UCLA is now a major rebuilding job. If you’re a top recruit, does this excite you?

It's pretty well stocked with talent. It's rather rudderless as far as a coach has been, but it's going to have 12 of it's 14 kids as 4*'s or higher with one of those likely getting cut loose and the other transferring. I think two McD AA's, though I can't remember on Shaq's kid, maybe just Moses Brown.

A competent coach would have a good shot at the PAC-12 crown next year, the PAC-12 is that bad. That was the appeal to Calipari, an easy PAC-12 conference. But any halfway decent head coach (Mick, Dixon, R. Bennett, Kruger, Barnes) should easily win 23-25 games next year in a reset year. Unless the new coach purges the roster, which wouldn't surprise me.

There is a a rumor floating around that DG will be retiring at the end of the year. So that's going to be an awesome angle for a new coach as well..

So a UCLA team that won 17 games is going to lose its two best players, bring in a new coach, and still add 5 to 6 wins over last season?

Pac is indeed bad, but you’re dreaming, Bug.

84Cat wrote:Why didn't UCLA go after Musselman? He did a pretty good job at Nevada

LOL, yeah, he had a "pretty good" year with a team that was predicted to do big things playing uninspired, listless basketball during the regular season and then flaming out in the first round of the NCAA Tournament.

MrBug708 wrote:

zonagrad wrote:Barnes is a good coach, always has been. Same for Kruger. But man, neither guy is gonna move the needle for UCLA fans. But there’s no doubt both are way better than Alford. But UCLA is now a major rebuilding job. If you’re a top recruit, does this excite you?

It's pretty well stocked with talent. It's rather rudderless as far as a coach has been, but it's going to have 12 of it's 14 kids as 4*'s or higher with one of those likely getting cut loose and the other transferring. I think two McD AA's, though I can't remember on Shaq's kid, maybe just Moses Brown.

A competent coach would have a good shot at the PAC-12 crown next year, the PAC-12 is that bad. That was the appeal to Calipari, an easy PAC-12 conference. But any halfway decent head coach (Mick, Dixon, R. Bennett, Kruger, Barnes) should easily win 23-25 games next year in a reset year. Unless the new coach purges the roster, which wouldn't surprise me.

There is a a rumor floating around that DG will be retiring at the end of the year. So that's going to be an awesome angle for a new coach as well..

The appeal to Calipari was a salary increase at Kentucky. No offense to the great UCLA basketball tradition, but these days Kentucky basketball >> UCLA basketball.

Lute owned Barnes. 7-0 against him. Miller beat him in that legendary second-round game eight years ago.

The dude just rolls the ball out. Great recruiter, but little control over his guys.

All that said, go for it, UCLA. The status of this job has dropped to nothing over the past week.

Barnes would be crazy to take the job. It is a prestigious name and he will undoubtedly reel in more highly ranked recruits (albeit with high turnover), but he has a good situation going in TN.

Chicat wrote:

dmjcat wrote:

azgreg wrote:

Newportcat wrote:Did I just read they hired Rick Barnes?

I would not be surprised in the least if Barnes is just using UCLA to feather his nest at Tennessee.

He just got an extension last year so I don’t think this is him floating a rumor to get another one.

For UCLA though I don’t get the interest in Barnes. You’re going to have him for what? 5 years before he retires? Seems counterproductive.

Which is completely irrelevant. He can still dangle the prospect of leaving for UCLA in front of Tennessee to get a better deal.

dmjcat wrote:

Chicat wrote:

dmjcat wrote:

azgreg wrote:

Newportcat wrote:Did I just read they hired Rick Barnes?

I would not be surprised in the least if Barnes is just using UCLA to feather his nest at Tennessee.

He just got an extension last year so I don’t think this is him floating a rumor to get another one.

For UCLA though I don’t get the interest in Barnes. You’re going to have him for what? 5 years before he retires? Seems counterproductive.

Which is completely irrelevant. He can still dangle the prospect of leaving for UCLA in front of Tennessee to get a better deal.

If that's Barnes's intention, good luck to him getting Fulmer to fall for it.

Just FWIW, this is a big reason I think discussions of Sean Miller on the hot seat are monumentally misguided.

Everyone thinks the next coach is Calipari...then, you wind up hoping for Rick Barnes or Lon Kruger.

I am not sure if the UCLA coaching search has taught me to be nervous if Miller ever leaves or we fire him

I think it’s taughg me that dan Guerrero is beyond incompetent and the UCLA job is nowhere near an elite job anymore

I mean offering caliparit less money was stupidity at its finest

Rick Barnes, the same Rick Barnes who has 2 peaked at 2 elite 8's and no FFs?

Merkin wrote:Rick Barnes, the same Rick Barnes who has 2 peaked at 2 elite 8's and no FFs?

Barnes had a FF with Texas the year Syracuse won.

To Newportcat's point, are we sure Heeke will nail.it where Guerrero has struggled?

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Merkin wrote:Rick Barnes, the same Rick Barnes who has 2 peaked at 2 elite 8's and no FFs?

Barnes had a FF with Texas the year Syracuse won.

To Newportcat's point, are we sure Heeke will nail.it where Guerrero has struggled?

Do we even think Heeke will get the chance? My money is on a donor-led search committee with Heeke locked in his office with the shades drawn.

Barnes is the best name I’ve seen mentioned as a realistic get for UCLA. I would take him over Dixon, Kruger or Watson.

AZ’s coaching search, whenever it comes, will go smoother than this.

Newportcat wrote:I am not sure if the UCLA coaching search has taught me to be nervous if Miller ever leaves or we fire him

I think it’s taughg me that dan Guerrero is beyond incompetent and the UCLA job is nowhere near an elite job anymore

I mean offering caliparit less money was stupidity at its finest

To be fair, they offered more more than he was getting at Kentucky. His base at Kentucky was 7.5 and UCLA offered more than 8. His reported wages at Kentucky include kick ins from Nike, while UCLAs reported offer did not include what UA would kick in.

But the point about DG still stands.

The UK job is arguably the best job in college hoops. It's better than many NBA jobs. But it takes the right person. Calipari is that guy.

After UK, I'd say UNC, Kansas and Duke would comprise the rest of the true top tier of college coaching jobs.

Beyond that, you have a bunch of jobs with similar resources and appeal (in no order): Indiana, Louisville, Florida, AZ, Syracuse, UConn, Oregon, Texas, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, et al.

It's arguable that all of the above jobs are currently more desirable than UCLA. "Desirable" is a slippery term, but it's meant to encompass things like potential for contention, program stability, alumni/fan support, marketability, program performance in recent years, geographical advantages, et al.

Beachcat97 wrote:The UK job is arguably the best job in college hoops. It's better than many NBA jobs. But it takes the right person. Calipari is that guy.

After UK, I'd say UNC, Kansas and Duke would comprise the rest of the true top tier of college coaching jobs.

Beyond that, you have a bunch of jobs with similar resources and appeal (in no order): Indiana, Louisville, Florida, AZ, Syracuse, UConn, Oregon, Texas, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, et al.

It's arguable that all of the above jobs are currently more desirable than UCLA. "Desirable" is a slippery term, but it's meant to encompass things like potential for contention, program stability, alumni/fan support, marketability, program performance in recent years, geographical advantages, et al.

If you look at the best college basketball jobs, they're all in markets where there is little competition from the pros. And if there is pro competition, it's because the market has grown and professional sports moved in long after the established program has a foundation that is unshakable. Lexington, Chapel Hill (Tri-angle), Duke (triangle), Louisville, Gainesville, Tucson, Austin, Lansing, etc...

UCLA's location in LA is both a blessing and a curse. Yes, there's the Hollywood angle and fertile recruiting. But from a fan perspective, LA is a fickle, transplant town. The millions of people in LA don't have ties to SoCal. And certainly not UCLA. Not in the way the local fanbase in the state of Kentucky rallies around its programs. It's really why the SEC is so strong. There aren't a ton of professional teams interfering. The programs are tied so strongly to the states and the fanbase. Same is true for much of the Big 10, Big 12 and ACC.

For UCLA to fill Pauley, they need to be ranked in the top 10 and definite Final Four contender. It's not that way in so many other programs. And when the fan support is tepid for a team that may be fighting for a top 25 program, then the perception is the program isn't that great. And what coach wants to deal with that?