UCLA Basketball: On why the Bruins should move on from Steve Alford

A downward trajectory

Any discussion of Alford’s taking responsibility for his team’s performance must make mention of the fact that he returned what was then his most recent extension after the 2015/2016 season. Whether it was his idea, or whether it was suggested to him as an alternative to being fired, this discussion would be incomplete without noting that exceedingly rare act.

However, lest we get carried away extolling Alford’s integrity, it should also be noted that he, within months, was back to blaming his woes on his players’ lack of talent. Previewing his 2016/2017 team in October, Alford said he was thankful for the influx of talent in Lonzo Ball, TJ Leaf, and Ike Anigbogu, which would allow him to get back to playing at a level and style that he was more comfortable coaching. If you were a returning player from the previous year, can you imagine what it would be like to hear your coach essentially say that he was grateful for the new guys because he would finally have talent worthy of his coaching?

At the beginning of that 2016/2017 season, Alford said he expected his team to perform at a top-50 level defensively. By January, when it had become clear to anyone paying attention that this team could not guard the perimeter to save its life and gave up penetration layups like it was going out of style, Alford said that he would define success as finishing with a top-90 defense.

As the Bruins finished last season with the nation’s 85th best defense, Alford’s flexibility allowed him to classify last year as a success, after which he gladly accepted the same extension he’d so selflessly given back the year prior.

I noted above the numerous times Alford has pointed to the shoplifting incident in China (and subsequent year-long suspension of Jalen Hill, LiAngelo Ball, and Cody Riley) as an excuse for his team’s poor performance this year. Losing all that length and athleticism threw Alford’s grand defensive plans for a loop. With two graduating seniors and the three freshmen that left early for the NBA, losing three more to suspension means a turnover of eight players; as I mentioned above, Alford claims that this is an unreasonable burden to bear.

The China debacle forced Alford to consider a 21-12 record ‘not bad,’ to abandon his preseason goal of winning the Pac-12, and to claim this year as a mulligan, and not fit to be used as a measuring stick for what he has or hasn’t accomplished by his fifth year in the job. It is ironic that Alford has managed to turn his players’ run in with the law into his very own get out of jail free card.

Maybe that’s a harsh reading of his comments, maybe not. But do you know what’s completely missing from Alford’s public remarks about what happened in China? Any sense that he failed in his responsibility as head coach.

How easy would it be for him to have said, ‘Without minimizing the accountability of each of our players for their own actions, I ultimately take responsibility for this situation. I failed to adequately impress upon the players the burden of representing their school and their country well, failed to emphasize the attention we would draw to ourselves, failed to create mechanisms whereby our veteran leaders could hold their teammates accountable. I want to apologize for the stain this proud program has received under my stewardship, and I promise that we will do better’?

You say this, no one punishes you for it, and it reassures the fans, media, players, and administrators that this is your program, that you are in charge, and that you are invested in its success and well-being. To be clear, I don’t necessarily blame Alford for what those freshmen did in China, but I kind of think he ought to blame himself at least a little bit.