Go Joe Bruin
Fansided

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

By Nathan Eberhardt

LAS VEGAS, NV - MARCH 09: Head coach Steve Alford of the UCLA Bruins yells to his players during a semifinal game of the Pac-12 basketball tournament against the Arizona Wildcats at T-Mobile Arena on March 9, 2018 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Wildcats won 78-67 in overtime. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)
LAS VEGAS, NV - MARCH 09: Head coach Steve Alford of the UCLA Bruins yells to his players during a semifinal game of the Pac-12 basketball tournament against the Arizona Wildcats at T-Mobile Arena on March 9, 2018 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Wildcats won 78-67 in overtime. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images) /
facebooktwitterreddit
Prev
7 of 9
Next
WESTWOOD, CA – APRIL 02: UCLA Athletic Director Dan Guerrero (L) shakes hands with Steve Alford after introducing him as UCLA’s new head men’s basketball coach on April 2, 2013 in Westwood, California. (Photo by Victor Decolongon/Getty Images)
WESTWOOD, CA – APRIL 02: UCLA Athletic Director Dan Guerrero (L) shakes hands with Steve Alford after introducing him as UCLA’s new head men’s basketball coach on April 2, 2013 in Westwood, California. (Photo by Victor Decolongon/Getty Images) /

Should UCLA Fire Steve Alford?

Having established, by his performance and his behavior, that Steve Alford deserves to be fired, we’re left to decide whether it is in UCLA’s best interest to fire Alford. Here, there are plenty of reasons on either side of the question, and if, as it appears, Alford is still the head coach of this program next year, it won’t be on the merits but because UCLA decided for strategic or political reasons that firing him now was not the correct move.

Reasons to Fire Alford:

1. He deserves it. I obviously won’t rehash this, but it merits repeating. The man has proven he’s not up to and/or not the right fit for this job.

1a. Stemming from this, though, is that retaining a coach that everyone knows doesn’t deserve the job jeopardizes the health of the program. Dead Man Walking years, a Dan Guerrero specialty, create toxic environments, crater fan support, and undermine the authority of both the coach and the administration. It’s in these listless periods where you get bad apples like Reeves Nelson or Nikola Dragovic.

1b. Likewise, retaining and unqualified coach damages the stature of the program. The longer a coach is left in a job that’s too big for him, the more the perception of the program shrinks to fit the coach it has. If UCLA Basketball wants to convey to high school coaches, AAU directors, recruits, and media that they’re not serious about competing at the highest levels of the sport, then retaining an unqualified coach is a sure-fire way to do so.

2. The Pac-12, if you can believe it, is going to be significantly weaker next year. USC is losing the talent that came in when Enfield was hired. Arizona is losing anyone of consequence from its current roster – and does not have a single commit in the 2018 class, in light of the NCAA/FBI attention. Washington and Oregon are likely to be UCLA’s nearest competition for the conference title next year, and neither of them were tournament teams this year.

2a. Such an opportunity to get a high seed and make a deep tournament run will be lost on Alford. He’ll manage to lose inexcusable road games (remember, Alford doesn’t need his opponents to be quality for him to lose; UCLA Basketball was swept by Colorado this year and lost at Stanford and at Oregon State), get a middling seed, and win a maximum of two tournament games. Opportunity squandered.

2b. Conversely, even underperforming, Alford can amass a record with enough improvement over this year’s 21-12 that he can claim he has the program trending in the right direction. If he finishes, say, 28-4 and gets to another Sweet Sixteen before bowing out against lesser competition, how will Guerrero and company justify not giving him the extension that followed similar performances in 2015 and 2017? The Pac-12 is set up to give Alford an undeserved lease on life next year, and not firing him now runs the very real risk of locking us into another three or more seasons of Alford-brand mediocrity.

3. The Mo Ostin Center is shiny and new and will undoubtedly be a big part of the sales pitch to bring in a new coach. UCLA Basketball will be able to point to the facilities as useful in themselves as well as being a testament to the administration’s commitment to supporting the program. The more we wait to hire a coach, the less cache the facilities will have. They’ll still be nice and state-of-the-art, but eventually we won’t be able to say they’re the newest in the conference. It’s shallow, I know, but a big part of building these facilities is messaging, and the further we get from ribbon-cutting, the more muted the message becomes. Firing Alford lets UCLA capitalize on the cache of the Ostin Center at its peak.

4. One of the motivators for firing Jim Mora was the unsustainable decline in ticket sales and revenue generated by a football program in which the fans had lost faith. The basketball program is feeling the same pressure as students and fans vote with their feet and their wallets, and the gameday experience has become a bit of an embarrassment. Firing Alford now and replacing him with a known, successful coach will instantly reinvigorate the fan base and lead to a spike in basketball-generated revenues.

5. Lastly, the NCAA Tournament has scheduled three of the next four Western Regionals within UCLA’s footprint: 2019 at the Honda Center in Anaheim, 2020 at the Staples Center in LA, and 2022 at the Warriors’ new Chase Center in San Francisco. UCLA has enjoyed notable success when playing at tournament sites in California, and it would behoove the program to have a coach capable of capitalizing on these site placements.