UCLA Basketball: The Bruins finally get their coach after an awkward journey

Mick Cronin is the new head coach of the UCLA basketball program, and it is about time, but the way the search culminated has left an unfavorable perception of the athletic department.

The 14th head coach of the UCLA basketball program has been named. The weight and responsibility of the most storied program in college basketball history are now placed squarely on the shoulders of Mick Cronin.

RELATED: UCLA Hires Mick Cronin

Though most fans are happy with the hire and relieved the process has ended, the trail of PR destruction from the UCLA athletic department lays in the wake of what can only be described as a “debacle” of a hiring process.

Though we here at GJB believe Cronin can be successful, the process of hiring him (or any coach) was anything but a success.

This coaching search all started with a lot of optimism. UCLA had a chance to start fresh, target some top coaches and offer a lucrative deal which no coach could refuse. Unfortunately, that was easier said than done.

The search began with a flirtatious pursuit of John Calipari. Whether or not you believe that UCLA was close to hiring the hall of fame coach (apparently they were close enough to scare Kentucky into giving him a lifetime contract), UCLA came away with egg on their face. At least that was the perception in the eyes of the national media who had no problem criticizing UCLA for trying to bring a bigtime coach to UCLA.

The AD might have saved itself with this hire, but they should never have put themselves in a position to be saved.

On a personal level, I had no problem with this, and neither did most UCLA fans. The fact that the athletic department stepped up to the plate and was willing to put big money on the table ($48 million for six years) for an elite coach is opposite of the narrative that the national media has been trying to spin, which is that UCLA is cheap. If UCLA landed Calipari, college basketball writers would be dumbfounded as all of their beliefs and theories about UCLA would be proven null and void.

Unfortunately, UCLA put themselves back in that narrative with the way they bumbled their next attempt.

After Calipari, the AD directed their efforts to TCU’s Jamie Dixon. It was reported only a few days after the Calipari situation that UCLA and Dixon had agreed, in principle, to bring Ben Howland’s protege to Westwood. The only hurdle left was Dixon’s $8 million contract buyout.

Here is where things started to go pear-shaped. Dixon was ready to head west, but apparently, UCLA thought they would be able to widdle down Dixon’s $8 million buyout to $1 million. Texas Christian did not budge and UCLA was willing to go all in.

This situation made the AD come off as cheap, a label they have been trying to avoid. The inability to get the deal done reinforced the stereotype that UCLA is not willing to fork over the money needed to bring in a top-tier coach. It has also been said that a thorough breakdown of taxes in California and the analysis of the cost of living in Los Angeles was an issue, but it should not have been a roadblock. If getting a successful coach into the program would have only cost UCLA $8 million (and paid for itself over time), then the AD should have made it rain.

If UCLA was willing to fork out $48 million for Calipari, $8 million should not have kept this deal from falling through with Dixon. Not only was this a bad look for the AD, but they were still without a coach and it was closing in on 100 days since they fired their last one.

With UCLA missing out on their second choice, over the weekend they directed their attention to the National Coach of the Year, Tennessee’s Rick Barnes. This deal looked like it was in the bag for the Bruins, but after all the dust settled and Barnes weighed his options, the 64-year-old coach decided to stay in Knoxville. This outcome was unfortunate for UCLA, but it did not stop the national media from finger-pointing and laughing at the once-mighty program.

Missing on three candidates is not unnatural for any program, but with all eyes on the UCLA AD and the process in which they conducted themselves proved, in the eyes of some, that the UCLA head coaching spot is not a top job. Though these takes are mostly hyperbole from those that have not followed UCLA closely, the AD did not do anything to disprove them.

More from Go Joe Bruin

• UCLA Football: It’s time for the nation to meet Dante Moore
• UCLA Football: Where are they ranked heading into week 4
• UCLA Football: Position battle breakdown for Utah showdown
• UCLA vs. Utah: Location, time, prediction, and more
• UCLA Football: Highlights from Chip Kelly’s appearance on the Jim Rome Show

The reason many still believe the UCLA job is not one of the best jobs in the country is they have not been consistent contenders over the last few seasons. That is the fault of Steve Alford. He was a bad hire from the start and his inability to elevate this team is what buried the program. If the UCLA basketball team can once again find success and compete for Pac-12 championships and make deep tournament runs, that narrative will die. But until then, UCLA diehards will be unable to prove that this is still one of the top jobs (if not the top job) in the nation. That is the fault of the athletic department.

After the Barnes deal fell through, UCLA went back to a candidate that they were targeting when Dixon’s name arose and they moved quickly to get it done. Mick Cronin was hired less than 24 hours after Barnes announced he is staying at UT. Though the hire was hasty, it was needed. For the most part, UCLA fans are happy with the hire, but the Bruins are still getting flack from the national media because it was not a “home run.”

What happens with Cronin is yet to be seen, but at least they have a coach that does not come in with a lot of baggage. Unlike Steve Alford, the Bruin faithful will immediately get behind Cronin, who had a record of success at Cincinnati. UCLA will return to glory with the new guy in charge, but until then, many will view the UCLA athletic department in a certain light, and that is indeed on them.

The AD might have saved itself with this hire, but they should never have put themselves in a position to be saved.