Steve Alford to be named HC at UCLA
- Thread starter jdoggivjc
- Start date
It was very similar to McDermott leaving. No he wasn't "forced out" but the writing was on the wall.
So those year's were a fluke, and you shouldn't hold it against him that his team "really wasn't 3-seed good"?
Is that what you're saying?
They why the hell hire him, since, he's apparently never had a team that wasn't fluke good?
Will New Mexico be able to continue its winning ways with a new coach? They should hire the FGCU coach!
I'm only on page 1 of this thread, so I'm sure I'm repeating:
Who is the AD at UCLA? And can I have apply for his job five years from now when this doesn't work?
Who is the AD at UCLA? And can I have apply for his job five years from now when this doesn't work?
Here's the scary thing for UCLA.
Put Alford's New Mexico and Iowa tenures together, (1999-on), and you get exactly 1 more NCAA tournament than ISU has in the same 14 years. (6 vs. 5).
THAT's what UCLA has signed up for. A few good seasons, sandwiched around a couple Wayne-O McDermotts.
Somehow I doubt that 43% March Situation average will play in LA, unless they're getting into the business of losing first and second round NIT games
Put Alford's New Mexico and Iowa tenures together, (1999-on), and you get exactly 1 more NCAA tournament than ISU has in the same 14 years. (6 vs. 5).
THAT's what UCLA has signed up for. A few good seasons, sandwiched around a couple Wayne-O McDermotts.
Somehow I doubt that 43% March Situation average will play in LA, unless they're getting into the business of losing first and second round NIT games
To be fair, Alford is the type of coach that is lucky to be coaching at places like Iowa and New Mexico.
Alford wasn't the best but was far from the worse. Tom Davis had a 66% overall winning record and a 54% conference record. He did really well in the tourney though.
Alford had a 59% record overall and a 48% conference winning record. If you throw out his first season it is actually pretty comparable to Tom. Problem is that even though he made it to the NCAA three times, he only advanced once.
The other problem was that Iowa fans did have a exceptionally high view on what they should be able to do. Tom's last year he went to the Sweet 16 and yet even with 13 tourney wins in 13 seasons, Iowa didn't renew his contract. Iowa fans thought that the next hire would get them to the Final 4 and it didn't happen. Thanks to Lickliter, Iowa fans can be happy about NIT's and NCAA appearances but Alford was held in a higher standard than current coaching staff. All the other issues were just excuses to be upset.
Alford is a alright coach for a place like New Mexico, but if he can't find a way to win in the tourney he won't make it anywhere for long.
A fluke? That is a big jump you just made.
He got a team with average talent to have an above average season- a win or go home tournament tend to expose such high seeds. He coaches teams to show-up more often than the opponents. However the NCAA tournament is everyone's Super Bowl, that advantage is gone. He is now at a big time program, he will have superior talent.
If you are UCLA and cannot get an Izzo type, I would get someone who's downfall is not having great talent due to coaching at less than desirable programs.
Last edited:
Davis was not renewed prior to the Sweet 16 year. It was already a done deal going into that year. There wasn't any un-ringing that bell.
And the comparison speaks for itself. He falls short of Davis in every category, and it still short even after you pick and choose seasons for Alford and not Davis.
Alford has no record to stand on as a "successful, major conference" coach.
I fail to see how "overachieving" in 1 out of 8 seasons as a major conference coach proves this. What about the 5 seasons at Iowa where they failed to "show up" in the NIT, or missed it completely?
And don't try to tell me NW St had superior talent to Iowa. Hell, don't try to tell me Harvard has more talent than New Mexico.
I get the idea to try and make it seem like an "Iowa problem," but I think Steve has pretty much proven what he is.
After 14 years, you sort of are-what-you-are. And for Steve, its a guy who misses the tournament more than the makes it, and woefully underperforms when he gets there.
According to ESPN, Alford had been given a 10-year contract extension last week, but he signed an agreement and not the official document.
UCLA Bruins hire New Mexico Lobos coach Steve Alford - ESPN Los Angeles
UCLA Bruins hire New Mexico Lobos coach Steve Alford - ESPN Los Angeles
The problem with swathmore is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, is ever the head coach's fault, therefore every coach that has been fired has been done so unjustifyiably so. Coaches never have to be held accountable for anything.
Again, my response was to the post saying Alford's issue is being upset twice as a 3 seed.
If you are a high-major like UCLA and you see Alford getting 3-seeds and the results he had at places like UNM, Iowa, and Southwest Mo St, and you feel good about what he can do at UCLA. Lobo, hawkeye, and Bear fans may take offense to that viewpoint, but that is the reality of situation.
