For a fan base that rarely fills the seats of Pauley Pavilion and that cheers louder for winning coupons to Yogurtland than its team winning games, UCLA basketball fans certainly seem passionate in their opinions of second-year coach Steve Alford.

As the Bruins languished in their five-game losing streak, pockmarked by their embarrassing blowout losses at the hands of Kentucky and Utah, fans took to Twitter and message boards lambasting Alford and calling for the firing of a coach who brought a Pac-12 tournament title to Westwood just nine months ago.

That idea is flawed in several ways, besides the fact that the Bruins have rebounded from their losses with consecutive wins. Not only should Alford not be fired, but even if he deserved to be it would be nigh impossible to do so this season.

Yes, UCLA’s recent five-game skid may have been among the worst stretches in school history – the Bruins’ seven first-half points was the lowest scoring in a half in team history and the team failed to reach 20 points by halftime in three of the games – but Alford can’t really be blamed too heavily for that.

In fact, I don’t know if any coach could find very much success with this UCLA team. UCLA’s struggles this season are a result not of Alford’s coaching but a slew of roster misfortunes that has left the Bruins undermanned, lacking any depth and versatility.

First came the news that senior guard Jon Octeus, who was scheduled to transfer to UCLA from Colorado State, was denied admission to UCLA and subsequently ended up at Purdue. Octeus would have given the Bruins backcourt depth and the true point guard their roster currently lacks.

Yet even without Octeus, UCLA didn’t appear to be in too bad of shape, having signed the No. 3 recruiting class according to Scout.com and the No. 8 class according to Rivals.com. With four incoming freshman, three of whom – forward Kevon Looney, center Thomas Welsh and guard/forward Jonah Bolden – were rated as four or five stars, the Bruins did about as well in recruiting as they could have.

Then the news broke that Bolden would not be eligible to play this season after transferring high schools during his senior season made him a partial qualifier.

Compounding that was the announcement of sophomore forward Wanaah Bail’s academic ineligibility, reducing UCLA’s already thin lineup to just eight players, three of whom average four or fewer points. A UCLA team that had just lost five players from last season to the NBA had lost another three that would likely have been significant contributors.

Granted, some of the responsibility for that falls on Alford for recruiting players with academic problems and not having a contingency plan for the situation UCLA is now in. But besides Bolden – Alford said before the season he knew there was a risk Bolden wouldn’t be eligible this season – the other two losses were unexpected.

It’s this lack of depth, not Alford’s coaching, that was responsible for UCLA’s profound slump. Not only are the Bruins three players lighter than they anticipated, the lack of bodies forces the starters to play huge minutes – tiring them out and reducing their effectiveness in the process – and it limits the flexibility of how Alford can use the team.

For instance, in sophomore guard Bryce Alford’s recent shooting slump, Steve Alford didn’t have the option to bench his son and bring in a hotter shooter since there’s no one on the bench to replace him with. Alford also can’t really experiment with various lineup combinations to find a more effective unit since he’s really limited to relying almost exclusively on his starters.

When asked last Tuesday if he planned to make any changes to get UCLA out of its losing streak, Alford admitted, correctly, that he wasn’t sure what lineup adjustments he could make.

Essentially, Alford’s hands have been tied and his ability to be creative with his coaching is out of his control.

Add all that together, mix in a five-game stretch featuring three top-10 opponents and four road games, and expecting anything but the actual result is wishful thinking.

Sure Alford could have game-planned or motivated his players better, but against teams as deep and dominant as Kentucky, Gonzaga or Utah, UCLA never had much of a chance at keeping those games close, let alone winning them.

I’m not arguing that Alford has been without fault this season or that he’s the correct option for UCLA’s coach of the future, but blaming the Bruins’ woes this season on him is myopic.

Besides, with the $10.4 million buyout clause athletic director Dan Guerrero included in Alford’s contract if Alford is fired before April 30, 2016, UCLA is pretty much stuck with Alford for the foreseeable future. Get used to it.

Join the Conversation

7 Comments

  1. If Alford is fired along with Dan Gurrero, we won’t have to be bothered with worthless articles like this. Get the Bobby Knight shadow off of Nell and John Wooden Court. NOW!!!

    1. Hey V. We wouldn’t have to get sick from reading your NON SENSE, IF you stop hiding behind the monitor and stop posting the NON SENSE that you continue to post on different web sites……
      Have you ever played basketball? I DARE you to show up at Pauley and play couple of one and one games with either one of the Alfords…… didn’t think so…. you have NO IDEA what you would do if you were given a basketball…

      1. Wow! Now all Alford have to do is beat ME in a game of, “one and one”, whatever THAT is, and he gets to keep his job free from criticism–He IS great at contracts!

        BTW, you’re right OCB78, as an old decorated Vietnam war veteran, I wouldn’t know what to do with a basketball, but then, I spent my college years NOT playing ball games. Nevertheless, I am a Bruin fan since 1954 and an American veteran, so please, enjoy your free speech, even if apparently, I can’t.

  2. I know you are just a college kid, but man, do you have a profound lack of knowledge and understanding about what you are covering. You keep stopping one or two questions short of reaching analysis and instead opt for lazy superficial pat answers. Show some pride in your craft at least, kid.

    1. Hey Aaron……….. timinhi showed you his credentials…. now, lets see yours… oops, I guess you don’t have any

  3. Hmmmmm. I’m NOT “just a college kid.” I’m a UCLA grad and attorney in my late 50s who studied sports & entertainment law and who has been a diehard Bruin hoops fan since the mid-late 1960s. I’m trying to figure out where the “lazy superficial pat answers” are in this column, because honestly, I don’t seem them.

    Kevin, I’m sure you already know this, but don’t waste your time worrying about what your detractors post here. Obviously, not having any logical counterpoints to offer other than the simplistic (and IL-logical) “Fire the coach, fire the AD!”, they instead resort to attacking you personally.

    You are in fact spot-on in this column. I was against Alford’s hiring in the first place. I was especially appalled by the way he handled the incident at Iowa with the player accused of sexual assault. But he WAS hired, and as you ably pointed out, was given a hefty buyout clause in his contract, so for better or worse, he’s here to stay for the time being.

    Meanwhile, last season’s results were mostly good, and the team this season HAS been hamstrung by mostly unforseen personnel losses. Bruin fans (like most American sports fans) need to grow up and realize that the kneejerk reaction to always immediately sack the coach the moment there’s a rough patch is counterproductive. UCLA went through a revolving door slew of coaches in the 1980s due to that attitude, and it took a long time for the program to recover. Let’s not do that again. Have some patience. Immediately replacing the coach won’t necessarily immediately improve things.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *