Bo Knows: Backlash on Steve Alford after five-game losing streak unwarranted

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.