I don't mean to upset beer or any other UCLA fan here, but really thinking about it, other than history and location (which is a lot, I realize), UCLA's fairly behind the curve as a top tier program. Insanely high standards, facilities are below average, the current administration's not all that hyped on athletics, public school in a bankrupt state, the fan support's so fair weathered it's ridiculous.
If you made a list of pros/cons of their program and took the name "UCLA" off the top of it people really wouldn't be all that impressed.
Would've preferred Bobby Braswell over this sack of shit. Braswell did as well as he could with the Matadors considering he had zero support from anyone above him, a shitty arena, and trouble recruiting as a result. If he had anything that UCLA would give him at his disposal, he would do a great job. He did a solid job recruiting considering and even got CSUN into the Big Dance, nearly upsetting Memphis back in 02.
I don't mean to upset beer or any other UCLA fan here, but really thinking about it, other than history and location (which is a lot, I realize), UCLA's fairly behind the curve as a top tier program. Insanely high standards, facilities are below average, the current administration's not all that hyped on athletics, public school in a bankrupt state, the fan support's so fair weathered it's ridiculous.
If you made a list of pros/cons of their program and took the name "UCLA" off the top of it people really wouldn't be all that impressed.
I agree with all of this but the bolded needs to be stressed. they just don't care about sports.
I agree with all of this but the bolded needs to be stressed. they just don't care about sports.
which as a sports fan is frustrating I know, but honestly good. Purdue's the same way, I hate it more often than not, but I understand and respect it. Purdue's athletic department may as well be a separate entity, they're completely self financed. Priorities one through one thousand for university heads should be academics, I wish every school operated like that.
I don't mean to upset beer or any other UCLA fan here, but really thinking about it, other than history and location (which is a lot, I realize), UCLA's fairly behind the curve as a top tier program. Insanely high standards, facilities are below average, the current administration's not all that hyped on athletics, public school in a bankrupt state, the fan support's so fair weathered it's ridiculous.
If you made a list of pros/cons of their program and took the name "UCLA" off the top of it people really wouldn't be all that impressed.
do you mean academically?
is there really a big difference between different schools, in what athletes they will let in?
I think the Alford hiring only confirms what we have already known for a long time now.
To UCLA's credit, I really think they tried to find the best out there and either no one was available to fill the position or willing to take the job. I think this firing/hiring combination was really a forced hand by UCLA because Howland had to go, plain and simple. However, it's gotten to the point where the UCLA job is just not a job worth chasing or leaving a good situation for.
Alford jumping ship before those who don't follow college ball regularly realize that he's basically a lateral move for UCLA
Re: Official UCLA Bruins Thread:
but the bolded needs to be stressed. they just don't care about sports.
