Wednesday, April 8, 1998
Utah’s Majerus should replace Lavin as leader of UCLA hoops
COLUMN: Poor coaching of players doesn’t uphold Pauley’s grand
tradition
In an ideal world, Miami’s Pat Riley would coach the UCLA
basketball team, and that would be fine with me because I have
several complaints about Steve Lavin.
Lavin’s greased-back hair may look much like Riley, but make no
mistakes Bruin fans – Lavin is no Riley.
Lavin is no Rick Pitino (Boston), he is no Mike Krzyzewski
(Duke), he is no Gene Keady (Purdue), he is no Denny Crum
(Louisville) and he is certainly no John Wooden (UCLA – duh).
For all I know Lavin may become the greatest coach in NCAA
history, but for now he’s merely a second-year coach learning while
on the job.
Since when has the UCLA basketball head coach position become a
place where trial and error techniques are encouraged?
This would be a great story if Lavin were learning on the job
while at Boise State, or even Pepperdine – the school where former
UCLA top assistant coach Lorenzo Romar is now head coach.
But the Bruins have a long standing tradition of winning – and
losses by 48 points to Stanford, 41 points to UNC, 36 points to
Duke and 26 points to Kentucky (in the NCAA tournament, no less)
are unacceptable.
Before 1995’s national title, an NIT championship banner was
hanging in Pauley Pavilion. That’s admitting that being the 65th
best team in the country is something to be proud of.
UCLA recognized the error of its ways and took down the NIT
banner after the 11th NCAA Title banner was hung in 1995.
But with Lavin around I feel the message being sent is that UCLA
doesn’t need a great head coach – average is good enough. If
Lavin’s lack of experience leads UCLA to another championship
drought, NIT banners may once again pollute the ceiling of
Pauley.
That is why I’m pleading with the UCLA Athletic Department to go
after a high profile head coach. A head coach responsible for a
25-point annihilation of Arizona in the NCAA Tournament and a win
in the Final Four against UNC – a team that earlier this season
beat UCLA by 41. That head coach is Rick Majerus.
UCLA Athletic Director Pete Dalis should get on the phone with
Utah right now and find out what it will take to get Majerus to
come to Westwood. Arizona State already failed to lure Majerus away
from Utah and Texas is reportedly interested in him.
Majerus is a hot commodity and UCLA should hurry. Money should
be no object in these discussions for UCLA.
Remember how in 1995 ASUCLA claimed financial hardship all year
long and losses in the millions of dollars? Do you remember what
happened next?
The Bruins won the NCAA basketball championship with a senior
class of Ed O’Bannon, Tyus Edney and George Zidek. This
championship set forth a chain reaction leading to an insane amount
of revenue created by ASUCLA thanks to increased sales of
BearWear.
Winning creates revenue – just ask the Cleveland Indians.
Therefore UCLA should make a commitment to winning by getting
Majerus into Westwood.
C.M. Newton, the athletic director at Kentucky, knew that no
inexperienced assistant coach could replace Pitino when he left the
Wildcats to pursue his dream of coaching the Boston Celtics.
Therefore Newton spent $1 million a year on Tubby Smith. What
happened? Well, unless you were oblivious to the NCAA Tournament,
Smith led the Wildcats to the NCAA title.
Also, I think that paying around $435,000 a year for an unproven
head coach is ludicrous. It took Jim Harrick seven years and a
national championship before he received a pay raise to $440,000 a
year.
I don’t doubt Lavin has great motivational skills and the love
he feels for his players, but what exactly has he achieved to
deserve a long term contract at a basketball institution the likes
of UCLA?
My instincts, which often fail me, tell me the main reason Lavin
was signed was to make sure Baron Davis would come to UCLA.
Lavin also has probably the top recruiting class in the nation
coming in next year. Four McDonald All-Americans (Dan Gadzuric,
JaRon Rush, Stromile Swift and Ray Young) plus two others (Matt
Barnes and Jerome Moiso) have UCLA high on their lists.
The problem is the name "UCLA" is more of a recruiting tool than
the head coach himself. Just take a high school player to Pauley
and show him the 11 banners – done deal.
That’s why we need a head coach that can not only recruit, but
can also coach.
It’s depressing watching blowouts of gargantuan proportions to
teams from the ACC – teams we should at the very least remain
competitive against. And did you see any improvement in Davis’
erratic play during the entire year?
The UCLA basketball program should not be one clouded with
questions about its coach’s ability. No one questioned Wooden.
But the seven coaches that followed (Gene Bartow in 1975, Gary
Cunningham in 1977, Larry Brown in 1979, Larry Farmer in 1981, Walt
Hazaard in 1984, Jim Harrick in 1988 and Steve Lavin in 1996) have
brought forth a great lack of stability.
I wouldn’t be writing this column had UCLA just spent the effort
to get Louisville’s Crum (a former UCLA player with Wooden and an
assistant at UCLA from 1968 to 1971) or if Brown would have stayed
at UCLA. Both these coaches are great coaches.
So I ask you, do you think Lavin will be a great coach or just
another name forgotten in the UCLA head coach shuffle? The short
tenure of coaches since Wooden’s departure would certainly indicate
trouble for Lavin in the near future.
So why not go after a proven coach like Majerus? Someone who
will probably still be here in 20 years.
Mazeika is a punk-ass fourth-year student who doesn’t know what
he’s talking about. He covers the UCLA baseball team and you can
e-mail responses to [email protected]