Brian Thompson Thompson just wants to
see people get fired to free up a few job openings for when he
graduates in June. Job offers can be made at [email protected].
Click Here for more articles by Brian Thompson
After the facts and truth of the Todd Saldaña case are
revealed, many will ask the question, “Does he deserve to be
fired?”
But perhaps the more appropriate question to ask is, “Even
if he deserves to lose his job, will he actually be
fired?”
It’s still too early to make any judgments about
Saldaña. But the whole scandal raises an interesting issue
surrounding head coaches in general at UCLA. The simple fact is
that it is darn near impossible for a UCLA head coach to lose his
or her job.
Yes, many of these coaches deserve to be here for as long as
they want to. Some built their programs from the ground up and have
made UCLA the standard-bearer in their sport.
But not all coaches fit this description. Some programs might be
better off with a new man or woman at the helm.
But don’t hold your breath. Head coaches at UCLA have more
job security than a tenured professor.
Well, what is the life span of a UCLA coach, you might ask? Six
Bruin coaches have been at UCLA for more than a decade. Three of
those six, Al Scates (men’s volleyball), Andy Banachowski
(women’s volleyball) and Gary Adams (baseball) have been here
more than 25 years. And quite a few more are approaching that
10-year mark.
Certainly coaches have come and gone in recent years,
haven’t they? True, a handful of new coaches have come on
board in recent years, including the aforementioned
Saldaña.
But in most of these cases, it was because a longtime coach had
retired, not been fired. Guys like Bob Larsen, Sigi Schmid, Guy
Baker and Terry Donahue had all become institutions in Westwood,
and the new coaches brought in during the last few years probably
wouldn’t be here had they not all moved on to other
things.
Here’s a question to ponder: When was the last time you
heard of a UCLA head coach being fired? It hasn’t happened in
a while. The last to be unceremoniously shown the door at the
Morgan Center was our old pal Jim Harrick, who, just to jog your
memory, happened to fudge an expense report or two. And that was
1996.
Well, so far I’ve established that head coaches have quite
a bit of stability at UCLA. Many of those who have or had been here
a while brought UCLA unprecedented success, conference
championships and in many cases, NCAA titles. So why am I on a
witchhunt for coaches’ jobs?
Well, sometimes a new coach is a necessary change, even for a
moderately successful program. Sometimes a coach can get a little
too comfortable in his or her position. He or she may lose that
fire, the cutthroat mentality needed to win titles year-in and
year-out.
One of the things that motivates a coach is knowing that if he
or she doesn’t perform to expectation, his or her job can
easily be taken away. At UCLA, that is not the case. That sense of
urgency just isn’t there.
Let’s take a look at our favorite whipping boys, Steve
Lavin and Bob Toledo. They have the two highest-pressure jobs at
UCLA. People, whether fairly or not, expect our men’s
basketball and football teams to win national titles every year.
The scrutiny these men are under surely must be unbearable at
times.
But the fact remains that they coach the glamour sports at UCLA.
There should be high expectations.
That’s why it doesn’t make sense to give these guys
huge, longterm contracts that keep them here until the year 2090
unless UCLA forks over a huge buyout fee. What would it hurt in
making these guys work a little harder for a new contract every two
to three years?
Job security is a good thing for you and me, but it is not a
good thing for coaches. UCLA should be at the very top of each and
every sport it competes in. It should have the absolute best people
leading the best student-athletes available.
Perhaps if the athletic department held its coaches a little
more accountable, we all would have a little more to cheer
about.