One thing I've been wondering about...amongst things like the economy, the weather and how I'm going to pay for school in the spring, is what's all the fuss about a GOOD coach coming to UCLA and leaving after a few years.
Here's how I see it. UCLA has had a few coaches express interest in the position and UCLA basically said "thanks, but no" to them. Mike Leach, Terry Bowden are the two that come to my mind right away. Everyone that is a UCLA fan/Alumn that is paying attention to this search has differing opinions on their coaching choice. I will not at this time get into who's a "good fit" or not for UCLA.
I want to talk about one of the arguments that I see come up time to time about one candidate or another. The argument that that coach will just leave UCLA after a couple of years as soon as he finds success at UCLA. In other words, using UCLA as a springboard to a bigger, better job. I don't agree that if a coach takes UCLA to the Rose Bowl he'll bolt for something better, because there may not be anything better available after that. But here's the real reason I disagree with that argument.
If a coach comes in here and brings success to UCLA, success defined by a Pac-10 championship and a Rose Bowl win, and then leaves UCLA for another job then UCLA will be in a better place than it is right now. If UCLA is coming off a Pac-10 championship and looking for a new coach, the job will be more attractive to more coaches. It would definitely be one of the top job openings that year. Also, UCLA will have to hire a good coach to keep things going. Many of the tired, old arguments that the fans of mediocrity use will be nullified(you'd think.)
I don't know who the right person for the job is at this point. I know I'm glad Dorrell is gone and that Chow's name is being pulled from consideration. I also don't know how important it is to have ties to So. Cal for recruiting purposes. This isn't an argument you hear coming from any other school right now. Did Michigan worry about a guy from West Virginia having the ability to recruit in Michigan? If a good, solid coach is hired than he will be able to recruit. I personally thought that Steve Spurrier would've been the best recruiter here. These are kid football players we are talking about. They want to play for a coach who knows how to win. I don't think it's that important if he has an east-coast or southern accent. Just win and it will all come out alright in the end.
Well, back to worrying about how I'm paying for school and keeping up with rent. Rent is a B%*ch in Orange County, CA. Let me tell you.