Whenever talk about replacing KD makes its rounds in the various blogs and websites, there are always those who say that UCLA will never have a good coach because they will never pay enough money. I really don't know how much KD or his assistants get paid, so I'm not sure how to react to these arguments. But wouldn't success on the field lead to more money into the program, and thus the potential for higher salaries? Looking at the success of Coach Howland, and the rebirth of our B-Ball program post-Lavin, I wonder why we can't have that in football. Why can't we have success in both? Why must we be labeled JUST a basketball school? There's room for success in both programs.
Ohio State, Florida, Texas, and usc are traditional football powers. But they went out and hired damn good coaches to build up their basketball programs. I look at those programs with envy and wonder why we can't do the same. The question about salary is valid but is that it? Do we really have to shell out millions to get a coach who can win? Can't we find a solid coach from the mid-majors, or even the I-AA level to resurrect our program (a la Jim Tressel or Urban Meyer)? I'm sure there is someone out there who can do it. There HAS to be because I'm not suffering through another embarrassment like Utah again.