Lavin Tries To Rewrite History & The UCLA Hoops Coach Hiring Rule
by DCBruins on Jul 15, 2010 4:40 AM PDT
Email
PrintFormer UCLA head coach Larry Farmer was just hired as the assistant coach for the Western Michigan Broncos. Just like Steve Lavin, in reading the release, you would think Farmer just left UCLA.. In following up with a search on Farmer and Lavin, I found Lavin discussing Farmer in an effort to rewrite history in his continuing efforts to prove he is a "coach." In so doing so he unwittingly makes a point that no UCLA fan should ever forget and no UCLA AD should ever allowed to be hired without learning.
But let me begin with Lavin's latest effort to sell the Brooklyn Bridge. Lavin is saying he helped revive UCLA basketball. In a story entitled: St John's hoping Steve Lavin, who helped UCLA's revival can do same for Red Storm." Lavin says:
"There was almost a decade where the entire college basketball scene out here went through a drought and coaches like Lute Olson of Arizona and Jerry Tarkanian of UNLV came in and built their teams off the backs of Southern California kids," St. John's new coach, Steve Lavin, says. "But everything is cyclical."
I have at least three problems with this article.
- Harrick, for all his faults, brought UCLA back. Lavin had nothing to do with the "revival."
- Everything does not have to be cyclical. Coach did not have a losing season in his career and I don't think anyone could say he had a down "cycle" in his last 12 seasons. Similarly Olson who Lavin cites had a long tourney making run. Nestor pointed out that great coaches have off years (and still winning seasons) but not down cycles. This is BS.
- The article and Lavin slams Walt Hazzard and Larry Farmer for bringing down UCLA. The article states: "UCLA went through one dismal stretch between 1983 and 1988 where the program was operating on emergency generators - making the NCAA Tournament just twice in six years and dismissing coaches Walt Hazzard and Larry Farmer."
This is right on one level but Lavin does not see the forest for the trees. They were hired just like he was and that was the problem. More after the jump.
Farmer's has been trading off his time as a UCLA head coach when Jim Harrick Larry Brown left suddenly. It was not Farmer's fault that he was not ready for the big time or to be a head coach. It was UCLA's for giving him the job and sticking with him.
Then UCLA repeated the problem by hiring Walt Hazzard first as an assistant then as Head Coach when UCLA fired Farmer. I was there for the initial news conference when Hazzard was not sure if he was head coach or co-coach with Jack Hirsch. It was surreal. Again UCLA promoted an assistant coach instead of getting a head coach.
This all goes to prove UCLA Basketball should never promote an assistant to full time head coach. It is a recipe for disaster. Yet, Lavin was the third time UCLA did it and while he lasted longer the end was the same, a need to revive the program. It will be interesting where Lavin will rank in the pantheon of undeserving UCLA Basketball Coaches. Walt Hazzard never was a head coach again. In his first post UCLA head coaching job, Larry Farmer was terrible. Will the World's Second Biggest Oil Slick be able to beat Farmer's record which according to WIkipedia:
Farmer coached Weber [State, UT] for three seasons (1985–88) and compiled a record of 34–54 which is the worst in the schools history.
I hope UCLA beats Lavin so bad he stops coming "out here" . Or if he most come here, I wish $UC would hire Lavin so they could learn the Weber State lesson and have their worst season with Lavin as coach.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
64 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Just another example
Of what a corrupt, lying sleazebag con artist this guy is. He essentially stole millions from UCLA posing as a head coach and don’t feel an ounce of contrition over it.
Great post DC.
by Nestor on Jul 14, 2010 8:20 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
+1,000
Although they might not have been good hires, Walt Hazzard and Larry Farmer were Bruins.
In their own way, at their own time, they brought glory to the 4 letters.
They understood the game and knew the difference between man and zone D’s. They may not have been ready to coach, but they at least knew the game and had learned from the best.
When things didn’t go well, they were men, not lizards. They didn’t whine, blame our “culture”, try to hide behind Coach, claim false success, re-write history, or do any of the other things the scum did.
After they were fired, they were respectful of the institution and never damned it with faint praise.
Good people sometimes don’t do well. I will always respect Hazzard and Farmer and embrace them as fellow Bruins.
There is no place in my heart for the lizard.
sjh
Heart and Head
You are right there is no place in my heart or most Bruin’s for Lavin.
For Hazzard, I was there when he beat Bobby Knight for the NIT Championship. He had Reggie Miller on that team and more talent. But there is no place in my head for either Farmer or Hazzard. Being a Bruin is not enough to be head coach. I remember Hazzard’s “Diamond and Two” defense speech that Jim Healy use to play over and over on his radio show. On Farmer, I remember backpacking through Europe and getting yelled at by a young Mormon from Weber State for the “worst coach in history” in Larry Farmer. I remember watching UCLA under Farmer not even being able to set up for a final inbounds play in a close game with Farmer looking confused on the bench.
So while Lavin is a bad person and like you 66 there is no place in my heart for him, there is no place in my head for Lavin, Hazzard and Farmer as coaches. (And to a lesser extent Dorrell, who also was a good Bruin but not ready to be a head coach.) We can remember guys like Farmer and Hazzard fondly as fellow Bruins and players but we should not hand them the head coaching jobs.
At least the others were real Bruins
Hazzard led the Bruins to their first Final Four in 1962 and was the leader of the ’64 champs, who set the tone for the 10-in-12-year run.
Farmer had three championship rings and was a solid power forward during his playing career.
It should be noted that Willie Naulls, former Bruin star, entrepreneur, and very influential alum, played a major role in both those hirings.
Oil Slick got the job because he happened to be there when Jim Harrick left. He had no other ties to the university, and he has squeezed every drop out of his reprehensible career in Westwood.
Farmer was a great Bruin!
its unfortunate he was offered his dream job when he wasn’t ready. i remember his first year after getting beat up by the alumni and the media they won a tuff game on the road and he huddled with his coaching staff trying to hold back his emotions. while he was completely over matched he did finish his first two years 44-12 and finished 2nd & 1st in the PAC.
hardly good enough considering its UCLA but not completely awful..
Lavin isn’t a Bruin! he just played on on TV and failed miserably!
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's"
John Wooden.....
sorry for typo
3rd cocktail
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's"
John Wooden.....
Don't fool yourself
Farmer was terrible. He received a good young team with 8 future pros on it. He left a team with one pro on it. He failed as a recruiter. As an assistant, he was the team academic adviser and never the lead recruiter.
He was friends with Sam Gilbert. He did try to distance himself from Gilbert post sanctions but unlike Brown, Wooden, or say Bartow, he did not have a problem in the abstract with Gilbert and did not see the issue.
He focused on rules such as hair and wearing suits but did not understand the details of basketball.
your good points
are why i dont blame him entirely for the failure that was his few years as head coach. He obviously wasn’t qualified yet the school offered him the position anyway. I’ll always remember him as a player who helped us win championships and loved coach unconditionaly.
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's"
John Wooden.....
Lavin: The gift that keeps on giving...
DC, you cited some good examples of why we should never hire assistant coaches at UCLA. I generally agree, especially when you look at the examples that you cited.
That said, I think Lorenzo Romar would have been a good hire. What about if Denny Crum had stuck around a bit longer during Coach’s time? We may have had him instead of Gene Bartow.
I may work with the Waves, but I'm still a Bruin!
(Formerly "HoozierDaddy")
Some cases assistant coaches make sense
For example, promoting Tom Izzo, who for years was a great assistant under Heatcoath made a lot of sense. We should have gone with Crum. I don’t care much for Romar. Decent recruiter but an average coach.
I think promoting as assistant can be smart when he or she comes from a program with solid foundation. We don’t have to look any further than Coach Nikki Caldwell, who is the perfect example for this argument.
Totally agree....
There are a lot of great assistant coaches who were promoted and Izzo and Caldwell are two fine examples. The key, as you said, is a drawing them from a program with a solid foundation.
I may work with the Waves, but I'm still a Bruin!
(Formerly "HoozierDaddy")
I am not sure it works for a UCLA Men's Basketball Program
Take a case where it did work on the surface in a similar program, UNC and Bill Guthridge for Dean Smith. Guthridge had a good record and made the final four. However, Guthridge had a number of negative firsts or streaks broken at UNC. From Wikipedia:
In his three seasons as head coach Guthridge led the Tar Heels to the NCAA Final Four twice, in the 1998 tournament and again in the 2000 tournament. In 1998, Guthridge inherited a team that had been to the 1997 Final Four the previous year under Coach Smith. With a wealth of returning talent, Guthridge instituted a “six starters” system, whereby the team’s top six players, Antawn Jamison, Vince Carter, Ed Cota, Shammond Williams, Ademola Okulaja and Makhtar N’Diaye rotated positions in the starting five. Guthridge coached that team to the Atlantic Coast Conference tournament championship, a school record-tying 34 wins (including 30 wins going into the NCAA Tournament—the most in school history) and an appearance in the Final Four, where they lost to Utah. Following the 1997-1998 season, several organizations named him National Coach of the Year and he received the Naismith College Coach of the Year award.
The next season, the team earned a #3 seed in the 1999 NCAA tournament, but was upset in the first round by Weber State—to date, the only time in modern NCAA Tournament history that the Tar Heels failed to win a tournament game. In 2000, the team struggled in the regular season, falling out of the polls for the first time since the start of the 1990-91 season. They finished 18-13—UNC’s worst regular-season record in 11 years. However, they came alive in the 2000 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Tournament. With the 8th seed in the West Region, they upset top-seeded Stanford in the second round and continued on to the Final Four, where the Tar Heels lost to Florida. After the 2000 season, Guthridge retired from coaching.
Like Lavin, Guthridge did very good with the first team of his predecessor whether that was him or Smith is debatable. But then he started to damage the “legacy” and remember NC would totally fall apart after he left. UNC lost in the Tourney first round, they fell out of the rankings for the first time in 10 years, etc. Now Guthridge is a MUCH better coach than Lavin. Further, he did make an upset run to the final four his last year (after under achieving during the season) but I don’t think he was an NC level coach. Roy Williams was and is.
I don’t think the UCLA Basketball brand, unlike say Michigan State basketball, should ever have an assistant take the reigns. We are an elite program and the standards and pressures are different.
Let's not forget that in football...
…Terry Donahue was an assistant under Pepper Rodgers and then Dick Vermeil. Solid foundation continued forward (and during my tenure at UCLA, 80’-85’, we had five bowl victories in 5 years and beat the Trogans 4 out of 5 years…thank you Terry!).
by 2ndGenBruin on Jul 15, 2010 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
UCLA Basketball is different
than football. In basketball, if not number 1, we are one of the top five programs in history of the sport. No one would argue that and it is why 15 years after he was fired Larry Farmer still is called a UCLA coach.
In football, we are not the top team in the LA area (Although we are the top non-professional team). They are different animals.
For a Big Time Program Like UCLA Basketball Yes
I do not think we should ever promote an assistant in Basketball. That said, I would have been fine with taking Crum from Louisville right away when Wooden retired. In other words, I am fine (and think its great) to hire former assistants who have some head coaching experience and proven themselves (as Crum had) to come back.
Roy Williams to NC would be a great example. B
UCLA basketball is too much pressure to just jump into as a head man without some seasoning first as a head coach.
On sports other than football, that is okay. On football, I am mixed. I think it may be okay with a great assistant but I will still be weary.
On Romar, I agree with Nestor below but will amplify his comments to say that Romar is a good recruiter but was out coached in the Tournament and the first UCLA v. Washington game last year by CBH. He had a lot of talent last year and this year and it took him a long time to pull together. I would not want him as a UCLA coach.
Agreed....
Except instead of Romar we got Lavin…Given the choice, I think Romar would have been a better pick. We had a shot at Romar to return here at Pepperdine and they took Westphal.
I totally agree about bringing a former player or assistant coach back home once they have head coaching experience, but I don’t think the rule of not promoting one of your assistants should be written in stone. As Nestor, said, there are notable exceptions. Good arguments can be made both ways.
I may work with the Waves, but I'm still a Bruin!
(Formerly "HoozierDaddy")
I think
wrt to UCLA basketball’s case DC’s points really make sense. I generally agree with him on it. This is why Jamie Dixon should be our next coach after Howland retires in next 7-9 seasons (after hopefully winning at least one title, and perhaps multiple Final-4s and Pac-10 crowns.).
Agree on Romar over Lavin
Of course it is hard for me to think of anyone I would not take over Lavin. I don’t think Romar would be a good choice for UCLA but for Pepperdine he would have been great (and better than an $UC guy like Westphal). Romar is not a bad coach but he is not a great coach either. I will add he seems like a good person.
Disagree to a point about Romar
I wouldn’t say he’s the best coach, but I would still say he’s a very good coach. Our record against his Washington teams has not been great, and we were lucky to pull off the win at home this year.
His teams have been solid for a number of years, now. He still made it to the Sweet 16 this year – losing to West Virginia, a team which made it to the Final Four…only to lose to the eventual national champion, Duke.
Years back when we went to the finals, if the refs had called the Uconn game correctly, Washington would have likely gone on to beat George Mason. They would have then made for an interesting match-up with Florida.
Look at the effect Romar has had on Brandon Roy – not to mention Nate Robinson, Spencer Hawes, and Jon Brockman all having solid careers. Quincy Pondexter has a shot to surprise a lot of people as the number 26 pick, as well.
What does this all mean? It would have been interesting to see what Romar could have done at UCLA.
Point taken
Romar is a good coach and should win the PAC 10 next year. We could do worse but I still think we could and did do better.
Agree completely on the UCONN game and Roy is very good and seems to be together mentally,
Denny Crum had problems
Mostly with JD Morgan. He was a bit too attractive to the ladies, and JD wanted someone with Wooden-type morals. That’s how we got Clean Gene Bartow.
Hazzard.....
Please refresh my memory on this, but did his stroke cause him to leave or did that happen after he left?
I may work with the Waves, but I'm still a Bruin!
(Formerly "HoozierDaddy")
That's dangerous insinuation you're making
Especially with no evidence to back yourself up. Dismissed until you can provide an example of said “pressure”.
Yup
For the record we have blasted Carnesale for hiring KD based on superficial reasons (he wore a shiny suit). However, I have never read specific reports about hiring KD as a result of pressure from African American community.
I think there was pressure, N.
There always is pressure from the Black Coaches Association (I don’t recall the exact title.) Every time there is an opening in D-1 for a head coach, the pressure goes on. It’s not just at UCLA, but everywhere. The press conference pointing out how there are so many black players and black assistant coaches and black high school coaches and black NFL coaches and black coaches in D-II and D-III, but only 3 or 4 black coaches in D-1. That, to me, is a legitimate argument. Those are pure numbers and can’t be refuted.
I don’t blame the UCLA administration for being at least aware of that pressure. I fault them for hiring someone with no coaching experience. I would have preferred any of the many black head coaches at any of those levels – someone who had a track record and knew how to run a football team. Instead, we got what we got, and we’re just recovering now.
Without the pressure from the Black Coaches Association would we have hired who we hired? I don’t know. Given the ineptitude of the administration at that time, if they hadn’t hired him, they probably would have found a way to hire someone even worse. (I still feel sorry for the Bruins who were students at that time. What a crappy time to be what will eventually be described as the “good old days.”)
It is and it kind of isn't
Because since every school faces the same “pressure”, it’s hard for me to see it being a reason to blame the administration for making a decision that may not have been what they would have made without it. I’m sure it was a factor in the decision making process, but the original point of contention was the implication that the decision was made primarily because of pressure from BCA or any other group.
I tend to go with Occam’s Razor on this one, and chalk up the hiring of KD to administrative incompetence.
Administrative incompetence
On the part of Carnesale (and Blackmun) were the primary reasons. I do think the constantly articles and statements re. BCA could create a sense of pressure – especially on someone like Carnesale, who had zero clue about the game. However, you are right that we cannot accept blanket statements of pressure from black community without sufficient evidence.
I didn't mean to suggest the BCA put pressure specifically on UCLA
I think they put pressure on every school with an opening, which I think is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. I’m also not saying that UCLA gave in to that pressure, because I don’t know. But among other things, the BCA is a lobbying group with an agenda, and that is to increase the number of black head coaches in the NCAA, and I’m sure that agenda was known to UCLA’s hiring committee.
Oh, I wasn't saying you said that
The second post in this thread did though or something similar to that.
Heard from a reliable source.....my son the sports writer.
My son was the prep sports editor for the Oaklan Tribune for 10 years and now writes for MaxPreps. Back when KD was hired he told me part of the reason for the hire was that the powers-to-be wanted a black head coach. They thought it would give the program stature and also solidify recruiting in the inner city.
As it turned out KD was a crappy recruiter and it was until DW arrive that we made some inroads into inner city recruiting in the LA area.
Willie Naulls was a major player in hiring Walt Hazzard
He didn’t much like Larry Brown and felt that it would behoove us to have a coach who could work more closely within the Black community. This part happened after JD Morgan died, and IIRC, there was not yet a full-time AD, or else it was Dalis’s first year.
Naulls, who had fast-food franchises in South Central and beyond, played an outsize role among basketball supporters. He was UCLA’s first NBA player, after all, and a successful businessman.
My pick, under those circumstances, probably would have been Freddie Goss, but he ended up with a pretty crappy record, too.
There was some anomisity to Brown because he was a NC Guy
Some people wanted a UCLA guy and that was A reason for Farmer, and after Hazzard, who both had deep UCLA roots. Just not coaching experience or ability.
Yes we had some concern about Larry Brown
He even changed the color of the UCLA uni’s to the same shade as Carolina blue.
But he managed to put together a great run with Kiki and the kids. Rod Foster was fast and probably one of the best FT shooters in UCLA history. Remind you of anybody in recent history?
Bob O. (Signholder #3)
I heard it was the Carpet
When UCLA refused to change the carpet in his office. Maybe an urban legend but according to “They SHoot Coaches Don’t They”, he did leave another job for that reason. Others say it was to do with Kenny Fields. Given Brown’s record later in life, who knows. He does leave jobs frequently.
WTF? Who says Brown changed the uniform color?
What evidence do you have that the BB unis changed at all before Hazzard brought back the arched block BRUINS from his own playing days?
Yep, According
When the Bruins went to Japan in Brown’s second season, they were given new uniforms by the Descente Company with a lighter blue. Carolina blue! moaned Bruin fans. Brown’s assistant, Larry Farmer, got letters urging him to stand up for tradition.
Emphasis in the Original, They Shoot Coaches Don’t They, Mark Heisler 1996.
This is part of the problem that led to Farmer, misguided loyalty. Farmer was made coach in part to bring back Bruin tradition, which is all well and good, but I would rather have a coach who can keep the wining tradition.
Iteresting
I remember Descente making a big push for UCLA’s business around ‘80 (my navy blue baseball cap is Descente), but don’t recall any change in basketball to Carolina Blue. Did they only wear them on the Japan trip? I’ve long been kind of a nut about unis and logos and can’t recall that change at all.
I don't know
Do you remember the gold uniforms of the 1980s? I remember being at a game with them but not sure when?
Walton Era Had Gold Warm-up Jackets Too
Basically the same design, but with arched block letters rather than script. I presumed it was clear that I was talking about the jerseys and shorts, but maybe it wasn’t.
In the video linked the Bruins are wearing the home white uniforms, so it doesn’t answer either the Carolina Blue or Gold uniform questions. It would be great if someone could find images or videos of them though.
Can you believe that Larry Farmer is
the only player to have the best winning record over a three-year period, 89-1 (percentage).
Larry Holyfield
ALso did it. He started his senior year but played on all three teams. Farmer started for two years.
Interesting thread but history is about to be made.
If in fact the cap on the oil well in the Gulf of Mexico holds, Lavin will no longer be the "World’s Second Biggest Oil Slick." Rather, the world title will pass to his worthless soul and he will become the "World’s Biggest Oil Slick."
It is times like this I am proud to be Bruin.
Please excuse me while I go barf.
present
Howland is a great coach…Those others were just in the right spot at the right time. The problem now is the talent leaving early. For example: Kevin Love could have gone down as one of the all time UCLA greats but he jumped ship. I still dont get it. He could have won it all w the Bruins and maybe ended up in a better NBA position as well. Holliday did nothing at UCLA and should have stayed to to become good enough to play in the NBA. I think he left because he knew he would be exposed even more if he stayed. I guess my point is that players leaving too early gives Howland a challenge far greater than teaching team play, defense & fundamentals…. It ruins the game and takes away from the people and players these guys can truely become!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
