Bumped. We all know who is ultimately responsible for making UCLA basketball not only unwatchable but also toxic. If you are looking to contact the UCLA Chancellor's office to fire Chianti Dan go here. Please be polite while making calls or in your emails. GO BRUINS.
I watched last night's debacle on TV with mixed emotions. I wanted the Bruins to do well, because I always want the Bruins to do well, as an alum and as a fan. However, I knew that the odds of the Bruins doing well were slim, with Ben Howland on the sidelines. So I did not approach the game with excitement, but more with curiosity as to how it would unfold.
And once it became clear that the Bruins were going to lose (which was very early), I actually found myself enjoying plays like Solomon's put back jam, because the worse the loss, the more likely the nail in Howland's coffin would be driven in deeper. If we are to reclaim our spot of national relevance, it will be with a new coach.
My feelings last night were similar to how I watched the football team unravel in the last years of Dorrell and the last years of Neuheisel, and how I watched the basketball team unravel in the last years of Lavin. Hoping that the Bruins would win, again as an alum and fan, but okay with routs because it would hasten the demise of failed coaches.
For all this, I blame Dan Guerrero. I did not have these feelings of ambivalence when watching teams pre-Guerrero. I rooted hard for the Bruins, and took losses more bitterly (or maybe that is just a sign of growing up). When teams lost big, which they did from time to time, I knew that the heat would be on the coaches, and that they would right the ship or would be gone.
Mediocrity would not be tolerated. But Guerrero epitomizes and embraces mediocrity. So the only way the head coach is replaced under his watch is repeated humiliation. And losing big is the only vehicle to needed change with Guerrero in charge.
So I resent Guerrero for bringing about this ambivalence, and for dampening my enthusiasm. Thanks for nothing, Dan.