Alford ranked #36 in college coach rankings

Not sure if anyone posted this, and since nothing came up in a search on BN I thought I might post it (delete if necessary). The WWL is in the middle of a Top 50 men's college basketball coach ranking based on "What coaches are doing the best job right now."

Here is what they had to say about Alfraud (emphasis added):

No. 36: Steve Alford, UCLA


UCLA's introduction of Alford (and his utterly bonkers contract buyout clause) went about as poorly as it possibly could have, but Alford very quickly salvaged it by getting a great season out of the uniquely talented players (Kyle Anderson, Jordan Adams) former coach Ben Howland left behind. Alford has also begun to shore up the tricky West Coast recruiting circuit that Howland totally alienated.

There is quite a bit to say about this. The first thing that comes to mind is the great disparity between what our chianti-swilling athletic director is paying Alfraud compared to the competition and how a panel of "experts" thinks he stacks up against that competition. Sure, "experts" and rankings can be disputed and can be incorrect. But Alfraud is the #7 best paid coach in the land. Surely he should be near that in just about any analysis of coaching talent, and surely better than the coaching talent at such basketball powerhouses as Dayton, Creighton, SMU and San Diego State, all of whom rank better than Alfraud. However, #36 is not near #7. The obvious conclusion here is that, at a minimum, Guerrero mis-evaluated and overpaid for Alfraud's coaching "talent." Just another data point that shows how completely incompetent Guerrero is at his job and how limited Alfraud's coaching ability is after so many opportunities and so many years at it.

It has been covered extensively and well how ludicrous the contract Guerrero gave Alfraud is. We have run out of superlatives that can describe how bad it is. So, kudos to the WWL for coming up with "utterly bonkers." That works, and it adds to the near unanimity in the sports world on the subject.

Obviously, a Steve 16 was part of this ranking assessment and even with that Alfraud logs in at an whopping #36. But, given the obvious errors in the WWL's assessment ("great season?" and "shore up tricky West coast recruiting circuit?" really??), shouldn't Alfraud fall even further down their rankings, and maybe even off them? Yes, this kind of oversight or miscalculation, to put it mildly, calls into question the entire rankings, but Alfraud was already benefiting from their analysis, in my opinion. So if they were to more accurately assess both the season (given that he might have 3 NBA draft first rounders leave his team, and he brought the highest ranked of them off the bench) and his West Coast, specifically LA, recruiting failures he would have to drop down the list.

Finally, it must give some measure of comfort to TIARA, and worry the chianti-swiller, that Tom Crean at Indiana didn't even make the list. Here's to hoping that Crean loses his season/team/program/fans early and TIARA comes running to the rescue.

<em>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.</em>

Log In Sign Up

Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Bruins Nation

You must be a member of Bruins Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Bruins Nation. You should read them.

Join Bruins Nation

You must be a member of Bruins Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Bruins Nation. You should read them.




Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.