We wouldn’t have heard so many boos during halftime of the UCLA-Texas A&M game.
We wouldn’t have seen masterful banners flying over the Rose Bowl in 2017.
The deficit run (pre-coronavirus) wouldn’t have been so substantial.
Okay, okay, I get it, I could keep going. But truly, one does not really know what would have happened had Dan Guerrero not been hired in April of 2002.
We do know things would look mightily different for our mighty Bruins, though.
Would Karl Dorrell have lasted any longer? Or shorter?
Would Steve Lavin have made it through March, 2003?
Perhaps Jim L. Mora wouldn’t have been hired.
Or Steve Alford would have at least handled his hiring better. Ah, hell, Alford probably wouldn’t have been hired.
Again, these are the hypothetical questions that only just begin if you discuss what if Guerrero hadn’t been hired.
It’s What If Week at SB Nation — and that’s how we’ve come to today’s controversial topic. I can formulate my own opinion, but honestly, I’d rather hear it from you. I am a journalist, afterall, and my job is to report news and give my analysis, insight and thoughts on such.
My analysis, insight and thoughts on Guerrero’s hiring and subsequent ‘doing of his job’ are that it’s only gotten worse. Even when you think it’s at its most cringeworthy moment, somehow it gets even more cringier.
So here we are. Here I am. Asking you the question ‘What if Dan Guerrero had never been hired?’
Would 77 players have transferred away in a three-year span from the football team? Would a budget deficit have happened in 2018-19?
What else could have happened? What else should have happened since 2002?
Also, take solace, today and moving forward this summer — the end is on the horizon. His retirement day is fastly approaching. As quick as the days of summer do go, the day will finally be upon us. It’s already MAY!