When UCLA fired head coach Steve Alford on New Year’s Eve it gave them a huge head start on their search for a replacement. So why is it that three months later they’re still without a head coach? Well, because according to CBS Sports Gary Parrish, they’re currently in the process of an incredibly dumb coaching search.
Parrish ripped apart UCLA for how their search has consisted of going after high-level coaches that would have no interest in joining them such as Kentucky’s John Calipari. After saying no to UCLA, Calipari signed a lifetime conract extension. So after striking out on that level, it should’ve been time to reassess where they are as a program and what they should be looking for in a coach, and, briefly, it appeared they had done that.
According to the L.A Times, the coach they decided on was TCU’s Jamie Dixon. They reached the point where reports were saying they were close to a deal and all they had to do was dot the i’s, cross the t’s, and pay the $8 million buyout. Wait, was that about a buyout?
As Parrish notes, the Bruins somehow went after Dixon but weren’t willing to pay the buyout, hoping they’d lower it. TCU would not, understandably, and as such, UCLA will not be hiring Dixon.
Dixon has an $8 million buyout, you see?
So when the Los Angeles Times reported last week that UCLA was finalizing a deal with Dixon, it was reasonable to assume UCLA had decided to pay Dixon’s $8 million buyout because how else did UCLA think it was going to get a deal done? The only reason a school would ever lower a buyout is if the school wants its coach to leave — like Memphis wanted Josh Pastner to leave for Georgia Tech in April 2016. But TCU does not want Dixon to leave. So TCU was never going to lower the buyout even if UCLA, for reasons that remain unclear, apparently thought TCU might. Eventually, though, UCLA officials finally figured out, again, what everybody else already knew — i.e., that Dixon’s buyout would remain $8 million — and, incredibly, backed away, meaning UCLA pursued a coach with an $8 million buyout but ultimately decided not to hire him because of, follow me here, an $8 million buyout.
Assuming a school would just lower the buyout on a relatively successful coach for no reason other than “you’re UCLA so of course they will do it” is a laughable lack of self awareness. UCLA clearly thinks highly of themselves, but after the Dixon debacle and being used as leverage by John Calipari, one is left to wonder what caliber coach the Bruins will end up with.
Top level coaches have interest in UCLA, but it isn’t a place someone is going to take a discount to go to. This is a program that’s not been to a Final Four in a decade, but seems determined to get there without spending the requisite money to do so. If they’re not willing to pay for coaches and they don’t have the reputation to pull them in, then what does UCLA have?
