Grubb is going to be one of the most sought after coaches next off season. He's not going to come to UCLA, with all of its NIL problems and bare cupboard, and taint his future by shitting the bed here for 3 years.
Grubb is going to be one of the most sought after coaches next off season. He's not going to come to UCLA, with all of its NIL problems and bare cupboard, and taint his future by shitting the bed here for 3 years.
yes, but what does having an interim coach achieve in the short term? It's awful for recruiting #1. Hard enough for a coach on the hot seat to recruit. Has to be impossible to recruit when the recruits know you are definitely gone.
But how do you know the interim coach won't be made permanent? You are actually in the same position you were in with the Chipster (OG) aren't you. Almost everyone knew he would be gone next year anyway, hence that's probably why they are the 17th out of 18 teams in the Big-18 in recruiting. That and the Chipster (OG) sucks at recruiting. Actually, if you think about it, the interim approach may be better than having the Chipster (OG) staying because there is that chance, they sign the interim to a longer deal if they prove themselves. How can a fulltime or interim coach recruit at this point anyway? Spring Football is within the next couple of months here (April, 2024) and players have already moved/committed to their teams. Yes, this may be a reason why most UCLA players won't be moving, but it also means no other players will be moving to UCLA. It seems that it would be easier for a player to leave UCLA at this point and try somewhere else than it is for an outside player to come into UCLA (at least at this point in time).
that's the problem. the interim coach would be an inferior choice (i.e. nobody else wants him as a HC, like Foster) and they remove the interim tag. And now we have an inferior head coach.
Should have used the sarcasm font... of all the reasons not to get rid of Chip or encourage him to leave and save the buyout $ - which might be what happened here - "recruiting might get worse" isn't one of them, given that Chip couldn't have cared less about recruiting.
Not necessarily - instead of using the B1G money to buy out chip and make a new hire next year as you've advocated, we could take a page out of UDub's book when they fired Jimmy Lake after a year to hire DeBoer and use the B1G money to fire this hire and make a new hire next year if it doesn't work out. No real difference.
Coaches like DeBoer are few and far between. There is just now a DeBoer hanging out at every group of 5 school. If it were that easy, we would not be having this discussion. DeBoer was a major roll of the dice that paid massive dividends for UW but fails 9 out of 10 times.
Grubb is going to be one of the most sought after coaches next off season. He's not going to come to UCLA, with all of its NIL problems and bare cupboard, and taint his future by shitting the bed here for 3 years.
So, if that's the prospect Evan, what coach in their right mind would come to UCLA? LOL. You just eliminated almost every candidate!
Bingo. Now we agree. You just made the argument for keeping Chip around another year.
Okay Evan, go ahead and keep the Chipster (OG) for another year! LOL.
would have been preferable to the shit storm we are going to have now. Whoever we hire is likely our coach, for better or worse, for at least 4 years.
Not if they are interim.
yes, but what does having an interim coach achieve in the short term? It's awful for recruiting #1. Hard enough for a coach on the hot seat to recruit. Has to be impossible to recruit when the recruits know you are definitely gone.
But how do you know the interim coach won't be made permanent? You are actually in the same position you were in with the Chipster (OG) aren't you. Almost everyone knew he would be gone next year anyway, hence that's probably why they are the 17th out of 18 teams in the Big-18 in recruiting. That and the Chipster (OG) sucks at recruiting. Actually, if you think about it, the interim approach may be better than having the Chipster (OG) staying because there is that chance, they sign the interim to a longer deal if they prove themselves. How can a fulltime or interim coach recruit at this point anyway? Spring Football is within the next couple of months here (April, 2024) and players have already moved/committed to their teams. Yes, this may be a reason why most UCLA players won't be moving, but it also means no other players will be moving to UCLA. It seems that it would be easier for a player to leave UCLA at this point and try somewhere else than it is for an outside player to come into UCLA (at least at this point in time).
that's the problem. the interim coach would be an inferior choice (i.e. nobody else wants him as a HC, like Foster) and they remove the interim tag. And now we have an inferior head coach.
So we could drop below Northwestern?
Potentially.
probably already have.
Should have used the sarcasm font... of all the reasons not to get rid of Chip or encourage him to leave and save the buyout $ - which might be what happened here - "recruiting might get worse" isn't one of them, given that Chip couldn't have cared less about recruiting.
Not necessarily - instead of using the B1G money to buy out chip and make a new hire next year as you've advocated, we could take a page out of UDub's book when they fired Jimmy Lake after a year to hire DeBoer and use the B1G money to fire this hire and make a new hire next year if it doesn't work out. No real difference.
Coaches like DeBoer are few and far between. There is just now a DeBoer hanging out at every group of 5 school. If it were that easy, we would not be having this discussion. DeBoer was a major roll of the dice that paid massive dividends for UW but fails 9 out of 10 times.
Clearly - the larger point is that we aren't "trapped for the next 4 years" if we don't want to be.
Chip quit.