Just gonna pin a comment here and say that the EDSBS Charity Bowl just started, and I would highly recommend people donate and shoot UCLA up the leaderboards.
You don't have to donate a large amount (honestly a bunch of $20 donations usually does wonders) but fun donation amounts are highly encouraged. For example, my first donation for this Charity Bowl was $42.37, in honor of the funniest thing that happened to UCLA football this season. I'll probably have a Chesney donation of some kind, along with a basketball donation or two (I think $79.51 has a nice ring to it).
UCLA is having by far its best performance in the Charity Bowl ever; as of this moment, UCLA fans have donated $6532, which I think is double their previous best. The Charity Bowl is also a few thousand away from hitting the initial goal of $1 million raised, which is astonishing to do in less than three days.
But now I want ot see if UCLA can get to $10,000. Again, no pressure, and honestly, I am so incredibly happy that we've done as well as we have. As an added bonus, we are beating the brakes off of Southern Cal, which has barely raised $2000. I'd like to make sure that streak continues this year.
The Charity Bowl is over, and I am proud to say UCLA not only had its best performance ever, we blew all previous performances out of the water. The UCLA faithful raised $24,207, good enough to finish 17th overall and put ourselves ahead of not only broke-ass school Southern Cal (who barely raised $4k) but ahead of UC Berkeley, who we beat by $1000.
Thank you to everyone who donated! Altogether, the larger college football internet community raised $1,763,317 for refugee services in the Georgia area, breaking last year's record by around $400,000. Incredible work all around.
I disagree with your optimism. I have given up on UCLA Basketball. Until there is a new AD and Coach, which won't be anytime soon, you can expect to results similar to last year and this year with various excuses from year to year. It is not an elite program and has not been for many years. All the things that you have identified that need to happen are just not likely to happen. I'll keep an eye on things but I gave up watching individual games years ago and nothing has changed. The school isn't interested in having an elite basketball program, and we'll have to see what happens with the football program. It's very sad really.
After witnessing so much disappointment in UCLA's football and basketball programs and the fiscal and managerial failures and incompetence from the AD, I think it's quite understandable and natural to have symptoms of BBS (Battered Bruins Syndrome). Hope things will get better soon rather than never!
Thanks for the comment. I still watch football games but I have not watched a non tournament basketball game in years. As a kid I used to listen to Fred Hessler and later Dick Endberg, and I would stay up and watch the taped games at 11pm. I'm most irritated by the poor financial management and the fact that poor performing coaches keep getting extended. There was no reason to extend Cronin. It is time to hire a new BB coach and now they can't. Jarmond should be fired for cause for fiscal mismanagement.
First impression of the new players is that Cronin is going opposite of Bilodeau. None of the front court players are highly skilled offensively. They do have potential for rebounding and defense. They appear to be the kind of players that Cronin would have recruited at Cincinnati.
The most interesting ones to me are the package deal of Jovic and Macura, not because of their talent (Jovic is definitely the more talented one with NBA potential who will likely see major minutes this year), but rather what their recruitment says about Cronin.
For those who don't know, Jovic and Macura are both from the Balkans (Jovic is Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macura is Slovenia), but more importantly, they both share the same agent. That agent also happens to be THE agent for players from that region, Miško Ražnatović. If that name sounds familiar, it is because he is also the agent of two-time NBA MVP Nikola Jokic. Anyway, Raznatovic approached UCLA about taking both players, wanting them in Los Angeles, developing under a good coach (hence why Southern Cal was not the option). Raznatovic deciding that these guys needed to play at UCLA, and at a significant NIL discount, is fascinating, because for me it says that Cronin's perception among basketball-adjacent people is far more positive than it is among the fan base.
He’d be redundant on this team. And for how much we thought EDJ, struggled last season, he still put up better numbers than Berke so our starting PF position is set. And obviously Tyler Bilodeau was a massive upgrade compared to Berke.
What’s surprising is that he wants to transfer. Berke has a starting job locked up playing for the reigning COY. Maybe he’s looking for a bag but he had a pretty good setup going at Nebraska
Maybe so, but it's not reflected in his performance. There are seemingly things that happen every year that prevent success, most often, roster construction and sometimes recruitment.
Remember that players and agents goals don’t always align with those who are 100% aligned with the institution. They may not care how the season turns out except to showcase their abilities and hear their names called next year.
Wins and losses certainly play a part but an individual playing winning basketball at all times means far more to scouts and GMs.
I understand and I am referring to wining games. What is the purpose of the university paying players and a coach whose goals have nothing to do with the university. In that case, UCLA should be getting money from the NBA and the players or providing that service.
I mean, the argument here is that UCLA is not winning enough games. They are absolutely winning games under Cronin, and have consistently been a top-end team in the B1G under him. And, given what UCLA is paying for the roster and coach, they're getting about what they paid for.
Now, if you want to argue that UCLA's legacy means they should be near the top of the college basketball world, I think that is fine, but the school is not spending the money at that level to make that happen. And forget the argument over whether spending the money on Cronin is right or not, this has been a problem spanning decades, where UCLA coaches have been asked to do less with more, because that's what Wooden would have done (because I guess we're all just going to pretend Sam Gilbert wasn't just as influential on the makeup of those teams).
Your analysis was excellent and accurate but I don't think it's likely that the things you mention that need to happen for success actually happen. Your comments about monetary investment validate exactly what I said. The university is not committed to having an elite program. We can argue about the definition of elite, but 28th is not acceptable to me. I do not agree with you that under Cronin we have been a top end team. I never said anything about John Wooden or winning national championships but apparently, since we can't win a national championship, we've given up on trying to be really good as well. My opinion is that we should be one of the top 10-15 programs in the country and we are not. The first part of the sentence is just my opinion but the we are not part is factual. The last 10 years AP rankings are as follows: 25, 22, 7, 11, 21, 17, 24, 8, 25, 22. 3 finishes in the top 15 in 10 years. This averages out to 18 and includes 6 years outside the top 20. So we're just inside the top 20 and the question is, is that good enough for you. It is not for me. This is not a factual disagreement, just a difference in opinion. Your opinion is that this is a "top end team, and mine is that it is not. It's not a bad program but's not great either and it's not trending upward.
Excellent, well thought out and comprehensive postmortem article on the UCLA men's basketball 2025-26 season! Here's my take on what I saw from the Bruins, but I'm not an expert and thorough like DD (Dimitri)... :-)
THE GOOD:
* Able to attract and sign the best-available recruit from the transfer portal in DD (Dent).
* Excellent 3-point shooting and better scoring ability compared to the stagnant, 1-on-1, iso ball offense typical of the past seasons.
* Trent Perry's growth and HC Cronin not totally giving up on Xavier Booker.
* The upset wins late in the season to generate some hope for postseason success when hardly any optimism had existed earlier.
THE BAD:
* Not retaining Aday Mara, resulting in generally poor interior team defense with this season's bigs (and also losing the potential for more inside scoring with DD assisting).
* Consistent inconsistency throughout the entire season and not seeing nearly enough of the AP preseason #12-ranked team.
* Continuing to struggle to win games outside of the Pacific Time Zone.
* Took way too long for their elite PG ($3M man) to finally make a serious impact.
* Zero non-conference signature wins, as the Bruins only faced Arizona and Gonzaga and lost to both, but then they also flopped against Cal.
* Key injuries throughout the season and then ending with another catastrophic one in the postseason (I'm sick and tired of this happening!).
THE UGLY:
* The totally embarrassing meltdown in Michigan with 2 blowout losses and Steven Jamerson's theatrical "Flagrant-2 ejection" (which even surprised HC Izzo, as no other HC would do that to their own player).
* HC Cronin getting scolded by the UCLA administration (my assumption) to act more like a Bruin and being forced to publicly apologize for his headline-grabbing, poor behavior (wonder how long it will take before his next public embarrassment, LOL).
THE FUTURE:
* Why the heck is AD Martin Guerrero STILL AT UCLA???
* It took Coach Wooden 16 seasons at UCLA to win his first championship and 15 seasons at UCLA for HC Close to win her first one. I think if folks are expected to have similar patience with HC Cronin at UCLA, then there could potentially be another 7 or 8 more seasons of disappointment and frustration remaining (sigh)...
The only thing I'd add to is on your last point, because Cronin had 13 seasons at Cincinnati before coming to UCLA, so he's had 20 years under his belt to hone his coaching skills, whereas both Coach and Cori were starting anew. And at this point I'm not really willing to wait another 7 or 8 seasons for Cronin hoping he'll find the winning formula.
Yep, he also spent his first 2 seasons at Murray State, so he was already pretty much set in his ways before coming to UCLA... ;-)
The YoungestTo500™ has certainly won a lot of games in his career, yet he never got past the Sweet-16 and reached it only once in all of that time prior to coming here. His First Four-to-Final Four run in 2021 gave us that one big shot of hopium that has long since worn out. The transfer portal + NIL has greatly impacted the sport, so finding a winning formula has become even more challenging for all HCs.
I think there is a potential winning formula in Cronin's own back yard. So Cal is overflowing with high school talent.
The problem is none of these players want to play for Cronin. Perry fell into his lap. JJJ was alfraud's recruit.
Cronin's a decent coach but he is not a great coach. I doubt he will ever win a Natty. And if you look at our team for next season, we don't have one legit 5. And besides Perry, who is going to score? Who is a pure shooter?
Cronin has effectively increased his bag and greatly lowered the bar for expectations to the point that we spend tons of time every season discussing if we will even make the Dance and if we do, praying for a 7 seed. SMDH 😞
And what gives the spotlight on Cronin even more glare is that Coach Close and Coach Chez have created a culture of competitive greatness. This culture is built not through tearing their players down but through a growth mindset, instilling mental atrength, selflessness, chemistry, connection, and celebrating every small step tp greatness.
NIL is not impacting either Cori or Chez. I know women's sports are not as impacted as men's but Chez's recruiting has been on fire!
I also believe it's become fairly obvious that top talent from the local high schools aren't looking at UCLA as their primary choice anymore because of its current HC and/or the negative talk outsiders have been dishing out about the program. But maybe it isn't as critical going forward because the transfer portal and NIL is turning all players into "free agents" after every season. HCs can assemble teams that can better compete more quickly by recruiting and signing players who have already accumulated at least 1 year of college experience instead of hoping to develop a kid to be productive and impactful immediately. But there has to be adequate NIL funding to begin with, and all the players need to be able to work well as a team.
Anyway, I think that the elite, blueblood basketball program of Westwood has been successfully transformed into the tough and resilient, blue-collar UCLA Bearcats under HC Cronin. They will win a lot of games, but when they lose, it means the players didn't play hard or weren't tough enough, or they ran into bad luck from a last-second shot or suffered a catastrophic injury to a key player. I don't know if this program can achieve a national championship, either, but I do think this past season would've been completely different had Mara been retained, as his absence created a huge hole in the roster. I'm sorry that I don't have an effective treatment for your case of BBS, Ms. Tamara... :-)
Nope, not a chance. The Betts bro wouldn't get near Cronin who is the opposite of Coach Close and the Wooden way. I believe Cronin knows it too, imho.
Cronin didn't even show up at the Women's National Championship game, so there's that as well.
Can you imagine Mama Betts telling her son that she wants him to play for a tyrant who kicks his own player out of games, and embarrasses the Four Letters over and over, let alone his 💯 joyless, below average to poor record the last three years.
Coach Close built a program steadily, improving every year by recruiting great talent and great potential like Gabs who did need development. She was masterful at fitting the pieces together and creating a masterpiece. She is a coach who was open about how she needed to grow, learned from her mistakes and ultimately grew into greatness.
Cronin has not grown anything except for heartache and his own big bag. Jelly 2.0 takes the big bag too, so they are birds of a feather which is no surprise.
My question was a rhetorical answer to DD's open question on whether Mr. Grumpy can bring in elite talent. That it is unlikely for him to get a Betts Legacy is telling. For me, the case is closed, for DD the jury is still out, and for the Croninistas we must be fair and allow Mr. Grumpy another 8 years as JRW and CC were given.
Bruins need a center. I think I'm going to like Jovic.
I'll echo what I wrote above. Fairness doesn't give Cronin 8 more years in Westwood. He had 13 years as a HC of a college program before coming here. Both Wooden and Close began their careers at UCLA and deserved time to develop, and Wooden won in year 16 and Close in year 15. Cronin is now on year 20.
did Cronin ever have a chance to win at Cincinatti? I think comparing any modern day men's basketball coach to Wooden is ridiculous. it's like comparing Ohtani to Ruth. One of them was launching 83 mph fastballs into the seats. Also not sure how Cori Close made her way into this conversation. The women's game is actually a lot more similar to the men's game when Wooden was around when only a handful of programs had a shot.
I think that says more about Alford than Cronin tbh.
Cronin never had access to the kind of talent he now has at UCLA when he was at Cincinnati. The Bearcats played a style of basketball that had 0 margin for error at the high level (which also speaks to their early exits).
"What if I ever could get the opportunity to coach at the elite program in America with 11 national championships? How would I handle it? What would I do? How do you have success? What would your vision be? What could you do there that you can't do at other places. Well the answer is a lot.
"National championships. Having the best players. Graduating elite student-athletes. All of the above is at your fingertips here..."
Seems like the YoungestTo500™ was fairly successful in doing more with less, compared to the YoungestTo600™ who did less with more before Liberty ultimately delivered freedom for UCLA...
Was curious to see how UCLA has been stacking up against other programs as a postseason postmortem, so I compiled this summary of all teams making the Sweet-16 during 2021-26 (the Mick Cronin era at UCLA), with 2020 omitted due to COVID...
And lastly, the teams making the Final Four and the eventual champions during 2021-26 (the Mick Cronin era at UCLA), with 2020 omitted due to COVID. 2021 has become a distant memory for UCLA... :-(
* 3 APPEARANCES: UConn (2023-24, 2026).
* 2 APPEARANCES: Duke (2022, 2025), Houston (2021, 2025).
* 1 APPEARANCE: Alabama (2024), Arizona (2026), Auburn (2025), Baylor (2021), Florida (2025), FAU (2023), Gonzaga (2021), Illinois (2026), Kansas (2022), Miami (2023), Michigan (2026). North Carolina (2022), NC State (2024), Purdue (2024), San Diego St. (2023), UCLA (2021), Villanova (2022).
Dimitri makes a good point that UCLA is basically getting what it’s paying for which is why in another post, I had said maybe it’s time to look for a coach that can do more with less.
But UCLA shouldn’t be a school that struggles to compete at the top tier level with NIL. Even with the hype and excitement surrounding the Chesney signing, are we even top 25 in NIL in football? Where are our whales? I’ve seen posts that say if we hire a new inspiring basketball coach, the money will come and ucla can compete, maybe not with Duke but with the next tier below them, but that hasn’t proven true on the football side.
And then we have other schools that have doesn’t have the history we have and/or have uninspiring coaches come in with unlimited pockets. Like how did BYU and Kevin Young afford Dysbansa last year? Danny Sprinkle and Washington had one of the biggest NIL budgets last year. For this year, Pat Kelsey at Louisville has never made it to the Sweet 16 but they have enough NIL to pay $9.5 million for two players and enough money left over to recruit John Blackwell. Why are boosters at those schools so willing to fund their loser programs and mediocre coaches while Mick Cronin struggles to raise money at the best school on the west coast?
Yeah, there are also levels to this. Like, at this point, I'd say that UCLA is top 25 in NIL, but the gulf between that and Ohio State is vast.
UCLA has plenty of whales and alums with tons of money, but they're activated more towards the academic side (there's a reason the medical school is as well-regarded as it is). The question is whether the school will start pushing athletics more.
It's just strange to me that given UCLA's massive graduates from school and elite graduate schools, they haven't revealed a "billionaire hobbyist" in the same way Phil Knight (Oregon), Mark Cuban (Indiana), or the Hildebrand/Rowling families (Texas/A&M) have appeared to adopt their programs....... UCLA has the billionaires, but, as you stated, they generally build buildings and research centers rather than "buying" players—though the new $17.3M Layne gift and money suggests this may be changing. Clearly, it calls for an obsessive UCLA sports fan.......because generally it is difficult to argue with smart investors who prefer their names on buildings rather than getting a receipt for a 5-star quarterback.
Would it be unreasonable to assume or expect that the UCLA AD should be working on major strategic issues like this? Or, maybe giving the HC a secret contract upgrade last year was determined to be the simplest and quickest solution...
Idk what went through Jarmonds mind. It is true that being on an expiring contract makes recruiting hard but to give Cronin an extension of that length with that buyout was obscene. Or he could give Cronin the tools that Cronin says he needs to succeed (higher NIL) and let Cronin sink or swim on his own. Instead we get the worst of all options, uncompetitive NIL and a super high buyout
I think that retaining the current HC, regardless of past performance, was also the laziest action to take, as the AD is now absolved from having to make any critical decisions until 2030 and can just continue to let the HC sink or swim while continuing to do nothing about improving the NIL situation.
The successful recruiting of Nik Khamenia from the portal would serve as a powerful deodorant to those on this board who believe Cronin stinks as a coach, recruiter, roster developer, homo sapien, etc. I just want whoever the coach is to build the best team possible given our lack of billionaire college basketball hobbyists and coach the hell out of it to the best of his ability.
Except for the part where UCLA isn't seriously pursuing Khamenia because he doesn't fit what they need from the portal, and he's likely going to UConn.
John Blackwell from Wisconsin is probably a better example for what you're looking at here. It's a UCLA/Duke battle at this point.
One thing I like about Able is that I saw an interview where he says he’s grown up playing with very tough coaches so sounds like he at least won’t be bothered by Cronin’s coaching style
Duke also came into the recruitment a week before Khamenia committed and threw a bag at him that UCLA and Gonzaga (the two schools that were recruiting him the longest) were unable to match. Let’s not pretend that’s a clear case of Cronin missing on a guy he went after.
Now, if you wanted to talk Dusty Strome or Stojakovic, that’s another story.
Given that Khamenia would likely be either the best player on the roster or 1A with Perry and a direct replacement for Bilo which this roster still doesn't have, I guess the salient question is: Were we not seriously pursuing him because there's a plan beyond hoping Dailey becomes more consistent in the front court at the 3 next to Jovic at the 4/we're just going to play 3 guards for the foreseeable future OR because we are no longer a top-tier program that can hope to compete with programs like UConn and others that 4Ever points out have consistently made Elite 8s and Final 4s in this era if we both want a top-tier player like Khamenia so why try? I realize it's not a black and white question (see: getting Dent but losing Mara) but I think it's the question that goes a long way to defining the state of the Men's program at this point...
I have never understand why, especially in the NIL era, why it mattered whether our roster had local players on it. Khamenia is not a fit. Don't care if he went to HWL
I picked UCLA (engineering) over Carnegie Mellon and Cornell even though the later two are arguably better academic programs because of: in-state tuition, closeness to home, and didn't want to be freezing cold.
The first one doesn't matter for student athletes, but you think an LA boy likes scrapping their car windows in winter and swatting mosquitos in summer, and the small city life of Durham, NC or Lexington, KY?
And let's be honest: many want to be close to their family or their HS sweethearts. Like Jaime Jaquez Jr., or Lonzo Ball.
Point is: Cronin has squandered this advantage. If John Blackwell is already in LA, his agent is from UCLA, and we're offering the same $5M, there is no reason he should sign with Illinois, Louisville, or Duke. Unless the problem is... Cronin.
I'm also not saying fire the man now. He's got a massive buyout. But his seat should be warm. And his inability to recruit local SoCal top tier talent is a strike against him.
Pay the recruit the same NIL, promise them playing time and demonstrate a culture of winning and player development. And they would prefer to play at home.
Maybe I overrated him (Khamenia) coming out of high school, I saw a kid with outstanding basketball IQ, with great passing skills and an offensive game with a high ceiling......a better passing Bilo, so to speak.........the problem......could he become the defender and rebounder Cronin can count on.......does he want to dedicate himself to that.......I think talent is always a fit as long as he can be a good teammate and not a disruptive force. It should raise the level of everyone's game with daily competition at practice....
In a perfect world we would have our UCLA "billionaire hobbyist" in tow and get both Blackwell and Khamenia from the portal....Moving Trent Perry to the point guard spot to accommodate John Blackwell at the two would create a massive scoring backcourt, but it fundamentally changes how the offense "breathes" because we wouldn't have a true "distributor' on the team with the loss of Dent. Khamenia would make everyone else better with his passing and IQ, and Cronin would use him as a "stretch-four" to take on more initiation duties. Cronin has used a "high-post" hub to keep the ball moving in his previous offensive schemes....and this would give us one of the best offenses in the country........Aahh, but to Dream......
By the way DD, I also thought your article was excellent and your opinions have obviously triggered some robust discussion which is another part of your job that you do so well........thank you for providing us with this forum and your valued insights........
Far be it from me to tell Dimitri how to do his job (followed now by me telling DD how he should do his job 😜) but each of the 4 sections would make great stand alone posts as there is so much to unpack in all these areas. This was such a good recap that it inspired too many things to say. Here is a "short" recap of some thoughts...
Expectations/Reality:
I can't put too much weight on preseason expectations. Those things are really just semi-educated guesses to generate content (i.e. clickbait) during the media dry spell of the offseason and it's not really fair to judge a program before the first jump ball of the season. The gap between expectations and reality that bothered me most about this team was first, its year long inconsistency, and second: it's ultimate distance from being truly elite. I'm not one to demand titles or oblivion. I do want our team to find a high level and hover around that. The wild swings through the year and the cratering performances away from home showed just how far we are from being an elite program.
That Extension:
If you have to do something like this in secret, it shows you at least subconsciously know that it's a terrible idea. This is all on Jarmond and he needs to go away asap. DD, you are far more dialed in behind the scenes than probably anyone here - can you explain Jarmond's process here and did anyone in the media ever ask him why this was done behind the scenes and kept from public knowledge for 6-8 months?
About That Offense:
I think your comparison to Howland is pretty accurate, though I think Howland was still a better coach, especially on the defensive end, and program leader with a higher ceiling than Cronin, but his willingness or desperation to sacrifice his style for offense and offensive players was his undoing (curses, Dragovich and Shabazz and Reeves Nelson...). The offense seemed really to take off this year somewhere past the halfway mark when Dent became an aggressive force with the ball. Not sure if it was injury or style or confidence or what that hampered things before that, and whether it was a conscious effort by Cronin to let that part of the game exist and evolve. It will be interesting to see if Cronin continues to sacrifice his defensive style for a more productive offense, though I imagine this will have a lot to do with how the roster ends up.
A Path Forward:
Simply, I think this year is fairly representative of what we can expect with Mick Cronin: A roster that has good pieces but remains incomplete owing to NIL, institutional apathy, playing style, and Cronin's stubbornness and narcissism. We will have a team that will win 20-25 games with some nice wins and some eye gouging flops. We will be in the Tourney and make runs at the Sweet 16, but we will remain a longshot to get past the Elite 8 and we will not be serious contenders for anything more. I don't think there's much forward, nor do I see much backward. I think this is who we are and where we are and what we will be until some real fundamental changes are made, and that means more than just the coach.
Nice point by point response/analysis GB.....impressive....and a significant contribution to stimulate further comments and opinions (to the extent you care about what I think anyway).
I disagree on this point- I still think HS recruiting > transfer portal.
- The overall talent from HS is better. Look at the NBA draft. Top 5 picks are going to 100% be freshmen. These are the players that impact the entire program and can "carry" a team (e.g. Dybansta, Boozer, Peterson, Caleb Wilson, etc.).
- Lottery is like 80-90% freshmen.
- Late 1st round is upperclassmen.
If you're paying a 1-year rental with NIL, why pay $5M for a John Blackwell (borderline 2nd rounder), when you can get a Jason Crowe Jr. for $1M NIL? Because... here it comes: we aren't even in consideration for him... even though he was in our backyard... oof.
Wait... what about Brandon McCoy Jr.! We didn't even make his top 5... oof.
Players who return get a NIL discount. Trent Perry is much cheaper returning as a Junior vs. if we had gotten him from the transfer portal.
Cronin has lost the local SoCal recruiting pipeline.
I feel like we've already seen years of evidence that having a lottery pick is not a guarantee of success. Of the top freshmen that are off to the NBA Draft, only one of them (Keaton Wagler of Illinois) even made the Final Four, and Arizona was the only team of those four that was driven by having talented freshmen. Yes, those freshmen have more "talent", but what the NBA is looking for and what works in college are two completely different things; otherwise, you'd have seen Dybansta be able to drag his team to at least the Elite Eight rather than getting bounced in the first round.
The reason so many top-end coaches are leaning towards transfers is because they have that college experience, know what it takes to compete at this level, and are more reliable over a season compared to a freshman. It is quite literally what Michigan just did in putting together an all-time team, and they had only one freshman (Trey McKinnie) playing any meaningful minutes for them. UConn was the same way, as outside of Mullins that team is full of juniors and seniors.
Which is also why I like the portal strategy so far of grabbing guys who have played a year. They now have actual data and understand what they need to do, while still having time to develop. Getting those players along with some high four-star recruits seems like a smart play currently.
there's a reason high school players are called "prospects." There's also a reason NBA teams who think they can contend for a championship sign a FA or trade for someone rather than trade up in the draft. Experience, actual data, you know exactly what you are getting.
There's a reason there is a one and done rule- and that's because NCAA forced it on the NBA. There's a reason that prior to this rule, there were folks like Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady that have the talent to go straight to the NBA. There's a reason why the Kevin Durant, Anthony Davis, Cooper Flaggs all were forced to play one year of collegiate basketball just because they had to. And you know what... $5M for a Kevin Durant is a bargain.
The NBA is allowing the NCAA to have a one and done rule. It benefits them to get another year of data on a player. Too high school players turned out to be bad investments.
Yes. But then you have Lebron James... a grown man in a 18 year old body. Despite all the hype, he lived up to it. Every bit of it.
Lebron in his ROY: 20.9 points, 5.5 rebounds, 5.9 assists, and 1.6 steals per game
Second year, playoffs, 3rd year finals. You gonna waste a year of his career development in college, which would've no doubt slowed him down playing against weaker competition?
Anyways I'm not arguing against one and done. My point is... the Lebron James, Tracy McGradys and Kobe Bryants are out there being forced to play 1 year of college like a Kevin Durant or Anthony Davis. Why would UCLA not recruit them and pay them $5M vs. paying a John Blackwell, a guy who had a good college "career" but is a borderline 2nd rounder?
The real answer is... UCLA IS trying to get these players... Mick Cronin just can't. Even when they're in our backyard. That's the whole point I'm making. He's lost the SoCal pipeline to Duke, Arizona, etc. We are no longer seen as a "blue blood" / Tier-1 school, money or not. And the beautiful weather and beaches... still can't sell it.
It is more than that. Courting one of those top-end NBA-type talents has been a circus for most programs, which is also why some programs have chosen to stay away and target players that better fit their system. You dismissed Michigan for doing this, but the team they played in the final, UConn, is the closest thing we have to a modern dynasty, and they’ve done it through player development.
And again, those programs that are bringing in the top players aren’t seeing that translate to results outside of Duke, which is the outlier in terms of money and brand. You bring up Arizona and how they found success this year, but that’s also their first Final Four since 2001. Is that what UCLA fans want, to have a legitimate shot once every 20 years? Or we could be like Southern Cal, who keep bringing in top SoCal recruits only to look like absolute dogshit for years now.
Four-star players that you can develop are the actual cost-effective players to target, not the top end ones that dictate how the program functions for a year and then depart. But they aren’t the shiny thing, so people dismiss them out of hand.
Dmiitri- you can't just look at a single year, final four.
You know Duke is going to compete for a Natty every year, and the formula is working for them. They also got robbed by UConn.
As you've noted it's working for Arizona.
Ask yourself, in 3-5 years, who are the programs that are going to repeatedly be top national contenders, year after year. Can reload, and don't have to rely on luck to land a John Blackwell / Donovan Dent every year?
It's the folks that build a steady 5-star HS recruiting pipeline, and fill in the gaps with the transfer portal. We have the opposite problem- we're desperately reaching for the stars in the transfer portal. If we strike out on Blackwell, I'd say we are a bubble team again next year.
I agree with you that HS players are vital, with transfer portal being used optimally as a filler unless you can get multi-year players like a Lauren Betts on the women's side.
Coach Chesney is successfully building pipelines all over So Cal and it's working. He also brought in an great group from the transfer portal to fill needs and steady the program for this coming season.
You are 💯 correct that Cronin has lost the So Cal pipeline and local players aren't even looking at UCLA. It's a sad state, IMHO.
Here's the thing... we are stuck with Cronin for next season thanks to jelly 2.0, our infamous AD who should have been fired moons ago, but I digress.
But... if Cronin has another poor to mediocre year like the past three seasons, the hot seat may become too hot to withstand as his buyout drops.
If all aligns and we are able to bring in a coach similar to Chesney whereby NIL support was a key part of the deal and champions like Bob Myers spearheaded it, then the pipelines can open again.
I think the big thing we've seen from the past few years is that there are many ways to skin a cat. Some programs are having success targeting high school players, while others are leaning on the portal and veterans. It is hard to say any single strategy is the right one, especially with how talent acquisition is constantly in flux these past few years. Like, right now, the smart strategy to me would appear to be finding guards in the portal and recruiting bigs out of the high school/international ranks, just based on the prices getting thrown around in the portal.
But I think that's going to be the case for the next few years until things find a new level. Each year is going to be very different as far as trends go, and the best coaches are going to be the ones to find the next shift first.
The problem with this comment is if UCLA is signing a top 5 pick, it is blowing it's entire NIL wad and the team is going to suck. Look what happened to BYU.
That's just Dybansta. Other 5-star recruits have lower NILs. Also, many of the shoe companies are paying a large portion ($1-2M) of these NILs.
I'd say most experts agree that agree that HS players (whether first year, or retaining for years 2-3) are discounts compared to transfers. See Trent Perry.
Then you're not going to win a championship in the modern era. When directly asked after the UConn lost, what does it take for UCLA to advance further, Cronin himself said "$5M more NIL".
Uh no, he's going to spend all of it on one guy this year (likely Tounde Yessoufou), and it's going to cost him $5M. If he had $5M more, he'd acquire an elite center that's that price tag too. And then spread the remaining around.
No one builds a team with just piece parts. This isn't moneyball.
What the NBA values does not correlate at all to college success. The NBA wants potential, prospects, athleticism but none of those factors can "drag" a college team to a championship
Of the players you mentioned, none of them even made the Final Four which seems to already disprove the point you’re trying to make.
The FF teams this year were a team loaded with transfers - Michigan, a UConn team that had one good freshman with a bunch of players with multiple years in the same program, a Illinois team that had a star freshman with a mix of transfers, and Arizona also with two freshmen plus a bunch of veterans and transfers. With the exception of Arizona, none of the teams relied on 5-star freshmen to make the FF.
Note for Illinois Keaton Wagler, he was a borderline 3-4 star going into Illinois. In fact, Joe Philon which ucla just signed is rated higher than Wagler was coming out of high school. So Wagler could’ve been a missed evaluation from the entire nation as I believe Illinois was his only power conference offer.
Duke, Arizona, St. Johns, Kansas, Arkansas are all going this way. If you don't believe me, we'll see who's right in 2-3 years. There's going to be a discrepancy in Top 10 programs who can land these recruits vs. those who rely purely on the portal.
Great interview of Cronin on Westwood Barstool talking about how old school coaching is making a comeback. Portnoy points out that coaches like Izzo, Cronin, Hurley are taking back being tough on the players. 5 years ago you couldn't even swear at a player. Cronin: "little johnny needs to learn to pay attention....you cant just keep transferring if you dont like how the coach talks to you." Says society has become soft and it's his job to whip it out of the players. Excellent.
Just gonna pin a comment here and say that the EDSBS Charity Bowl just started, and I would highly recommend people donate and shoot UCLA up the leaderboards.
https://www.edsbscharitybowl.com/
You don't have to donate a large amount (honestly a bunch of $20 donations usually does wonders) but fun donation amounts are highly encouraged. For example, my first donation for this Charity Bowl was $42.37, in honor of the funniest thing that happened to UCLA football this season. I'll probably have a Chesney donation of some kind, along with a basketball donation or two (I think $79.51 has a nice ring to it).
Wednesday update:
UCLA is having by far its best performance in the Charity Bowl ever; as of this moment, UCLA fans have donated $6532, which I think is double their previous best. The Charity Bowl is also a few thousand away from hitting the initial goal of $1 million raised, which is astonishing to do in less than three days.
But now I want ot see if UCLA can get to $10,000. Again, no pressure, and honestly, I am so incredibly happy that we've done as well as we have. As an added bonus, we are beating the brakes off of Southern Cal, which has barely raised $2000. I'd like to make sure that streak continues this year.
A final update:
The Charity Bowl is over, and I am proud to say UCLA not only had its best performance ever, we blew all previous performances out of the water. The UCLA faithful raised $24,207, good enough to finish 17th overall and put ourselves ahead of not only broke-ass school Southern Cal (who barely raised $4k) but ahead of UC Berkeley, who we beat by $1000.
Thank you to everyone who donated! Altogether, the larger college football internet community raised $1,763,317 for refugee services in the Georgia area, breaking last year's record by around $400,000. Incredible work all around.
Well done, Dmitri, Thank you! Go Bruins!
Is Cronin a good coach? Sure. Is he UCLA caliber? No.
I disagree with your optimism. I have given up on UCLA Basketball. Until there is a new AD and Coach, which won't be anytime soon, you can expect to results similar to last year and this year with various excuses from year to year. It is not an elite program and has not been for many years. All the things that you have identified that need to happen are just not likely to happen. I'll keep an eye on things but I gave up watching individual games years ago and nothing has changed. The school isn't interested in having an elite basketball program, and we'll have to see what happens with the football program. It's very sad really.
After witnessing so much disappointment in UCLA's football and basketball programs and the fiscal and managerial failures and incompetence from the AD, I think it's quite understandable and natural to have symptoms of BBS (Battered Bruins Syndrome). Hope things will get better soon rather than never!
Thanks for the comment. I still watch football games but I have not watched a non tournament basketball game in years. As a kid I used to listen to Fred Hessler and later Dick Endberg, and I would stay up and watch the taped games at 11pm. I'm most irritated by the poor financial management and the fact that poor performing coaches keep getting extended. There was no reason to extend Cronin. It is time to hire a new BB coach and now they can't. Jarmond should be fired for cause for fiscal mismanagement.
Spot on analysis
First impression of the new players is that Cronin is going opposite of Bilodeau. None of the front court players are highly skilled offensively. They do have potential for rebounding and defense. They appear to be the kind of players that Cronin would have recruited at Cincinnati.
The most interesting ones to me are the package deal of Jovic and Macura, not because of their talent (Jovic is definitely the more talented one with NBA potential who will likely see major minutes this year), but rather what their recruitment says about Cronin.
For those who don't know, Jovic and Macura are both from the Balkans (Jovic is Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macura is Slovenia), but more importantly, they both share the same agent. That agent also happens to be THE agent for players from that region, Miško Ražnatović. If that name sounds familiar, it is because he is also the agent of two-time NBA MVP Nikola Jokic. Anyway, Raznatovic approached UCLA about taking both players, wanting them in Los Angeles, developing under a good coach (hence why Southern Cal was not the option). Raznatovic deciding that these guys needed to play at UCLA, and at a significant NIL discount, is fascinating, because for me it says that Cronin's perception among basketball-adjacent people is far more positive than it is among the fan base.
Maybe Peyton Watson has been telling his teammates great things about Cronin.
Since Berke is back in the portal he should be another target. Big body, gets boards and doesn't need the ball to be effective.
Feels pretty full up on power forwards already tbh. There’s like 4 on the roster currently.
Gawd we need a true center. This three guard deal with questionable playing time forward's is driving me crazy.
He’d be redundant on this team. And for how much we thought EDJ, struggled last season, he still put up better numbers than Berke so our starting PF position is set. And obviously Tyler Bilodeau was a massive upgrade compared to Berke.
What’s surprising is that he wants to transfer. Berke has a starting job locked up playing for the reigning COY. Maybe he’s looking for a bag but he had a pretty good setup going at Nebraska
Maybe so, but it's not reflected in his performance. There are seemingly things that happen every year that prevent success, most often, roster construction and sometimes recruitment.
Performance to who?
Remember that players and agents goals don’t always align with those who are 100% aligned with the institution. They may not care how the season turns out except to showcase their abilities and hear their names called next year.
Wins and losses certainly play a part but an individual playing winning basketball at all times means far more to scouts and GMs.
I understand and I am referring to wining games. What is the purpose of the university paying players and a coach whose goals have nothing to do with the university. In that case, UCLA should be getting money from the NBA and the players or providing that service.
I mean, the argument here is that UCLA is not winning enough games. They are absolutely winning games under Cronin, and have consistently been a top-end team in the B1G under him. And, given what UCLA is paying for the roster and coach, they're getting about what they paid for.
Now, if you want to argue that UCLA's legacy means they should be near the top of the college basketball world, I think that is fine, but the school is not spending the money at that level to make that happen. And forget the argument over whether spending the money on Cronin is right or not, this has been a problem spanning decades, where UCLA coaches have been asked to do less with more, because that's what Wooden would have done (because I guess we're all just going to pretend Sam Gilbert wasn't just as influential on the makeup of those teams).
Your analysis was excellent and accurate but I don't think it's likely that the things you mention that need to happen for success actually happen. Your comments about monetary investment validate exactly what I said. The university is not committed to having an elite program. We can argue about the definition of elite, but 28th is not acceptable to me. I do not agree with you that under Cronin we have been a top end team. I never said anything about John Wooden or winning national championships but apparently, since we can't win a national championship, we've given up on trying to be really good as well. My opinion is that we should be one of the top 10-15 programs in the country and we are not. The first part of the sentence is just my opinion but the we are not part is factual. The last 10 years AP rankings are as follows: 25, 22, 7, 11, 21, 17, 24, 8, 25, 22. 3 finishes in the top 15 in 10 years. This averages out to 18 and includes 6 years outside the top 20. So we're just inside the top 20 and the question is, is that good enough for you. It is not for me. This is not a factual disagreement, just a difference in opinion. Your opinion is that this is a "top end team, and mine is that it is not. It's not a bad program but's not great either and it's not trending upward.
Excellent, well thought out and comprehensive postmortem article on the UCLA men's basketball 2025-26 season! Here's my take on what I saw from the Bruins, but I'm not an expert and thorough like DD (Dimitri)... :-)
THE GOOD:
* Able to attract and sign the best-available recruit from the transfer portal in DD (Dent).
* Excellent 3-point shooting and better scoring ability compared to the stagnant, 1-on-1, iso ball offense typical of the past seasons.
* Trent Perry's growth and HC Cronin not totally giving up on Xavier Booker.
* The upset wins late in the season to generate some hope for postseason success when hardly any optimism had existed earlier.
THE BAD:
* Not retaining Aday Mara, resulting in generally poor interior team defense with this season's bigs (and also losing the potential for more inside scoring with DD assisting).
* Consistent inconsistency throughout the entire season and not seeing nearly enough of the AP preseason #12-ranked team.
* Continuing to struggle to win games outside of the Pacific Time Zone.
* Took way too long for their elite PG ($3M man) to finally make a serious impact.
* Zero non-conference signature wins, as the Bruins only faced Arizona and Gonzaga and lost to both, but then they also flopped against Cal.
* Key injuries throughout the season and then ending with another catastrophic one in the postseason (I'm sick and tired of this happening!).
THE UGLY:
* The totally embarrassing meltdown in Michigan with 2 blowout losses and Steven Jamerson's theatrical "Flagrant-2 ejection" (which even surprised HC Izzo, as no other HC would do that to their own player).
* HC Cronin getting scolded by the UCLA administration (my assumption) to act more like a Bruin and being forced to publicly apologize for his headline-grabbing, poor behavior (wonder how long it will take before his next public embarrassment, LOL).
THE FUTURE:
* Why the heck is AD Martin Guerrero STILL AT UCLA???
* It took Coach Wooden 16 seasons at UCLA to win his first championship and 15 seasons at UCLA for HC Close to win her first one. I think if folks are expected to have similar patience with HC Cronin at UCLA, then there could potentially be another 7 or 8 more seasons of disappointment and frustration remaining (sigh)...
Go Bruins!
Mr. Grumpy getting scolded by the UCLA Administration:
He gave a most awkward, forced, unapologetic public apology to Jamerson.
He never apologized (that we know of) to the sportswriter.
💯 Spot on
I don't think he gives a rat's a** about the MSU students or their reporters ("Come on dude, who cares?")...
Fantastic summary, B4E.
The only thing I'd add to is on your last point, because Cronin had 13 seasons at Cincinnati before coming to UCLA, so he's had 20 years under his belt to hone his coaching skills, whereas both Coach and Cori were starting anew. And at this point I'm not really willing to wait another 7 or 8 seasons for Cronin hoping he'll find the winning formula.
Yep, he also spent his first 2 seasons at Murray State, so he was already pretty much set in his ways before coming to UCLA... ;-)
The YoungestTo500™ has certainly won a lot of games in his career, yet he never got past the Sweet-16 and reached it only once in all of that time prior to coming here. His First Four-to-Final Four run in 2021 gave us that one big shot of hopium that has long since worn out. The transfer portal + NIL has greatly impacted the sport, so finding a winning formula has become even more challenging for all HCs.
I think there is a potential winning formula in Cronin's own back yard. So Cal is overflowing with high school talent.
The problem is none of these players want to play for Cronin. Perry fell into his lap. JJJ was alfraud's recruit.
Cronin's a decent coach but he is not a great coach. I doubt he will ever win a Natty. And if you look at our team for next season, we don't have one legit 5. And besides Perry, who is going to score? Who is a pure shooter?
Cronin has effectively increased his bag and greatly lowered the bar for expectations to the point that we spend tons of time every season discussing if we will even make the Dance and if we do, praying for a 7 seed. SMDH 😞
And what gives the spotlight on Cronin even more glare is that Coach Close and Coach Chez have created a culture of competitive greatness. This culture is built not through tearing their players down but through a growth mindset, instilling mental atrength, selflessness, chemistry, connection, and celebrating every small step tp greatness.
NIL is not impacting either Cori or Chez. I know women's sports are not as impacted as men's but Chez's recruiting has been on fire!
I also believe it's become fairly obvious that top talent from the local high schools aren't looking at UCLA as their primary choice anymore because of its current HC and/or the negative talk outsiders have been dishing out about the program. But maybe it isn't as critical going forward because the transfer portal and NIL is turning all players into "free agents" after every season. HCs can assemble teams that can better compete more quickly by recruiting and signing players who have already accumulated at least 1 year of college experience instead of hoping to develop a kid to be productive and impactful immediately. But there has to be adequate NIL funding to begin with, and all the players need to be able to work well as a team.
Anyway, I think that the elite, blueblood basketball program of Westwood has been successfully transformed into the tough and resilient, blue-collar UCLA Bearcats under HC Cronin. They will win a lot of games, but when they lose, it means the players didn't play hard or weren't tough enough, or they ran into bad luck from a last-second shot or suffered a catastrophic injury to a key player. I don't know if this program can achieve a national championship, either, but I do think this past season would've been completely different had Mara been retained, as his absence created a huge hole in the roster. I'm sorry that I don't have an effective treatment for your case of BBS, Ms. Tamara... :-)
[ Note: I am not a doctor. ]
Can Mr. Grumpy bring in legacy Dylan Betts?
Nope, not a chance. The Betts bro wouldn't get near Cronin who is the opposite of Coach Close and the Wooden way. I believe Cronin knows it too, imho.
Cronin didn't even show up at the Women's National Championship game, so there's that as well.
Can you imagine Mama Betts telling her son that she wants him to play for a tyrant who kicks his own player out of games, and embarrasses the Four Letters over and over, let alone his 💯 joyless, below average to poor record the last three years.
Coach Close built a program steadily, improving every year by recruiting great talent and great potential like Gabs who did need development. She was masterful at fitting the pieces together and creating a masterpiece. She is a coach who was open about how she needed to grow, learned from her mistakes and ultimately grew into greatness.
Cronin has not grown anything except for heartache and his own big bag. Jelly 2.0 takes the big bag too, so they are birds of a feather which is no surprise.
End of rant 🤣
My question was a rhetorical answer to DD's open question on whether Mr. Grumpy can bring in elite talent. That it is unlikely for him to get a Betts Legacy is telling. For me, the case is closed, for DD the jury is still out, and for the Croninistas we must be fair and allow Mr. Grumpy another 8 years as JRW and CC were given.
Bruins need a center. I think I'm going to like Jovic.
I'll echo what I wrote above. Fairness doesn't give Cronin 8 more years in Westwood. He had 13 years as a HC of a college program before coming here. Both Wooden and Close began their careers at UCLA and deserved time to develop, and Wooden won in year 16 and Close in year 15. Cronin is now on year 20.
did Cronin ever have a chance to win at Cincinatti? I think comparing any modern day men's basketball coach to Wooden is ridiculous. it's like comparing Ohtani to Ruth. One of them was launching 83 mph fastballs into the seats. Also not sure how Cori Close made her way into this conversation. The women's game is actually a lot more similar to the men's game when Wooden was around when only a handful of programs had a shot.
Cronin's 2017-18 UC team (31-6) won the AAC regular-season and tournament championships, and advanced to the second round of the NCAA Tournament.
Alfie's UCLA team (21-12) that year lost in the first four round of the NCAA Tournament.
Further, the Bearcats defeated the Bruins 77-63 in a regular-season game at Pauley.
I think that says more about Alford than Cronin tbh.
Cronin never had access to the kind of talent he now has at UCLA when he was at Cincinnati. The Bearcats played a style of basketball that had 0 margin for error at the high level (which also speaks to their early exits).
Has he met the moment?
"What if I ever could get the opportunity to coach at the elite program in America with 11 national championships? How would I handle it? What would I do? How do you have success? What would your vision be? What could you do there that you can't do at other places. Well the answer is a lot.
"National championships. Having the best players. Graduating elite student-athletes. All of the above is at your fingertips here..."
What do winning the AAC and Conference tournament have to do with Alfie?
The 0 margin for error was a criticism of Mr. Grumpy at UC that followed him to UCLA and was much cited in Post Game Talk on TMB the past few seasons.
Seems like the YoungestTo500™ was fairly successful in doing more with less, compared to the YoungestTo600™ who did less with more before Liberty ultimately delivered freedom for UCLA...
I don't know if this is actually true, it's just speculation: "That it is unlikely for him to get a Betts Legacy is telling"
I hope so! The "reverse" happened with the Jaquez siblings!
3rd place in Gymnastics yesterday, so are the Bruins eliminated to compete Saturday?
Only the top two move on. Bruins were missing competitive greatness.
Sadly, yes. It was a terrible time to have their worst performance of the season.
Was curious to see how UCLA has been stacking up against other programs as a postseason postmortem, so I compiled this summary of all teams making the Sweet-16 during 2021-26 (the Mick Cronin era at UCLA), with 2020 omitted due to COVID...
* 6 APPEARANCES: Houston (2021-26).
* 5 APPEARANCES: Alabama (2021, 2023-26), Arkansas (2021-23, 2025-26).
* 4 APPEARANCES: Arizona (2022, 2024-26), Duke (2022, 2024-26), Gonzaga (2021-24), Michigan (2021-22, 2025-26), Purdue (2022, 2024-26), Tennessee (2023-26).
* 3 APPEARANCES: Creighton (2021, 2023-24), Iowa St. (2022, 2024, 2026), Michigan St. (2023, 2025-26), UCLA (2021-23), UConn (2023-24, 2026).
* 2 APPEARANCES: Illinois (2024, 2026), Miami (2022-23), North Carolina (2022, 2024), San Diego St. (2023-24), Texas (2023, 2026), Texas Tech (2022, 2025), Villanova (2021-22).
* 1 APPEARANCE: Auburn (2025), Baylor (2021), BYU (2025), Clemson (2024), Florida (2025), FAU (2023), Florida St. (2021), Iowa (2026), Kansas (2022), Kansas St. (2023), Kentucky (2025), Marquette (2024), Maryland (2025), NC State (2024), Nebraska (2026), Ole Miss (2025), Oregon (2021), Oregon St. (2021), Oral Roberts (2021), Princeton (2023), Providence (2022), St. John's (2026), St. Peter's (2022), Syracuse (2021), USC (2021), Xavier (2023).
Here's all the teams making the Elite-8 during 2021-26 (the Mick Cronin era at UCLA), with 2020 omitted due to COVID...
* 4 APPEARANCES: Duke (2022, 2024-26).
* 3 APPEARANCES: Houston (2021-22, 2025), Tennessee (2024-26), UConn (2023-24, 2026).
* 2 APPEARANCES: Alabama (2024-25), Arkansas (2021-22), Gonzaga (2021, 2023), Illinois (2024, 2026), Miami (2022-23), Michigan (2021, 2026), Purdue (2024, 2026).
* 1 APPEARANCE: Arizona (2026), Auburn (2025), Baylor (2021), Clemson (2024), Creighton (2023), Florida (2025), FAU (2023), Iowa (2026), Kansas (2022), Kansas St. (2023), Michigan St. (2025), North Carolina (2022), NC State (2024), Oregon St. (2021), St. Peter's (2022), San Diego St. (2023), Texas (2023), Texas Tech (2025), UCLA (2021), USC (2021), Villanova (2022).
And lastly, the teams making the Final Four and the eventual champions during 2021-26 (the Mick Cronin era at UCLA), with 2020 omitted due to COVID. 2021 has become a distant memory for UCLA... :-(
* 3 APPEARANCES: UConn (2023-24, 2026).
* 2 APPEARANCES: Duke (2022, 2025), Houston (2021, 2025).
* 1 APPEARANCE: Alabama (2024), Arizona (2026), Auburn (2025), Baylor (2021), Florida (2025), FAU (2023), Gonzaga (2021), Illinois (2026), Kansas (2022), Miami (2023), Michigan (2026). North Carolina (2022), NC State (2024), Purdue (2024), San Diego St. (2023), UCLA (2021), Villanova (2022).
NCAA CHAMPIONS:
2026: Michigan def. UConn
2025: Florida def. Houston
2024: UConn def. Purdue
2023: UConn def. San Diego St.
2022: Kansas def. North Carolina
2021: Baylor def. Gonzaga
A question arising from all of this data is:
What are UConn, Duke, and Houston doing to get to this high level of achievement more than once during this particular timeframe?
I think the answer(s) can provide some useful input for further gap analysis for UCLA.
Go Bruins!
Dimitri makes a good point that UCLA is basically getting what it’s paying for which is why in another post, I had said maybe it’s time to look for a coach that can do more with less.
But UCLA shouldn’t be a school that struggles to compete at the top tier level with NIL. Even with the hype and excitement surrounding the Chesney signing, are we even top 25 in NIL in football? Where are our whales? I’ve seen posts that say if we hire a new inspiring basketball coach, the money will come and ucla can compete, maybe not with Duke but with the next tier below them, but that hasn’t proven true on the football side.
And then we have other schools that have doesn’t have the history we have and/or have uninspiring coaches come in with unlimited pockets. Like how did BYU and Kevin Young afford Dysbansa last year? Danny Sprinkle and Washington had one of the biggest NIL budgets last year. For this year, Pat Kelsey at Louisville has never made it to the Sweet 16 but they have enough NIL to pay $9.5 million for two players and enough money left over to recruit John Blackwell. Why are boosters at those schools so willing to fund their loser programs and mediocre coaches while Mick Cronin struggles to raise money at the best school on the west coast?
Yeah, there are also levels to this. Like, at this point, I'd say that UCLA is top 25 in NIL, but the gulf between that and Ohio State is vast.
UCLA has plenty of whales and alums with tons of money, but they're activated more towards the academic side (there's a reason the medical school is as well-regarded as it is). The question is whether the school will start pushing athletics more.
It's just strange to me that given UCLA's massive graduates from school and elite graduate schools, they haven't revealed a "billionaire hobbyist" in the same way Phil Knight (Oregon), Mark Cuban (Indiana), or the Hildebrand/Rowling families (Texas/A&M) have appeared to adopt their programs....... UCLA has the billionaires, but, as you stated, they generally build buildings and research centers rather than "buying" players—though the new $17.3M Layne gift and money suggests this may be changing. Clearly, it calls for an obsessive UCLA sports fan.......because generally it is difficult to argue with smart investors who prefer their names on buildings rather than getting a receipt for a 5-star quarterback.
Would it be unreasonable to assume or expect that the UCLA AD should be working on major strategic issues like this? Or, maybe giving the HC a secret contract upgrade last year was determined to be the simplest and quickest solution...
Idk what went through Jarmonds mind. It is true that being on an expiring contract makes recruiting hard but to give Cronin an extension of that length with that buyout was obscene. Or he could give Cronin the tools that Cronin says he needs to succeed (higher NIL) and let Cronin sink or swim on his own. Instead we get the worst of all options, uncompetitive NIL and a super high buyout
I think that retaining the current HC, regardless of past performance, was also the laziest action to take, as the AD is now absolved from having to make any critical decisions until 2030 and can just continue to let the HC sink or swim while continuing to do nothing about improving the NIL situation.
The successful recruiting of Nik Khamenia from the portal would serve as a powerful deodorant to those on this board who believe Cronin stinks as a coach, recruiter, roster developer, homo sapien, etc. I just want whoever the coach is to build the best team possible given our lack of billionaire college basketball hobbyists and coach the hell out of it to the best of his ability.
Except for the part where UCLA isn't seriously pursuing Khamenia because he doesn't fit what they need from the portal, and he's likely going to UConn.
John Blackwell from Wisconsin is probably a better example for what you're looking at here. It's a UCLA/Duke battle at this point.
Oof. I don't like that matchup, but crossing my fingers...
How about the NC State guard Matt Able? Do you think he fits in our system?
One thing I like about Able is that I saw an interview where he says he’s grown up playing with very tough coaches so sounds like he at least won’t be bothered by Cronin’s coaching style
Except Cronin swung and missed for Khamenia:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/1g9ts98/2025_4_nikolas_khamenia_commits_to_duke/
Harvard West Lake, right in our back door. Chose to be a bench player when he would've started for us.
Duke also came into the recruitment a week before Khamenia committed and threw a bag at him that UCLA and Gonzaga (the two schools that were recruiting him the longest) were unable to match. Let’s not pretend that’s a clear case of Cronin missing on a guy he went after.
Now, if you wanted to talk Dusty Strome or Stojakovic, that’s another story.
Well, we just lost him to UConn.
You’d have to be seriously pursuing someone to lose them.
Given that Khamenia would likely be either the best player on the roster or 1A with Perry and a direct replacement for Bilo which this roster still doesn't have, I guess the salient question is: Were we not seriously pursuing him because there's a plan beyond hoping Dailey becomes more consistent in the front court at the 3 next to Jovic at the 4/we're just going to play 3 guards for the foreseeable future OR because we are no longer a top-tier program that can hope to compete with programs like UConn and others that 4Ever points out have consistently made Elite 8s and Final 4s in this era if we both want a top-tier player like Khamenia so why try? I realize it's not a black and white question (see: getting Dent but losing Mara) but I think it's the question that goes a long way to defining the state of the Men's program at this point...
I have never understand why, especially in the NIL era, why it mattered whether our roster had local players on it. Khamenia is not a fit. Don't care if he went to HWL
Because local is an advantage.
I picked UCLA (engineering) over Carnegie Mellon and Cornell even though the later two are arguably better academic programs because of: in-state tuition, closeness to home, and didn't want to be freezing cold.
The first one doesn't matter for student athletes, but you think an LA boy likes scrapping their car windows in winter and swatting mosquitos in summer, and the small city life of Durham, NC or Lexington, KY?
And let's be honest: many want to be close to their family or their HS sweethearts. Like Jaime Jaquez Jr., or Lonzo Ball.
Point is: Cronin has squandered this advantage. If John Blackwell is already in LA, his agent is from UCLA, and we're offering the same $5M, there is no reason he should sign with Illinois, Louisville, or Duke. Unless the problem is... Cronin.
I'm also not saying fire the man now. He's got a massive buyout. But his seat should be warm. And his inability to recruit local SoCal top tier talent is a strike against him.
local used ot be an advantage. now it's all about the money.
This is so not true. Look on the football side. As an example, Chesney was able to flip a notre dame commit to bring them closer to home: https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/notre-dame-most-recent-decommit-113115695.html
Pay the recruit the same NIL, promise them playing time and demonstrate a culture of winning and player development. And they would prefer to play at home.
Maybe I overrated him (Khamenia) coming out of high school, I saw a kid with outstanding basketball IQ, with great passing skills and an offensive game with a high ceiling......a better passing Bilo, so to speak.........the problem......could he become the defender and rebounder Cronin can count on.......does he want to dedicate himself to that.......I think talent is always a fit as long as he can be a good teammate and not a disruptive force. It should raise the level of everyone's game with daily competition at practice....
In a perfect world we would have our UCLA "billionaire hobbyist" in tow and get both Blackwell and Khamenia from the portal....Moving Trent Perry to the point guard spot to accommodate John Blackwell at the two would create a massive scoring backcourt, but it fundamentally changes how the offense "breathes" because we wouldn't have a true "distributor' on the team with the loss of Dent. Khamenia would make everyone else better with his passing and IQ, and Cronin would use him as a "stretch-four" to take on more initiation duties. Cronin has used a "high-post" hub to keep the ball moving in his previous offensive schemes....and this would give us one of the best offenses in the country........Aahh, but to Dream......
It would... except we just lost him to UConn while chasing Blackwell:
https://www.fox61.com/article/sports/ncaa/uconn/uconn-mens-basketball/uconn-men-land-prized-duke-transfer-nikolas-khamenia-roster-overhaul-continues/520-abefb503-9255-4151-a610-1f1c665b5724
Yep.....that's the problem with "Dreams" xX, at some point, you have to wake up...
By the way DD, I also thought your article was excellent and your opinions have obviously triggered some robust discussion which is another part of your job that you do so well........thank you for providing us with this forum and your valued insights........
Seconded!! This was a fantastic recap and primer on the state of the program.
Far be it from me to tell Dimitri how to do his job (followed now by me telling DD how he should do his job 😜) but each of the 4 sections would make great stand alone posts as there is so much to unpack in all these areas. This was such a good recap that it inspired too many things to say. Here is a "short" recap of some thoughts...
Expectations/Reality:
I can't put too much weight on preseason expectations. Those things are really just semi-educated guesses to generate content (i.e. clickbait) during the media dry spell of the offseason and it's not really fair to judge a program before the first jump ball of the season. The gap between expectations and reality that bothered me most about this team was first, its year long inconsistency, and second: it's ultimate distance from being truly elite. I'm not one to demand titles or oblivion. I do want our team to find a high level and hover around that. The wild swings through the year and the cratering performances away from home showed just how far we are from being an elite program.
That Extension:
If you have to do something like this in secret, it shows you at least subconsciously know that it's a terrible idea. This is all on Jarmond and he needs to go away asap. DD, you are far more dialed in behind the scenes than probably anyone here - can you explain Jarmond's process here and did anyone in the media ever ask him why this was done behind the scenes and kept from public knowledge for 6-8 months?
About That Offense:
I think your comparison to Howland is pretty accurate, though I think Howland was still a better coach, especially on the defensive end, and program leader with a higher ceiling than Cronin, but his willingness or desperation to sacrifice his style for offense and offensive players was his undoing (curses, Dragovich and Shabazz and Reeves Nelson...). The offense seemed really to take off this year somewhere past the halfway mark when Dent became an aggressive force with the ball. Not sure if it was injury or style or confidence or what that hampered things before that, and whether it was a conscious effort by Cronin to let that part of the game exist and evolve. It will be interesting to see if Cronin continues to sacrifice his defensive style for a more productive offense, though I imagine this will have a lot to do with how the roster ends up.
A Path Forward:
Simply, I think this year is fairly representative of what we can expect with Mick Cronin: A roster that has good pieces but remains incomplete owing to NIL, institutional apathy, playing style, and Cronin's stubbornness and narcissism. We will have a team that will win 20-25 games with some nice wins and some eye gouging flops. We will be in the Tourney and make runs at the Sweet 16, but we will remain a longshot to get past the Elite 8 and we will not be serious contenders for anything more. I don't think there's much forward, nor do I see much backward. I think this is who we are and where we are and what we will be until some real fundamental changes are made, and that means more than just the coach.
Fantastic recap, Dimitri. Thank you!
Go Bruins! 💙🏀💛
Nice point by point response/analysis GB.....impressive....and a significant contribution to stimulate further comments and opinions (to the extent you care about what I think anyway).
I disagree on this point- I still think HS recruiting > transfer portal.
- The overall talent from HS is better. Look at the NBA draft. Top 5 picks are going to 100% be freshmen. These are the players that impact the entire program and can "carry" a team (e.g. Dybansta, Boozer, Peterson, Caleb Wilson, etc.).
- Lottery is like 80-90% freshmen.
- Late 1st round is upperclassmen.
If you're paying a 1-year rental with NIL, why pay $5M for a John Blackwell (borderline 2nd rounder), when you can get a Jason Crowe Jr. for $1M NIL? Because... here it comes: we aren't even in consideration for him... even though he was in our backyard... oof.
Wait... what about Brandon McCoy Jr.! We didn't even make his top 5... oof.
Players who return get a NIL discount. Trent Perry is much cheaper returning as a Junior vs. if we had gotten him from the transfer portal.
Cronin has lost the local SoCal recruiting pipeline.
I feel like we've already seen years of evidence that having a lottery pick is not a guarantee of success. Of the top freshmen that are off to the NBA Draft, only one of them (Keaton Wagler of Illinois) even made the Final Four, and Arizona was the only team of those four that was driven by having talented freshmen. Yes, those freshmen have more "talent", but what the NBA is looking for and what works in college are two completely different things; otherwise, you'd have seen Dybansta be able to drag his team to at least the Elite Eight rather than getting bounced in the first round.
The reason so many top-end coaches are leaning towards transfers is because they have that college experience, know what it takes to compete at this level, and are more reliable over a season compared to a freshman. It is quite literally what Michigan just did in putting together an all-time team, and they had only one freshman (Trey McKinnie) playing any meaningful minutes for them. UConn was the same way, as outside of Mullins that team is full of juniors and seniors.
Which is also why I like the portal strategy so far of grabbing guys who have played a year. They now have actual data and understand what they need to do, while still having time to develop. Getting those players along with some high four-star recruits seems like a smart play currently.
there's a reason high school players are called "prospects." There's also a reason NBA teams who think they can contend for a championship sign a FA or trade for someone rather than trade up in the draft. Experience, actual data, you know exactly what you are getting.
There's a reason there is a one and done rule- and that's because NCAA forced it on the NBA. There's a reason that prior to this rule, there were folks like Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady that have the talent to go straight to the NBA. There's a reason why the Kevin Durant, Anthony Davis, Cooper Flaggs all were forced to play one year of collegiate basketball just because they had to. And you know what... $5M for a Kevin Durant is a bargain.
The NBA is allowing the NCAA to have a one and done rule. It benefits them to get another year of data on a player. Too high school players turned out to be bad investments.
Yes. But then you have Lebron James... a grown man in a 18 year old body. Despite all the hype, he lived up to it. Every bit of it.
Lebron in his ROY: 20.9 points, 5.5 rebounds, 5.9 assists, and 1.6 steals per game
Second year, playoffs, 3rd year finals. You gonna waste a year of his career development in college, which would've no doubt slowed him down playing against weaker competition?
Anyways I'm not arguing against one and done. My point is... the Lebron James, Tracy McGradys and Kobe Bryants are out there being forced to play 1 year of college like a Kevin Durant or Anthony Davis. Why would UCLA not recruit them and pay them $5M vs. paying a John Blackwell, a guy who had a good college "career" but is a borderline 2nd rounder?
The real answer is... UCLA IS trying to get these players... Mick Cronin just can't. Even when they're in our backyard. That's the whole point I'm making. He's lost the SoCal pipeline to Duke, Arizona, etc. We are no longer seen as a "blue blood" / Tier-1 school, money or not. And the beautiful weather and beaches... still can't sell it.
It is more than that. Courting one of those top-end NBA-type talents has been a circus for most programs, which is also why some programs have chosen to stay away and target players that better fit their system. You dismissed Michigan for doing this, but the team they played in the final, UConn, is the closest thing we have to a modern dynasty, and they’ve done it through player development.
And again, those programs that are bringing in the top players aren’t seeing that translate to results outside of Duke, which is the outlier in terms of money and brand. You bring up Arizona and how they found success this year, but that’s also their first Final Four since 2001. Is that what UCLA fans want, to have a legitimate shot once every 20 years? Or we could be like Southern Cal, who keep bringing in top SoCal recruits only to look like absolute dogshit for years now.
Four-star players that you can develop are the actual cost-effective players to target, not the top end ones that dictate how the program functions for a year and then depart. But they aren’t the shiny thing, so people dismiss them out of hand.
Dmiitri- you can't just look at a single year, final four.
You know Duke is going to compete for a Natty every year, and the formula is working for them. They also got robbed by UConn.
As you've noted it's working for Arizona.
Ask yourself, in 3-5 years, who are the programs that are going to repeatedly be top national contenders, year after year. Can reload, and don't have to rely on luck to land a John Blackwell / Donovan Dent every year?
It's the folks that build a steady 5-star HS recruiting pipeline, and fill in the gaps with the transfer portal. We have the opposite problem- we're desperately reaching for the stars in the transfer portal. If we strike out on Blackwell, I'd say we are a bubble team again next year.
I agree with you that HS players are vital, with transfer portal being used optimally as a filler unless you can get multi-year players like a Lauren Betts on the women's side.
Coach Chesney is successfully building pipelines all over So Cal and it's working. He also brought in an great group from the transfer portal to fill needs and steady the program for this coming season.
You are 💯 correct that Cronin has lost the So Cal pipeline and local players aren't even looking at UCLA. It's a sad state, IMHO.
Here's the thing... we are stuck with Cronin for next season thanks to jelly 2.0, our infamous AD who should have been fired moons ago, but I digress.
But... if Cronin has another poor to mediocre year like the past three seasons, the hot seat may become too hot to withstand as his buyout drops.
If all aligns and we are able to bring in a coach similar to Chesney whereby NIL support was a key part of the deal and champions like Bob Myers spearheaded it, then the pipelines can open again.
A girl can dream 💙💛💙💛
Sorry, I didn't respond to this.
I think the big thing we've seen from the past few years is that there are many ways to skin a cat. Some programs are having success targeting high school players, while others are leaning on the portal and veterans. It is hard to say any single strategy is the right one, especially with how talent acquisition is constantly in flux these past few years. Like, right now, the smart strategy to me would appear to be finding guards in the portal and recruiting bigs out of the high school/international ranks, just based on the prices getting thrown around in the portal.
But I think that's going to be the case for the next few years until things find a new level. Each year is going to be very different as far as trends go, and the best coaches are going to be the ones to find the next shift first.
The problem with this comment is if UCLA is signing a top 5 pick, it is blowing it's entire NIL wad and the team is going to suck. Look what happened to BYU.
That's just Dybansta. Other 5-star recruits have lower NILs. Also, many of the shoe companies are paying a large portion ($1-2M) of these NILs.
I'd say most experts agree that agree that HS players (whether first year, or retaining for years 2-3) are discounts compared to transfers. See Trent Perry.
Let me ask you a question: Would you rather have AJ Dybansta or John Blackwell for $5M?
Cameron Boozer or Donovan Dent for $3M?
honestly, i probably would not spend $5 mil plus on any player.
Then you're not going to win a championship in the modern era. When directly asked after the UConn lost, what does it take for UCLA to advance further, Cronin himself said "$5M more NIL".
you are making my point for me. He said he wanted to spread that around, not spend it all on one guy.
Uh no, he's going to spend all of it on one guy this year (likely Tounde Yessoufou), and it's going to cost him $5M. If he had $5M more, he'd acquire an elite center that's that price tag too. And then spread the remaining around.
No one builds a team with just piece parts. This isn't moneyball.
If Richie Saunders didn't get injured, BYU makes the elite 8
that's quite the leap
What the NBA values does not correlate at all to college success. The NBA wants potential, prospects, athleticism but none of those factors can "drag" a college team to a championship
Of the players you mentioned, none of them even made the Final Four which seems to already disprove the point you’re trying to make.
The FF teams this year were a team loaded with transfers - Michigan, a UConn team that had one good freshman with a bunch of players with multiple years in the same program, a Illinois team that had a star freshman with a mix of transfers, and Arizona also with two freshmen plus a bunch of veterans and transfers. With the exception of Arizona, none of the teams relied on 5-star freshmen to make the FF.
Note for Illinois Keaton Wagler, he was a borderline 3-4 star going into Illinois. In fact, Joe Philon which ucla just signed is rated higher than Wagler was coming out of high school. So Wagler could’ve been a missed evaluation from the entire nation as I believe Illinois was his only power conference offer.
Duke, Arizona, St. Johns, Kansas, Arkansas are all going this way. If you don't believe me, we'll see who's right in 2-3 years. There's going to be a discrepancy in Top 10 programs who can land these recruits vs. those who rely purely on the portal.
Great interview of Cronin on Westwood Barstool talking about how old school coaching is making a comeback. Portnoy points out that coaches like Izzo, Cronin, Hurley are taking back being tough on the players. 5 years ago you couldn't even swear at a player. Cronin: "little johnny needs to learn to pay attention....you cant just keep transferring if you dont like how the coach talks to you." Says society has become soft and it's his job to whip it out of the players. Excellent.