Today's hiring of Mick Cronin as UCLA men's basketball coach provides an opportunity to dissect a cold streak in Bruin basketball, namely one national championship in the past 44 years, following a Golden Age of 10 titles in 12 years (1963-64 to 1974-75). Cronin
succeeds interim coach Murry Bartow, who succeeded Steve Alford, who was fired this past New Year's Eve.
Alford's Bruin teams made the NCAA Sweet Sixteen three times in his five full seasons at the helm, a better record than
Cronin's in getting to this round. Developments in Westwood over the past four months naturally raise questions over the state of the program and the demandingness of the fan base.
Lurking behind any discussion of UCLA basketball, of course,
is the program’s success under the legendary coach John Wooden. It was under Wooden, who ended his
27-year
stint on the Bruin bench with the aforementioned 10 national championships in 12
years. The tenth title (in 1974-75) came in particularly dramatic fashion, as
Wooden had announced shortly after UCLA’s win in that year’s national semifinal
that the upcoming championship game vs. Kentucky
would be the last
game he would ever coach.
The Bruins rarely lost at all in the early 1970s, compiling an
88-game
win streak that ended in 1974. Further, a new
ESPN.com ranking of all 81 NCAA men's hoops champions in history (the most recent entry being Virginia) placed Wooden-era UCLA teams in the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 11th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 23rd, and 37th positions.
Presumably, few UCLA fans are today clamoring for Bruin
coaches to defy reality by winning 10 national titles in 12 years. However, that
seemed to be the standard in the mid-late 1970s. Wooden’s immediate successors,
with records decidedly better than Alford’s, felt the heat harshly and quickly
and left for other gigs.
Gene Bartow (father of Murry), the first post-Wooden UCLA coach, went
27-5 and made the Final Four in 1975-76, then went 24-5 in 1976-77. There was
no third year in Westwood for Bartow, as he left to become the founding coach
of a new program at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.
The next coach, former Bruin assistant Gary Cunningham, went
25-3 and 25-5 the next two years (making the Elite Eight in 1978-79), before leaving for a
small college in Oregon to launch what became a long career in Division I
athletic administration. According to
Los
Angeles Times reporter Mark Heisler’s 1996 book
They Shoot Coaches, Don't They? UCLA and the
NCAA Since John Wooden, Cunningham had actually decided after
one season to give it up, but secretly
told UCLA he would coach one more year to give the school more time to find its
next coach.
Former UCLA and NBA player Keith Erickson, in his book
Champions Again! about the 1994-95
Bruin team, simply noted that Wooden’s immediate successors “were at the wrong
place at the wrong time” (p. 66).
UCLA has now had
10 head basketball
coaches in the 44 seasons since
Wooden retired, including the interim skipper Murry Bartow. Only once since Wooden’s retirement has UCLA won a national tile, in 1995 under Jim Harrick.
Post-Wooden Bruin teams have appeared in three national championship games
(1980, 1995, and 2006) and six Final Fours (1976, 1980, 1995, 2006, 2007, and
2008). Only one of the 10 coaches, Ben Howland, brought back a sense of
sustained success (albeit without a national championship), leading the Bruins
to three consecutive Final Four appearances in 2006, 2007, and 2008.
The questions concerning the past four decades of UCLA basketball abound.
In the following sections, I raise and attempt to answer these questions as
best I can.
Why hasn’t UCLA produced at a higher level over the past 44 seasons?
Coaching
Could UCLA’s failure to contend for more post-Wooden national
championships stem from a lack of coaching talent? One way to evaluate general
coaching ability – independent of how a given coach did at UCLA – is to examine
his coaching record in other jobs. First, a good coach, given sufficient time
to recruit and implement his or her system, should be able to win a sizable
majority of games just about anywhere. Second, UCLA offers many competitive
advantages in recruitment and resources (e.g., championship legacy, location in
a large city, nice campus, good academics), so coaches’ records in their non-UCLA
head coaching jobs arguably offer a more accurate picture of their underlying
abilities absent these advantages. Of the nine post-Wooden coaches (excluding Murry Bartow), seven held head-coaching jobs at other schools. The
following table shows their records.
How UCLA’s
Post-Wooden Coaches* Fared at Other Places
Coach (UCLA Years)
|
Other Jobs
|
Record
(Non-UCLA)
|
|
Memphis, Illinois, UAB
|
440-243 (.644)
|
|
---
|
---
|
|
Kansas, SMU
|
220-83 (.726)
|
|
Weber State, Loyola-Chicago
|
105-156 (.402)
|
|
---
|
---
|
|
Pepperdine, Rhode Island, Georgia
|
279-172 (.619)
|
|
St. John’s
|
92-72 (.561)
|
|
N. Arizona, Pitt, Mississippi State
|
233-147 (.613)
|
|
Missouri State, Iowa, New Mexico
|
385-206 (.651)
|
*Excluding 2019 interim coach Murry
Bartow.
One can safely say that these coaches represented a range of
abilities and accomplishments, but some were clearly excellent coaches. Larry
Brown, who later won an NCAA title at Kansas and an NBA title with Detroit,
would have to be considered among the all-time coaching greats
on the court. However, his wanderlust –
having coached nine NBA and three college teams – and
record
of NCAA rules violations detract from his accomplishments. Harrick and
Howland, two of UCLA’s better post-Wooden coaches in terms of postseason
success, also had various off-the-court problems (
Harrick,
Howland).
The remaining coaches were, to my knowledge, free of scandal. Gene Bartow had
an impressive overall record, not only taking UCLA to the Final Four, but also
leading Memphis State (now just Memphis) to the 1973 national-title game, where
it lost to UCLA. Cunningham showed a lot of promise in his brief coaching
stint, but his career interests lie elsewhere. Lavin and Alford were solid,
although each enjoyed only modest postseason success (Lavin led one team, UCLA
in 1997, to the Elite Eight, whereas no Alford team at any Division I school
went beyond the Sweet Sixteen).
For the most part, then, the quality of the post-Wooden UCLA
coaches was high. Instead, the real problem seems to be
instability on the Bruin sideline, both in terms of the frequent
turnover of coaches and the off-the-court problems with which some of them were
involved. For whatever reason, coaching stints of
20
years or longer at the same school are quite rare today. Within power
conferences, only Jim Boeheim, Mike Krzyzewski, and Tom Izzo fit the bill.
Someone who was never far from the revolving door of
post-Wooden UCLA coaching, but who never actually entered it, was former Bruin
assistant
Denny
Crum. Crum, of course, had left UCLA after the 1971 tournament to begin a
30-year head-coaching run at Louisville that yielded two national titles (1980,
over UCLA in the final, and 1986) and six Final Four appearances. According to
one source,
longtime UCLA athletic director J.D. Morgan disliked Crum and opted for Bartow,
who more resembled Wooden in background and personality. Crum claimed to have
been
offered
the UCLA job on three other occasions, but always declined it. Whether Crum
could have posted similar numbers as a head coach at UCLA as he did at
Louisville, we’ll never know. However, the Bruins’ repeated failure to land
Crum in the post-Wooden era could only have magnified Bruin fans’ frustration
at the dearth of championships.
Recruiting
What about the players UCLA has recruited in the past 43
years? Centers Lew Alcindor (1966-67 to 1968-69; later known as Kareem
Abdul-Jabbar) and Bill Walton (1971-72 to 1973-74) led the Bruins to five out
of six possible national titles during their varsity playing careers, in an era
of freshman ineligibility. That both of these all-time greats completed their
respective senior seasons
is noteworthy, however, in terms of maintaining a dynasty. How many more NCAA
titles would Michigan State have won, for example, if Magic Johnson hadn’t
turned pro after his sophomore year?
UCLA has had some very good post-Wooden players stay four
years – such as
Ed
O’Bannon, who led the Bruins to the 1995 title -- but many haven’t. And no
Bruin player has had quite the impact of Alcindor or Walton. How good
has UCLA’s on-court talent been over the
past 44 years, relative to that of other schools?
The closest current program to the John Wooden-era Bruins,
in my view, is Duke. Krzyzewski, with
39
years on the Blue Devils’ bench, gives Duke a similar iconic coaching
figure to Wooden. Coach K has won fewer national titles (five) than has Wooden,
but has the same number of Final Four appearances (12) as him. Whatever one
thinks of this UCLA-Duke comparison, it is safe to say that bringing in Duke’s
caliber of players would improve virtually any school’s chances of contending
for national championships.
How has UCLA’s talent over the past 43 years
compared to Duke’s? Using Sports-Reference.com’s
Recruiting
Services Consensus Index (RSCI) Rankings (which go back to 1998-99),
supplemented by my own personal stack of annual preseason college-basketball
magazines
(going back to 1989-90), I devised a system to assign an overall yearly
recruitment-quality score to UCLA and to Duke. I awarded three points for each
Top 10 national recruit a school landed, two points for each recruit ranked
11-25, and one point for each recruit ranked 26-50. As an example, an entering
class of two Top 10 players, a player ranked 11-25 and one ranked 26-50 would
yield nine points. Results are shown in the three following graphs (which you can click to enlarge).
The upper-left graph shows UCLA’s year-to-year recruiting
success, going back as far as I had data. The players who entered in the
Bruins’ two best recruiting classes are listed in this graph. As is evident,
there is a lot of year-to-year fluctuation in quality of recruiting classes
(light-blue curve). These ups-and-downs are not necessarily unexpected, as
bringing in a large class of top players one year may leave few, if any,
available scholarships the next year. To glean more general or “smoothed”
trends, I used
loess
regression (yellow line for UCLA).
The upper-right graph presents the same kind
of curves for Duke. Finally, the bottom graph compares Duke’s and UCLA’s
smoothed curves. Although the magnitude of the difference has varied, the Blue
Devils have consistently out-recruited the Bruins over the past 30 years.
UCLA’s instability in coaching may well have played a large role here.
Does UCLA’s post-Wooden ledger of six Final Four appearances and one
national title represent a gross underperformance relative to what could
reasonably be expected?
Only six schools have more Final Four appearances than UCLA
in the post-Wooden era: North Carolina (14), Duke (13; one under Bill Foster
in
1978 plus Krzyzewski’s 12), Kentucky (10), Kansas (9), Michigan State (9),
and Louisville (7). Michigan is tied with UCLA at 6.
Though not making Final Fours at a Woodenesque level, Bruin teams have not
exactly been doing badly over the past 44 years. Given UCLA’s six Final Four
appearances post-Wooden, is the school’s one national title lower than would be
expected? To address this question, I plotted for each school with at least one Final Four appearance from 1976-2019, its number of Final Four appearances (
x-axis) against its number of national titles (
y-axis).
Based on the past 44 years, the best-fit line in the above
graph gives us the rough estimate that, for every three appearances in the
Final Four, a team should win one national title. UCLA has made six
appearances, so by this standard, the Bruins should have won two national
titles. UCLA is therefore underperforming in this sense, but not egregiously
so.
To what extent were Bruin fans judging Alford like UCLA’s immediate
post-Wooden coaches?
In retrospect, many Bruin fans will probably find it
ridiculous that Gene Bartow, with a 51-10 (.836) record and Final Four
appearance at UCLA, felt the need to find a job elsewhere after two years in
Westwood. Cunningham, with his 50-8 (.862) record, sincerely seemed to prefer
administration over coaching, but with greater fan support at UCLA, he might
have stuck around longer.
Fans’ harsh judgment of winning coaches who fail to
replicate the success of legendary predecessors is not unique to Bruin hoops.
Nebraska fired football coaches
Frank Solich
(58-19, .753, from 1998-2003) and
Bo
Pelini (67-27, .713, from 2008-2014), after they could not win national
championships like former Cornhusker coaches Bob Devaney and Tom Osborne.
Alford’s winning percentage at UCLA was .663, well below
Bartow’s and Cunningham’s. Yet, Alford received five and one-half years to
prove himself. Alford
had
his critics among the fans throughout his Bruin tenure, but few presumably
wanted him out after just two years. In that sense, Alford was not treated as
harshly as Bartow and Cunningham.
A writer on one website covering UCLA sports argued strenuously that Bruin fans were not unreasonable in their judgment of Alford,
but rather they simply felt the program was
no
longer “relevant” in national college basketball circles and a new coach
would be needed to reinstate UCLA to the elite level.
In the post-Wooden era,
UCLA has shown short bursts of national power (1995, 2006-2008) and, based on
Final Four appearances, has still been one of the top programs in the country
over the past 44 years. Perennial national contention as in the Wooden years
seems a stretch at this point. Making the bursts of success more frequent and
longer, and keeping the droughts shorter, is more plausible, but won’t be easy
for new coach Cronin at UCLA.
With all the changes in the game over the past 40+ years – especially
expansion of the tournament field and one-and-done players – does it even make
sense to speak of college basketball dynasties?
The above analyses and discussion accept the premise that a
contemporary college basketball program can succeed, if not at John Wooden’s
level, at least at stringing together a few consecutive national championships.
In fact, two schools have won back-to-back titles post-Wooden: Duke in 1990-91
and 1991-92, and Florida in 2005-06 and 2006-07. An additional two have won
championships in two out of three seasons: Kentucky in 1995-96 and 1997-98
(with an overtime loss in the title game in between) and Villanova in 2015-16
and 2017-18.
So yes, stretches of three (or perhaps more) years of
consistent national-championship contention are still achievable. These would
probably satisfy most of today’s UCLA fans. However, changes in the game over
the past four decades make such stretches highly unlikely, in my view. For most
of John Wooden’s days at UCLA, there were
around two
dozen teams in the NCAA tournament field and only one team per conference
could get in. In 1970-71, UCLA’s crosstown rival USC finished 24-2 (both losses
to UCLA) and was perhaps the second-best team in the country, but
did
not get in. With many strong teams being excluded from the NCAA field back
then, things were certainly easier for those who made the field.
As the field
grew over the years to its current 68 schools, increasingly large numbers of
teams from the power conferences were getting in. If teams get hot in March, it
didn’t matter what their regular season record was – Exhibit A being the 2010-11
UConn men, who finished 9
th in their conference and
still
won the national title. In the aforementioned ESPN.com listing of all-time best men's NCAA-championship teams, this UConn squad ranked 59th.
The second major change from Wooden’s time is, of course,
the one-and-done phenomenon. Quite simply, with the best players nationally
going to the NBA after one season, it is very difficult – if not impossible –
for most programs to develop the continuity needed for a dynastic run.
Kentucky
in 2011-12 and
Duke in
2014-15 won national titles with frosh-laden teams, but no team has done so since..
Lonzo
Ball led UCLA to a 31-5 record and Sweet Sixteen appearance in 2016-17, but
left after that one year.
Conclusion
In the months leading to Cronin's hiring, my impression was that UCLA fans would want an established head
coach with a better NCAA postseason track record than Alford’s, someone who can
produce a sustained run of national contention like Howland did, but without
the team dynamics spiraling out of control. Cronin is an established head coach, but his NCAA postseason record is not better than Alford's. There's obviously no way to know at this point whether Cronin can lead the Bruins to national contention.
Someone with Final Four experience
would have been especially coveted, but Cronin lacks this. One reported candidate for the Bruin job, Tennessee's Rick Barnes,
took Texas to the Final Four in 2003, but he
decided to stick with the Volunteers. In fact, UCLA has only once been able in the post-Wooden
era to hire a coach who took a previous school to the Final Four. Gene
Bartow.