In Reply to: So you want another coach? posted by Dr.Bruin on February 06, 2026 at 13:15:02
As I mentioned a while back, I’ve been open to exploring that possibility at some point down the line.
I understand your perspective—I shared the same concerns when others were calling for Howland’s dismissal. At the time, I argued it might not have been the best move. One of my main points was: who would we realistically get that’s better? Many insisted that Howland’s recruiting limitations made it irrelevant how good a coach he was. Keep in mind, he had just landed one of the top 1 or 2 recruiting classes nationally, though critics claimed it wasn’t sustainable.
Now, the tables have turned, and it’s me who worries about whether our current coach can recruit effectively. But back to your point: I wonder how coaches like May, Kelsey, McCollum, Lind, and Diebler would have ranked on your list. All are fairly recent hires, and their programs appear to be trending in the right direction. None had Final Four experience prior to their hires—just like Cronin. Before coming to UCLA, Cronin had only one Sweet 16 appearance.
In fact, that pattern holds for most coaches who’ve led UCLA. Many achieved their most significant tournament success after arriving here. That tells me a lot about the program itself—its resources, reputation, and ability to elevate coaches—though, of course, NIL has added a new dimension to recruiting today.
Cronin will have an opportunity to build a team for next year. I believe he’s currently operating behind the eight-ball. The criticism right now is that he stifles his players’ offensive capability. True or not, that’s a perspective—one that might have been different with Dent, though some would argue that hasn’t really worked out. The question now is whether Cronin can shift that perception. I’m hoping he can, but as my initial point reads, if I were the AD, I’d be starting to look at possible candidates.