After the first round of interviews it looks like the UCLA track and field head coaching job will go to either Jim McCarron of Riverside CC or Mike Maynard of Boise State. Both men have interviewed for the job, and both have impressed UCLA athletic director Glenn Toth. I talked to a member of the UCLA athletic department who told me that $90,000 was the most they could offer. And they are hoping either McCarran or Maynard will accept the job for that money,
McCarron went to UCLA in the mid 90's and now coaches at a JC, and Maynard is a former throws coach at Arizona, and now is the head coach at Boise State. Im not sure if either guy is right for UCLA.
It seems strange that UCLA can't attract more coaches to apply. Maynard and McCarron might be decent for the program. But niether will bring them to top 10 status. I guess that guy Brian didn't get an interview. I don't know anyting about him but he was enthusiastic about his school UCLA.
Maybe it's because $90K in Westwood is tough to live on...
Goes to show UCLA isn't really serious about bringing the track program back to national prominence. They would need to nearly double that salary to get a coach with the experience and name recognition to win the conference meet, let alone a NCAA title. UCLA track and field has become a mid-major and a non-factor in the Pac-10...sad.
You are exactly right. Isn't this the same salary that was just reported as given to Burrell at San Diego State? UCLA should be putting more money into this position. If you are not going to put the money out there to hire somebody good enough to turn things around, why even change coaches in the first place?
Don Babbitt at Georgia would be a perfect fit for the UCLA. Its too bad he makes too much money as an assistant throws coach at Georgia.
Babbitt, Blue & Frazier would all be great Head Coaches & are all Alum, but they make good money where they are...
BUT the most important reason why I think they wouldnt is because they are loyal to thier coach.
You guys are wrong about McCarron though he is a good recruiter and could recruit at that level just as well too.
I have heard there are a few others in the mix as well.
It seems strange that UCLA can't attract more coaches to apply.
The State of California and the UC System is impacted by massive budget cuts.
How does TF/CC compete for money at UCLA, the #1 athletic school in the NCAA ? That's impossible.
How does UCLA compete in L.A., the epicenter of the entertainment, motion picture, recording, television, pro sports, and college sports ? That's impossible.
In states like Florida, Nebraska, Alabama, etc. the college football coach is the most popular person in the entire state. More than any governor or senator. In Los Angeles, Pete Carroll is a stranger outside of campus.
Better to take a coaching job in a college town.
Why would Babbitt want to be a head coach, when it would mean LESS time coaching. Head coaches are up to their ears in paperwork and compliance. Babbitt has a nice life, coaching his collegiate and professional athletes.
If Babbitt took the job he could come back home to L.A.
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Sorry, but Peter Carroll is quite recognizable here in so cal.
Yes, Carroll is recognizable, but thoroughly despised by everyone except die-hard O.J. apologists. Check out (youtube should have it) his appearance at the Dodger game last week. He was lustily booed when they put his mug up on the Jumbotron.
Back on topic, any other names surfacing for UCLA track coach?
I would say the most popular sports figure in Los Angeles and the entire world as well is none other than Kobe Bryant. He's regarded as the greatest basketball player ever.
FB coaches like Pete Carroll are unknowns in L.A. Although he's a great coach there's so many other entertainers that take the limelight from him.
Yeah, I really feel bad for a UCLA program that has one of the most beautiful campuses in the world. The women are hot and the weather is amazing 360 days of the year. The UCLA campus is set in the heart of Westwood. Bel Air borders campus to the north, Beverly Hills borders to the east, and Brentwood borders UCLA to the west.
Their program is fully funded and their training facilities are top notch. If heaven existed on earth, UCLA would be the place to have it.
Bob Larson was able to win Championships at UCLA and consistently finish in the top 10 in the country. So don't give me this bullcrap excuse that you can't win at UCLA. Nobody away from the sport of track and field in Los Angeles knew who Bob Larson was. But so what. That fact and a cup of coffee still costs $1.50. That is a weak point.
Please explain how our rivals at USC can somehow get the job done. They are located in the hood. Their campus is in South Central and nobody outside of campus knows who their head coach is. But somehow USC is able to beat the Bruins in track and field and cross country too. Now please, something is wrong with that picture.
The Art Venegas apology tour is over folks. The fact is that you can still win championships at UCLA. You just need the right chemistry of coaches and athletes. Bob Larson did it. Jim BUsh did it. I hope my Bruins can make the right hire and get back to the top 10 of the NCAA. But this defeatist attitude has got to stop. If our cross town rivals can get the job done, then we can get the job done. Thats all I got to say.
I agree with the poster above that says that it is still possible to win at UCLA. There is no excuse for that program not being top 10, and on the podium at least every third year. IT"S UCLA FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! Having said that, if it is true about $90k being what they are willing to pay, who would want that? There are coaches at mid-majors who make that, and don't have the southern California cost of living to deal with. The bottom line is that UCLA will have to pay for someone who can assemble a staff that can bring them titles. Time to get out of the 80's pay scale and join the rest of us in the new, more expensive world.
You guys don't get it. UCLA already pays Jeanette Bolden around 90k. When you pay the Men's head coach 90k, you are effectively paying 180k for the head job(s). Until they create a Director position that oversees both programs, they won't be able to pay much more than the 90k they are currently offering.
Maybe this hire will be somewhat "temporary" at this pay scale until Bolden retires and the understanding will be that it will become a director position and it will pay in the $120 or so range....if that's the case, it would be worth it to "weather the storm" at $90K for a few years until Bolden retires
So what makes you think Jeanette Bolden will retire in a few years? She is in her late 40's now and could easily coach at UCLA for another 10 years. You want to weather that storm? You want to put your program's fate in the hope that someone will retire in a few years?
On second thought, lets talk about Jeanette. How has she done lately? Is her program going in the right direction or the wrong direction. Anyone who knows UCLA track and field can tell you that the UCLA women's program is in terrible shape right now and there isn't much hope on the horizon.