In Reply to: Why would a run change your opinion of Cronin's posted by ej on March 04, 2026 at 14:38:48
A run wouldn’t change my opinion of the behavior itself. If it’s embarrassing in November, it’s embarrassing in March. Winning doesn’t suddenly make grabbing a player by the shirt or turning postgame pressers into spectacles “okay.” At a place like UCLA, the standard includes how you carry yourself.
What a run could change is the second part of the equation: whether that behavior is actually limiting the program.
I’ve never questioned that he can coach. He clearly can. Getting this inconsistent team to peak at the right time supports your point about his X’s and O’s. I also never thought he lost the locker room — making the tournament reinforces that the players are competing for him.
But my bigger concern has always been sustainability. In today’s environment — NIL, transfers, constant roster movement — perception and relationships matter. If the volatility becomes part of the brand, that can affect recruiting and roster building. And if you can’t consistently get and keep high-level players, you’re not competing for championships.
So when I say “embarrassing,” I don’t mean emotional or intense. I mean moments that overshadow the team and become the headline. Over time, that matters.
You’re right that his sideline demeanor seems improved lately. I’ll acknowledge that. But we haven’t yet seen that tested in a true high-pressure tournament setting. Real change shows up when the stakes are highest.
A deep run wouldn’t erase past behavior. What it would do is suggest that whatever the optics are, they’re not preventing the program from reaching a high ceiling. And ultimately, at UCLA, that’s the bar — competing for championships, not just finishing seventh in the Big Ten Conference and squeaking into the bracket.
So no, winning doesn’t excuse the behavior. But sustained winning would challenge my belief that the behavior is holding the program back. Until I see that, I think the concern is fair.