In Reply to: It strill remains that the word was that Mara was returning. posted by ej on May 12, 2026 at 12:00:54
With all due respect, ej—and I truly do respect your knowledge, demeanor, and opinions on this forum— but how much clearer could this have been?
On March 23, 2025, Ben Bolch, a well-regarded journalist with the Los Angeles Times and, at the time, the only embedded reporter from a major outlet covering the program, published an article titled “As UCLA seeks resurgence via transfer portal, Aday Mara’s Bruin future is murky.” The framing itself is pretty telling. He generated this information from his conversation with him immediately after the game. He did not leave with a deal in hand. Whoever is reporting that is contradicting this piece.
In that piece, Mara is described as noncommittal about his future before heading to Spain, while other players were explicitly indicating to the Times that they intended to return. He wasn’t among them.
Now, it’s fair to argue that Mick Cronin may have believed Mara would be back—I wouldn’t really dispute that possibility. But at the end of the day, the information available at the time suggests that belief was mistaken. Whether that was due to misreading the situation, overconfidence, or something else, I don't know. But he was wrong.