First off, I haven't spent a second thinking about Cal State San Diego, I was speaking more of your poor take on UCLA, like you had with and the only 4* or 5* comments, Adidas funneling them his players, what UCLA boosters want. Might as well throw in some smog references too, since we are going with nonsensical cliches.
Point by Point breakdown.
1. UCLA signed with UnderArmor in 2016. It's the largest apparel deal for a college (or was, I don't know if someone signed a 281 million dollar deal since). So if Adidas is funneling players to UCLA, its stupid on them. Under Armor hasn't done anything noteworthy for UCLA. Mick's first commitment was from the #1 PG, who played for an AAU team without a sponsorship. Their other recruit plays for Nike. So that was a stupid point. Before this year, Jaime Jaquez played on the Nike circuit. Jake Kyman did play for Dream Vision, an Adidas program. But Kyman wasn't a 4*, so maybe Adidas was funneling, but it was probably because most people didn't think UCLA should have offered him and he was a lower tiered player. The third member from last years class was Kenneth Nwuba who went to a prep school for a year and played for an Adidas program, but again, why would Adidas "funnel" someone to a competitor's program? Not a single player the last two classes from an UA AAU team, despite the best one being Earl Watson Elite, a west coast AAU program sponsored by a UCLA alumni and Under Armor.
2. ESPN and Rivals? I guess if you want two recruiting sites that dont care as much about the west coast. I like 247 personally, but they also have overall rankings. You're quote was " UCLA goes 10-deep and of those 10 players, every single one of them was a 4 or 5 star recruit....Every single one of them a Top-50 recruit in the country."
Chris Smith (UCLA's best player) - 3* Composite (141st overall)
Jalen Hill - 4* Composite (65th overall)
Tyger Campbell - 4* Composite (91st overall)
Jaime Jaquez Jr - 4* Composite (87th overall)
David Singleton - 4* Composite (85th overall)
Not a single starter is ranked in the top 50 (like you claimed) and not all of the starters are even 4*'s. The rest?
Jules Bernard - 4* Composite (55th overall)
Kenneth Nwuba - 3* Composite (246th overall)
Jake Kyman - 3* Composite (334th overall)
Cody Riley - 4* Composite (46th overall) - Hey! A top 50 player finally!
Prince Ali - 4* Composite (41st overall) - Another one!
Alex Olesinski - 3* Composite (291st overall)
I'm sure you will go off on how other programs have lesser talent and are doing better, absolutely true. Nobody doubts that.
3. Coaches don't last long? How old are you? 70? The last 30 years, the average UCLA coach lasts nearly 8 years. How is that not accepting anything other than Final Fours? Harrick lied on an expense report. Probably shouldn't have been fired, but lost to the AD. Lavin got progressively worse. Ben Howland lost the program. Alford was garbage. UCLA holds onto coaches too long. Had Alford been at any of the other major programs, he would have been fired in his third season. Lavin would have never gotten the gig. There is a good argument that UCLA waits way to long to fire coaches if it sees itself as a blue blood still.
4. So Cronin shouldn't get praise for going 19-11? Is he not peaking? I guess with all of that talent and a competent head coach, maybe they should have been picked higher than 8th in the PAC-12 if everyone felt that way. It was a rebuild year because they had raw players who didn't know what they were even trying to do. He's likely won the PAC-12 coach of the year and in contention for the National Coach of the year if they can keep winning.
5. +++++ Alford
6. O'Neal couldn't get playing time because he wasn't good. Same thing happened with Chuck O'Bannon at UCLA. Decent players with the right last name, doesn't equate to their star rankings. It's also no surprise that the team got better once he left..
But yes, Adidas is funneling them 4* talent...Geez man, such weak ass garbage that has no basis in reality. Rebels18 has left the chat