It's time to be honest about $C Basketball

by SactoBruin on Jan 19, 2007 8:46 AM PST Comment 28 comments

I know it's been a popular position around here to bash on U$C's basketball program, particularly in light of the lavish media attention it has been receiving recently. However, as much as it kills me to say, it's time to acknowledge that the Trojans are actually a pretty good team this year and are a program on the rise.

After we narrowly escaped the Galen Center with a win after a rather sub-par performance (and I don't buy the excuse that Shipp was out of the lineup), there was a lot of talk within this community about how $C "sucks" and don't deserve the hype they were receiving. But in all fairness, I watched that game and the Filthy Swine of Troy actually looked like a very talented team playing with heart and energy. I recognize that my comments probably border on blasphemy, but it's pure myopia to suggest that $C hasn't at least "narrowed the gap" between their program and ours.

Now, following $C's victory over Arizona last night and their other quality wins this season, I think we need to at least accept the fact that $C is an improved team and has to be considered a viable contender in the Pac-10 this year. Which in my mind, just makes the victories over $C all the more satisfying. And it makes trips to the LA area that much more intimidating for the other Pac-10 schools.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think there is no question they are good...

...this year. My question would be, is it a program that is on the rise? I think this team is very much like the Clancey/Scallibrini teams they had, a couple of very good players, but after they left, they took the heat with them.

SC currently has a couple of players who will probably leave after this year, based on their talent and the fact one of them spent the first half of the season on academic probation. Also, given how long it took Taj to be eligible, coupled with his age, perhaps Gibson will look to leave soon as well.

Mayo's arrival is much hyped, but it would appear he is one and done as well.

Meanwhile, you can see the clear building plan Coach Howland has, Stanback and Love in 2007 and then replentishing guards in the 2008 class, right when we will need them.

by Free the 16 on Jan 19, 2007 9:07 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Fact accepted

That is not the point. No one is disputing the fact that U$C has improved a lot. But to say that they have closed the gap between them and perennial Pac-10 contenders, just because of one good season, is insulting. Here is another example of another butthead kissing their butts. This guy even calls the Galen Center "gorgeous". So I sent him an e-mail, which I am taking the liberty to post here because it also serves as a reply to you.

Dear Jeff,

It is so wonderful and funny to read articles like yours, about U$C not being just a "football school". I love it. Statements like that actually prove that it is actually just a football school in most people's eyes. Of course, you didn't write an article when UCLA beat U$C in football in December, saying that UCLA is not just a "basketball school". And of course, you forget to mention that both of these schools have championships in so many other sports that you can't even keep track of them.

But my favorite part, the one that has me rolling on the floor, is about the "gap" that U$C is closing. How astute! Is it because they have all of a sudden won 10 national championships to get close to UCLA's 11? Or wait, have they won ONE to get close to Arizona's? Maybe I'm being harsh. Maybe it's just that they have won all of these Pac-10 championship and are catching up...no, that's not it. Oh, I get it, it's because they LOST to UCLA and beat an overrated Arizona team, so they must be getting close...

Listen, I understand that you want to be just like the other writers and kiss U$C's behind so that maybe some day you can roam the sidelines like Snoop, but could you at least be a little more concrete when you write your articles? Have you even been to the Galen Center? "Gorgeous" is not what comes to mind. It's an ugly piece of crap, admittedly a new piece of crap, that looks like the Home Depot.

U$C has improved significantly in basketball under Tim Floyd, but it has happened before, in the early 90's, with Harold Miner. The question is, whether it can be sustained. Let's wait until this team even makes it to the tournament and has some success before comparing it to UCLA and Arizona. Let's make sure that Floyd's recruits won't jump to the NBA early. Let's make sure that Mayo will actually contribute and be a good player before hyping him. Ever wonder who else recruited him? Why don't you check it out, it might open your eyes as to what kind of character he is.

U$C might be closing the gap, but believe me, that gap is a grand canyon.

by tasser10 on Jan 19, 2007 9:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I thought all season that sc was a pretty decent team and they have proved it week in and out. theres nothing wrong with saying that sc is good, just as long as you dont start rooting for them :p

Go Bruins!

by bruinpower on Jan 19, 2007 9:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

hell no

I could never root for $C. Not in any situation or circumstance. Even when they were playing for the national championship in football, I was rooting for Texas, Oklahoma and LSU/Michigan. Even though I generally root for the Pac-10 at all times, I will always root against the Trojan Swine, no matter the circumstance.

by SactoBruin on Jan 19, 2007 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

SC will always be JustSC

It really doesn't matter how much JustSC "improves". The fact of the matter is that no matter what happens there, I'm never going to be worried, because UCLA will always be better, while JustSC will eventually shoot themselves in the foot, especially with Timmeh kicking chairs on the sideline. Remember those years under Bibby when JustSC went to the tourney? Shoot, they were even in 2nd place in the P10. Yeah, that turned out well.

I'm still not convinced that JustSC is winning those games against ranked teams isn't heavily influenced by being able to play trap games. In each instance, JustSC has played each beaten ranked opponent one game before they have to play us, with the exception of Wichita State, and even in that case, they were playing a team that has been in freefall since the game before that.

I'm not arguing that JustSC is not playing inspired, but I think their wins are skewed based on the circumstances they get to play in. I think when the situation is reversed, i.e. they play ranked teams after we're done with them, you see the situation change. Perfect example is the Wazzu game.

I think the second half of P10 play will show what happens. JustSC will get a chance to play Oregon, AZ, and Washington AFTER us (though I'm wondering if they're ever going to recover from their horrible P10 start).

At the end of the day, we won, and we'll keep winning, and so I'm not worried at all. And what gap are you talking about? The same one the idiots at the Times keep talking about? What, are we only looking at wins from now on? Last time I checked, it's not exactly the mark of an elite team to lose to Kansas State, USC (Carolina that is), and to get blown out by actual elite teams like Kansas. I think it's definitely premature to talk about any gap narrowing.

Didn't we already hash this out a few weeks ago?

by stevenucla on Jan 19, 2007 9:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Perspective

Honestly I am not all that concerned. And they are certainly not in my thoughts since I am more consumed with how we are going to come out against Arizona.

I am not a UCLA basketball fan from the Wooden era but I have been around.

This is not the first time Trojans have a decent team. They have had better than the current one. The Harold Minor team and the final 8 team under Bibby. Yes, those teams beat the Mildcats at the dumpy Sports Arena. I wasn't concerned about them and I am not all that worried about them now.
Trojans by virtue of being in LA will always get some good players (mostly UCLA rejects or in the case of Floyd players which other programs will not touch with a ten feet pole).

Anyways. Are Trojans a slightly improved team? May be. At least its nice that they are decent enough that teams coming into LA will no longer can get away with just devoting all of their preparation time and focus only on Bruins. That's nice.
But basketball will never amount to a rivalry unlike football. In hoops I expect to beat the Trojans 70-80 percent of the time. I don't think I will ever have to worry about Trojans even with Floyd as a legit year in and year out threat to Pac-10 titles. Moreover, our rivals in basketball programs are national programs like UNC, Duke, Florida, Kentucky, Kansas, and Arizona. Those are the teams we are competing against. Those are the teams we are going against when setting our recruiting priorities.

One more note on Floyd. It's not like he is doing some great recruiting job. He inherited Young, Pruitt and Stewart from Bibby. Timmeh landed Mayo, a recruit who was only recruited by Bob Huggins. And UCLA didn't even bother going after a guy like Brandon Jennings. Just not a UCLA caliber (he is no Arron in terms of game and character). Howland has his targets. He sets them methodically and then goes after them. It has worked. And now his target range is getting even widen since the recruits around the country are seeing the results from last three years.

Anyways, my advice don't lose sleep over a team a decent Pac-10 team getting a win on its home floor against a team of NBA draft picks playing AAU ball. I wouldn't sweat it.

Like I said I wasn't all that worried during the Raveling, Bibby era ... not all that worried now.
We should focus on our worries on how to get a football coach who will level the UCLA-Southern Cal rivalry once again ensuring UCLA is winning 55-60 percent of that matchup, and bring home 3-5 Pac-10 titles to Westwood per decade.

UCLA basketball is in awesome shape. In terms of hoops I really don't see any reason for us to think about JustSC. Our focus should be on Arizona. Hopefully this is the last time I will have to make this point.

GO BRUINS.

by Nestor on Jan 19, 2007 9:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Going way back

I don't remember the year, but justsc was 24-2. Those 2 losses were to the Bruins. And in those days, only conference champs went to the tournament.

In reality there was no "gap closure" that year. They really were better than the rest of the teams they played. But they were not better than UCLA, and had no hope to be.

That's the same way it is now, as far as I can see. They have a good team (apparently with the requisite character issues made popular by the football program), but they were, are, and always will be justsc.

by Fox 71 on Jan 19, 2007 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Paul Westphal's Junior Season

1971

by alcor805 on Jan 19, 2007 7:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm going to say this one more time

regarding "gap closing". We were in the title game last year. They failed to make the NIT. We can't go much farther up, they can't go farther down. What does "gap closing" really mean?

As N said, this is not the first time SUC has had a decent team. What do they have to show for it? Nothing. So excuse me if I'm a little skeptical that they will be able to have success this year or sustain it with any sort of consistency.

by Tydides on Jan 19, 2007 10:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Couple points

USC will wilt down the stretch. USC is playing 5 decent players a lot of minutes. We have so many contributors we will be in good physical shape when it matters.
Shipp did matter, and USC was making shots that no team can count on being there. It did make a difference.
USC is better ... they have been better in the past. Does that mean their program is on the rise? 1 year of Mayo does not guarantee that.

by DumpDorrell on Jan 19, 2007 10:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

USC hoop and "program on the rise"

I agree with some of the points made by all the posters. The question is presented by the way SactoBruin frames his opinion. It's pretty clear at this point that USC has a solid basketball team this year, which is somewhat unexpected, but hardly shocking, and there's hardly any shame in acknowledging an obvious fact. Floyd has a proven record of success as a college coach, and USC does have good talent. I believe that USC has benefited by the "UCLA effect" to a degree, but USC has played well enough in their PAC-10 games for me to believe that the effect is not very significant,and has not meant anything the past two weeks as it has become increasingly clear that USC is a good team in its own right. Certainly Arizona knew that USC was much improved after USC's effort against UCLA (as well as teh Oregon schools), and given their not-too-sterling record against USC in the past at the Sports Arena, they had no reason to overlook USC. And Arizona still lost even though they didn't look flat; it looked to me that USC was just better yesterday, particularly on defense.

On the other hand, when one talks about programs on the rise, Nestor and the other USC doubters have a point. While USC is having a good year so far, and has made noise on the recruiting front, one solid half-season and a couple of verbals does not fully validate the claim that the program is on the rise if we are evaluating the program as a whole and not on a year-by-year basis. Every program at any school can be claimed to be on the rise after a successful year; only sustained achievement proves the claims to be true. USC's weak performance over the past several years makes it impossible to categorize their current situation as anything but proof of a "program on the rise", but this claim has been made before after good seasons for USC. However, since USC has rarely earned consecutive NCAA appearances in the time since I attended UCLA ('85-89) and not won the PAC-10 at all even in their good seasons, I don't think one can safely say they are "on the rise" until they do more.

IIRC, USC hasn't won the PAC-8/PAC-10 since 1962(?) No NCAA titles. No FF appearances. One trip to the Elite 8. That is an achievement gap compared to UCLA greater than the Grand Canyon, and even if USC does start competing with UCLA to the point where the basketball rivalry actually means something other than bragging rights every year and where UCLA only wins 50% of the time, I see no reason to believe that the historical gap will ever be threatened. Although I'd rather beat USC all the time, I also believe that UCLA and the PAC-10 benefit if USC finally starts putting up a consistently solid basketball team. If Floyd can do for USC basketball what Dorrell cannot for UCLA football-build a program that competes for the PAC-10 title yearly, breaks even against its biggest rival, and gets in the tournament regularly-then USC will indeed be on the rise, since all these accomplishments are the stepping stone to the NCAA title-the ultimate proof of accomplishment.

by ucladj89 on Jan 19, 2007 11:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Is $UC Good?

Yes. No doubt about it and anyone saying otherwise is dillusional or hasn't seen them play. Timmeh is a good coach an while he is bringing in questionable character the condoms look like they'll have a consistantly solid program, but to take a page from Jordan Farmar, "In Westwood, we only care about championships." Let the condoms win their 18-20 games a year and go to the tournament every year, getting to the sweet 16. While they do that we'll be out winning Pac 10 and national titles. Are they a good, up and coming program? Yes. Do we need to come in focused to beat them? Yes. Have they won anything yet? NO! Wake me when they do.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 19, 2007 11:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

i'm not sure why it says parent next to my name

on the above comment as it has never said that before. but just to make clear, i am not a parent. no big deal but just felt compelled to clear that up.

by babyblue98 on Jan 19, 2007 11:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

babyblue

do no attack our basketball players on Bruins Nation. If you do it again you will be gone (we will not tolerate personal attacks (name calling) on any UCLA athletes in Bruins Nation). I deleted your last post because you veered off peronally attacking one of our hoops player. That is unacceptable on BN.

by Nestor on Jan 19, 2007 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

fair enough

but where's the rest of my post? i liked my post, why not just delete the last paragraph where i criticized roll? can you put the rest of the post back but leave the last paragraph out?
i'll make sure the next time i criticize roll i won't drop the f bomb or name call, i'll just point out the weak parts of his game (everything). but roll is not above criticism. he is a disappointment thus far in his collegiate career. we need him to step up or we should put dragovic in there who i am confident can do a better job.

by babyblue98 on Jan 19, 2007 12:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Unfortunately

we don't have the ability to redact specific part of post in a comment. We can do it in diaries but not in post. As I said if we see name calling anywhere in comment section, the entire post will be gone. If it was in a diary we would have at least deleted that para. and gave you this warning.

by Nestor on Jan 19, 2007 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No Spin Zone

To clarify, we are still allowed to criticize a Bruin, as long we don't personalize it, correct? I didn't read the post before it was deleted, but I think it's fair to mention that if you put in a player whose primary job is to hit 3's, and he can't hit a 3...well, that's a problem.

by insomniacslounge on Jan 19, 2007 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What would be crossing the line?

Is it ok to say:

"Michael Roll played so bad today it was like having someone fart in my face repeatedly."

Seriously though, I do think Roll is very talented and we're really just beginning to see what he can do.

by alcor805 on Jan 19, 2007 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Dropping an F bomb or any name calling

directed towards any one of our players would be crossing the line on BM.

FWIW I think Roll plays better D than Shipp and he plays much more within the team game. I like Roll a lot.

by Nestor on Jan 20, 2007 7:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This doesn't seem that hard to me.

I don't think Nestor would censor an opinion or criticism of anyone (probably including himself.) But to me the most important word in any sentence of criticism (or praise) is the because. E.g., "Coach Dorrell is terrible" is an opinion that is facially shallow. "Coach Dorrell is terrible because ..." (and at this point the list would be so long that I will simply incorporate by reference the numerous expressions of fact which back up this opinion.)

And as I have explained before, I don't think it shows a great deal of erudition or intelligence to sprinkle profanity throughout one's post. To me, that sounds like the type of education that is picked up at justsc. I made my living trying to persuade judges and juries to decide things favorably toward my clients. I sort of knew intuitively that using lots of f-bombs in arguments would not increase the likelihood that the logic of my statements would be deemed persuasive.

This is just my opinion, but as you'll note, I tried to put in a few "becauses" to explain it.

by Fox 71 on Jan 20, 2007 9:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

lol

to be fair I curse like a sailor when I am watching games and talking about Southern Cal (specially right before, during and after games against them). So I don't really care much about that.

However, I will tolerate anyone cursing out one of our student athletes. That's really it.

by Nestor on Jan 20, 2007 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A Trojan With Self Awareness

Here's an unexpected comment from an SC student in response to an article which mocked the student body for rushing the court last night:

Speaking as someone who rushed the court last night at the Galen Center, I certainly see where you're coming from, but I thought I'd mention that having played at the Sports Arena for so many years (which I believe is owned by the city of Los Angeles), fans we're never allowed to rush the court even for times that would have been legitimate (e.g. when USC basketball really sucked and still managed to take down Arizona). So in essence, I think we were just seizing an opportunity we hadn't had before. We ARE unranked, so it technically was an upset victory. And though I agree that the court-rushing makes us look amateurish...well, I'll be the first to say that amateurish is what our basketball program has been for the greater part of our existence. For all we know, this might be the last time we have a reason to rush the court for quite some time.

So I guess not everyone at USC is drinking the LA Times kool-aid just yet.

by insomniacslounge on Jan 19, 2007 4:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't get it

when have we not said we're amateurish in Bball? We willingly concede we have no basketball history. Who keeps claiming to the contrary? (and before you bring up that post I wrote comparing irrelevance, the underlying point is that both were irrelevant, not that 'SC basketball was relevant)

Fight on!!! Beat the Wolverines!!!

by USCLink on Jan 19, 2007 4:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

In that case

This just further illustrates how out of touch the LA Times writers have become. From reading the works of their columnists, I assumed that everyone associated with SC was of the belief that their basketball program had joined the elite.

by insomniacslounge on Jan 19, 2007 5:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We're playing well this season

But history? Long-term relevance? You need to be relevant over the long-term for that to work.

As is, we're having a good year, and think Floyd has us pointed in the right direction. If we do this again next year as well (assuming we at least make the tournament) then its time to start asking if we've got some long-term impact in the future.

Fight on!!! Beat the Wolverines!!!

by USCLink on Jan 19, 2007 5:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Adam Rank

Slightly off-topic but I really love Adam Rank's AOL stuff. The Hater Nation is alright for a cheap laugh here or there but his AOL stuff is a daily read for me.

by Karakand on Jan 19, 2007 10:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Still not convinced

I still believe Southern Cal is a trap game for the other Pac-10 schools, and most of them have gotten stuck in that trap. Maybe my mind will change the second time around. But will I be worried about them, never.

by bruinbabe2000 on Jan 19, 2007 5:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe SC is a Trap Game...

But so is Oregon State and Arizona State; and while those schools occasionally put a scare into an opponent, they have yet to actually beat one of the better Pac-10 teams. USC has wins over Oregon, Washington, Arizona, and if it weren't for missing the front end of every one-and-one in the 2nd half, probably UCLA too.

I don't think USC is a dominant team, but I do believe they're a legitimate tournament team- which by USC standards, is a success.

by insomniacslounge on Jan 19, 2007 7:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs