The Howland Era Revisited

by Guest Blogger on Jan 22, 2008 4:34 AM PST in Basketball Comment 26 comments

Our friend Bruin Blue is back with a little commentary on UCLA hoops following Saturday's game. Please note that the following post represents BB's commentary and not the view of Bruins Nation. I noted to BB that I disagreed with this take slightly because I think, even with the new rules, Howland's coaching style works as good as anyone else including Roy Williams, and I am not worried about mass defections to NBA as are some of the alarmists on message boards. Nevertheless, this is an excellent read which gives us a lot to think about. Also note that BB told me that this is not meant to be a negative essay at all. In fact, if anything, the main point from this essay is to appreciate Coach Howland's coaching abilities in today's college basketball world of coaching with mostly talented underclassmen while also dealing with injuries GO BRUINS. -N

Two years ago, before the Final Fours, and after a loss to Washington, which ignited a lot of debate about Howland's coaching, I expressed my opinions about Howland. My belief, then as now, is that he is one of the very best coaches in college basketball, probably the best defensive coach out there. However, like any coach (outside of the nonpareil John Wooden, who even so had a couple of critics), Howland is not impeccable or infallible. His offense is not a thing of beauty, and we seem to need at least half the game to figure out an opponent's zone. He substitutes rather more than I would like; and while the early timeouts are a legitimate approach, they can be a problem near the end. Put it all together, and there is no coach whom I would rather have at UCLA than Howland, as his abilities far outweigh these slight negatives.

However, what we are seeing now at UCLA is the burden of high expectations. It was one thing two years ago to be overjoyed to beat Gonzaga and then make our first Final Four in a decade. Last year, we expected more, but still many of us (including me) were not very confident that we could beat Kansas and do it again. Now, this year, we expect a Final Four, or at least will be quite disappointed if it is not forthcoming. And of course a National Title is something that we consider a very legitimate goal. In fact, if we don't win it this year, we may not for several years; and that would be disappointing to all. So it seems as if the excitement of beating Washington State or Arizona or Stanford has mostly dissipated; and most of us are anxious for the tournament to start. That is great in some ways--that we have gotten so far--but it also causes us to take things for granted, and in some sense spoils much of the season.

I will admit that I am trying very hard to keep my love for college basketball and UCLA basketball at the level of the past. To me, the NBA, and all those players leaving so early, has made this very difficult. There have been a lot of discussions on Bruin message boards about which players will leave this year, and who would do what in the pros. We watch Kevin Love, and for all his abilities, realize that his UCLA career is almost over. Worse than that, all the natural improvement he will make in the future will not benefit our program. He is a freshman, and as polished as he is for that level, there are obviously things he needs to improve. He will, but we won't see it, unless we care to watch the NBA, which I do not. Whatever he can do this year is what we will benefit from, and that's it. We are obviously still struggling to adjust from our guard-oriented approach of the last two years to one which emphasizes feeding the post. Sometimes in games one can see the two approaches conflicting with one another . Again, if Love were here three or four years, it would all fit in; but as it is, we have only the one season to master this, which seems terribly unfair. And as good as Love is, he is not a physical marvel like Greg Oden, who was more likely to dominate in his one year of NCAA play. How good was Christian Laettner in his first year? No one remembers, because he got to play four. It's really painful for me to see Love, as good as he is, and realize that if he would just stay and learn from our coaches, he would be a dominant player in a couple of years. But he won't; and that is what Howland must deal with.

Which leads to a key point--that I think Howland is hurt more than the other top coaches by this current state of affairs. Howland is a teacher; his players improve from year to year more than most coaches' players. If things were as they were thirty years ago, with no NBA defections, we would be the best program around. But in this era of the top players going one- or two-and-out, it's the programs like North Carolina which can bring in great offensive talent every year, which get the advantage. Roy Williams' style of coaching (and he is a fine coach, but not as fundamentally sound as Howland in my view) is perfect for this era, because his offenses are readymade for players with great offensive skills who can come in for a year or two. Howland's style is made for players to learn and grow into. Howland's juniors and seniors would be better than Williams', except that we aren't going to be having any juniors and seniors, except for "project" types like Mata and Roll.

So it's the battles of the underclassmen; and UCLA's academic and fit requirements make it difficult for us to match Carolina and Florida and Kansas in yearly recruiting. We get our share; but we couldn't match Florida's talent in the last two years, and may not be able to prevail with our underclassmen-laden class this season. Realize that we are starting a freshman (Love), a backcourt of a still-injured junior (Collison) and a junior (Shipp) who is really playing out of position, and a frontcourt of a very raw junior (Aboya) and an often-injured junior (Luc). Our backups are a sophomore Westbrook, a sophomore in Keefe who is just rounding into form, and our one senior, the hard-trying but obviously limited Mata. And that's our team. Yes, other teams are no more experienced, but some have better athletes. And so we go 16-2 to date, and are obviously one of the top seven or so teams, but we may well not make it all the way once again.

Next year, if we lose all those players whom people are speculating about, we will probably be a little short again. Again, if Howland could ever get a team of all juniors and seniors, we would be awesome; but we apparently never will. So our underclassmen compete with those of the other big-time schools; and in the end, talent with good coaching may trump our slightly lesser talent with better coaching. It did the last two years. Howland has probably taken us as far as we are likely to go in this era of short-time players and constant turnover of talent. We are a perennnial Top Ten team, but so are others; and there is no real reason to expect our freshmen and sophomores to consistently outplay the underclassmen of Carolina, Kansas, Memphis and Duke, among others. I wish that the NBA would go away, but it won't. Every year will see a mostly new UCLA team; and Howland will do everything he can to teach as many fundamentals as possible. Maybe that is why we are apparently going after Renardo Sidney--because he realizes that if he is going to rigidly adhere to "fit," he is going to likely fall short at the very end every season. Howland's coaching is as good as anyone's--but coaching can only take one so far, the way that college basketball exists these days.

- Bruin Blue

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I really Hope you are wrong

Because what you are basically saying is that we will never again win a championship with Howland as our coach. But allow me to offer this little tidbit: In the last 2 Final Fours, I would argue that we had the least amount of talent of any of the other 6 Final Four schools (I would even go so far to say that we had less talent than each of the teams we played in the Elite 8). We were defeated by an excellent Florida team in 2006, then again by the same team in 2007 (who were by now Seniors). Let me rephrase the title to this post: I think you are wrong.

by bruin8uclap on Jan 22, 2008 5:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Love = the future?

I found the commentary to be very interesting, and insightful. However, I don't think that we should assume that we will always be behind the 8-ball based on our experience with Kevin Love.
I agree that if our players only have 1 year in Howland's system, we probably won't see the results we are hoping for, because his system takes time to be instilled in these players. However, every other star we have had who jumped early stayed at least 2 or 3 years. Even Baron Davis, with no coaching, stayed 2 years. So hopefully, Love is an aberration.
I am more confident in our ability to reach the promised land if we don't have a string of "one and done" players.
It is ironic that we seem to be in a trap- the better Howland teaches, the more our players improve, and therefore, the more likely they will be attractive to the NBA.
I will still take our current situation. We have lost to the national champion in the final four the last 2 seasons. I will take that result compared to every other team in the country (including Carolina, Kansas, Memphis and Duke).

Go Bruins.

by islandbruin on Jan 22, 2008 6:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Let's not close the book on Love yet

Given that his family is not in dire financial straits, as many of the young hoops stars are, he might decide to hold off for another year or two and develop his game more.

Bob O. (Signholder #3)

by TuneMan7 on Jan 22, 2008 6:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

As little as this means...

I am stuck in Reno right now due to bad weather preventing me form heading back to Sacramento, the LA. But while I was up here volunteering for Barack Obama, I met a man from Oregon who claimed to be a friend of Stan Love's and he explained to me that the Love family emphasizes education very much and that his parents, at least, would prefer he get his degree. This mean believe Love would stay three years and take summer school every year in order to get his degree early.

Like I said, a guy who knows a guy, so I take it with a gigantic truck-load of salt. But I just thought I'd throw it out there.

Kyle Bown Class of 2007

by Bruinbown on Jan 22, 2008 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Talent Level

I like the analysis. However, I don't think the future will be the same as the past. BH hasn't had a lot of scholarships to work with the past couple of years (after signing 4 players his first year) to build on the success of the team the past 2 seasons. Even the 2006 Final 4 didn't help that year since all the good players were already committed.
Now that the program is back to the elite level, the chance of getting elite players has grown.

by mizzou on Jan 22, 2008 7:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Love may surprise you

I don't think we are giving Kevin Love enough credit here. What makes him different than the Odoms, Durants etc. is his background and family situation. He is obviously one of the more intelligent players around and I think a bit of a traditionalist. He looks to not only his father but JW for advise and wisdom. I think at the end of the year we will only see him jump to the NBA if we win it all. Anything less will be unfinished business and he will look for a second season to accomplish that goal and to polish his skills further as a bonus. This scenario is a win-win for all Bruin fans. Clearly Howland knows his stuff and is as likely as any coach in the land to have the team ready to march in March.

by popopapa on Jan 22, 2008 7:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Love also has NBA issues

Love is quickly establishing himself as a college monster, but like many players he's not a perfect fit for the NBA just yet. He's an NBA tweener. He's projected at 10-15 in the draft at this point, but it's still early and that could change with the end of the season and the tournament.

He's not an NBA center, and he's not quick or athletic enough to be a PF: how would he match up against Kevin Garnett, Rasheed Wallace, Carlos Boozer, Elton Brand? He's also not quick enough yet to be an SF and he's not playing much facing the basket. Howland's system isn't getting him many touches and it isn't showcasing his full package of skills. Love has taken about 30-40 perimeter shots in 18 games this year, while Durant took about 1000. Love has bought into the UCLA program and winning games is more important than his own showcase issues, and he's also improving very quickly.

So I agree, if the Bruins don't win it all, and if they have a couple more Pac10 losses and get knocked out of the tournament at some point, he might well return. I'm not sure he wants to be less than a top 5 pick. That being said, every UCLA loss kills me and I'm hoping that Love is there on the board for the Clippers at the 7th or 8th pick and he gets to play alongside Brand and Kaman for the next 10 years!

by zhivooden on Jan 22, 2008 8:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good impulse, some flaws

The intent of this post is good, but it's ultimately a bit dire and it misses some fairly obvious things that aren't even nuances. Essentially, it's "Kevin Love is a one year player, and the sky is falling," which isn't really true.

First of all, qualifying to be an NBA lottery pick is a true rarity in college basketball, especially when you throw in international players. Howland seems to have a great approach about the NBA, which helps him with recruiting. If a player is looking at a sure thing, then Howland is going to help him go (Farmar, Affalo, neither of them one-and-done). The difference between Kevin Love and Greg Oden shows up on the analysis here, and it will show up in the draft: Love might not be a top ten or top 15 pick, which means he might want to come back for another year.

But Collison, LRMM, and Westbrook are more important examples. In preseason DC was very high on draft boards and a potential all-american. For a small, fast guard, the margin for injury/execution is pretty thin. DC has time and the tournament to step his game up to a higher level if he can stay healthy, but he's not a sure thing. And he's a junior, so we're talking about one year. Westbrook seems like possibley the best NBA bet on the Bruins, but he's not on any draft boards at all, and his improvement should continue to rise through another year. And finally LRMM, who was spectacular as a freshman, has settled into the role of providing intangibles. He's a classic, great college player, and along with Shipp he'll probably be around next year and perhaps be a 2nd round pick and struggle to make an NBA roster.

But the biggest flaw in the argument concerns Aboya. I love Big Al, but if what you say is true about this unfortunate situation and Howland and teaching, how is there such a thing as a "very raw junior"? Al was the prize recruit, with LRMM thrown in, and he got off to a slow start with injuries, but according to the argument he should have been part of the problem here. Instead, he's a solid contributor who might perhaps be an outstanding senior.

So it seems hard to feel bad for UCLA, when they could just as easily have LRMM, Aboya, Shipp, Westbrook, DC and perhaps even Love around next year as not. And it looks like UCLA is bringing in strong replacements for all of the guards and even LRMM. My guess is that we're looking at circumstances that are rather specific, and it's a big man issue. And the situation is probably mostly the result of the cycle of scholarships and desirable/available players. Mata was BH's first late throw-in big man recruit, if I remember correctly. BH is finding plenty of guards, but big guys are tougher to locate, and guys like Aboya and Keefe show that they can be good, but have limitations. Howland also had a fair amount of time to make Fay and Hollins improve, but he wasn't blamed because they weren't his guys.

When you look at pros and potential pros like Farmar, Affalo, DC, LRMM, and Westbrook, you're talking about three years, which is very different from one. The comments on expectations in the post are very reasonable, but the analysis of recruiting and player retention seems off-base.

by zhivooden on Jan 22, 2008 8:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Other thoughts

I agree with BB to a certain extent: the NBA is weighing on too many of the players minds at times, especially LRMM and Shipp, who have consistently demonstrated in certain situations that they want the glory play, whether its good for the team or not.

Also, there will be players like Kevin Love and Sidney. Its hte game of the game to have 1/done players. However, its up to the coach to find a balance, which is why you have players like Michael Roll and incoming like Drew Gordon. Drago probably fits in this category as well, though he might be considered a mistake as well. BH's system doesn't require talent to make up for scheming deficiencies, it requires experience. But you have to ask, is it worth it to have Love for 1 year or another project?

And Aboya is a raw junior because he didn't play/develop much over the last two years. Just because you been around for some time doesn't mean you've developed.

by kidro2001 on Jan 22, 2008 9:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't agree, but interesting

Though I like the topic, I don't agree with that much of the post, except for the part about Howland being a great fit for UCLA and the best coach we could possibly have.

A couple things I think are important to remember:

(1) It ain't easy to win national titles. We won't again see the days when you can win 3-5 national titles in a row. So all you can really hope for is a shot at the NT at the end--and getting to the final four is just that--having a shot. With less talent in the last two years, UCLA has climbed huge mountains. amazing.

(2) UCLA's success is the only reason we have lost some players early. If UCLA loses to Gonzaga, Farmar would have been back for last year. If UCLA loses to Indiana last year, Afflalo is probably back for this year. Yes, we've lost some players early, but it was worth nearly winning it all.

(3) UCLA hasn't yet brought in the athletic talent of the Kansas's or North Carolina's of the world. Our most athletic player this year is Russell Westbrook, close second to Aboya (though he has considerably less skill). Anyway, Carolina and Kansas have an entire team of Westbrooks, definately 1-5 (not including Hansborough). So they are just more athletic. We are starting to bring in those kinds of players--next years recruiting class is a start--but we aren't.

Let's remember, UCLA has done more with less the last two years, but that is without top 5 recruiting classes--the kind of classes you get after Final Fours. My point is this--we are still at the relative beginning of our re-birth, and we need to give it WAY more time before we make generalizations about what Howland can or can't do with players.

by rfirpo on Jan 22, 2008 8:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I agree 100%

Only one comment:
College basketball is coming off watching an absolutely dominating FL team that won 2 straight championships. Keep in mind this is not at all the norm. Usually there are a handful of teams in it, and oftentimes the team that is not necessarily the most talented wins. To me, UCLA has two advantages: 1) Final Four experience which is a rare thing because of the youth movement you described; 2) Defense.

That said, we have looked like a championship team only once or twice this year. It's a long season, but we've got a lot of work to do.

by jjreicher on Jan 22, 2008 8:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

See you after the next loss

Typical "the-sky-is-falling" post from BruinBlue. We lost one game to USC, and we will likely lose 2-3 more games this year, get a 1 or 2 seed (even--gasp--a 3 seed is possible) and make a deep run in the tourney.

But the sky is not falling. In fact, the future is bright. Howland has established that UCLA will be in the title picture this year (for the 3rd straight year) and has many players coming to replace those who leave. While it is possible and even likely that in certain years, early defections will leave us without a full complement of players, it is also likely that the recruiting pipeline will get larger as kids who have seen us these past 3 years arrive at high school knowing that UCLA is at the top of the heap of west coast schools and one of a handful of year-in year-out national title contenders in the entire country.

Not only is the future bright, but the present also looks beautiful. We have our issues (namely, (1) lack of depth at guard (especially of quick guards), (2) a point guard who is still not quite himself, (3) perimeter players who don't always realize that our best player is the low post, (4) a lack of multiple, consistent outside shooters, (5) a tendency to play down to our opponent's level at times, (6) only 5 guys who can score, and (7) a coach whose stubbornness sometimes gets the best of him (like benching Keefe after one mistake, not changing his post-double defensive strategy even when it's not working, and not saving any timeouts for the end of the game).

But look again at those issues, most are resolvable and if history is any indication, most will be resolved. DC will get back that extra gear and find his outside stroke, thus taking care of (2) and (4). The players already understand (3) most of the time (and seem to increase their understanding almost every week). We have not in the past 2 years and therefore I assume we will not play down to our opponent's level in the tourney, thus negating (5). Lack of depth at guard (#1) will be somewhat negated if Roll returns (but we will still be susceptible to teams with 3 quick guards with ball skills unless Josh improves his one-on-one D. Only having 5 guys who can score is not really a huge problem (most teams do not have more than 5 scorers, but let's watch for someone among Mata-Real, Roll and Keefe to pick up some of the slack there when we need them to. That leaves Howland's stubbornness. And something tells me that he will get better at this in the important respects (not timeouts but altering defensive strategy).

The rest of 2008, look for these weaknesses to decrease as the season wears on. And be thankful that we have the occasional loss to teach us what we need to improve.

by BruinsRule on Jan 22, 2008 9:30 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Excellent analysis

Excellent analysis, a little dire but well-founded concerns nonetheless. I don't think UCLA has peaked under Ben Howland because I believe he will win a championship. While I believe that this team has the pieces on paper to go further than the past couple years, I don't believe this team will be the best team Howland ever produces. For all of Kevin Love's skill and fundamentals, he doesn't have what the NBA covets most: athleticism. Love is able to dominate the boards with his footwork and body positioning, but what happens at the next level when every frontcourt is just as big and even more athletic? He's been working on a hook shot and wants to show off his outside shooting because he knows there isn't much demand for 6'9 centers who play below the rim. I wouldn't be surprised if he stays another year or two to develop more of his game. Then again, I felt that Arron Afflalo should've stayed another year and would've been a lottery pick rather than a late first-rounder if he did. We'll see what Love decides when the time comes. I agree with Bruin Blue that Love's potential will be realized in a couple years, and I just hope he decides to stay in school until he can develop into a sure lottery pick. With regards to how our program stacks up against North Carolina -- the measuring stick for programs now -- I believe UCLA is making ground. I couldn't agree more that UNC has a system conducive to athletes coming in and producing right away as it seems the perfect program for today's instant-gratification generation. It's always going to be difficult going up against the Carolina-Jordan-Nike machine, but talent isn't the only precursor to tournament success. A lot is said of the talented team that Florida had the past couple seasons, but only Corey Brewer was a high school all-american. I don't think the UNC recipe of reloading every year with potential one-and-done players is only model for success in this new age of college hoops. There will always be a place for developed players working in a tried and true system.

by ishXdavid on Jan 22, 2008 10:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Let's give Howland more credit

I believe your analysis is spot on. In fact, as noted in my login name my son is a Bruin as well and he has been noting the fact that, so far, Howland has been recruiting to his system vs getting great athletes and that would limit our success.

I have more faith.

First, I believe Howland and UCLA are only getting going. We have only begun to recruit top class prospects because we have only recently reestablished ourselves. 2 Final Fours make us more competitive. But let's all remember 2 years ago...no one really expected us to make the Final Four yet. High schoolers see the growth just like we do so we and he is getting better recruits (see Love). One real advantage we have, is we are now seen as THE program in the Western US. That is a lot of geography and recruiting advantage.

Second, are we assuming Ben Howland can't learn? He can't adjust his recruiting process to go after better athletes now that he can and he probably needs to. Sure he believes in defense but that does not mean he cant get some of the key guys interested.

I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he will adjust his targets upward. At Pittsburg, at NAU, and in his first years here, he could not hope to recruit the type of players that he can now. And, if we do get the win this year (which is looking more difficult not because of a ugly USC lost where we played poorly but because of the mounting injuries and the limited depth) he will have even more recruiting clout.

Here's to the fact that Howland can LEARN

Go Team Go!

by bruins grad and dad on Jan 22, 2008 10:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Don't be so blue, Blue

I know, UCLA hoops is not the dominant team in the country. In the last decade, can you name a team that was? NCAA basketball has become a total crap shoot. That's what makes it exciting, but it also means there are no more teams that just win all the time.

I remember your football posts, and they often made me want to wallow in despair...but we saw how that turned out. I would love, LOVE our team to win the basketball championship, but more than anything, I relish the season, the anticipation that they have a very good chance of winning it. And that goes a long way toward making me happy when I watch the team play. You have to take into consideration the body of work, and that has GOT to make you smile when you look at Howland's teams. And that was the same reason we cried during the whole football season in KD's tenure.

Please do not be so ungrateful toward Ben Howland, it is disingenuous at best. The man can coach. And he does have some very talented players coming in soon to match the likes of North Carolina and Kansas. We've only just begun my friend, so cheer up...but no harm in throwing a dash of realism either :)

by tasser10 on Jan 22, 2008 11:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

comments

Our team is fine... stop complaining. We have the best coach and the best team in the country. Just enjoy the ride.

by bruindodger on Jan 22, 2008 1:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Legitimate concerns

I completely understand where you are coming from. Early entry into the NBA is incredibly frustrating and makes it very difficult to stay in the national title hunt every year. We don't know who may leave early, so it's very difficult to predict how UCLA will do next year and beyond. Howland is an excellent coach and teacher. He is a great recruiter and knows exactly who he wants to play within his system. The future looks awfully bright with the level of talent coming in next year and 09. My only recruting concern is the ability to bring in solid big men.

UCLA only has two losses. Saturday's was painful and exposed some areas that really need to be worked on. It's important to look at the entire picture this year; injuries, rotations issues, players playing out of position, not working as a complete team as one would hope for this far into the season. I'm still upset about the loss to SC, but I think they will bounce back. The prospect of early departures may create a sense of urgency come tournament time. This could be a powerful motivating factor to win the title. Had Florida not been an obstacle, we might very well have a 12th banner.

Howland's use of timeouts is what burns me at times, but I'm confident he is the one who can bring home a national championship. When healthy, this team has the ability to go on spurts and shut other teams down defensively. Being able to run and play half court is an awesome combo. Injuries and depth are the biggest obstacle this year. UCLA basketball is back, incredible talent is coming in, these kids don't give up and want to learn and get better. There will be bumps along the way, but enjoy the ride. It's been awesome the last couple of years and I see great things in the future. Tournament time will pump us all up and football is getting exciting again. It's a great time to be a bruin!!

by Bruins095 on Jan 22, 2008 2:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm OK with UCLA being a top-10 team.

As long as we keep playing tough, smart basketball for the full 40 minutes and don't beat ourselves.

I loved Howland's first Final-Four team. Starting with the second Stanford game, I noticed that they always seemed to gradually build a lead, never let the pressure up, and always seemed to double their halftime lead at the end of the game.

They were relentless. On every possession. And they never, ever gave up, which made all the difference against Gonzaga.

If we keep playing that kind of basketball, NCAA championships are secondary.

by Chandler on Jan 22, 2008 4:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

k love and jrue holiday

i would love to see k.love be able to play with jrue holiday next year. i don't see jrue having any problem feeding it to k.love consistently unlike collison and shipp. but i don't blame collison and shipp. to some extent they must feel slighted with all the buzz and attention k.love gets considering they were the ones that got us to the final four last year

by CSon on Jan 22, 2008 9:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Appreciate what we have

If I was a fan of some other school, I would read some of these posts and say...Are you f'n kidding me? What is there to complain about? These UCLA guys really do have a sense of entitlement and believe that they should rule the world of College Basketball.

How soon we forget where UCLA basketball was EVEN BEFORE the Lavin years. Excluding 95, we were an average/good team for most years. We couldn't even get a seat at the table with the Big Boys who were vying for NC's. Howland has brought this to us. Howland took a FR dominated team to the NCAA's and battled Bob Knight and TT. That year was more satisfying to me than either of the Final Four trips when you take everything into account. He then took a sophomore laden team to the championship game. A team that was inexperienced and lacked NBA talent throughout its roster. Ben Howland and his coaching was 100% responsible for this.

Be appreciative of what Howland has brought back. Winning the tourney is a crapshoot as somebody else noted. It doesn't matter if you have the best talent or the best coached team. You need plenty of luck and need to get hot at the right time. Florida's 1st title lest we forget was as a #3 seed. Not many people had Florida. Yet the #1 seed UCONN got ousted by #11 George Mason. Howland has brought us back to contending for titles and we'll get there hopefully sooner rather than later.

by BlueReign on Jan 22, 2008 10:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

why?

"it's the programs like North Carolina which can bring in great offensive talent every year, which get the advantage"

This statement wasn't supported. North Carolina has a permanent and lasting advantage here in the area of bringing in great offensive talent? We are therefore relegated to watching those recruits sign with NC? Howland is therefore unable to compete with that kind of a recruiting force?

I think UCLA suffers no disadvantage to NC -- the best coach will get the best recruits.

by bruinofthenorth on Jan 22, 2008 11:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs