One Game At A Time

by Nestor on Mar 7, 2008 4:37 AM PST in Basketball Comment 67 comments

I am still having a hard time calming down from this:

Photo Credit:AP Photo/Kevork Djansezian (via ESPN)

You are looking at the two leading scorers from last night who ignited yet another Howlandian comeback that will be etched in our brains for rest of our lives.

Coach Howland becomes the first coach in the post-Wooden era for winning 3 straight Pac-10 title. I misspoke last night (too tired and exhausted) when I wrote this is the first time since the days of Coach Wooden UCLA has won 3 Pac-10 titles in a row. Of course I should have remembered that we won the titles during 94-95, 95—96, and 96-97 season. Then again I have done what I can to expunge the records from 97-02 from my brain for obvious reasons.

Anyway, back to present. What a game. The topline post game notes from Richard Perelman at What’s Bruin:

>> The Bruins led for a total of 19 seconds in regulation, at 2-0 to 2-2. That was it. But an 18-7 run at the end of regulation got the Bruins even, including four free-throws in the final 18 seconds to tie the game at 63-63. UCLA shot 50% in the second half and made 11-13 foul shots, outrebounded Stanford, 17-13, and had only two turnovers.

>> In overtime — UCLA's first of the season — the Stanford bubble burst after the teams missed the first five shots combined until a Luc Richard Mbah A Moute dunk gave UCLA a 65-63 lead with 2:48 to go. Then after a Brook Lopez basket tied it, a Darren Collison follow after rebounding his own miss, a Mbah A Moute steal and Russell Westbrook's lay-in gave the Bruins a 69-65 lead with 1:13 to go and they were never headed. Westbrook had seven of UCLA's 14 points in the extra period.

>> For the game, Collison ended up with 24 on 9-16 shooting, followed by Westbrook with 19, Kevin Love with 17 (and 10 rebounds) and Mbah A Moute, who had a crucial 10 points and led the team with 11 rebounds. The Bruins shot 45.2% for the game from the field and were an ordinary 16-24 from the foul line. UCLA held Stanford to 45.3% from the floor and closed the rebound gap to 38-36 by game's end after being -7 at the half.

>> UCLA continues its streak of winning every game in which it has scored 70 or more points, now 20-0, and remains undefeated on weekdays at 18-0.

>> Most important, the Bruins will be the top seed in the Pac-10 Tournament next week at Staples Center and have an opportunity to stay in the West for up to four rounds of the NCAA Tournament.

I think as far being the top seed is concerned if we can come out and take care of business on Saturday and then win at least one game in the Pac-10 tournament we should be all set. But we will talk about Cal game later tonight or tomorrow am. We still need to clear our heads from the magical night at Pauley.

The magical night however had an ugly beginning. Bruins were horrifiying in the first half. If I have my notes right they shot around 32% making only 7 of their 22 FG attempts while uncharacteristically (in terms of this season) clanking away from the FT line.

The thing that was most disconcerting about the first half was the two guys pictured above – DC and RW – were not being very decisive and aggressive offensively. To be honest I was getting frustrated because it seemed like there was a little bit too much dribbling going around the perimeter without looking to create options for himself or his team-mates. In other words they seemed a little intimidated early on from driving to the basket.

I will never second guess Coach Howland for any strategic decisions. However, the one thought that was going through my mind was about switching DC to 2 and have RW handle the point. To me it seems if DC is our best 3 point threat, then why not have RW handle the point and have him set DC up for long range bombs?

Anyway, as good as Stanford was (and they were awesome and better than us for most of the night – more on that below), we knew deep in the back of our mind (if you are an old school 49ers fan going back to those Joe Montana days, you know that late 3rd quarter feeling) we were going to make some runs. And sure enough the runs came. Brian Dohn details the second half madness after Cards took a 14 pt (32-18) lead early in the second half:

Love kickstarted a 7-0 run with a 3-pointer from the right side and Russell Westbrook scored a basket before a pair of free throws by Love.

The Bruins then cut the deficit to two points with Collison made a 3-pointer in the left corner and was fouled by Mitch Johnson. His free throw made it 45-43 with 9:50remaining, and was the closest the Bruins were since 4-2 in the opening minutes.

But again, Stanford was able to weather the rally, first with Johnson gathering a loose ball after a missed shot and making a 10-footer and then with Robin Lopez tipping in a missed shot to put the Cardinal ahead 50-43.

UCLA closed to 56-51 on Love's tip-in, and the freshman center than made two free throws to make it 56-53.

The Bruins trailed 60-55 when Mbah a Moute scored and was fouled with 51.1 seconds left. He missed the free throw, but Westbrook grabbed the rebound and scored to make it 60-59.

Brook Lopez made one of two free throws to make give the Cardinal a 61-59 lead with 22.7 seconds remaining.

The fouls continued as Westbrook made two free throws to tie the score, but Hill scored on a drive to give the Cardinal a 63-61 lead with 7.5 seconds left. Hill then fouled Collison with 2.5 seconds left, and Collison's free throws forced overtime.

Watching DC shooting FT reminded me of number 11 – Tyus Edney that is. He was ICE. Simply incredible. Then of course there was the stomach churning experience of watching RW shooting 2 right before those attempts: Pucin on what was going through Howland’s mind when RW took the first one:

"It was God answering my prayers," Howland said of watching Westbrook's high-bouncing free throw drop in. "I am grateful our team has now won three championships in a row in the Pac-10. This is the best the conference has been in over 25 years."

Yep. And that makes this accomplishment that much more remarkable.

Going back to DC and RW though again I hope these guys can show the same aggressiveness they did during the second half of the game for entire 40 mins. May be that’s not humanely possibly given the mins they have been logging and not getting any support from the bench. Yesterday it seemed like things turned around for us when RW started driving to the lane and DC decided to take over the game. They took it upon themselves that they were not going to be intimidated by the Stanford big guys in the paint and it led to the offensive blitz (well at least relative to the sorry output from the first half) in the decisive stages of the game. However, if we want to make a deep run in the Big Dance they will need to get going much earlier than they did last night. Otherwise, we may experience heartbreaks even before we get Phoenix (and I am not even going to bring up San Antonio).

There were a lot of people last night who gave up on us. Steve Dilbeck from the Daily News was one of them:

In truth, I thought it was over. Thought Stanford had put itself in position to nail a No. 1 NCAA seed.

Thought UCLA just wouldn't be able to pull it together.

Yet it's proving unwise to count out the Bruins.

There are times when they can almost look inept offensively. When they seem uncertain and little like one of the top teams in the country.

But even when they're at their most frustrating, they are tough. They are a veteran core with a tough 6-foot-10 center in Kevin Love. They are resilient.

Never more so than Thursday, when a Stanford team that had won 11 of its previous 12 games appeared the superior team for most of the night.

Well three years ago it was Gonzaga who appeared "superior" "most of the night." Then this year there was Oregon and … you get the picture.

Look I know I sounded harsh in the post game thread from last night. But honestly we have no problems with reasoned analysis and critiques of our coaches and players on what they need to do to get better as a team. However, it is not acceptable for infrequent posters to come in this community and do drive by, hit and run postings in the game threads to proclaim doom and gloom based one bad half. That’s just not going to fly. Besides coming down hard on a team after it has gone 27-3 and won 3 Pac-10 titles in a row (in a conference that has not been this good in 20+ years) .. well that just feeds into the "pathology of UCLA fans" narrative fed to a passive, lazy media by Steve Lavins of the world. There are talk radio shows you can call in and do that kind of nonsense. Not here.

Anyway, speaking of much to do about nothing predictably the MSM reporters are out there flailing away with this quote from DC re the last foul called in regulation. Case in point from the OC Register:

"That was a complete block," he said. "We were fortunate to get a call on that one. I heard it was a make-up call."

For their part Stanford's Hill gave a classy (and correct) response:

But Hill didn't complain. "He drew contact when he went to the basket," Hill said. "It was still on him to make the free throws."

Also a little birdie has told me via email that DC later took back any implication that it wasn’t a foul. So it will be interesting to see if we omplete quotes pop up from him.

As for the play you can watch the video courtesy of telemachus by going here:

Notice in this video the ref in the right bottom of the picture. He is signaling the foul as a hit down-low with the body. The announcers kept talking about the block being clean. That's not why the foul was called. The defensive player pushed into DC with his body, advantage-gained in the opinion of the ref.

Even so I think it’s just a little silly to complain about that one call. Because if people want to complain about the referees than we might as well take the entire game and call those guys on all the over-the-back fouls and traveling violations the zebras fail to call on the Lopez twins. Shoot we don’t have any problem doing away with the entire Pac-10 crew and replacing them with a competent bunch from another conference. Instead of 15-2, we’d probably be 17-0. So it’s just silly to go there.

Anyway, we have a long way to go. After last night’s win Bill Dwyre from the Times is out this morning calling us a "Team of Destiny".

But I am not sure if we are ready to go there yet. As we have always maintained we have to keep taking these games one at a time. Instead of worrying about hanging banner number 12 everyone should be focusing on giving Lorenzo Mata-Real, Darren Collison, and Kevin Love a perfect sendoff on Saturday.

One game at a time.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 67 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

My apologies.

This is jlazarus under a new name. Nestor, please read this before removing. I wanted to apologize for what I said in my first post-game comment last night. I was wrong to have posted it, and I regretted it almost as soon as I clicked "Post." I'm glad you removed it. Thanks.

Just because I'm an infrequent poster does not mean I'm an infrequent visitor. I've been a regular reader for over a year now; I post rarely because I don't often feel like I have something to say. Last night I did, and it went badly. But more important is that I have come to very appreciate BN very much. It's a great resource and community for out-of-town fans like me.

And I meant what I said about not being a bandwagoner. UCLA is more than my alma mater. It's my family school -- my mother, older sister and I all graduated from there. I've been a fan since before I can remember. I grew up watching Reggie Miller, Don MacLean and all of those guys. So I care as much as anyone about the program.

I'd appreciate it if you restored my ability to post. If you don't want to that's obviously your right. If you do, I promise no more name-calling.

Thanks for listening.

by yop on Mar 7, 2008 7:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Well said

Nestor, I know this site is your baby, and you have every reason to be concerned about the quality and tone of its content, but I think you might need to loosen things up a bit during the game threads. Everybody gets carried away some times, especially during games when things seem uncharacteristically out of hand. God knows I've thought and said some ridiculous things under the stress of my team seemingly falling apart before my eyes. Jlazarus's comment hit a chord with me regarding him being a frequent visitor but an infrequent poster. Many of us check in on this site every day (sometimes multiple times a day) and we DO feel like were a part of this community even if we don't weigh in on every topic. The last thing I think any of us want is to promote the idea that this is one of those blogs where only insiders are considered worthy of posting, or that you better make sure you stay well "in-bounds" with every comment. I, too, find some of the negativity off-putting, but I personally wouldn't be interested in visiting a site that didn't allow some emotion or dissent from time to time.

by kballs on Mar 7, 2008 7:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

crticisms is fine

But any attack on moderators will not be tolerated.

by Nestor on Mar 7, 2008 8:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You are all good

You should be able to post under your old account.

But once again please note we don't tolerate any kind of attack on our moderators. And yes we are extra protective of Coach Howland and our basketball team. We love them. We don't mind reasoned and balanced criticisms. However, it gets really annoying when we see first time commentators pop up just to criticize the team.

Anyway ... moving on. GO BRUINS.

by Nestor on Mar 8, 2008 9:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Seems truly penitent..

..to me, Nestor. A person with a family history and such a gracious apology surely is worthy of your consideration.

God, it's great to be a Bruin!

by whp68 on Mar 7, 2008 7:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I second whp's thoughts

The guy is articulate. Where else can he go?

by Fox 71 on Mar 7, 2008 7:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Let him stay...

but first he runs naked through the quad!!!
j/k

by bruin8uclap on Mar 7, 2008 7:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

That was most certainly a foul

and although (from a Stanford perspective) you could argue that a that juncture of the game, there should be a "let them play" mentality by the refs, no one should be calling that play "insane" or a "make up call". As a Stanford player said, DC still had to make the FTs. And then we still had to go and win it in OT.

After that quote in the paper (which I'm sure all the refs read) DC likely won't be getting the benefit of the doubt on any calls from here on out from them (Pac 10 refs)....I think he may regret saying that.

"I just think, at the end of the day, UCLA is not a great job." Brian D'Oh!n, 12/07

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 7, 2008 7:49 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Disagree but happy nonetheless

Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that the foul was called, but I think deep down we all know that while it may have BEEN a foul, it shouldn't have been called. It wouldn't have been called at any other point in the game and it shouldn't have been called there. If the tables were turned we'd be furious. In fact, take a look at almost any other of the blocked shots in the game and you will see as much or more contact (somewhere - down low, elbows, follow-through, etc.). Sure am happy they did call it, though.

by kballs on Mar 7, 2008 8:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely a foul but...

not always called and could easily have been ignored. The fact that it was called then is bound to raise suspicions of it pandering to the home crowd. It was exacerbated by the announcers ignoring that it was with the body as the ref clearly indicated.

A ref friend of mine said that if a foul wasn't called, then the ref decided the outcome of the game. This way, the player--by making the free throws--decided the outcome of the game, that, plus the overtime. He said if it was already tied, you don't call it.

That said, many many people on this site sure would be howling about it if it was the other way around.

by Dodger Hater on Mar 7, 2008 8:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But that's the point, isn't it?

Sure we'd complain if it were they other way around. And we'd complain if there were no call. So would Stanford, if the tables were turned. Bottom line, on a close call at a critical juncture, someone will complain, call, no call, either way.

It was a foul. It was called. DC made the free throws. We won in overtime. End of story (I can only hope).

"I just think, at the end of the day, UCLA is not a great job." Brian D'Oh!n, 12/07

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 7, 2008 9:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You Cannot Look At One Call Out Of Context

The game wasn't decided by that one call or any one call.

You really have to look at the entire body of work -- and when you do, you will see many questionable calls. In a close game, any one of those calls can be seen as "the call" that changed the game.

It does not matter that "the call" was made at the end of the game. There were more than enough bad calls, earlier in the game that changed the score.

The real issue here is how consistently bad our SPTR's are. They have turned many a game -- and may have turned this one, and I don't mean by the Collison call. Since I was a very young kid, I've understood that you can't dribble the ball with two hands on it at the same time. Called missed and Stanford scores. Just seconds before the DC call an obvious no call on a charge, and Stanford scores.

All people make mistakes and ref's are no different.

But to shine a bright light on one call, at the end of a game, as the "determining call" distorts that consistently poor officiating had on the entire game -- and in reality has had on the entire season.

sjh

One of the first threads I read when I joined BN a couple years ago was written by Nestor. He was calling for better selection of and training for Pac 10 officials. We've seen their weaknesses in both football and basketball. I'm with whoever it was, in this thread, who said he'd prefer to play games before officials from another conference.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 7, 2008 10:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's hard to calm down

after a game like this. Adrenaline still running through (or it's the alcohol after). Glad I attended the game.

How was the noise level btw? I thought it was the loudest I've ever heard Pauly.

by LYC on Mar 7, 2008 7:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Furd

I have to give Furd credit. I think they could beat Memphis, NC, Tennessee or Kansas. But our boys have something special this year. That is why banner #12 is coming to Pauley in April.

by bruin75 on Mar 7, 2008 7:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

it was a bad call.

yes the block was clean, and yes there was some body contact lower down, but not nearly enough to warrant a foul call. but who cares! college refs are terrible, so that's the way it is. sorry furd. we won!!!

by jjreicher on Mar 7, 2008 8:11 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Best Quote of the Night....

I was at the game last night. It was loud (mostly in the second half and OT) and even many of the "blue hairs" around me who never stand, except to gingerly come and go, were up cheering.

The first half was painful to watch. We played tight. No shots were falling, we didn't handle the ball well and they played really well, exectuing their offense and playing stout defense. The crowd reflected our teams tension and really struggled to get in the game during the first half.

Now to the quote. The guy I share season tix with had this to say about Josh Shipp. "He belongs on the back of a Milk Carton. He has been missing the whole game." No truer words could have bee said. He was the only starter not to score in double figures, looked really tenative on offense, missed some early free throws and never got into the flow. Save for that one three pointer in the Second half, he never found his groove.

Now, I love JS. He played great D last night on Finger, Goode et al holding them to below season averages in scoring. But come Tourney time, I think we're going to need much more from him to go as deep as many think we should go. He needs to get his swagger back. He needs to stop passing up open looks. Almost always when guys are running at him, he takes that quick dribble, lets the guy pass him, but has been reluctant to take that open look, instead trying to drive or pass it back to the guards. These type of shots are well within our offensive sets and ones JS needs to be taking to streach defenses.

Admittedly, just like many around me, I counted our boys out when Stanford went up by 11 with under 5 minutes to play. I regret giving up. My wife was stalwart, never giving up hope, chastising me for my negativity. I think it was her positive vibe that carried our boys to victory. I certainly didn't help.

Whew.... is all I can say. That was an emotional rollercoaster and I"m glad to get off the ride with a W.

Go Bruins.....!!

by Bald Eagle on Mar 7, 2008 8:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

You sort of countered your own point

when you wrote "Shipp was the only starter not to score in double figures". With DC, Love, LRMAM, and RW all scoring effecively, don't we need Shipp to do the other things, like defense, rebounding, assists and a timely jump shot here and there?

While I would agree that having Shipp get hot would be a feather in our cap come tourney time, I don't think we need to keep bringing up his lack of scoring, especially when he's helping us win by doing the other things. There are few teams, if any, out there that will have all 5 starters scoring in double figures. I have come to the conclusion that Shipp may be more valuable as a role player on this team, and as long as keeps making everyone better around him, we'll be fine.

"I just think, at the end of the day, UCLA is not a great job." Brian D'Oh!n, 12/07

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 7, 2008 8:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

When Josh was a freshman

people praised him for his versatility. That's what earned him respect in the eyes of most people. He's not the rebounder he once was as a freshman, but that's mostly because Luc cleans the glass for us now. He's got so many other skills to offer this team and I'd never want him to give up the things he does on both ends of the floor to be a spot up shooter.

by Tydides on Mar 7, 2008 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

More Shipp

Thank goodness he makes up for it at the defensive end. He was supposed to be one of our offensive stars this year. He's a junior, been in the system the longest and he started off the season really hot. So as his numbers and offensive effeciency have dropped during the season, it has been alarming to most.

You point is a great one. I too have to resign myself to the reality that he is a key role player, and not much more.

by Bald Eagle on Mar 7, 2008 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If he wasn't BALD eagle

He'd be the blue hair!

As for the call, it was a bad one, but before you lynch me, it was one of 20+ bad calls or bad no-calls last night. For example, Stanford CLEARLY charged on the play before at the other end of the court. I'm sick so watched the game at home and on TV it was very clear the officials were unusually bad on both sides of the ball all game. That's basketball, unfortunately... (Also, there was a time in OT the clock didn't start when we were bringing up the ball with the lead -- how does that happen on your HOME court!?!) But overall it was a good thing we were at home and pulled out this win.

by greatgymnasticschool on Mar 7, 2008 8:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I resemble that remark......

GGS, I hope you enjoyed watching the game in the fetal position in your fleece jumper clenching the ticket to the game you gave up.

xoxox

by Bald Eagle on Mar 7, 2008 11:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Earlier Bad Call - Double Dribble

A foul can be a hard call to make.

An easier one to make is double dribble and the refs couldn't even make that on (I think it was Johnson) an easy one right in front of them earlier in the second half - when we were desparately trying to get back in the game

by mizzou on Mar 7, 2008 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Game

Last nights game was my first. I had never attended a men's basketball game and found myself searching the ticket exchange website. I found two tickets in section 205b row 11. It was not the first time I thought about buying tickets but something about this game felt different. I hit the purchase button and called the wife to tell her we were going somewhere special after work. At first, she was a little unhappy because of the ticket price...but that quickly wore off once she realized we were going to attend a UCLA basketball game at Pauley Pavilion. I made sure to wear my UCLA gear including my Bearhead foam hat. That was by far the best experience I've ever had. I had lost my voice by halftime but somehow was able to keep screaming until the last second of OT. I did feel like a newbie because I didn't know how to 8 clap properly...although after a few times I got the hang of it. Seeing the banners, the band, the student section and all of the game traditions were amazing.

by king James on Mar 7, 2008 8:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Howland timeouts

last night were good, especially the one towards the very end of the game when we came within like 5 points for the last time and he called a timeout with the ball going back to Stanford. It gave the Bruins a chance to regroup for the next defensive possession. Stanford was so good last night at answering back but we've got a tough group. It was like a boxing fight and the warriors prevailed!

by bruin95 on Mar 7, 2008 8:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Foul or No Foul

It is unfortunate when one call becomes the basis for judging 40 (or in this case 45) minutes of basketball. I will be the first to admit the refs have a tough job. The refs miss calls the same way players miss easy lay ups. Afterall, they are human and what they do is much more of an art than a science. It is unfortunate when the outcome of a game is impacted by a referee's judgement, but we should all remember that bad calls are just another aspect of the game. It all comes down the the players. If you don't want to be in a position where one call can affect the outcome of the game, then get a bigger lead. One nice thing about basketball, one bad call usually does not have more than a four point impact. If you score say 60 points in a game, that is only 6% of the total score. In football a bad call could change the score by as much as 14 points. Potentially, a far greater impact on the outcome of the game.

by Bruin77 on Mar 7, 2008 8:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Great quote this morning by John Ireland

Calling into that terrible First Take show on ESPN where he said that this game was the type of game both teams had to win despite the officiating, and that it goes both ways (charging calls, various walks, etc.)

Of course DC took over the game in the end, but one constant throughout besides KL was Luc's great play. It's amazing that, when he's healthy, he continues to give the team so many intangibles that can't be accounted for elsewhere. But then I checked the linked box score from Nestor and I see that he may have posted the quietest double double in history.

What a great day, and I sure hope the team sends off Lorenzo right!

by bruinhopeful on Mar 7, 2008 8:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Whether or not it was a foul is irrelevant.

I don't know about you guys, but I found the announcers incredibly inept and annoying the entire game. But their insistence that the Bruins only won the game because they got a "lucky call", in the last few seconds of regulation, is idiotic. The first reason why it is idiotic is because Darren Collison still had to make the free throw shots. The announcers addressed that, so I give them credit for that. But the second reason is that the Stanford player touched it last. Therefore, it still would have been UCLA ball, and they still would have had a chance to make a basket or get fouled. Implying that the game never should have gone into overtime is simply irresponsible journalism on the part of FSN. Inexcusable.

by ARez on Mar 7, 2008 9:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Excellent point..

But the second reason is that the Stanford player touched it last. Therefore, it still would have been UCLA ball, and they still would have had a chance to make a basket or get fouled.

Not made in all of the other commentary about this play. True they would have only had 2.5 seconds but I recall watching a Laker game where Magic canned one from the corner on an in-bound play to beat the hated Celtics with about that much time left.

I am sure there are numerous other times it's occurred as well.

God, it's great to be a Bruin!

by whp68 on Mar 7, 2008 9:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Derek Fisher

That shot was one for the ages.

by bornagainbruin on Mar 7, 2008 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The MLS

Don't forget the Matt Lee show, as he is a senior and will be graduating as well.

by lolwtferic on Mar 7, 2008 9:14 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

INCREDIBLE WIN

I also want to add how impressed I was with the class the Stanford team showed. I used to really hate the Furd program built by Montgomery.

But gotta say Johnson is a very classy coach. Saw his players constantly helping our guys off the floor when they fell down. Gracious comments before and after the game. I will be rooting for them hard during the Madness.

They just seemed like bunch of great kids just like our guys.

Last night's game was better than DUKE-UNC. IMO. Too bad we had a shitty FSN broadcasting team almost ruin it.

Go Bruins!!

by bluestreet on Mar 7, 2008 9:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I have to echo those sentiments

The Stanford players are a class act on the floor, just like ours. I'd love to see them in the final-4, which is a real possibility.

by bornagainbruin on Mar 7, 2008 1:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Another reason why the trip up to Stanford for Football is always a pleasure, the majority of fans and alumni there are class acts and very welcoming. A nice change from say, Oregon, ASU and of course USC.

by greatgymnasticschool on Mar 7, 2008 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Chicken little jackasses at the game

Last night, I noticed there were different people I had never seen before sitting behind me at the game, and they were also shouting stupid nonsense like, "Shipp sucks, blah blah, pull him out." Finally, I had to just turn around, and tell them to shut the F up or I'd punch them in the face.

Actually, I didn't, but I wanted to, so I just gave them the stinkeye.

by stevenucla on Mar 7, 2008 9:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

One gripe I have

And I was going to save this for after the season, is that the makeup of The Den is changing, and I'm not sure it's for the better. I've noticed far more comments from people who are most likely new coming off with a sense of entitlement. They don't know all the players (and yes, knowing ALL the players is your duty as a Den member) much less the strengths and weaknesses of each player, so you get a lot of ignorant comments when things aren't going our way. Maybe it's just the rantings of a guy who had to sit through the end of the dark years ('03) but some of these people don't realize that what we have now didn't come easy and that irritates me. Yes, believe it or not, there was a drubbing we took at the hands of Arizona in Pauley over the past 5 years. It seems hard to imagine now that we've beaten them 7 straight, but those that were there to watch us struggle have earned their stripes. Maybe a watching of select games from Howland's first year or any of Lavin's years should be mandatory for incoming freshman who want season tickets.

by Tydides on Mar 7, 2008 10:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Even in the 80's

we had to work for some victories. When Ralph Miller was coaching at Oregon State, they were never an easy "W". Nothing is given in this world, and in sports, where someone is actively working to make sure you don't succeed, it's especially true. Give full support to the team, while being objective about the game, and have fun!

I missed most of the game, as I had to pick the wife up at the airport, after she had a miserable travel day, with a flight canceled due to the snow in Dallas. I check the score with my phone a couple times, but I was overjoyed at the final score. After watching the first 8 minutes of the game, I certainly didn't expect the barn burner that it became. I shoulda tivo'd it....

Bob O. (Signholder #3)

by TuneMan7 on Mar 7, 2008 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I will only complain about the offense

when the Camaroonians start taking perimeter jump shots. That's when I know the offense is out of sync. Whenever that happens, BH should just call a time out, whether they make it or not.

Their game is around the basket, looking for layups and cleaning the boards.

"I just think, at the end of the day, UCLA is not a great job." Brian D'Oh!n, 12/07

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 7, 2008 9:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Down 7

in the second half when AA2 took that jump shot - I threw my remote control!

by bluestreet on Mar 7, 2008 9:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nearly got up

and walked out of Pauley when that shot clanked out.... UUGHHHHH!!

by Bald Eagle on Mar 7, 2008 11:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And...

Aboya came out of the game at the next dead ball and I don't think he ever came back in.

CBH, if he had one, would've thrown the remote at him.

by mizzou on Mar 7, 2008 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Pauley Crowd

Is the crowd at pauley usually quiet and in their seats? I noticed a lot of the older people in the crowd did not like standing and screaming. I wanted to stand the whole game and cheer but everytime I turned around I kept getting dirty looks from people sitting behind me. I guess its not easy to look around or over a 6'3 350 pound man. I will say that everyone around me was standing with about two minutes left in the game and OT.
Oh, also I wanted to add that I think that was a foul and if it wasn't then it was a make up call for the no call on the other end. Also, they missed about 5 or 6 travel calls on the lopez twins. Those guys need to work on their footwork because it was horrible.

by king James on Mar 7, 2008 9:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

You could see on TV

everyone getting up and rising during the last two minutes. It seemed like everyone stood during OT also. That was nice to see, since on TV it doesn't look like much of the crowd is standing much of the game, outside of the student section.

by freesia39 on Mar 7, 2008 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I know it's been said before...

But I absolutely LOVE the fact that, in almost every game, we (i.e. Coach Howland) make solid half-time adjustments. It's the sign of great coaching, and it comes up huge in the tourney.

by Durant on Mar 7, 2008 10:16 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yes!

That is one of the things I appreciate most. It's nice knowing that, no matter what, we always have a chance to win the game.

by truebluebruin on Mar 7, 2008 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Foul, Offense, Destiny, and Stanford

In my opinion the last play was not a foul, and it wasn't that close. Kevin Love made more contact on 5 consecutive hedge plays on M. Johnson (where Kevin Love bumps the point guard at the top of the key) then Hill made on Collison. I don't think it should have been called. However, give Collison credit for taking it in strong. Also, though I don't agree with the call, I do not think it was a crazy or insane call. It's like a court of appeal reviewing a trial court's decision for abuse of discretion: the court of appeal may disagree, but the appellate court can only overturn the trial court if it's an abuse of discretion. The ref didn't abuse his discretion on the last call in my opinion.

Offense. I thought it was overmatched for most of the game by a good stout Stanford Defense. And in the second half, it was like one on five at times (Collison v. Stanford). Westbrook hit some big shots, and Love's numbers were good at the end of the day, but as the game developed, I thought neither player was a difference maker until the very end. Shipp is still without confidence, and he has disappeared. I feel for him. Someone suggested Collison play the 2 and let Westbrook run the point--that's not a bad idea. Shipp is struggling. He is doing some other things to contribute--which is great--but in my opinion we cannot win a champtionship without his shooting from the outside. In other words, we NEED him to break out. Without him we have only one very good perimeter shooter--and that is not enough.

Destiny. I hope so baby.

Stanford. I give them all the credit in the world. I was almost sad wathcing the game last night. Not because we were going to lose, but because we were losing to a better team in our conference. The Lopez twins were amazing, and their guards played their roles to perfection. We stole a victory in my opinion, and they deserved to win. I thought Love played well and smart, but the Lopez twins were better and dominant.

I think Stanford is VERY deserving of a # 2 seed, and I hope they get it. They are terrific. And as much as I hate the Cardinal sometimes, I can't say enough about their composure after the game. They said all the right things, and gave credit to UCLA. Very impressive.

I hope this game scares the sh*t out of our team. Stanford looked better, and played better almost the entire game. Collison was the difference, and we still needed a (small) gift at the end to send it to OT. We can be great, but I hope this game instills a little humility in us. Not that we are over confident, but humility is always a good thing to be reminded of. This was the biggest game of the year to date, and I think we got outplayed on our home floor. That is scary, but in this case, hopefully good scary.

Go Bruins!

by rfirpo on Mar 7, 2008 10:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm not worried

How many teams have TWO skilled seven-footers AND good coaching? Furd is going to do some serious damage in the tournament and could go far with a little better guard play. And we beat them. Twice.

It's been three years now that people have been saying that we don't have an offense and we won't go far in the tourney...I think we will prove them wrong once again and hopefully bring home #12.

by tasser10 on Mar 7, 2008 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

not the foul but the OT that counts

i think we stepped it up in the second half, so while yes stanford played one helluva of a game, we fought too.

And about the foul. Everyone keeps acting as if that foul and the following free throws won the game for us. It's not. It put us into overtime, where we won the game for ourselves. If stanford really was the better team, then in the five more minutes of play they wouldn't have fallen apart and played that same game they did in the first 5 minutes. Don't get me wrong, Stanford played an amazing 40 minutes, i want nothing but success for them in the tourney, they are a classy well coached effecient team, but we won that game in that OT, and Stanford had the same five minutes to do that too

by uCla on Mar 7, 2008 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Great Game!

The way our intensity just blew up in the second half is really great to see. I made a comment not to long ago about our 3's and I still think they need some work but love and collison sunk some pretty important 3s too, but I will back down a little by saying if we can bring that kind of intensity with the defense we saw in the second half, and the ability for us o switch our game plan that quickly in the second half, I'm not afraid of playing in the tournament, just cautious. Go Bruins!!

by UCLABRU1 on Mar 7, 2008 10:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

A cause for celebration or concern?

The call the Bruins received at the end may well be the difference in whether they make it back to the Final Four and hang banner #12. The road would have been much more difficult if they had lost and would have been sent back East.

Still, I am concerned. How can a team playing for the conference title at home come out so flat? Not just for a the first 10 minutes but for the entire first half. That was awful and a better, more athletic team would have burried the Bruins.

Bigger concerns are the Bruins lack of bench scoring (0 points) and outside shooting. I feel Shipp will get hot and that will take care of the shooting but right now the Bruins are not very deep. I don't want to think what would happen if both DC and RW get into foul trouble in the tourny.

richramus

by richramus on Mar 7, 2008 10:30 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

lol

A more athletic team would have killed us? I am shuddering at the thought of other teams out there that features 2 elite 7 footers (one of them who is a lottery pick) to go along with another skilled 6'10 guy. Yeah Stanford is not an elite/athletic team. Okay then.

by bluestreet on Mar 7, 2008 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

OK to be concerned

But we are still 27-3. At this point, it's not luck anymore. These kids are finding a way to win. All of these "IF...THEN..." statements are getting old. Guess what, if other teams score more points than we do, we lose. But they don't, somehow. And it's not the referees, luck, or anything else. Give a little credit to our players and coaches.

Furthermore, UCLA has now played 4 games against two teams that, if I am not mistaken, are in the top 10 defensively in the country (Stanford and U$C). In fact, I think Stanford may be better than us on defense, at least statistically. We are 3-1 in those games.

"A better and more athletic team would have burried [sic] the Bruins". OK...where is that team? Is there a team out there that is more athletic than the Bruins AND better defensively? Maybe Kansas? And we already beat them when it counted. There is no point in putting us up against imaginary foes. If the Bruins played the Lakers, they would lose. Thanks.

Yes, the bench scoring and outside shooting are of concern. But guess what: without those, we just beat the #7 team in the country. I wouldn't want to test us repeatedly, but that's impressive. Great teams find a way to win when nothing is going well for them. Have some faith.

by tasser10 on Mar 7, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Even more impressive

are these wins against NCAA tournament teams (or teams on the bubble)on the road:

at Stanford
at Cal
at Washington St.
at Oregon
at SUC
at Arizona St.
at Arizona

Name any team in the country with that impressive of a road resume.

"I just think, at the end of the day, UCLA is not a great job." Brian D'Oh!n, 12/07

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 7, 2008 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A lot of opinions from the Bay Area Papers

ooooh boy. As a Bay Area girl, I still regularly read the San Jose Mercury News and the SF Chronicle for my news fix during the day.

Tim Kawakami blogs about everything Bay Area sports, and he started off saying Stanford was robbed.
Click me
He echoes what a lot of other people are echoing up North - the call was made by a side official and not by the one staring right at the play. And that Pac-10 refs suck, but that's common knowledge by now. Also in the comments, a lot of um... "fans" are ragging on Coach Neuheisel, and it would be nice if they could have kept their comments in the SAME SPORT.

Jon Wilner runs the College Hotline blog (and has a vote in the AP Poll.)
Click me"
He's more forgiving, pointing out some of Stanford's flaws in the game (How do you not box out RW on a free throw?!) The comments here are criticizing the last couple of buckets we scored when the game was nearly over and Stanford didn't make an effort to foul us. NEVER SAY NEVER, we remember the WSU game.

The San Francisco Chronicle though, the commenters there are nonstop and some can be a bit cruel.
Chronicle article

I took greatest offense to the comment demeaning our 100 championships, practically screaming that only 10 should count, as the Harrick championship doesn't, and neither does the rest, as they were all won by women's sports. Ugh. He's not even a Stanford Fan (obviously a Cal Fan) but ugh. Talk about the game!

The comments about the officiating mostly mirror what goes on here - the Pac 10 Refs are horrible, and make up calls are the way of the land. What I'd want to point out is if you're going to beat us in Pauley, be thorough about it and not play almost all of the game, because that won't work against Darren Collison, Russell Westbrook and Kevin Love coming at you, determined to win.

by freesia39 on Mar 7, 2008 10:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Bay area clowns

bitter bitches.

by bluestreet on Mar 7, 2008 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Poor babies

Suck it up, clowns. Newsflash NorCal, you lost. Enjoy your silver medal.

by Tydides on Mar 7, 2008 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Merc, freesia...

please don't say so! Started boycotting that paper the first time I read Skip Bayless (biggest hack in the world of sports journalism - makes the fishwrap's motley crew sound like decent writers). Even if the guy has left the paper for tWWL, the fact that its management would have given him a job for that long is a rather damning indictment.

As far as the Chronicle commenters, that is par for the course. If you want cruel and offensive, try reading the comments following a murder in Oakland. Makes one wonder how some people become so twisted.

by bruinhoo on Mar 7, 2008 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the only thing about the Merc

that I enjoy is Mr. Roadshow. I even got my letter printed in there once. He actually gets stuff done relating to the roads! Otherwise, it's just for the local news. Only so much LA I can take at a time. It's funny to read the Stanford/Cal side of the story sometimes.

by freesia39 on Mar 7, 2008 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

100 championships

Here is the breakdown of the 100 championships-

Men's Tennis- 16
Men's Track- 8
Men's Basketball- 11
Men's Water Polo- 8
Men's Volleyball- 19
Men's Swimming- 1
Men's Gymnastics- 2
Men's Soccer- 4
Men's Golf- 1
Women's Softball- 10
Women's Track- 5
Women's Volleyball- 3
Women's Golf- 2
Women's Gymnastics- 5
Women's Water Polo- 5

So the Berkeley fan was almost right with his comment that 90 of the 100 came from women's water polo.

Also, it is interesting that a Berkeley fan would suggest that Harrick's team should vacate its title. People in glass houses... Todd Bozeman received a 10 year do not hire edict based on his actions at Cal. Also, UCLA does not have any retired jersey for a player who took his team to one sweet-16 and then turned pro after his sophomore year (like, say Jason Kidd, whose jersey hangs in Haas).

What a joke.

by islandbruin on Mar 7, 2008 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Side official?

One of the things that bugs me the most is referees making calls on plays I can't imagine they saw - when there's a body (or two) between them and the ball, or the play. Generally, I would completely agree with Kawakami's comment. At the same time, I don't see how you can say that the ref's positioning in and of itself makes it the wrong call. The backside guy calls them all the time, unfortuantely.

by jaffa on Mar 8, 2008 12:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not One Game at a Time ---

I think our focus has to be one defensive sequence at a time.

When we ratchet down, we win.

When we don't play our D on every sequence, we fall behind.

On this team, D is the key to victory. When we play D, we will score enough points to win. Our O may not be pretty, but it gets it done so long as the D is playing all out, CBH D.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 7, 2008 10:51 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Some Rough Numerical Analysis

I'm an 03/05 alum and have been browsing this site for quite a while but this is my first post - I apologize in advance if any of this has been discussed before. First off, I must admit that I'm truly excited about this team and its chances in the tournament. Living on the East Coast now, it was difficult for me to watch last night's LATE game (it was amazingly on tv here) - but I stuck through it, despite the ugly first half. One of the reasons is the following:

I've been frustrated this season over UCLA seemingly either blowing big leads or falling behind big and then coming back to win (or almost win as in the case of Texas). I took a look at first and second half scoring margins in all of their games and noticed some trends.

In games where UCLA outscores their opponents by 10 or more in the first half:
Number of games: 15 (out of 30)
Avg. 1st half spread: 16.93
Avg. 2nd half spread: 7.73
Difference: -9.2

In games where UCLA is outscored in the first half:
Number of games: 7 (out of 30)
Avg. 1st half spread: -7.43
Avg. 2nd half spread: 11.71
Difference: 19.14

In general, UCLA is scoring about 4 more points in the second half than the first. Ok, so this is really a quick and dirty analysis - and doesn't involve rate stats or large sample sizes, which makes it prone to inaccuracy, but it's telling. When UCLA is up big, they tend to then relax a bit: this, of course, is normal among many good teams - and is in large part due to the starters sitting with a big lead. Still, I'd like to see this second half margin closer to the first half margin.

Now, the most interesting part. In the 7 games where UCLA was outscored in the first half, they've outscored their opponents by almost 12 points in the second half. I have to first and foremost give Ben Howland props for his coaching - I'm certain that this huge discrepency has a lot to do with halftime adjustments. But this is also scary. There is a clear trend that UCLA falls behind only to rely on their clamp down D in the 2nd half - and frankly, it doesn't take numbers to tell you that this is true.

Remember, this includes all of their early games against cupcakes. A more detailed analysis might use more relevant stats (compare offensive/defensive efficiency in each half, perhas) and perhaps only use conference (or relevant) games. In the tournament, UCLA cannot pull their favorite staple and fall behind big only to think they can come back. Against truly great teams deep into the tournament, this won't work. They also can't let up against some of the early-round opponents. This is our year - 3 straight pac 10 championships, 3 straight 30+ win seasons (probably). One game at a time.

by inline00 on Mar 7, 2008 11:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think even more telling

about your stats is that the Bruins have been outscored in the 1st half only 7 out of 30 games (23%), despite playing one of the toughest schedules in the country.

"I just think, at the end of the day, UCLA is not a great job." Brian D'Oh!n, 12/07

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 7, 2008 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

2nd half vs 1st half margin

This is what I remember from Howland's first Final Four team two years ago. Starting with a game near the end of the season against Stanford (I think it was at Stanford), whatever the Bruins half time lead was, they at least doubled it. They gave new meaning to the word relentless. Watching that game and the game after, I was also struck by how they never let anyone go on any runs against them until Florida.

Of course, my memory might be faulty, but that's what it seemed like.

by Chandler on Mar 7, 2008 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

toss up

I definitely think it remains a tossup to win it among the top teams. I think this team has it in them to be better than the rest, but the offense stagnates too much in my opinion. Does anyone think they nearly consistently come out tight for a reason? I have thought prehaps Howland is so defense first perhaps they use the 1st 20 seconds of the shot clock to rest themselves. Or the players are taking a break or something given the demand placed on them on defense. As a top team or favorite I would rather see us attacking or trying to attack an entire shot clock rather than the final 15 seconds. At this point I don't want to see anyone shoot a 3 except Collison. I think Shipp should abandon the 3 except when wide open until he can re-establish himself as a threat to the basket. RW, DC and Shipp need to play with reckless abandon and go by these guys especially in a man. They also need to not worry about missing once they go buy the 1st man because we have 2 of the best offensive rebounders in the country. I think attack mode from the beginning on offense will change everything. I don't like waiting for our defensive intensity in the 2nd half to bail us out because in a tournament winning 6 straight will be highly unlikely like that.

Don't get me wrong this is a very good team with as a good a chance as any of the top teams to win a title. I would feel much better about it if I felt this team controlled it's own destiny a little more rather than leaving their fate to officiating and luck.

And I do think that was a bad call when DC was fouled, but 5 seconds earlier there was an equally bad no call when Love was run over with what should have been a charge. I call that a draw. Secondly if they had not called a foul UCLA would have had the ball out of bounds with 2 seconds left under the basket. So one could say UCLA could have won in regulation with a 3 or a 3-pt play and Stanford was lucky to get 5 more minutes to prove themselves. Or UCLA could have missed and Stanford gotten the win. But it is wildly premature to assume a Stanford win if that foul were not called. My 2 cents on that debate.

by Penny2i on Mar 7, 2008 11:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm sorry...

are you a coach? Where does your intimate knowledge of basketball and of this team come from? To sit here and double-guess Ben Howland, who just took his team to 27-3 and a third straight Pac-10 championship, is beyond ridiculous. "RW, DC and Shipp need to play with reckless abandon". What a crock of cow dung. They need to play however Ben Howland wants them to play.

No wonder John Wooden retired. Fans like you make even the biggest victories unpleasant. Hey, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I sure hope you never bring this up to anyone on our team. I find it shameful.

by tasser10 on Mar 8, 2008 8:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Shipp

Even though Josh was only 1 for 9 last night, I thought he made good choices. His shots were good shots that just weren't good enough. He took more shots than at Arizona when Packer was dogging him but didn't shoot too much when he knew they weren't falling.

by mizzou on Mar 7, 2008 11:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Kinda disagree

I'm worried less about the shots he took vs. the ones he didn't. He needs to work on the quick fake, one dribble in and pop after guys run at him. He passess up way too many open looks that could get him rolling. And it seems when he misses a couple he crawls in a shell and his whole demeanor changes. We just can't have him shooting 10 or 11% from 3pt land. We need more productivity from him if we expect to hang that 12th banner.

by Bald Eagle on Mar 7, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs