Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Tottenham's Plans for Northumberland Stadium Approved

By the pricking of my thumbs...

Only in Westwood would losing two of the top freshman anywhere in the land register on the scale of "wicked", but I'm sitting here wrapping up the week's work bracing myself for the inevitability of a certain press conference that is sure to leave me shaking my head in just under an hour.

Star-divide

No quotes, citations or references in this post. Just one, long time member of the Bruin family wondering, "If Kevin Love, bolts after one partially successful (by Bruin standards) season, then there is simply no hope or future for building college basketball programs anywhere in the nation."

Now granted, like the short debate I just got into with a family member about a bunch of underachieving scholarship football players ditching class, I speak from a position of relative ignorance. I didn't rush, I didn't walk-on, I didn't run for student government. In fact, as social a creature as I was (and am), I didn't hang out much on campus. I didn't have time. For me, it was pretty much all business: I transferred in, took the 560 to and from the Valley, worked my ass off and did what the f*** I had to do (both then and now) to get the job done and uphold what's become family rite: Being a Bruin.

My campus experience was truncated and evidently much less cathartic than most. I grew up never more than 20-miles removed and a couple weeks between visits to UCLA. Thanks to my dad and bro, I always considered being on campus as being home. Years later, I take my little ones there so they can develop that same excited connection to Campus as was ingrained in me.

I mention all this because as I sit here waiting to hear our boy Kevin Love say he wants what's behind curtain #2, I can't help but wonder WHY. WHY??? Then of course, right afterward, I feel more than a little silly -- like a kid talking about life in America before he was even born:

I ain't 19 and I ain't 6'8" staring $6.5M in the face. I know all that.

But what I don't know is, past the great regular season, the conference championship and a third run to the Final Four, what the hell did we just get out of hosting this (and the other) freshman's' time at the school? And, if a kid who (1) doesn't "need" the money, (2) comes from a smart, stable background (3) didn't do what most every every athlete at UCLA strives for (win a NC) and (4) whose stock WILL ONLY RISE next season with the incoming class doesn't stay.. then why would ANY athlete who comes to this or any other university EVER stay past his/her freshman year once he/she gets the benefit of a few dozen press write ups and awards?

The answer is NONE unless somebody does something to up the ante for incoming athletes and their parents (like say a 2-year commitment or a new NBA age limit), because as college basketball fans, it has become painfully evident that we truly have nothing sustainable to look forward to year in and year out with regard to our schools, their teams and the insatiable and destructive draw that professional organizations like the NBA now represent. Hell, you'd think with all the recent flops of underdeveloped talent guys like Stern have seen and written off (in the $100's of M), they'd WANT recruits with a bit more seasoning than 2-3 years of towering over kids who weren't going any further themselves?!?

In short, something has to change before the heart of the sport is totally ripped out of it. And while I've never been one to even think of lobbying the immovable blue bloods of the NCAA for anything beyond mandating their athletes get a decent shot at an education, I believe in my heart that this whole thing needs to change.  

At some point, an element of stability must be introduced into the system so that the department, the program, the roster and most importantly the instructor (coach) maintains the ability to impart the knowledge, training and experience he/she's been chartered to impart to his/her students... and we just won't get there like this.

I for one am totally against Love (and RW and the others) leaving this early, especially when his (their) risks/returns next season and beyond are all to the upside. But like I said, I didn't get that full ride; My mom wrote checks. I didn't get to ride on the team plane; I took the bus. So obviously, my views are tainted (if not a tad morbid) and I may not have the slightest clue what these kids and their families are dealing with.

Either way, Nestor, by the time today's done, I will undoubtedly owe you that drink we talked about.  Alas, I prayed and figured against all hope and logic that it wouldn't come to this.

But it has.  

Anyway, we'll always love you guys (Kevin, RW, et. al.).

Respect,

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.

Comment 22 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

The one-and-done rule
is bad for both colleges and the NBA, I think.

For colleges, the recruitment of excellent players, normally a good thing, ensures that their players will not stay for long. So, short of deliberately recruiting average players, their teams will constantly be in upheaval.

Recent NCAAs, I think, are prime examples, wherein an upstart with several well-coached 3rd and 4th-year players, such as Butler, George Mason, or Davidson, can (for one game, anyway) overcome a team with young superstars.

For NBA teams, the fear of missing out on the next LeBron or Kobe will continue to drive teams to raid the university cupboards. Some of these youngsters will make the leap; some not so much; some, will languish on the bench.

Those that make it will have received less coaching than had they stayed in college longer. There will be no shortage of ESPN highlights. But, the skill level and the team play of the league, overall, will be diluted.

In college football, you can't bolt until after your Junior season. I'd like to see the same rule applied to college basketball. As is, colleges are merely the unsupported farm system for the NBA.

I don't blame KL, RW, or anybody who leaves early. They're only playing the hand that they've been dealt. The rigged game is the problem, not the players.

by Bruinut on Apr 17, 2008 3:57 PM PDT reply actions  

Points made..
Both make good points but we labor with the same problems other college programs do and, in a way, are better off. Since the academics here are harder, a lot of prospects won't be eligible so the ones we do get might be a little more apt to stay on than the "leisure management" crowd who are Memphis "one-and-dones". They will also have to pass Ben Howland's criteria for selection so -- as demonstrated -- they will have the talent to make serious runs at a high finish each year (not to mention providing exciting basketball).

A second point is that, in a perverse way, UCLA might actually benefit from the one-and-done scenario based on Love's, RW's, and DC's making it in the pros. I know this is a stretch, but people will see how RW and DC were developed at UCLA and how KL refined his formidable skills under CBH and they might be more apt to come here than some fly-by-night franchise where "one-and-done" means that their one appearance in the final four is the only one for the decade.

I realize the two points above are a stretch (and somewhat contradictory) but work with me here; I never won a lot of debating contests but have sold a lot of software users on "features" that were really "bugs". Hey, it's a living.

Finally, there's a lot of mumbling around the internet that the NBA is not happy with the one-and-done. Again, take that with whatever grain of salt you might have lying around. This, supposedly, for several reasons, chief among them that they kids really aren't that mature (they would like two years in college) and that -- get this -- raiding the colleges for talent that has only one year of longevity actually trivializes then fan interest. The Euros (players not currency) and young kids do not bring a fan base with them hence they speculate declining fan interest. Think back to when Alcindor and Walton came out, when Magic and Bird and Jordan joined the league. All had more than one year and had tremendous fan appeal. Of course, these are reducto ad absurdum examples but similar cases could be made on a smaller scale for two- and three-year players.

I also hear that the current players are not excited about the flood of fresh competition here either.

Maybe I am grasping at straws here and maybe things will change; yeah, and maybe pigs will start flying out of my Southern orifice, too..

..but we are a lot better off than other schools. While we might be losing three very talented basketball players, we can expect a steady stream of new ones and some exciting round ball in '09 and '10 and '11 and..

God, it's great to be a Bruin!

by whp68 on Apr 17, 2008 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

If you're grasping at straws,
then I'm living in the wrong century. I miss:
  • Freshmen ineligible. Real students. Real college. And, it made for a great double-header with the varsity.
  • Baseball, when it was competition between farm systems and player development, not bank accounts and market share.
  • Stadiums were named Dodger Stadium or Wrigley Field, and not Co-BankAmerica Exxon AT&T Budweiser Doritos Park.
  • Attending an NBA game was the thrill of watching Jerry West and Elgin Baylor and Dick Barnett, while listening to Chick Hearn on a transistor radio, and not a total assault on the eyes and ears. NBA games today, if I can generalize from my most recent trip to see the Warriors, employ arena-encircling, god-awful flashing video with nonstop ear-splitting "music" and contrived fan boosting. Sheesz. I get a headache thinking about it.
I'd say end of geezer rant, but I'm sure it won't be.

by Bruinut on Apr 17, 2008 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm in Nut's century
I liked real baseball - where guys hustled, and where there was no "designated hitter."  (The best hitter I ever saw was George Brett - if the designated hitter was good, then George should have hit every time.  If he got a hit, then put in Willie Wilson to run for him, and let George go bach and take another hack at it.  So what if it means he would have about 5000 at bats a year, and probably 1600 hits a year.)

I liked the absence of contrived playoffs in all the major sports.  (It seems that more teams make the playoffs in various sports than miss them.)

I liked a 16 team field in the NCAA's, and no conference tournaments.  (Did we really need Mississippi Valley State in the NCAA playoffs?)

I liked the old uniforms - high cut socks look better to me than baggy pants

I liked it when my most urgent medical issues took me to a dermatologist rather than a proctologist.

Now that is really a geezer rant.

by Fox 71 on Apr 17, 2008 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

exempting the short shorts
I'm 100% with you on the state of sports today. Outside of all the pinned-up Bruin lore on my walls as a kid, dad came from the Jack Youngblood/Larry Czonka/Walter Payton/John Matuszak/Ronnie Lott/Otis Sistrunk school of sports, where blue-collar guys REALLY WERE BITTER about the dawning of panzie-ass contract-whores who were more interested in bandaids for their paper cuts and what after-party they were headed to than in playing football (among other sports).

You don't need to be a geezer to want for less entertainment and more competition in American sports.

GO BRUIN BLUE.

by theREAL_LOGAN5 on Apr 18, 2008 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Add an adjective,
such as "so-called," "contrived," or "superficial" in front of "entertainment," and we have a geezer-proof wish list.

The game is the entertainment. The contest is the drama. Everything else is noise. It's why three clowns in a broadcast booth are less than the sum of one good announcer. The game. The game. It's the game, stupid (them, not you).

I'm still shaking my head over the 360-degree video screen I saw at a recent Warriors game. A continuous band of huge flat panels, encircling the entire arena between levels. Constantly flashing, incredibly annoying, continuously trying to draw my eyeballs its way, this monstrosity did everything in its power to distract me from the game.

It's one thing to have to find the game stats among the commecial clutter in the scoreboard. It's another to have to look through a ring of fire to see the damn game.

I presume that this is not the only arena so equipped. I don't need to be "entertained" during time-outs or even during half time. I can examine the stats. I'm happy to watch the teams huddle or, when I can get away with it, the song girls.

If they had let me in for free and charged retail prices for beer, then I could accept that this commercial assault was the price I had to pay. But, on top of NBA tickets and grotesquely inflated concession prices, it's more than a customer should have to bear.

by Bruinut on Apr 18, 2008 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Re: whp68 - What you said MADE SENSE !
It's a done deal, case closed about their departure.

No matter how we analysed the situation, one and done rule is here to stay unless NCAA revokes it.  Until then, we can perhaps enjoy the flip side of the rule's unintended effect, especially for UCLA. There will likely be a steady stream of high profile, exciting recruits arriving for Pauley's enjoyments, albeit on an individual, yearly basis.

Because of Lavin's ineptitude before Howland, UNC, Duke perennially witnessed their star players come and go on a short, one or maximum two year notice  even before the one and done rule existed.

So, cheer on.  Now we're on the same par as these two darling teams of the media.  Billy Packer, Dick Vitale & company will now need to portioning out their swoonings, fawnings, droolings and what other salivating skills they can muster among UNC, Duke and UCLA equally now.

by Htse005 on Apr 18, 2008 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

I like baseball's rule
you can leave after high school, but if you go to college you must go for at least 3 years. This way the LeBron James' of the world don't have to stunt their growth in college when they're clearly ready for the NBA, yet the college game gets stability and a chance to develop.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Apr 17, 2008 4:03 PM PDT reply actions  

and we might even
have junior college basketball start to gain prominence, if the rules were like baseball's .... someone who wanted to go pro, but wasn't quite ready could go ball up at Pierce for a year .....

by Dante on Apr 17, 2008 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's a good rule
But I can't think it would change too much for the NBA. Masses of guys who had no business going pro after high school still left anyway. They're the ones who need the development from college most. In baseball, the players are probably looking at a few years of development either way. With no real farm system and such small rosters in the NBA, there isn't really space for that.

Of course, with Howland, that rule would be fantastic for us.

by jaffa on Apr 17, 2008 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Let's use European and South American
soccer's methods! You sign a kid at 10, place him on your youth team, pay for their education at the team affiliated academy and you "own" the player.

by pocho on Apr 17, 2008 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Then the only relevant college sports
would become the harvard-yale regatta lol..seeing as all our future bruin players would be on the lakers under 18s or in the raiders youth program
O.A.

by Ollie on Apr 18, 2008 12:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

YEP
We need TWO YEARS from your boy/girl, Mr. & Mrs. .001%-of-American-parents. TWO YEARS MINIMUM or none at all thank you very much.
GO BRUIN BLUE.

by theREAL_LOGAN5 on Apr 18, 2008 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

agreed
would be interesting to see if the NBDL would become a legit minor league as a result of such a rule

by insomniacslounge on Apr 17, 2008 5:46 PM PDT reply actions  

"partially successful season"?
Logan ... sorry ... I disagree. And I disagree strongly for reasons I have already articulated.

Don't insult our team's accomplishment from this past season by calling it "partially succesful."

By this Bruin's standards we had a great year. An awesome year. I enjoyed every moment of it. And we established after it was over why we thought it was a great season by the standards here at BN.

If you are going to diminish or dismiss what these kids accomplished this past season, you are going to have to do somewhere else. Not here on BN.

by Nestor on Apr 17, 2008 6:43 PM PDT reply actions  

NP
but in conversation, how else does one frame it? "somewhat.."? "mostly.."? "..very"? "extremely.."? "totally..."?

I struggle for the proper part of speech to position another fantastically-successful-UCLA-basketball-season-that-just-happened-to-conclude-two-wins-short-of -the-stated-goal with.

GO BRUIN BLUE.

by theREAL_LOGAN5 on Apr 18, 2008 12:27 PM PDT reply actions  

no worries
I am with you in sense that it is hard to precisely articulate how we had a great year this past seaso, when the memory of Memphis game is still fresh in our minds. However, you are one of the best writers on BN. I know you didn't mean to diminish this past season. I think you can do better in labeling it as 'partially succesful.' I am sure you will come up w something. Like I said you are too good of a writer ...

by Nestor on Apr 18, 2008 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

ahhight then N.
Maybe this frosty goblet of Hamlet ale will help clear it up...
GO BRUIN BLUE.

by theREAL_LOGAN5 on Apr 18, 2008 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

How about
"an extremely successful season that fell just short of ultimate success"?

That's a lot of words, I know. Trouble is, it's hard to throw a qualifying word, such as "partially," before "successful" and not have it come off as a slight or a slam.

If you want to keep it short, you could qualify the ultimate, rather than the general "successful." For example, you could refer to an "almost supremely successful" or a "near-championship" season.  

Either way is awkward, though. For me, I'm just going to continue referring to it as an extremely successful season, and let it go at that.

by Bruinut on Apr 18, 2008 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Or how about
"UCLA, whose third straight appearance in the Final Four is something no other team in the country can match, will be ready again next year."

by Fox 71 on Apr 18, 2008 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm thinkin'
"HOWLAND-ESQUE".

That says, "better-than-99.5%-of-college-teams-this-decade-period-end-of-f**n-story" better than any 20-words I can fathom.

Came up with that up on Mulholland last night.

GO BRUIN BLUE.

by theREAL_LOGAN5 on Apr 19, 2008 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Bruins Nation, an unofficial daily online scrap book covering the greatest collegiate athletic program in the nation. Established June 16, 2005. GO BRUINS.

Managers

Uclabear1_small Nestor

Arron_afflalo1_small Tydides

Brad_pitt_as_achilles_small Achilles

377011_2642084725867_1068030137_32302525_1166539782_n_small Ryan Rosenblatt

Telemachus_small Telemachus

Licenseplate_small gbruin

2761_small tasser10

Blue_bellerophon_small Bellerophon

Img_0052_2_small Patroclus

Small DCBruins

Of Counsels

094_small Ajax

Menelaus2_small Menelaus

Small Meriones

Small Odysseus

Associates

Eee_small freesia39

Uclabruins_small AHMB