LA Times Decides To Coddle Howland/UCLA Hating Whiners

by Nestor on Mar 28, 2009 10:59 AM PDT Comment 50 comments

Some sampling of today's LTE section. No linking per our policy of sending traffic towards garbage:

Gentle Ben complained about Villanova having "home court" advantage and knowing where all the "dead spots" were on the floor. His gutty little Bruins were defeated due to lack of the home cooking they've gotten the previous three years.

By the way, the only dead spot on the floor in Philly was the Bruin bench.

John Mark

Newport Beach

I guess "John Mark" forgot the kind of defense UCLA played in previous three seasons and had a difficult time playing after losing three stars to NBA. Anyway here is more:

Like the adage goes, you can't teach height. Or intensity. The problem with UCLA doesn't lie in coaching, but in recruiting. There's nothing wrong with landing heralded guards and forwards, but if the Bruins ever expect to win and bang with the big boys, Coach Howland and his staff better start searching for more players who can ably clog the paint and have ravenous appetites for rebounds.

If this doesn't happen, UCLA may as well start lowering its standards and initiate raising Round of 32/Sweet 16/Elite Eight/Final Four banners instead of the other ones that we're all used to seeing in the Pauley rafters.

Mark J. Featherstone

Windsor Hills

Somehow Mark forgot UCLA had some dude named KL lighting up the college basketball scene. Somehow Mark - fairweather - Featerstone forgot it was Howland who brought in LRMAM who became the PFOY and also made a name for himself as one of the best rebounding forwards in the country. And it is hilarious to read about this guy complaining about UCLA not playing with "intensity." I am going to assume he is neither a UCLA alum or fan who cares about Bruin basketball because he sounds like he was either in a cave or not watching UCLA hoops for last 4 years. There is more including the classic whine re. Ben not playing zone defense:

While I appreciate what Ben Howland has done for the UCLA basketball program, I wonder if he will ever get UCLA over the hump. It is not just the 20-point thrashing against Villanova, it is the fact that Ben appears to have no Plan B when his way is not working.

Oh, and Ben, there is this thing called a zone defense that you might want to have in your bag of tricks.

Daniel Michael

Adrian, Mich.

Get it ... one "bad year" for these whining babies which entailed 25+ wins and a second round exit ... and they now want perhaps the best defensive coach in college basketball to change up his scheme.

I don't think any of these guys are actual UCLA fans. These people probably tune into UCLA hoops during tournament season without having a clue or sense of what happens with the program on a day to day basis. Of course LA Times being what it is can't help itself, when it sees an opportunity to amplify the concern trolling.

No wonder some of the coaches following John R. Wooden felt so suffocated at times. They had to deal with these whining babies who were hoisted up by a pathetic local media as "true UCLA basketball fans."

Thankfully those days are gone. Coach Howland and his staff will have lot more support not just for the results they have produced on the court, but also because of forums like this one where UCLA fans who actually watch the team and follow them on day by day basis can offer their reality based observations.

I can't wait for the next season. However, given the stupidity that is at display we know we will have to do our part o push back against the mindless/concern trolling chatter.

GO BRUINS.

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

0 recs | Comment 50 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Here's the problem

These are real UCLA fans. A lot of real UCLA fans are really stupid.

by bluebland on Mar 28, 2009 12:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I gotta disagree

The second two, Michael from Michigan sounds like a disgruntled fan. I’m on the fence about fairweather, He could be either. Mark from Newport is clearly a SUCer or at least a Bruin hater.

Also gotta disagree that a lot of UCLA fans are stupid. Just from the dialogue here it is obvious that there are many very informed, very passionate fans of UCLA Athletics. I will agree that there are many that are not as well informed, but that does not equate to being stupid.

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Mar 28, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As someone who spends a lot of time in Westwood and Pauley

I can tell you this idiocy is not aberrational. I hear it over and over from various longtime fans and ticket-holders — and I’ve been hearing it the last three years. It’s reached the point where I usually can’t stand to talk about UCLA basketball with most of the older fans.

It’s never possible to tell exactly what percentage of the fan base is stupid. The percentage is very high anywhere, I’m sure. Only it’s channeled in different ways: ridiculous expectations, lack of knowledge about the sport, inexplicable superiority complexes, etc. The media also plays a role, because stupid fans tend to mimic stupid mediaspeak. It makes them feel like they’re ignorance has some substance behind it. Most sportswriters desperately seek to apply their feeble fingers to this stupidity pulse.

Bill Plaschke is the Ceasar Chavez of stupid sports fans.

by bluebland on Mar 28, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Older fans"?

With all due respect, what does age have to do with this?

I will put my knowledge of this program and Fox’s up against most anyone here. We actually lived through the Banners that many, who were not yet born, enjoy.

I’m not really upset, blue, but several times age has become a factor for organizing those who do not cheer or those who do not appreciate and, frankly, it has no place in this discussion.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 29, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A lot of older fans

think that if you don’t win a national title at least every other season, you are doing something wrong. Younger fans don’t have that not because they are smarter, but because they didn’t lived through that era.

There is a middle ground between Wooden dominance and Lavin incompetence that is a realistic place for this program to be.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Mar 29, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry Lake -- I don't buy it.

"A lot of older fans … " this sounds like something Doh! would post.

Even if you’ve spoken to “some older fans” or “influential older fans” that is not sufficient. Before generalizing, based on age, I think you might want to back it up with some empirical data. Has anyone surveyed how “older fans” evaluate a season and whether we are the ones demanding a banner every year?

One thing not considered in your post — most of us older fans LIVED the pyramid and learned from the ultimate teacher, Coach.

In fact, the people I know who might be considered “older” (and by no means is this a sufficient sample to make a statement about what “older” fans believe) go the other way: we value effort not banners. We value a coach who teaches and gets the best from his talent. That is why were were the least tolerant of the lizard and CTS — not because they didn’t hang banners, but because they did not teach in a manner that showed continuous improvement and because their players did not play to their full potential.

This talk of hanging number 12 has not been spearheaded by any of the true elders, here. We know that a season is judged by whether a team has played to its potential, and nothing more.

Silver, I don’t know where you fit into the picture in terms of age, but even if you are on of us Geezers, I don’t think your statement represents us very well.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 29, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Empirical Data? really

How is anyone get empirical data on anything regarding the opinions of basketball fans? That is not a reasonable standard.

I can only tell you what I have experienced in the games I’ve been to Pauley and got tickets down where the folks who have had them forever sit, and many of them have very unrealistic expectations for a modern basketball program.

I do not have a survery or study i can link to on their opinions, as I do not believe one has been done.

Of course there are plenty of older fans who feel like you do. I am just saying those with unreasonable expectations about winning the title every year are generally those who lived through an era where that was not only possible, but happened.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Mar 29, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds like a perfect subject for a Master's Degree Thesis ...

any takers?

by snorkeldorf on Mar 29, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Older" is based on anecdotal evidence

Which is unanimous. It’s not meant to offend. The simple fact is that the attitude of these letter-writers and their kindred spirits comes from a Wooden-era sense of entitlement undisturbed by the following 30 years.

Don’t get me wrong, 66. I love old people! And by “older” I didn’t only mean “old”—I meant middle-age and up, those who’ve been around the program since at least the late 70s. Let’s face it: it takes a certain extreme level of delusion to be unsatisfied by 3 straight final fours, and a lot of these guys (who sit all around me at Pauley) have been bitching non-stop since the first one mainly because of Howland’s offense, whose effectiveness is completely lost on them because it isn’t played at a manic pace.

Talk about mistaking activity for achievement!

by bluebland on Mar 29, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you need to address the people who sit around you rather than generalize about Geezers

SJH hit the nail on the head. Those of us lucky enough to have been Bruins during the 60’s got to watch something that is not likely to be duplicated, and we know it. We were amazed at Hazzard and Goodrich, whose teams won because Coach was better at getting the most out of his guys than the other coaches. We loved the Alcindor years and the Walton years, because Coach was able to have those guys play to their potential, which was generally way way beyond that of the other teams. But there were the between years and there was ’75. Those years were again exemplified by guys just being better as a team than the other teams, and all the players showed improvement over time (with Wicks probably being the best example.)

I want the Bruins to win every game and win with an 80-0 shutout. I am satisfied, though, when our guys grow during the year, and play to their potential. I think this year’s team did just that. We have a coach who pries every last bit of talent and effort out of his players, and they know it and we know it. We have a coach who does not play street ball like some desert schools. Our team sometimes gets outplayed, and I suppose Coach Howland would say there are times when he gets out-coached. I am not willing to concede that latter point, however. This is the same coach who got us to the final four three years in a row, and did that with only one true super-star (the short-lived Kevin Love.)

We had a tremendously successful year by any reasonable person’s standard. I am a Geezer and proud of it. The geezers who sit around you are just old, They aren’t Geezers. I don’t suppose you can tell them gracefully to keep the negative comments for the trip home, and you probably can’t easily tell them that they’re ruining your enjoyment of the game with their constant carping. Maybe print out a fact sheet before the next game and hand it out when they start bad-mouthing things. Tell them for me that they’re giving Geezers a bad name.

by Fox 71 on Mar 29, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does anyone know the age of the people who wrote the letters the fishwrap published?

Might it be a good idea to call them to see:

1. if they are Bruins; and, if so

2. How old they are,

before assuming that they are Bruins, and “older”?

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 29, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Geez, I wonder what KENTUCKY fans are like???

“Fans” like this make REAL UCLA fans look bad.

Fans like this would have pulled a Gillespie and canned Howland after only his 2nd year… and missed out on 3 Final 4s.

Let me get this straight — Quagmire got us to 5 Sweet 16s in 7 years, NO FINAL FOURS, and people didn’t want him let go until the year that we missed the Tournament outright.

CBH gets us to more Final 4s in his first 6 years at the helm than in the previous 25 years COMBINED, and now “fans” think he sucks.

tools.

M

"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008

by Meriones on Mar 28, 2009 3:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

the difference with Gillespie

is that his personality clashed with the AD and other Kentucky brass. As far as I can tell Howland hasn’t had those same issues – which obviously gives him more time to develop the program.

by bucknellbruin on Mar 28, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a good point

I understand that Gillespie came in with a bad attitude, didn’t make any effort with the boosters or alumni, and rubbed the administration the wrong way. Basketball in the South, much like football, is pretty straightforward. If you are not winning, you better not piss off alumni, boosters and admin. Billie could have had another year or two if he wasn’t such an asshole.

by Karl II on Mar 29, 2009 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not kidding with this

A Kentucky fan proposed that they hire John Wooden. No, I’m not joking.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 28, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also heard Pat Riley

which would be great, but the guys is worth a fortune. I don’t see why he would do it other than out of love for UK

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Mar 29, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Garbage in, garbage out

That’s what these letters to the fishwrap are, pure drivel. These people (I won’t call them fans) are either brain dead or have been asleep for the last four years. No intensity? No recruiting? You’re kidding, right?

Crawl back in your respective holes, losers.

by Give me a B... on Mar 28, 2009 3:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh, Please.

These are NOT “fans.” These are empty-headed, spoiled brats who have never learned the value of hard work, dedication, patience, or building anything.

I am a fan. I will not be grouped in with these sanctimonious morons.

Love My Bruins

by Bruingirl83 on Mar 28, 2009 4:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

And, P.S.

Nova already has 10 points on Pitt, in the first 8 minutes.

Love My Bruins

by Bruingirl83 on Mar 28, 2009 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

John Mark

Never trust a man who has 2 first names.

by bruinhopeful on Mar 28, 2009 6:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What about USC?

UCLA may send 2 players to the NBA, probably one in the first round (JH) and one in the second (DC). USC could send 3, all of whom could go in the first round (DeRozan, Gibson, Hackett). USC has the highest-rated of the five (DeRozan).
Now let’s do some simple analysis. Which of those two teams should have finished higher in the conference? Not UCLA (who finished 13-5), but USC (who finished 9-9). Which of those teams should be more likely to lose both of the head-to-head games during the season? Obviously UCLA (who of course swept the Trojans).
So which team underachieved and should be publishing critical letters about its coach in the Times? USC, of course, but since their student body seems only interested in the spectator sports of football and criminal justice, all that gets printed are the musings of a few whining Bruins.

by ucla7477 on Mar 28, 2009 6:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Or Arizona, with 2 lottery-level picks (Budinger, Hill) and also Nic Wise. Where do they finish in the conference?

by dokein on Mar 28, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

if hackett goes in the 1st round

i may stop watching NBA basketball

O.A.

by Ollie on Mar 29, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm already there

I do tune in for the Finals and sometimes the Conference championships if it’s a compelling match up, though.

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Mar 29, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with the sentiment

but not the premise. No way Hackett gets drafted, and Gibson is a 2nd rounder at best.

by BruinsRule on Mar 29, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Villanova 68, Pitt 67

2:01 left in the game. Pitt at the FT line.

by dokein on Mar 28, 2009 6:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

71-69. 1:10 left. Villanova has possession.

by dokein on Mar 28, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

73-69, 0:47 left. Pitt has possession.

by dokein on Mar 28, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

73-72, 0:35 left. Villanova has possession.

by dokein on Mar 28, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

75-72, 0:35 left. Pitt has possession, no timepoints.

On another note: Villanova is 21/21 for FTs.

by dokein on Mar 28, 2009 6:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

76-72, 0:20 left. Pitt has possession, no timeouts.

by dokein on Mar 28, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Horrible inbounds by Villanova after a quick 2 by Pitt.

76-76, 0:05 left. Villanova has possession.

by dokein on Mar 28, 2009 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

78-76 VILLANOVA BEATS PITT!

Villanova drives and finishes at the rim with contact, no foul called but the basket is made.

Wow, I guess we drew a strong 3 seed at the 32.

by dokein on Mar 28, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or the home crowd advantage carried them again

by SuperBruinMan on Mar 28, 2009 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was the zebras that allowed Villanova to beat Pitt

I mean, Villanova was only called for 6 more fouls than Pitt. Obviously, the referees should have called 10 more fouls on Villanova instead of just 6.

(3 of their Villanova’s players finished with 4 fouls, and another 3 finished with 3 fouls. They had 17, 15, 14, 11, 9, 7, 5 point contributions. I am seriously impressed with this team.)

by dokein on Mar 28, 2009 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Same here

I had UNC winning it all in one of my brackets, but I seriously think Nova is looking REALLY good at the right time of year.

by freesia39 on Mar 28, 2009 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Watched the whole game

What a fantastic game – back and forth – great play from both sides.

Granted, I’ve only seen them in the tourney, but I kinda wonder how ’Nova ever lost a game this year.

greg in denver - UCLA guy for life

by gbruin on Mar 28, 2009 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

living out in PA

i’ve seen them play a few times and they were just inconsistent earlier in the year. They’ve had this potential all year – which is why i had them in the title game

by bucknellbruin on Mar 28, 2009 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess the purpose of the fishwrap has been identified

This was a nice string of commentary, and it started because someone looked at the ’wrap. Sort of like digging into the brains or intestines of infected rhesus monkeys to come up with whatever it is that smart people use to make a life-saving vaccine. I personally would not be willing to do that sort of distasteful work. What if your environmental suit got punctured? No one really knows what would happen if you got an overdose of the fishwrap. You would certainly turn stupid, but what else?

N, listen to your elders. Be very careful if you’re going to poke around in the fishwrap. We don’t want to lose you.

by Fox 71 on Mar 29, 2009 5:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Editorial Choices

Does anyone believe, for a moment, that those were the only letters sent to the fishwrap about our team and coach?

Editors choose what they want to run and, by their choices, we determine their editorial bent or bias.

No one can be surprised by the choices they make — they have made them for years.

And, that’s why, like my fellow Geezer Fox, I don’t read the fishwrap — I know what they will say before they say it and see no reason to give them the numbers they desperately need to survive.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 29, 2009 7:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Actually, they might have been the only letters

People are more likely to write to a newspaper if they’re upset about something than they are if they’re happy about something.

It wouldn’t surprise me if those letters were a representative sample of the letters they got. But that does not mean that those letters are a representative sample of UCLA fans.

The Times editors should know that.

by gilbert on Mar 29, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought you blue hairs didn't read the papers

because the type is too small!

by Karl II on Mar 29, 2009 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We're an elite program

in everyone’s eyes but some of our fans (or USC fans posing as our fans). See this UNC fan post calling us one of the 3 no-brainers for top programs in the country:

by BruinsRule on Mar 29, 2009 10:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Is it really a surprise?

The local hacks are too lazy to do any real journalism and just rely on hackneyed cliches of what they perceive Bruin basketball fans are all alike. Then when you have the Gravedigger of Westwood whining for years about the “pathology” of UCLA basketball, you end up having these lazy morons perpetuate this stereotype of the “typical UCLA basketball fan” with no real substance.

by UCLA4Life on Mar 29, 2009 2:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Great post

I saw this and got so angry. The worst part about it is the the choice of letters published makes it look like an objective third party determined that the sentiment in the UCLA community is that everyone is somehow upset with Howland. This is such bullshit. We talk all the time about the L.A. Times being a Trojan front, and this is Exhibit A.

by Karl II on Mar 29, 2009 7:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The Incredibly Shrinking Times

These letters are yet another reason I won’t miss the LAT once it has completely vanished. And make no mistake: It is going to vanish sooner rather than later. The corporation which ones the LAT declared BK last year, I believe, and the paper has shrunk even more since then. (Note to LAT: Shrinking the paper will not generate additional subscribers.)

For whatever reason, the Trojan Times knowingly selected these lovely letters to publish. The goal is two-fold: piss off real Bruins fans and suck up to SC fans.

Who needs that kind of aggravation? What a bunch of crap.

by Barnes2JJ on Mar 30, 2009 12:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The LA Times doesn't need subscribers

It needs advertisers.

by SuperBruinMan on Mar 31, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Advertising Rates are Based on Circulation

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 31, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does "circulation" include papers given away?

Also, does it include hits on the website?

Those are real questions. We can’t affect their numbers of papers they print and give away, but we can boycott their cheesy website.

by Fox 71 on Mar 31, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Advertising Rates for Most Media

are set on “eyes or ears” that will see or hear the ad — whether they pay the media outlet or not. That’s why magazines often continue to send editions even though you’ve not renewed and there are (were?) such things as “free” throw away newspapers.

Most websites are “hit” conscious — either because they contain direct advertising or because they are establishing “personalities” that drive readers to the mother ship where circulation matters.

That is why we see online editions of the newspapers and why they try to establish their columnists and personalities online.

“New media” — the online distribution of content — has been and will be the battleground for those who create the content for distribution in traditional channels. For example, one of the major areas for discussion during the WGA strike was the distribution of TV shows written by WGA writers on the ’net.

So, you are absolutely correct, we cannot affect the “give aways” but we can affect the overall effort by refusing to give them the online “hits” that they so desperately want. And, that is why I think it is good to “Just say ’no” to Doh!".

sjh

by Class of 66 on Apr 1, 2009 4:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs