Quick Hoop Thoughts

by Nestor on Mar 29, 2009 10:52 AM PDT in Basketball Comment 24 comments

So congrats to Villanova.

Clearly they were the best team in the East Region this year. I caught the last 5 mins of the Nova-Pitt game. I wanted to root for Nova because I usually like rooting for teams with classy head coach in the tournament who beat UCLA (Memphis obviously doesn't fit that bill). But my heart led me to rooting for the Panthers. Two of my best friends from law school went to Pitt plus there are all those connections between our current head coach and that program.

I will always be grateful to Pitt for giving us Howland. Plus it's not unreasonable to think when Howland retires from UCLA after 10-12 more years in Westwood, Jamie Dixon will likely be one the leading candidates to continue the legacy of Ben Ball at UCLA. Anyway, that is a long way from now but I think the Villanova run in this tournament which also included a thorough pummeling of Coach K's Blue Devils, should give the Howland hating clueless whiners some needed perspective on what UCLA was up against in Philadelphia last weekend.

Meanwhile, speaking of perspective I wonder if the Devil fans and the media in North Carolina are going off like the morons in LA who are talking about Howland needs to change his philosophy. T.H., our SBN colleague from Carolina March provided this interesting perspective from this weekend (emphasis added):

Duke's definitely struggled in the tournament since their last Final Four appearance in 2004, but not that many teams have been consistent over that stretch. The four years since have sent 12 teams to the Final Four; only three have made it more than once and seven haven't even made the tournament in some of the other years. If Duke's no longer elite, who is? UNC, Kansas, and UCLA are pretty obvious. Memphis, probably, although the conference schedule is a little sad. Florida has two national titles, but hasn't seen the tournament since, and now may lose their coach. Connecticut has the championship for the year of Duke's last Final Four appearance, but since has a postseason performance almost identical to the Blue Devils (Four tournament appearances and one absence, which counting last night's performances, netted two Elite Eight trips.) Who else are you counting as elite, though? Keep in mind the guys from Durham have averaged only seven losses a season these past four years (and almost 28 wins). If Duke doesn't make the cut, it's a precious little club.

(Even if you back it out to Elite Eight teams over the last four years, that's 22 teams with only seven repeat offenders. This ain't beanbag, folks.)

If anything, the recent Duke woes remind me of the stretch for Dean Smith from 1985 to 1990, where the Heels had five top ten finishes in six years but never advanced past the Elite Eight and managed only one ACC Championship. There was a fair amount of talk that Smith was over the hill and should retire, and yes, that the team was no longer "Elite." UNC persevered and spent the rest of Smith's career making it to four Final Fours in seven years and cutting down the nets on New Orleans. As much as I'd rather it not be the case, I don't think this is the last we've seen of Duke competing at a national level.

Of course the tools posing as UCLA fans, who wrote to the LA Times this weekend would fire off the same nonsense about Dean Smith if he were to have identical record as Howland from last five years.

Speaking of spoiled fans, not all Kentucky fans are crazy. Make sure to check out the takes from our friends at Sea of Blue, who have been offering up sobering commentary on Wildcat basketball following their program's decision to get rid of a coach whose record was comparable to Howland's first two years at UCLA.

It will be interesting to see who Kentucky goes after this off season. They are not getting Billy Donovan (again btw can you imagine the letters LA Times would publish about him if UCLA produced the same results as him in last couple of years even after winning two national titles). Anthony Grant is off the market (good get from Alabama). I think the list offered up by SeaofBlue makes some sense. I can see a Travis Ford of Rick Barnes at UK, but I don't see Dixon ending up in Lexington. Dixon has a good thing going over in Pittsburgh and if he were to make another move to a higher profile program, I think it will somewhere along the Pacific Ocean. Althought, I don't see Dixon going to Arizona opening where lot of Mildcats fans think that the opening will be filled by someone like Pitino or Calapari. Who knows.

For me, I couldn't care who ends up at Zona or any other places this off-season. I am looking forward to the NBA draft drama settling in next few weeks, and then will look forward to another season of Ben Ball with our without JH. I am realistic enough to know next season is going to be tough especially as I expect JH will not return. But given the way some other programs have gone through highs and lows (i.e. Florida not making the tourney, Georgetown fizzling out just years after making the Final-4, Duke in somewhat of a fun), I think Coach Howland has UCLA program doing just fine in Westwood.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think in the end Arizona hires Kruger

A decent hire, but nothing special. I’m curious if they’re interested in Gillespie now that he’s available. I hope not just because of the physical pounding you take playing one of his teams. Remember that Wooden Classic game against A&M? I’d rather not be knocked around if possible.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 29, 2009 11:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

sometimes folks like coach K lose a step

not because their coaching strategy is wrong, but just because they’ve been doing the same thing for 30 years, there is no freshness in the program, no joy.

I look at Coach K and wonder why folks would want to play for him. He seems joyless, and he doesn’t produce NBA players anymore.

I think CBH will need to watch out for that syndrome. Not yet, but just make sure he’s keeping things fresh and interesting for the players.

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

by silverlakebruin on Mar 29, 2009 11:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Random Thoughts

1. I was rooting for Villanova for two reasons. One, it makes our loss to them look a little better. Two, while I like Jamie Dixon and think he’s a great coach (if CBH thinks highly of him, that’s good enough for me), I don’t think I could restrain my anger at all of the CBH doubters and haters who would gleefully point about that CBH’s old team won a championship before him.

2. Mr. BB and I were talking the other night after Memphis lost, and we wouldn’t be surprised if John Callipari ended up at Kentucky or Arizona. As long as he is at Memphis, he isn’t going to get any respect. While the SEC has been off the last two years, Kentucky still has a strong tradition and name recognition. As for Arizona, I don’t know how big their purse strings are, but I could see him ending up there. But like N, I don’t care who ends up at Arizona. I keep my focus on my team. The rest will take care of itself.

by bruinbabe2000 on Mar 29, 2009 12:06 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

i was also rooting for Nova

although for a different reason – their coach, Jay Wright, is actually a Bucknell grad. Plus I love the way they play…anyone remember the team 4 years ago with Randy Foye and Allen Ray. That team was so fun to watch.

As for coaching, I think Cal will stay at Memphis. He’s got yet ANOTHER stud recruiting class coming in, led yet again by a top player in the nation (Xavier Henry) who is essentially another Rose/Evans. I wouldn’t leave a situation like that for a once great team in disarray. He’ll have to win right away even though the resources and talent may not be in place.

by bucknellbruin on Mar 29, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also think Calipari will stay

He already tried stepping up to a more competitive league once before and failed miserably with the NJ Nets. I think when he went back to college, he remembered what it was like in his A-10 days and intentionally went to a less competitive conference. Now at Memphis, he can be this generation’s Jerry Tarkanian: dominate a weaker conference, snag pro-ready recruits, and have no academic obligations whatsoever.

by insomniacslounge on Mar 29, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hey bucknell

how old are you? do you by chance know a bucknell grad (he’s probably around 45-50 years old now) named Jeff Miller?

by harveyismyboy on Mar 29, 2009 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

18

i’m a freshman. The name doesn’t sound familiar…

by bucknellbruin on Mar 29, 2009 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Slightly OT -- Hard Fouls

For the last week, I’ve been thinking about CBH’s statement that Nova planned to commit “hard fouls” against us, and did. From the first on DC, until the end of the game, almost every foul they committed was “hard”. And, replays of most made clear that they were going for the player, not the ball.

In comparison, we had our usual “reach ins” or touches.

I didn’t see Nova hitting Pitt as hard, yesterday.

What I’m thinking is that they knew that the hard fouls would throw us off and that they would not have the same impact on Pitt.

And, then the evil side of me takes over and wonders why, in a game where hard fouls are simply fouls and not intentional fouls, we don’t foul back, hard. Is it that we play to a higher call? Or, that we cannot foul hard — we aren’t tough enough to do it?

My evil side wants us to get tough enough to play with anyone at anytime. Want to play hard? Let’s do it.

My sense is that the best deterrent is the ability to do the same thing. When the tactic does not work, when it does not throw us off our game, I think it will be abandoned.

We cannot count on the officials to call a consistent game. Or one where the degree of force used in a foul will be judged and penalized if it goes beyond the bounds of “normal”.

Will someone please talk down my evil side? I really don’t want to believe that hard fouls are the way the game should be played, but I’m beginning to believe it.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 29, 2009 12:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Basketball is moving in the direction of more physical play.

This requires a very athletic player to be able to finish around the rim (and this year our team had trouble finishing around the rim even without a physical defender). From my viewing, I would say the Pitt-Villanova game contained a lot of physical play, but it seemed like less than the V-UCLA game because the UCLA players were more affected, because there were a few more opportunities for hard fouls in the beginning of the game, and because a hard foul against Blair looks like a soft foul.

by dokein on Mar 29, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hard Fouls are not the way the game should be played.

Players can get hurt and the game can get quickly out of hand (think MLB pitchers throwing behind batters’ heads). The refs should discourage hard fouls by calling flagrant fouls when it is clear that too much force has been applied and not enough effort to go for the ball. In my opinion, Reynolds initial foul on DC should have been called flagrant as well as the takedown on JS (a la Trevor Ariza’s takedown on Rudy Fernandez). But if the refs are not going to protect the players, then the players need to protect themselves. We should always recruit at least one off-season tight end for the bench. At the first hint of chippy play, these guys should be put in to level anybody foolish enough to approach the basket. Having five or ten fouls of this nature on tap and demonstrating a willingness to use them in retaliatory situations, would certainly discourage other teams from even going there.

by snorkeldorf on Mar 29, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My best interpretation is

if one team is playing hard fouls, and the other team doesn’t escalate, the refs “think” two things:

1. The overall amount of hard fouls is pretty low and the situation is not escalating, so no need to whistle flagrants or give warnings to the players.
2. The only way to call a roughly even number of fouls on each team is to whistle relatively light fouls on one end of the floor the same as hard fouls on the other end.

So the key is to escalate your physicality on your end. That way either the refs start trying to keep the game under control, or the other team starts keeping their fouls under control.

But this year, there’s no way Shipp, Collison, Holiday, and Dragovic were capable of hard fouls against the Villanova crew…

by dokein on Mar 29, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a Sad Commentary ....

on the direction basketball is taking, but I think you have it spot on.

Good sportsmanship should be the guiding principle behind how players are taught and encouraged to play and how NCAA refs should be instructed to call the game. Intentionally over-hard fouls without genuine attempts for the ball do not demonstrate good sportsmanship, rather they show a lack of respect for an opponent and utter disregard for their health and well-being. It’s thuggish behavior, pure and simple. If the NCAA chooses to sanction this behavior rather than crack down on it, then the situation will get out of hand as coaches will be forced to take measures to level the playing field.

by snorkeldorf on Mar 29, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the foul on shipp may have been intentional/flagrant

but there’s no way Reynold’s first foul was a flagrant. He’s the one who ended up on his back, and regardless of the intent, the refs will never call a flagrant on the guy who ended up on their back

by bucknellbruin on Mar 29, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm afraid you guys are right

and there is no way to “talk me down”.

I, too, have thought of putting a tight end on the team for the exact purpose mentioned.

Bad, me.

Sad state of the game.

sjh

PS: There is a way to play hard D without hard fouls. We do it others don’t. And, when hard fouls are not called, we suffer.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Mar 29, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

spot on

by impaulv on Mar 29, 2009 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I will never forget Larry Hollifield.

Not a lot of hard fouls against us when he was in the game.

by Fox 71 on Mar 29, 2009 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Louisville going down to the Sparties ....

The only question now is whether or not they’ll reach half their total scored against “The Standard”.

by snorkeldorf on Mar 29, 2009 1:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Tough Going, But Long-Term Great Shape

We are going to be in good shape with Howland, and that is all that matters. Long-term we are golden.

However, Nestor, I agree that we might be in for a tough year or two coming up. We just don’t know what we have on this team right now. Only two returning starters, and neither was a game changer. Sure, it would be nice if Holiday turned into a star—but that is no guarantee. A lot of freshman are stars right away, so if anything, the only evidence we have is that Holiday was a tad overrated—nothing which would indicate that Holiday (if he stays) will surely be a star. There is potential, of course, but you never can tell. And with the other freshman—there is a lot to be hopeful about—but again, we just don’t know.

Anyway, I think we need to be prepared for the possibility that we will not even make the NCAAs next year. It seems unlikely, especially given that the Pac-10 seems like it will be even worse next year, but you never know. I saw potential this year, but nothing which would guarantee a tourney bid. Just not enough experience for the freshman this year to know what will happen. I am hopeful, but worried.

And, even though I know we could miss the NCAAs, I will be disappointed if we don’t. I don’t care how many players leave early, we should be going to the dance every year. So I suppose there’s a little pressure on us next year—which isn’t a bad thing.

by rfirpo on Mar 29, 2009 3:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I would think that not next year, but year after

We will be back as a top 5, final four team. WITH OR WITHOUT jRUE.

by harveyismyboy on Mar 29, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Next year

I will be happy if we win 20 games and make the tourney next year (in case JH doesn’t return).

by Nestor on Mar 29, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Loss to Villanova

That makes 4 straight losses to final 4 teams. The other 3 were obviously because the Bruins were also in the final 4.

There is talk at times about how seeding doesn’t matter, and you have to beat the best teams to win the championship. However, because of our drop-off in defense, and the resulting losses and consequent slip in seeding, the Bruins wound up losing to the final 4 team in the round of 32 instead of in the final 4.

Who knows how far the Bruins would have gone with a more favorable draw? The key is to control what we can control, which is playing CBH defense, so that in 2010 we are not facing a final 4 team in the second round.

However, at the end of the day, losing to a final 4 team is a fair ending for what was clearly a rebuilding season post- KL, RW, LRMAM. In Ben we trust.

by islandbruin on Mar 29, 2009 8:34 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Nestor

I understand that you want to temper your expectations for next year and not get too excited, but I mean…we just had one of our most talented recruiting classes ever. Jrue, Roll, Gordon, and JMM are all uber-talented, and the freshman-sophomore jump in Howland’s system has nearly always provided a significant increase in production (see: Farmar, Afflalo, Collison, Shipp, Westbrook). Next year, I think we’ll struggle in the early going, especially considering that Howland likes to play tough non-conference teams, but if/when we play to their potential I don’t see many other teams being better than us. I’ve made the comparison before, but I’ll make it again: I see 2009-2010 unfolding similarly to 2005-2006, and we all know what happened that year.

by theslammer on Mar 30, 2009 12:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Let's hope you're right!

All these kids’ talent will go to waste if they don’t bring the right work ethic and attitude. It seems from all accounts that they do, but it’s just unfair to heap expectations on these kids without seeing them play. If they develop a cohesive winning attitude, play well together, then they’ll go far, but it may be unfair to expect from the outset that they’ll get to the national championship game. Winning the Pac-10 however may be a more realistic and reasonable goal.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Mar 30, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs