My Year By Year Grades For Ben Howland, Please Share Yours
by Penny2i on Jan 18, 2010 9:20 AM PST
Email
PrintBumped. Would be interesting to read others grading of Ben Howland's performance at UCLA year by year. GO BRUINS. -N
In concurrence with BN poll I have put together a year by year assessment of the program.. feel free to add yours. I am curious how people viewed each season:
2004 – (Inc) too soon to grade for me
2005 – (A+) different attitude had taken hold
2006 – (A+) thanks to emergence of Hollins
2007 – (A) showed our guts, but offensive inability gets exposed.. especially when you just can’t stop a team like Florida you have to generate good shots.
2008 – (B) too much talent to get owned in that final 4 against Memphis, this is when I began to really grow concerned about our bouts of stagnation on offense.
2009 – (A-) unlike most I actually think he did a decent job given the talent.. this should have been a decent down year type of season. We just had no interior defense with Aboya improving remarkably, but stuck as a center we couldn’t hope for much more than what we ended up with. In hindsight this grade could be lowered I suppose given that our frosh got very few minutes. The grade for the current year to date and his over all grade are after the jump.
My overall grade counting this half season would now be a B. Coming into this season probably between a B+ and A- which is the minimum I would expect of a coach at UCLA. A solid B or B- for me would indicate a coach on the bubble. How we finish this season and next season are obviously critical to our long term health with CBH now. I approve in the end, but not my alot.
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.
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As I wrote in my response
Mostly agree with couple of disagreements. Here is how I would grade them:
2004 – (Inc) that was Lavin
2005 – (A+)
2006 – (A+)
2007 – (A)
2008 – (A) I thought Howland did a solid job this season and lived up to expectations. I think the outcome of that season would have been even better if we had MR healthy through that season.
2009 – (B) I was mostly happy with this season. Although, I didn’t like the rotation in which he favored Shipp and Holiday, and didn’t hold them accountable for their poor defensive efforts in number of games.
2010 – (F) It will be interesting if he can pull his grade up to a C. I am not feeling confident.
So, with that assessment, he is around the B range right now. It is going to be very telling how he performs this season and next. The pressure is on and it’s just another expression of being on the hot seat (if people are not comfortable with that, then so be it).
Interested in reading others grades for Howland year by year.
Grades
I guess I measure mine based mostly on meeting my expectations.
2004 –
2005 – A. Set foundation/attitude.
2006 – A. Signature year.
2007 – A. No one was beating Florida this year. Period.
2008 – B. I know people disagree and it’s been argued previously on here but I fully believed UCLA should have won it all given their talent, experience, etc.
2009 – A. Competing for a Pac-10 Championship and at least one tourney win was what I expected and it was achieved.
2010 – F. Sigh.
by NoOceanJustLakers on Jan 17, 2010 2:28 PM PST reply actions
how does doing what is expected merit an A?
isnt that a C?
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Jan 18, 2010 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
My grades
First off, great post Penny.
2004- Can’t judge
2005-(A) Great step in right direction, and a tourney bid
2006-(A+) The only thing that bothered me about that season was how Farmar would dribble for thirty seconds then shoot a long three. Gonzaga comeback was obviously great.
2007-(A) Another fantastic run only to lose to Florida again.
2008-(A-) With Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook, and other amazing basketball players Howland should have probably won the championship that season.
2009- (B-) We were ranked too high preseason. There were some games that were lost that were winnable.
2010- (F) Too many dissapointing losses, same gameplan, same lineup (some seniors getting too much playing time). A couple good conference wins, although one had a horrible second half effort and the Cal one was just lucky.
Two things have always irked me about Howland. He often burns through his timeouts too quickly, so at the end of games there is not a timeout available to give players rest and to draw up a play. The other is the fact that we’ve never really had an offense when he’s been our coach.
My report card
2005 – A
2006 – A+
2007 – A+ (kansas was way more talented, and we punished them)
2008 – A- (the matchup mistake against memphis is the only knock)
2009 – B (Luc leaving early for the 2nd round was one of the biggest, underrated blows in the Howland era — cost us final four contention)
2010 – D (i’m not as upset with the schemes, because this zone will do nothing for our future, but the lack of effort and the Dragophilia is inexcusable).
Agree re. 2008
Once KL learned to D up well enough to stay in the game we were pretty much dominant. I don’t think one coaching mistake (DC on Rose instead of RW) regardless of how poor the timing merits a “B” for the season.
Of course if Penny is grading the final four like a two-part final worth 33% of the overall grade then I guess you can’t fault him for handing out the “B”
I think there is a lot of grade inflation
going on in 2009.
We didn’t win the conference, lost in the second round of the pac 10 tourney, and were destroyed in the second round of the NCAA tourney. The team basically quit against Villanova.
I would give CBH a C- for 2009.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Jan 18, 2010 10:24 AM PST reply actions
OK but not a ton of time to comment
2004- Pass- hard to judge a coach on his first year, so no letter grade
2005- B- played the young guys a lot (something he has gone away from), and a second round tourney exit was about to be expected.
2006- A+ getting these guys to the final four with the mix of youth and experience on the team was amazing.
2007- A solid, great job.
2008 B+ this was a final four team that got there, but the offense didn’t give the ball enough to Love in the post
2009 C-, see above, did not give younger guys much pt at all
2010 F No improvement, total rigidity from howland re: ND, still not playing the young guys enough
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Jan 18, 2010 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
following your own logic, and your comment on someone else's rankings above
you should have 2005 as a C-, as you apparently expected a 2nd round tourney exit and we were eliminated in the first round.
Additionally, any argument about playing young players or not playing young players must surely be taken in the context of the quality of young players in the squad and the depth of the squad. Praising CBH for playing young players in 2005 and not complaining about not playing them in 2010 seems bizarre – his young players in 2005 were more talented than in 2010 and we had a small squad in 2005.
His two more talented frosh in 2006 – DC and LRMAM chiefly – collectively played a less central roles than his two more talented frosh this year (RN and TH).
With his top frosh in 2007, he gave ~17 mins per game to MR, and ~9 mins per game to RW.
With his top frosh in 2008, KL got 30 minutes a game, Stanback got 6 mins per game. With his top frosh in 2009, JH played 27 per game, DG 11 per game, ML 11 per game, JA 9 per game.
That’s a lot of minutes the frosh got last year in a team that returned a senior starting point guard, a senior starting small forward and a senior backup center.
Freshman Russell Westbrook played 9 minutes a game; and ended his sophomore season as a lottery pick. For anyone complaining about JA/ML not getting the minutes to develop last year- they both got the same or better than RW got, and did not return for their sophomore seasons obviously better than when they ended their freshman seasons.
His youth policy hasn’t changed year by year. The only thing different is that last year’s class didn’t make the sophomore jump like kids from previous years.
by britishbruin on Jan 18, 2010 12:55 PM PST up reply actions
but there appears to be ‘accepted wisdom’ around here about the need for ‘playing the young players’, and how CBH has changed his philosophy due to blackmail material held primarily by Nicola Dragovic, possibly accompanied by Josh Shipp, Mike Roll and James Keefe.
In 2004-5, we had a weak (and unbalanced) squad, with one senior starter at PF and two junior centers. The other 3 spots were open and taken by frosh. Our only ‘development’ player was Lorenzo Mata(-Real), and he played about 10 minutes per game.
In 2005-6, still rebuilding up to a full-strength squad, we played one frosh (LRMAM) in an open spot, and gave DC ~20 minutes a game both to spell JF, and to have him on the court as an additional guard with JF still on the court. PAA and Ryan Wright got some minutes as well, but mostly because we had such a revolving (injury room) door at the center position until near the end of the season.
2006-7 was the year our frosh got the least minutes, led by RW’s 9 and JK’s 7; as noted above, RW blew up into a lottery pick during his sophomore year (having had less playing time than the likes of JA, ML and DG were later to have in their freshman years.)
2007-8 had KL starting, ~30mins per game, Chase Stanback getting 6 per.
2008-9: JH 27, DG 11, ML 11, JA 9
All of this suggests: CBH plays freshman STARTERS anything upwards of 25 minutes a game. If you are not good enough to be a starter, you get ~10 mins per in development off the bench, providing you are good enough to be in the rotation. This isn’t a hard and fast rule, with injuries playing a part, and DC’s obvious talent (and game changing speed) making him an exception as essentially backing up two positions.
To me, CBH has an idea of what an ideal amount of time is to play his starters, and what is the ideal amount of time to play bench players. He hasn’t changed this over the years, nor has he changed his attitude towards young players. He has given big minutes to his starters (young or old) and limited minutes to his bench players (young or old). This year is thrown a bit out of whack by CBH not having a settled starting five, with first DG moving out, and then JA underperforming enough to be displaced from the team by TH.
What is the point of this? Just to say that the received wisdom of 2008-9 being some great retardation of player development doesn’t seem as clear cut to me as it does to other people. If anything, the numbers above suggest that 2006-7 is the year we didn’t develop freshmen as much… but even that might have been different if there hadn’t been problems getting a young freshman from Serbia onto the court that year.
by britishbruin on Jan 18, 2010 1:29 PM PST up reply actions
Appreciate the essay
But I’d appreciate it even more if you offer up your grades before criticizing others.
well...
frankly, I find it hard to differentiate between the job he has done in successive seasons, taking into account injuries, off the court problems, recruiting done in that year, on-court coaching given talent at hand, performance in that year vs development for future years, etc etc. I could give it a shot, focusing on performance for all except the first year:
2003-4: Incomplete for performance (playing with Lavin’s players recruited for Lavin’s “system”), but A+ for recruiting JF/AA/JS/LM(-R)
2004-5: A: did a good job with young unbalanced squad, with one quality returning starter, just getting them to the tournament
2005-6: A+: built a solid team and reintegrated displaced point guard Ced, somehow ended up getting through to Ryan Hollins and making him a decent college center by the end of the season, found the right way to use DC to mix things up; crafted probably our most complete team from 1 to 5, with DC first off the bench
2006-7: A: carried forward talented core from previous year slotting in DC as PG, LMR as starting center, and bringing back JS to take Ced’s place; better regular season, but ran into same problem in final four: inability to match up with Florida
2007-8: A: by the end of the season had adapted team to KL’s offensive talents and taught him defense; worked out he had to integrate RW into the starting lineup even though he was the backup point guard; eventually beaten by ineligible Rose in final four
2008-9: A-: badly hurt by RW and LRMAM jumping to the NBA, JH’s apparent unwillingness to play his position or the BenBall style, and (from what I heard at the time and now suspect to be true) poor attitude from the freshman class in general; JS unable to help shoulder the leadership burden with DC (who looked incapable of carrying it alone), PAA fighting a lone battle on the interior. Did a decent enough job most of the season, but tailed off towards the end. Sad way for DC, PAA and JS to finish their careers, but none of the 5 most impactful BenBall warriors were still around to help them out
2009-10: Incomplete. Unclear what final grade will be, given what he is working with, and the bizarre Gordon meltdown. Waiting to see if the team is any better at the end of the season than it would have been at the start of the season if Gordon had never been there. Has rightfully decided (IMHO) to get the best players onto the court, bringing TH in for JA even though this means ML starting at point guard. In some ways, the final grade for this season may not even be known until next season, if we need to wait to judge player development aspects from this season.
by britishbruin on Jan 18, 2010 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
My last grade is perfectly reasonable
given that the season is not done. The comments after it might sound like an apologist, but if people want to lay out all their complaints about lack of player development for the future, then it is not ridiculous to think that the proof of that particular pudding is in the future tasting. All the other seasons are being graded by people with the benefit of hindsight on subsequent seasons; while I know that plenty of people had concerns about CBH’s performance last season, it seems that the poor performance of this year’s sophs is being used as evidence against the 2008-9 season. (not saying that is true of you, but is certainly true of others)
I also don’t know whether the grade for this season should really be retroactive to the recruiting from 2 years ago. I don’t really understand how to separate his performance with the players he has from having got those players in the first place. Fine to say “these are his players, so this season is his fault” when assessing whether or not this season reflects well on CBH; but if grading a year of job performance, in what time period does the blame for this year’s results lie? Last year “not playing the frosh enough”/“abandoning defensive basketball”? The previous year’s recruiting? Poor personnel decisions earlier (pushing out Stanback for… JMM)?
So in any case, my grades are subjective and unsure, and I don’t see how a grade for this season can be given meaningfully before (at least) the season is done and we can view the whole body of work. Particularly when this taking the pulse / grading exercise is two days after our most upsetting performance of the season to date. How the CBH and the team react from here will say as much about their character as anything that has gone on up to this point.
by britishbruin on Jan 18, 2010 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
When you have to stretch this much
to explain why you can’t offer up a simple grade on what Howland has done to date for this season, it tells me a lot.
yep
tells you that I like to grade based on a finished product, and like to have consistent criteria on which to base grades that are supposed to provide comparison.
by britishbruin on Jan 18, 2010 3:22 PM PST up reply actions
That is nice
That you like to grade on finished products. But the question presented above was for grading him up to this season and assessing a mid-term grade.
You didn’t want to answer the question and offered a long explanation for it. I get the feeling you will write another essay in justifying an incomplete grade if nothing changes at the end of this season.
don't see that specific question in Penny's post
and you seem happy to allow other people to get by with “incomplete”, “pass” or ‘too soon to judge’ wrt his first year.
I have offered what little I can in terms of grades, and where I don’t think giving a grade is appropriate I have explained why. You haven’t provided any additional insight with any of your comments on what I have said, instead attacking what I haven’t said and why I haven’t said it. Penny’s original post has an incomplete; I don’t understand why you think I need to follow different criteria from the original poster.
by britishbruin on Jan 18, 2010 4:38 PM PST up reply actions
Huh
People are giving Howland an “I” for his first year because it was spent on cleaning up Lavin’s mess. Howland is responsibly solely for his 7th season. It’s not a hard distinction to miss. You can’t bring yourself up to grade Howland this season up to this point. and keep offering huge posts explaining why.
That tells us all we need to know and you should just move on at this point instead of offering another lengthy post on how you can’t offer up a simple assessment on what Howland has done this year to date. You are not adding anything to this thread at this point.
My grades, with lot of bitter notes on 2008!
2004 – Pass Hard to say on his first year.
2005 – B He did as good as expected. Gave a lot of playing time to freshmen.
2006 – A+ Exceeded all expectations. That was a very, very special year.
2007 – B+ We beat Florida, we take it all. You would think with a whole year, he would have came up with something new. The Florida loss was almost the same as before. Absolute deja vu.
2008 – C Too much talent to not beat Memphis. I remember that day clearly. We got beat by 2 players. Yes, 2 – CDR and Derrick Rose. Howland’s stubborness cost us a NC. For the life of me, I still can’t figure out why he refused to put RW on DR and LRM on CDR. DR even said in the post game that he was worried that he would get guarded by RW. This is where my doubts in CBH grew. I am so bitter over this game. Not sure I’ve recovered yet.
2009 – D+ His rotations were all over the place and made no sense most of the time.
2010 – F No growth, no improvement. Attitude and effort of players are abysmal. Lost for words.
2010 unfortunately isn't over yet
Grades given for previous years are about right on except I would give a B- for 2009. A grade for a mid-year progress report would have to be an I for incomplete but based on the past lack of effort or acceptable performance an F would seem the future grade. Major problems indicated by others were correct with the obvious lack of an offensive game plan being the most to blame for our piss-poor results.
I copied this info from the official UCLA sports website (see below). My argument isn’t that Ben Howland shouldn’t be taking heat for the team’s performance this year. I’ve been among those bringing the heat. And I wasn’t particularly thrilled with last year. But partly because I’m a contrarian and partly because I think there’s been some context missing in how Howland has been judged, I decided to take a look at John Wooden’s record during the 15 seasons — 15 — that he spent at UCLA prior to winning his first national title. It was pretty damn good. But there were also a few very mediocre seasons, at least according to the won-loss column. There were no losing seasons, but they were bland enough that we sure wouldn’t have been thrilled had we been judging pre-championship Wooden by post-championship Wooden standards.
Despite my extreme disappointment with this season and last year’s busted recruiting class, I remain confident that this year is an aberration, given Howland’s past performance. I’ve never felt that Howland was the best college basketball coach in America, but I’ve thought that he was one of the best — and one who improve over time. I still believe that as of right now. And as I’ve said in previous posts, I think its important that he embraces the UCLA/John Wooden legacy — something that is critically necessary for whomever our basketball coach is.
My grades for Howland:
04-05: A
05-06: A
06-07: A
07-08: A
08-09: B (I’m still debating giving him a B minus)
09-10: At this point: a “D”, but it could get better or worse between now and the final exam (last game.)
See below for Wooden’s season by season record for his first 15 years.
1948-49 – 22-7
1949-50 – 24-7
1950-51 – 19-10
1951-52 – 19-12
1952-53 – 16-8
1953-54 – 18-7
1954-55 – 21-5
1955-56 – 22-6
1956-57 – 22-4
1957-58 – 16-10
1958-59 – 16-9
1959-60 – 14-12
1960-61 – 18-8
1961-62 – 18-11
1962-63 – 20-9
The Wooden comparsion is ridiculous and dumb
That was coming from a different era. No offense but that statline used to be thrown out by Lavin’s hardest supporters too. Wooden’s record in his first 15 years are meaningless to me. It’s an apple and oranges comparison.
Wooden didn’t inherit the UCLA program, Ben Howland and other coaches inherited post Wooden. That was a different time.
Again no here, expects Ben Howland to win championships every year. We don’t even expect him to go to Final-4 every year. However, what we will not accept at UCLA is losing seasons. We are not going to accept humiliating losses to programs like Concordia, Cal State Fullerton, Long Beach State, Portland and JustSC.
It is okay to have sub 20 win seasons and low level tourney flameouts in rebuilding seasons but it is not ok to have a program cratering in a head coach’s 7th season.
The idea of throwing up Wooden’s first 15 years makes no sense and it’s a baseless comparison taking into account today’s landscape of college hoops and UCLA hoops.
One part is relevant
Even while Wooden was developing a program and practicing in the dump of Men’s Gym he never had a losing season. Neither did any other person to hold the head coaching spot since except the one who got fired, Lavin.
The cool thing about Wooden that people forget is how different his championship teams were. Briefly:
1. First Championship group did a full court zone press and was lead by PG Walt Hazzard.
2. Second Championship run was built around and led by the most dominant Center in College Basketball history, Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul Jabbar)
3. Third Championship run had a stiff at Center and was lead by Sidney Wicks, a Power Forward.
4. Fourth Championship group ran a high post offense and was led by the best passing center ever in Bill Walton. This team was so good the backup Center went on to lead the NBA in rebounding.
5. Fifth and last Championship group was led by David Myers, a steady all around good forward player but hardly a star.
My point, Wooden never had a losing season AND won with teams that had very diferent styles.
If CBH is only going to try to win on a having a defense first approach, you can’t have your team led by MR or even play ND or JA. Wooden changed his team to fit his players. The approach with Kareem would not have worked with Patterson at Center.
Of course you are not going to win championships like Wooden but are you going to adapt and overcome like Wooden did?
I disagree and it's not "dumb"...
…I am talking the context of less than perfect seasons over the career arc of a coach. I couldn’t stand Lavin or Harrick or their apologists arguing that UCLA fans were unreasonable and that we couldn’t expect to regularly compete for Final Fours in the current college basketball landscape. All I’m pointing out is that a coaching legend — among the best to ever coach any sport, had less than legendary seasons as he was honing his craft.
I know that you don’t expect him to win a championship every season and I know that because of how you felt about him after three straight final four losses. My point is this: If this season is so unacceptable (and of course it is,) then how do we react? If we’re not calling for him to be fired (and I know that we’re not,) then what are saying? I’m just offering a view of confidence in his overall ability as a coach and backing up why I remain confident that this season is an aberration. If I didn’t feel that way, I’d demand that the university begin to look around for a better coach.
If there are those who don’t have confidence in his ability to get the job done, it’s time they shift the discussion to what the hell to do about it.
Sorry those numbers still are not germane
You offer up the first 15 years of Coach Wooden. For me record from those years don’t matter all that much because that was a timeperiod when Wooden was working to establish the UCLA program. Once he had established the UCLA program, he didn’t have mediocre seasons at UCLA. Note even during the establishing period he never registered a losing season at UCLA. Not one.
Howland came to UCLA to rebuild our program. He did that in period of two years. Once he did that there was nothing unreasonable with him have tough, rebuilding seasons. However, that didn’t mean losing seasons when everything spun out of control and the team tuned him out.
We have already pointed out how we are going to react if we have a losing season. If we do that than we will lay out a set of expectations during off-season heading into next year and expect Howland to live up to that. We have already discussed it in previous posts, please look them up.
The datapoints you offer on Wooden’s first fifteen years are nice but it has no bearing whatsoever in the current situation.
I've read closely and I simply disagree...
…the data points are not baseless. If they were, that plays into the argument that Wooden is no better than Roy Williams or Coach K or (take your pick) because the NCAA tourney was different when he coached — fewer teams, easier competition, less parity, what have you.
Agree to disagree, I guess. But I’m curious, expectations aside, do you still believe he is a good coach? Do you believe UCLA will meet our general expectations next year? I do. I was attempting to back that up. My main point has been to back up why I believe this season is an aberration. In no way have I excused the results I’ve seen on the court this year. I haven’t.
Coach Wooden's numbers here do not apply
because what he did took place at a different time and in different context. Period. It just doesn’t count and it is ridiculous to bring up that comparison.
If you want to compare Howland’s career trajectory at UCLA, you’d be better serve to compare it with Jim Harrick and other coaches at programs like Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, UNC in the modern era.
Just like Howland, Jim Harrick was brought in to re-establish UCLA. Look at the program he had in his seventh year. It won the Pac-10 conference and he left in a decent enough shape that it even allowed a poser like Lavin to make a legit run to the Final-4. In comparison Howland has fallen shot.
Do I think Howland is a good coach? I do think he is one of the best in terms of having a track record of re-building programs. Do I think he is one of the best in maintaining an elite program. I don’t know.
As for general expectations … next year … we will table that discussion till this off-season. I want to see how this team finishes out this season first.
However, as mentioned above, it is dumb to bring up Wooden’s first 15 years at UCLA, to discuss Howland’s 7th year in Westwood. It is an apple and orange comparison without any merit.
Again, agree to disagree.
But a note on Jim Harrick: He was an average to less than average coach with the exception of 1995 when I watched him do an amazing job. I’m less interested in his record than I am with how his teams played — and how they played except for ‘95 was in manner in which I do not miss. And as an aside: He did not leave the program in that great of shape. He was busted lying about a recruiting violation causing the AD to fire him right before the season started which was one of the reasons Lavin got the job in the first place. Look Nestor, your analysis on many things is well-reasoned and spot on. On this thing we’ve been debating, I just don’t agree — nor do I agree that my argument, even if wrong, is without merit.
I hear you but I believe your bringing up Wooden's numers has any relevance
to the current situation to justify a losing season or even a non-NIT season.
Agree that Harrick didn’t deserve to be in UCLA after he lied about his recruiting violations. I wanted him gone. However, what is not debatable is that in terms of available talent on roster, he had UCLA in much stronger situation in his 7th year compared to Ben Howland.
I preferred Ben Howland’s style to Harrick’s. However, the product we have seen from Ben Howland in last two years which has been an awful result of preferential treatment of players like Shipp, Holiday and Dragovic (who never cared much about defense) has been disgusting to watch and uglier than anything I had seen during Harrick era.
Again, wasn't justifying...
…Just answering the question: Do I still think this guy is a good coach? I do, and was explaining why. I believe this is an aberration in Howland’s career. I wasn’t thrilled with last season, but it didn’t cause me to ask the questions about Howland that I’ve been asking recently. If I turn out to be wrong, we’ll find out soon enough.
As an aside, Harrick’s teams had several problems, lost games they shouldn’t have all the time, and regularly got worse as the season progressed. I’ll take this one ugly season over every season under Harrick except for ‘95. That guy should never have been our coach. I’m grateful for the one year he coached above his head. But for that I had several seasons of mediocrity.
I think we agree re. Harrick on number of points
I experienced the same frustrations you outlined above. However, in terms of what he accomplished I can’t take that away from him and I do believe he left the program in great shape and made UCLA relevant again during post-Wooden era. I will always be grateful to him and the 1995 team for what I experienced as a senior in Westwood. I will not alloy anyone to diminish that.
You can’t also dismiss his other seasons as mediocre considering he won 2 other Pac-10 championships and for all intent and purpose is responsible for the Pac-10 championship a peon like Lavin won with his team in Lavin’s first season.
We will know in next 12-16 months, whether what we are experiencing is an aberration. However, that doesn’t mean we stay quiet when we see a basketball team humiliate those four letters on a regular basis during this dreadful season. The heat will only get intense on Howland and everyone associated around his program if we see more of the same garbage rest of this year.
Harrick
I loved ‘95 and all of those guys — and I think that one season also belongs to Harrick because he did a great job that year. But almost every other season he coached at UCLA was an exercise in frustration. Wins and losses aren’t the only thing that matter — it’s how you win and how you lose.
Agree with you on the next 12 to 16 months. We’ll see if I’m right. Based on past performance I think I am. I’m pleased with this year’s recruiting class and the addition of a good point guard next year will make a huge difference. But if I’m wrong you bring the crow and I’ll bring the beer.
by Bruin Die Hard on Jan 18, 2010 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
You are not arguing based on actualy records and datapoints
that matter and just throwing up arguments based on how you felt watching those teams. And the numbers you have offered up re. Wooden, kind of shows that you haven’t really thought through on how to advance your arguments.
I have no problem discussing UCLA basketball but it is kind of annoying when people offer arguments without the numbers that actually matter and not basing it on facts. Really would like to see that relegated to message boards. Not BN. Thanks.
I don't want to defend Harrick
Because of his Ethics issues. But disagree on him being a less than average coach. He was an ethically challenged coach and not right for UCLA but he won everywhere he went. Made Pepperdine into a powerhouse in their conference, took a one man RI team to the elite 8, etc.
Besides his disqualifying ethic issues, he did a good job at UCLA. He was infinitely better than Hazzard (a bad coach), Farmer (a coach so bad Weber State fired him) and Lavin (a graduate assistant).
Was he the best post Wooden UCLA coach? No, but he was good. Was he good enough for UCLA, again different question.
In terms of record
He might end up being the best post-Wooden coach if nothing changes with UCLA hoops by the end of next season.
If Harrick is our best post-Wooden coach at any point...
…we’re going to be perennially miserable. His teams played piss-poor defense, undisciplined offense and couldn’t win big games when they counted, save for one season. Watching his teams play were like watching Dorrel win football games — not very enjoyable despite a favorable final score.
DCBruins is right about his record outside of UCLA, but so what. It never translated for us.
Huh?
Do you realize how ridiculous your comparsions are between Harrick and Karl Dorrell.
First, answer the following questions:
Did Karl Dorrell win Pac-10 championships at UCLA? Yes or no?
Did Karl Dorrell win national championship at UCLA? Yes or no?
Did Karl Dorrell’s program get better record wise year to year when he took over at UCLA? Yes or no?
You offered up Wooden’s numbers from first 15 years which has nothing to do with Howland’s 7th year and now you are comparing Harrick’s career with Dorrell.
When did you graduate from UCLA? Did you forget how UCLA beat Arizona on the road and at home in his 4th season? Those games weren’t big in your book? Did you forget how Harrick’s teams regularly owned the Bay Area schools? Did you forget how Harrick OWNED Mike Montgomery while he was at UCLA.
Here are Harrick’s final record at UCLA:
192-62 (108-36 in Pac-10)
If you count Lavin’s first season, that record translates into:
216-70 (123-39) with 4 Pac-10 titles, two Elite Eights and 1 NC.
You want to compare that to Howlands?
It is perfectly acceptable to blast Harrick for what he did re. recruiting violation. It is ok to be critical for his offense. However, it is absolutely baseless to compare Harrick’s building up UCLA into a power program with Dorrell’s slow destruction of UCLA’s football program.
Ridiculous.
Agree
Harrick was a good coach. I think THIS team coached by Harrick would do better as well. (I am not saying Harrick is better than CBH just with this team he would adapt better than CBH has so far.)
Of course, Lavin was not as good as Dorrell. So if you want to blame Harrick for a bad coaching move, I will give you he should have paid closer attention to the Graduate Assistant he hired in Lavin. Kidding, well sort of.
I did not enjoy the Harrick era
I’ve been following UCLA basketball since 1978. I went to nearly every home game for the entirety of the Harrick era (as I did for the Cunningham, Brown, Farmer, Hazzard and Lizard eras.) I no longer live in L.A. so can’t attend like I used to, but I watch.
Harrick had a decent record but we never competed for a national title and his teams usually tanked in a big way in the tourney. I remember an Elite 8 game against Indiana in which we got plastered. Typical Harrick. To me, his one good season was an aberration. Like I said, I’m not just interested in records, but how we look winning. Harrick’s teams were less than enjoyable to watch. And all he ever did was complain that UCLA fans had unreasonable expectations because we demanded championships. The guy bugged.
And I give him a DQ on leaving the program in good shape. The manner in which the administration was forced to fire him created a huge problem. Huge.
Howland went to three consecutive final fours within his first six seasons after inheriting a program that was close to bare. His teams played fundamental, lock-down D, efficient offense and exhibited character and hustle. He developed players that weren’t known to be any good into NBA talent. Except for this year, Howland’s tenure has been far more enjoyable to watch than Harrick.
Sorry you didn't enjoy the Harrick era
I had a blast winning the National championship, camping out for a team that stayed within top-5 my entire freshman season, won the Pac-10 (punked Arizona), went to the Elite Eight. I was perfectly content in having a team in my last years at UCLA which followed up a NC title with more Pac-10 championships and was in position to make a long run with a brand new core around Baron Davis.
I have enjoyed Howland’s tenure at UCLA. However, what has taken place till this year is inexcusable. Period. And if we don’t turn it around with a legit run for the Pac-10 championship next season, as referenced multiple times above, Howland’s seat will get hotter.
Lastly, your comparison between Harrick and Dorrell was ridiculous based on objective numbers and datapoints.
Again, agree to disagree...
…Guess we’re on a roll tonight.
I have no problem with disagreeing
and we can continue this over beers. lol
However, I do want to come here and offer up arguments based on numbers and facts. Don’t do it Jill Painter style by basing it on your feelings. :-)
Agreed...
…One of these days I’ll pull game stats from the Harrick era and add that to the mix. I’ll pull games one and lost before January and January and after. Anyway, enjoyed the back and forth. My wife thinks I’m a freak. :)
harrick and howland
I would definitely say Harrick and Howland have been are best coaches since I have been watching. Had I been watching in 1980 I may not say that. But since they also happen to be the only 2 coaches hired with any credentials previous to their stint at UCLA is much more of an indictment of our AD then how good they really are. That being said I would classify both in the very good category. Harrick’s 95 team could certainly be defined as an aberration after a couple notable futile exits in the NCAAs. At the same time the sort of chaotic nature of the Harrick era is also what may have allowed a great team to surface in 95. Harrick lacked control, but really allowed his players to play their games. Howland seems a bit of a control freak, but we were not going to lose to a Princeton in the tourney either. Which philosophy is better is debatable to me. Who’s to say Howland landing his 1st key players isn’t an aberration though. Maybe landing players like Luc, westbrook, DC were lucky.. but only time can tell.
As important if not more was Harrick building back the program to prominence when no one had done it. I would argue when he came in we were in the hoops landscape much less relevent making his turnaround much more important. Without Harrick Howland may have come in with no expectations for all we know. His 1st big recruit was a glorious freshman in Don McLean. Then he added players like Tracy Murray then the coup and beautiful timing of Tarver and O’Bannon thanks the UNLV’s issues. That with little known Edney led to an eventual title. Butler, Edney, O’Bannon and others had as much heart as any ben ball warriors. Sure we had some brutal head-scratching losses, but they rebuilt a culture of winning and expectations. One of the most memorable games in basketball I ever attended was a loss to Michigan’s fab 5 team in Tucson. We came at them full guns blaring. In the end they overpowered us with their size and snuck out an overtime win, but that twosome of ed and edney showed ‘it’. We had plenty of exciting runs with Harrick, so I can’t take that away from him.
Would I have liked to have a better ‘showing’ in some tournaments.. sure. He has the one thing no one has been able to do since Wooden and it happens to be the most important thing to out program to date. Howland continued something that should have been continued 7 years earlier, but we had to panic and let Lavin grab the reigns of a talented team thanks to a nice tourney run. Hopefully we never fall for that again. Howland is now left with as great a test as the one he showed up with which I am not sure how to take that. I am hoping this is an aberration of misfortune obviously, but it would be nice to see some level of improvement the rest of this season. Winning is secondary to finding and playing 5 guys who want to be out there. We need a culture of effort, fun and excitement. The scoreboard at this point is not relevent because this team is not good. In a few weeks hopefully I can start worrying about wins and losses again.
Any Harrick/Howland comparison must take the landscape into account
The cbk landscape has changed profoundly since 95. Back then, early departures were far, far rarer, and only done by elite talent. Harrick was lucky to have 3 senior leaders on his team who basically ran the team and obviated the need for shrewd coaching. Tyus Edney was more than the team’s second-round savior; he was their offensive coordinator. He created the entire offense.
In 1995, guys like Farmar, Afflalo, and Luc would all be four-year players. If Howland had those guys for four years, there is no doubt in my mind he would’ve won at least one NC.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
