Two Major Questions Surrounding Howland and the Future Viability of our Basketball Program
by Bellerophon on Jan 3, 2010 8:13 PM PST
Email
Print
Howland with this year's senior "leadership" - Photo via SB Nation
Well folks, I'm going to follow up my earlier effort on CBH and his recruiting, with a couple of datapoints and then throw the discussion to all of you.
There's no doubt that something is wrong with our basketball program. It's been one of the most discussed topics here on BN the last month or so. Different folks have come up with different explanations, from recruiting shortfalls, defensive liabilities, Dragovic (a.k.a. the Belgrade Bricklayer), to a stubborn refusal to utilize the zone or adapt to current personnel.
Moreover, it's no secret that BN has been supportive of CBH. In fact, I'll come out and say that a lot of folks here (both moderators and regular posters) are/have had a "man-crush" on CBH and his tough, in-your-shirt defense. He came to Westwood and rebuilt Coach Wooden's program after that f**king moron destroyed it
One of the rare photographs of UCLA's basketball coach from 1996-2003 - Photo courtesy of ICIS.com
That being said, as Nestor pointed out earlier, while we are supportive of Coach Howland, that doesn't make him immune to criticism. We should remember that our loyalty and concern is for UCLA, first and foremost, not to any single player or coach. After last season's effort, I had some private concerns of where our program would go without the original core of leadership (with DC, JS, and AA2 gone). This year the program was turned over to a new generation, or so we thought. This was the year that Malcolm Lee, Jerime Andersen, Drew Gordon, and J'mison Morgan were supposed to take over and lead the Bruins to continued success. Nikola Dragovic, James Keefe, and Mike Roll were supposed to be the seasoned veterans, helping guide the youngsters just as Hollins, Ced, and Dijon did for Farmar, Afflalo, and Shipp.
Obviously, that hasn't happened. Ultimately, Howland is the man responsible. He's the head coach. He's the boss. He's the man we trust to be the caretaker of Coach Wooden's program. He's the guy Guerrero is paying the big bucks too. So, the failures of this season (and the shortcomings of last season) beg two major questions:
1. Can Ben Howland sustain the level of success he has built at UCLA?
2. Can Ben Howland recruit in the new basketball recruiting landscape created by the NBA's one-and-done rule?
Is this an image Bruin fans will ever see again? - Photo courtesy of the Los Angeles Times
1. Can Ben Howland sustain the level of success he has built at UCLA?
Howland has built an impressive reputation as a man who can build a basketball program. He's done in at Northern Arizona, Pittsburgh, and now here in Westwood. The man knows how to make something out of nothing, or in the case of UCLA, how to take a total train wreck and make it into a Final Four caliber program. Take a look at his track record:
'94-'95: 9-17
'95-'96: 7-19
'96-'97: 21-7
'97-'98: 21-8
'98-'99: 21-8
'99-'00: 13-15
'00-'01: 19-14
'01-'02: 29-6
'02-'03: 28-5
'03-'04: 11-17
'04-'05: 18-11
'05-'06: 32-7
'06-'07: 30-6
'07-'08: 35-4
'08-'09: 26-9
First, we need to remember that this is the longest Howland has ever been at once place. He left Northern Arizona after 5 seasons, and left Pitt after 4 seasons. In reality, while we know he can build a program (which he has now done 3 times in a row, in very impressive fashion), no one has seen what he does with what he has built.
Second, let’s look at what happened with the two programs he built, both of which are still in the hands of the assistant (Mike Adras at Northern Arizona, Jamie Dixon at Pitt) he left the team with:
Northern Arizona Lumberjacks since 1999:
'99-'00: 20-11
'00-'01: 15-14
'01-'02: 14-14
'02-'03: 15-13
'03-'04: 15-14
'04-'05: 11-17
'05-'06: 21-11
'06-'07: 18-12
'07-'08: 21-11
'08-'09: 8-19
Pittsburgh Panthers since 2003:
'03-'04: 31-5
'04-'05: 20-9
'05-'06: 25-8
'06-'07: 29-8
'07-'08: 27-10
'08-'09: 31-5
It’s kind of a mixed bag. Northern Arizona has regressed to a pretty mediocre status, with a few 20 win seasons sprinkled in. After Howland left, the wins definitely went down. Pitt, under Dixon, on the other hand, has maintained the level of success Howland reached. On that score, it's hard to reach any kind of conclusion on the long term viability of a program built by Howland. Northern Arizona is on the slide, but is that because, well, how do you get recruits to go to Flagstaff, Arizona? Or is it an early indication of things to come? Pitt has continued to do very well in the Big East, giving our own Bruins some very tough battles in the Big Dance, but is that because Jamie Dixon is a pretty darn good coach? Pittsburgh is no Los Angeles, but having a brand new arena to lure the recruits can't hurt.
From Howland's history, here is what we do know: his teams peak around his fourth year. Northern Arizona, Pitt, and UCLA all hit their peak around his fourth season at the helm (with our Final Four runs coming in Howland's third, fourth, and fifth seasons). We're well past that point now. Now the question is whether Howland can sustain that sucess and we have no evidence to guide us. Does our program fall into mediocrity like Northern Arizona or does it sustain elite status like Pitt? Does Howland have what it takes to maintain what he built?
This is new territory for our head coach. UCLA is, as he says, his dream job, so it's not like he'll be riding off to another destination as he did in Flagstaff and Pittsburgh. Is he another Jeff Tedford (a good, but not great, coach who can build a program from rubble, build some excitement, but fail to reach the top)? Or, is he like Bill Self (a solid coach who needed time to eventually reach the peak)?
On this question, I don't know if anyone has an answer. We're in undiscovered country. Howland has never been in this situation before, so truth be told, while we all support and love the guy, we have no idea if he's up to the task. After all, he left before anyone could find out in Flagstaff or Pittsburgh.
God, I hope Coach Howland isn't the basketball version of Tedford - Photo courtesy of Zimbio.com
2. Can Ben Howland recruit in the new basketball recruiting landscape created by the NBA's one-and-done rule?
I've made no secret that I think recruiting (i.e. talent evaluation, scouting, etc.) is a major flaw in our program, at least, since 2006. My hope is that, for all of the thoughts, arguments, hypotheticals, etc. tossed around BN that the answer to our current woes is simply that Howland and his staff missed big time on the current sophomore class. Hopefully, once our program is purged of the mentally soft players that make up this roster Howland can rebuild the program around a core of true Ben Ball Warriors in the Farmar, Afflalo, Mbah a Moute, Mata-Real, Westbrook, etc. mold.
But, there's something I think no one is talking about. Look at Howland's track record above. His success came before the NBA gave us the idiotic one-and-done rule (for the record, I support the idea that basketball should follow college baseball's model). Yes, I know what you're going to say: "well, one-and-done is so new, that only a couple of coaches (Bill Self and Roy Williams) have done well in the new regime." While that's true, I don't think we can dismiss the possibility.
Nestor made an astute observation earlier. Coaches like Self and Roy Williams are still doing very well, in spite of the major changes one-and-done brought to college basketball. Obviously, they have adapted to the new system and continue to thrive in it. What's the difference between those twoand Howland? Okay, aside from the fact they both have a national title, both guys aren't just great recruiters, but great at retaining talent. What does that mean? As Nestor can better explain than I, in a nutshell, Kansas and North Carolina have been as successful as they have been because each coach has managed to convince a major talent/anchor of the squad to pass on the NBA and stay for an extra year or two (Sherron Collins and Cole Aldrich at Kansas; Sean May, Rashad McCants, Tyler Hansbrough, Ty Lawson at UNC).
On that score, Howland has not shown he is very good at retaining talent. On one hand, Collision shocked everyone by coming back for his senior season. On the other hand, Jrue Holiday is the prime example of not retaining talent for an extra year. The kid came in with all of the hype, but showed us very little. He hurt his draft stock and, had he stayed, I think he would have improved his stock (and gotten himself more money in the process). Moreover, it was clear Holiday wasn't buying into Howland's vision for UCLA basketball. As much as we love Westbrook, he punched his ticket to the NBA as soon as he could. Keeping him for an extra year would have been huge.
I'll come out and say it: I've been very critical of Holiday, but we could have used him this year. Okay, strike that. We could have used someone with his talent, but with Arron Afflalo's attitude this year.
Howland has not done a lot since one-and-done became the way of the world. The first NBA draft with one-and-done in effect was the 2006 draft (following the 2005-2006 basketball season). That was the Adam Morrison draft. Or, as Charlotte Bobcats fans call it, the "what the hell did we do?!" draft. When you look at Howland's record, he was winning before one-and-done impacted college basketball.
See, I know what people want to say: "Nuh-uh! Howland did well after the 2005-2006 season. We went to two Final Fours in 2006-2007 and 2007-2008!" Yes, that's true, but how did we get that far? Not with one-and-done players. In the '05-'06 season, we went to the Final Four because of Jordan Farmar, Arron Afflalo, Ced Bozeman, Ryan Hollins, and Josh Shipp. Those kids were all recruited before one-and-done. In the '06-'07 season, we made it to the Final Four with Darren Collision, Josh Shipp, Arron Afflalo, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, and Lorenzo Mata-Real. All of those guys were brought in before one-and-done. In the '07-'08 season, yes, we had Kevin Love, a for-sure one-and-done player, but he alone didn't get us to the Final Four. Most of thought he would be the final piece to make our banners an even dozen, but he didn't get us there alone. That team was built around Collision, Shipp, Russell Westbrook, the Prince, with key contributions from Alfred Aboya and Mata-Real.
Look at it long-and-hard Bruins. Every Final Four run was built around the original core of Ben Ball Warriors, kids brought in before the NBA got stupid and gave us one-and-done. Those guys were true Bruins, here for at least two years (with the exception of Kevin Love), most for at least three. These were the Howland recruits before one-and-done.
In my recruiting post I argued:
Since 2006, the only two players who came in with legitimate talent were KL and RW. They’re both in the NBA now. Since 2006, CBH has failed to bring in any quality players who would form a foundation for this next generation. There have been no players like JS, DC, AA2, or LRMAM brought in since 2006. That’s four recruiting classes and I’m seeing a lot of hype, but no results.
Some folks may want to call it a coincidence, but in my opinion, our recruiting has been on the downward slide since 2006, the same year the NBA instituted one-and-done. Yes, our current sophomore class was rated as the top recruiting haul in the country, but as we all know now, everyone missed on those kids. Holiday had the wrong attitude for Ben Howland basketball, Lee has been listless, Andersen is a point guard who can't play point guard, Morgan is clueless on the floor, and Gordon was a psycho. Is one-and-done to blame for our downturn? No, it isn't.
The question is whether Howland can adapt to this new landscape and manage to evaluate talent and attitude and bring in the right kind of players for UCLA to be successful. That is a major question in my mind given the lack of quality on this current roster (built of players recruited after one-and-done). As we all know, Howland has been extremely stubborn at times (insisting on playing man defense rather than zone, sticking with the Belgrade Bricklayer, etc.) and not shown the kind of flexibility and innovation that made us great under Coach Wooden. Howland can be stubborn and sometimes that works in our favor, but if he cannot adapt to recruiting in this one-and-done world, our long term future looks bleak, unless the NCAA does us a favor and tells these young players that we're doing things the way baseball does them.
Since we all know how impotent the NCAA is, it's on Howland to learn to bring us the next Farmars, Afflalos, Princes, Aboyas, and Collisions in this one-and-done landscape.
Two major questions Bruins. Not sure what the answer is, but our program's long-term future hinges on how those things turn out, in my opinion. Fire away with your thoughts.
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.
76 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't have any answers only questions.
Ben Howland did a great job of bringing tough nosed defensive basketball to UCLA; a much needed shot in the arm after Lavin’s rebounding averse teams. But could it be that Howland does not get the most out of his players?
Of all his players the only player I can remember that came in and exceeded EVERYONE’s expectations was Russell Westbrook. Everybody else either met expectations or failed to live up to them.
Case in point, I remember watching the McDonald’s All American HS game when James Keefe was a recruit. He was a monster on the glass and IIRC won the slam dunk competition that year. he was one of the players I was real eager to see blow up. It never happened. It’s not like they raised the hoops at this level. His potential was through the roof! But a lack of playing time contributed to his lack of progression as a basketball player.
Michael Roll, I remember was going to be the next Jason Kapono. He was one of the best 3 point shooters in the country when he came in but I have yet to see him get hot for even one game. I understand the game is faster at this level, and yadda yadda yadda, but shooting the ball is like riding a bike. You don’t forget how to shoot, and if his defense or lack thereof kept him from winning PT, his shot would still have surfaced at some point. Nope.
I remember Josh Shipp was another guy that was one of the best players in the country when he came in. He was the best of the 3 Shipp brothers and the sky was the limit. I understand he had injury problems, but the fact remains, I kept waiting for him to live up to his potential, and he never quite got there.
I could go on. I remember an article describing Mbah a Moute as having Jordan like game with the sky is the limit potential. But my memory of him is of a great role player on a good team.
Someone once told me the only guy who could keep Micheal Jordan under 20 points was Dean Smith. And I wonder if Ben Howland isn’t going to be the same way. I’ve known several D1 athletes and parents of D1 athletes and nobody ever gets excited about the way UCLA plays ball. I have called several times for ‘opening up the offense’ or simply adapting to the realities of today’s atheletes and been shot down for it. But, facts are facts. Kids want to run and score. Fans want to see them run and score. Defense wins championships, but offense wins games. And in our 3 recent opportunities at a 12th banner we came up short, not for failing to stop our opponents from scoring, rather for failing to score when we needed it most.
PS: i remember that Jon Chaney at Temple was known for preaching defense. One of his pupils, Eddie Jones was a lottery pick for the Los Angeles Lakers. Great guy, they even made some Nike commercials about with George “the iceman” Gervin. But, Eddie never quite reached all star status in the NBA although he had all the tools you would want in one. He was from what I remember a great role player on some good teams. But, never quite developed the killer instinct to score that all the great players have.
Ben Howland is 10 times the coach Lavin was and that is a great thing. But the single most basic element of basketball is to put the ball in the basket. It’s great that he instilled tough minded defense to Lavin’s remains, but somewhere along the line he forgot to teach his guys how to get open for consistently high percentage shots.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
I remember after
the Western Kentucky game that Keefe would blow up and assert his dominance, not only has he not come close to that but he hasn’t shown to be a good player at all. I love his toughness but he always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time but that isn’t just a coincidence.
To ask if players have exceeded expectations is a bit unfair
Because the reality is that we expect greatness out of everyone who puts on a UCLA uniform, so exceeding that isn’t really possible from the get-go, only matching it.
That being said, I don’t recall ever projecting Luc Richard Mbah a Moute (my personal favorite Bruin from the Howland era) as having a Jordan-like game. Darren Collison was barely a top 100 player coming out of HS. Alfred Aboya was extremely raw when he arrived on campus. I agree that Keefe hasn’t developed as we would have hoped. Some of that tho can certainly be attributed to his injuries. If anything, Howland’s ability to develop players has been too effective for his own good, as Farmar, Afflalo, Mbah a Moute, Love, Westbrook, and Holiday have all left early for the NBA.
I’m not saying Coach Howland is infallible, but I think it’s disingenuous to portray him as a coach who can’t develop players.
Oh, and Eddie Jones did reach All-Star status. Three times, as a matter of fact.
by insomniacslounge on Jan 3, 2010 10:25 PM PST up reply actions
LRMM
I believe someone from his personal hype machine described him having Jordan-like qualities coming out of high school, something about him having superb body control, but that’s about it. Same with Michael Roll.
Next Jason Kapono? Hype.
In truth Michael Roll was recruited because he was a hard worker who would frequently make the hustle plays (i.e – the typical Ben Ball warrior). He was NEVER recruited to be the focus of an offense, save for some spot up shooting work.
In fact, I’d say in 2006 and 2007 (and arguably in 2008), we defeated 2 or 3 teams who had a slight to major talent advantage compared to us. The difference of course was that Ben Howland got these players to believe in a TEAM defensive scheme which was successful in frustrating opposing teams into a miserable shooting night.
The Dean Smith joke about Michael Jordan is a tired old basketball anecdote that is only meant to elicit laughter and has very little to do with the actual game of basketball. Sure Dean Smith had a slower paced system in place at UNC, but I think its fair to say it did little to hinder his recruiting. In fact, it could be argued that Michael Jordan does NOT become Michael Jordan without first spending 3 years under Dean Smith.
Oh UCLA you sweet bitch, you've BRUINed me for anything else.
tangential side note
As a kid, Michael Jordan’s dream school was UCLA. But UCLA didn’t really bother recruiting Jordan until the very last moment, and by that time, he was sold on UNC.
But, I guess since Michael Jordan doesn’t become Michael Jordan w/out Dean Smith, then maybe we didn’t miss out on much afterall. :)
by insomniacslounge on Jan 3, 2010 11:11 PM PST up reply actions
And perversly
if he comes to UCLA, Larry Farmer gives him free reign to do whatever he wants and by the time he gets to the NBA, he is an entitled, spoiled brat who burns out after a season or two.
Oh UCLA you sweet bitch, you've BRUINed me for anything else.
+1 on Luc
Absolutely the cog of 3 final four teams. He was more crucial to the defense than any other player. AA was a lock-down perimeter defender, but Luc’s length and agility let him guard anyone and help anyone who got beaten. LMR my favorite on a personal level, LRMAM the player I want CBH to find out there somewhere.
LRMM
I don’t know about the Jordan comment/comparison, but LRMM was so good and inspirational as a freshman that his potential did seem extremely high, He stayed at a pretty even level and was a great Bruin, but he never blew up the way that some of us thought he might after his freshman year. Kind of supports Mexibruins’ argument.
And now he’s working along a similar, relatively flat trajectory in the NBA—surprisingly good as a rookie, now a solid, steady pro.
None of the
players you mentioned were 5 star recruits. I think CBH has developed players aside from finding diamonds in the rough. Ryan Hollins made a marked improvement. The Prince, DC and Ced Bozeman showed improvement every year. Ced, in his last year.
But there have definitely been some misses due to attitude or disagreement with the program’s philosophy. JH, DG, Stanback.
Everyone, everyone thought our sophomores would be good. But the only one who shows flashes is Lee.
Keefe = McDonald's Monster and Dunk Contest Winner?!?!?!
No offense Mexi but your memory is way off on this one. Keefe was one of the least impressive McDonald’s All-Americans I’ve ever seen (and I’ve watched every Mickey Ds game since ‘92) and as for the dunk contest, you’re probably thinking of Chase Buddinger who got second behind Gerald Henderson.
Beyond that, I’d say that you might have too often gotten caught up in the positive comments re. incoming Bruins. Bruin8clap is on the money with respect to the hype machine. For every high school player there’s someone willing to say that he’s amazing and the best thing since sliced bread. For comparison I just found a movie review of the film Baby Geniuses that says “Younger patrons will be drawn into the fantasy, while the humor is sufficient to keep adults interested,” another movie review more acurately calls it “easily one of the worst films in years.”
Just ask the next Jordan about buying into the hype his name is Lenny Cooke or was it Felipe Lopez or was it Jaron Rush or was it Schea Cotton or was it Korleone Young. I forget
methinks he was thinking about chase budinger
Across The Face
that makes more sense
they came into college the same year. and both were mentioned in the same breath since they were local OC products.
Keefe winning the dunk contest?
If only he can jump that high. lol. Unfortunately, his career at UCLA has been a major disappointment.
would have included Minor
but he actually had a decent few years in the NBA. Lots of the quote unquote next-Jordans never even made the league
Eddie Jones "never quite reached all star status in the NBA"?
He played in three All-Star Games.
by DexterFishmore on Jan 4, 2010 2:41 AM PST up reply actions
Doh!
I blew it on the Eddie Jones reference and JK winning the slam dunk comp. slaps forehead
But the point is simple, we’ve had a lot of guys come through that did not live up to their billing. Even out of the list of guys Insomniac mentions, it is safe to say Holliday did not live up to expectations.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Where's the Jeff Tedford comparison come from?
Coach Howland has already accomplished far more in six years than Tedford has in eight. I know he hasn’t gotten us #12 yet, but three consecutive regular conference titles and trips to the final four is still an impressive achievement. Tedford doesn’t have a single conference title to his ledger.
by insomniacslounge on Jan 3, 2010 11:08 PM PST reply actions
Kal hasn't won a conference title since the 1950s
its a different measuring stick given the history of the programs… I understand what you are saying, but Knute Rockne and Vince Lombardi couldn’t win 3 consecutive conference titles at KAL
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Jan 3, 2010 11:13 PM PST up reply actions
It's a general comment
I know, in terms of actual conference titles and postseason success, Howland has done a lot more than Tedford. All I meant by the comparison is that Tedford went to Cal and took a mediocre (read: lame) football program at a granola hippie school and made it into serious threat to win the Pac-10 on an annual basis. That being said, despite what Tedford built, he’s never made it all the way.
In that sense, CBH has built a lot at UCLA, and he’s come real close to winning it all, but he has never gotten us to where we belong: NCAA champs.
A couple of points
I am actually now starting to think that Jim Harrick may end up being the most successful coach post JRW. He won the conference three times, and has a national title, made the tourney every year, and never had a losing record. Howland is on the way to his second losing record as a UCLA coach, becoming the first UCLA coach since Wilber Johns to accomplish that. Folks need to understand that there is something terribly rotten in this basketball program. Great programs don’t fall apart as quickly as we have…
Secondly, I think Howland is a victim of his own shortcuts regarding Josh Shipp and Nikola Dragovich. I think he has rewarded players who don’t play defense with lots of time, and accordingly, the rest of the team has just decided to say screw it, why should we play hard nose defense if its not mandatory and you are seeing the effects of that. You can’t demand a man to man defense, allow horrible defensive players to start, and expect your defense to perform well, or your other players to break their backs playing d when others don’t have to.
Howland needs to take a serious look in the mirror and decide how he needs to change, because what is going on now isn’t it cutting it.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Jan 3, 2010 11:25 PM PST reply actions
The problem
is Shipp and Dragovic’s replacements don’t understand the system yet. Why reward someone with playing time that doesn’t compete in practice. There’s no point in playing Brendon Lane if he has no clue what he’s doing on the court
by lil eg not cs on Jan 4, 2010 12:32 AM PST up reply actions
it would be nice to know
what goes on at practice. I tend to make the same assumptions you do here, but I’d like to hear if anyone has inside knowledge.
I do think that there is an obvious difference watching BL and JMM compared with players like MR and ND – often times I think MR and ND fail to close out quickly enough, or alternatively get beaten by more athletic players, or what have you; but they rarely look completely lost on the court. They move to vaguely the right place on the court and pick up the right man without having to think about it, even if they then don’t make the play that a more athletic or committed defender would make. When I see BL or JMM on the court, it looks like they don’t understand what is going on, which leads the whole defense to break down as other players try to compensate….
Lets just say
That JMM is winded after the first drill normally.
by lil eg not cs on Jan 4, 2010 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
Is that the trade off
is questionable effort and attitude really worth the production these guys give you if their attitude and effort rubs off on the rest of the team?
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Jan 4, 2010 8:27 AM PST up reply actions
the argument that players are being rewarded for not playing defense
requires
1) that the players we see on the court are not playing tough defense (check)
and
2) that the players we don’t see on the court are playing tougher defense but not being rewarded with playing time (open question)
I find it hard to believe that ND and JS
were the hardest playing defensive players at their positions. Both were given playing time because of their offensive production. And who cares if you play hard defense in practice and don’t play hard defense in a game, what is the point?
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Jan 4, 2010 10:39 AM PST up reply actions
Im not sure I buy the practice thing...
If ND plays hard (notice I said hard, not good) defense in practice but doesn’t play hard in the game, what is the point?
The question is who is playing harder for you in any given game. If someone isn’t playing hard, you take them out and replace them with someone who will, even if that person’s talent isn’t equal.
That’s how you get players to play hard. Players likd Shipp and ND who only play hard part of the game infect the rest of the team with a lazy attitude IMHO
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Jan 4, 2010 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
if the bench players aren't playing hard
then I don’t see how ‘rewarding’ bench players for not being ND/JS is helpful.
BL and JMM don’t seem to be playing obviously harder defense in their limited minutes. I think it’s an open question whether or not they are bringing hustle and hard work in practice; if they are not doing that, then handing them minutes might teach ND/JS(last year) a lesson, but doesn’t teach BL/JMM/MM anything.
And clearly ND/JS offensive production factors into it. In previous years we brought bench players into the game who made up for awareness deficiencies with all-out effort and hustle (DC, RW, PAA, LMR at various points in their career), so that even if we were a little less composed when our bench players were on the court, we were at least not letting opposition starters coast. Right now, bringing in BL/JMM/MM doesn’t seem to lift the team energy at all, or provide any other value (though at least with Bobo, we get a slightly different look when you have his size).
You can blame Howland for discouraging BL/JMM/MM if you like, and if you think they are not trying hard because they don’t think it’ll earn them more playing time. From what I see on the court, they do not seem to be displaying any more hustle than the players they come in for, and when you’re playing such limited minutes you ought to be able to give all-out effort in short bursts. That is why I would like to know what goes on in practice, as what I see (in limited time) doesn’t suggest BL/JMM/MM are trying to impress anyone with their effort.
by britishbruin on Jan 4, 2010 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
Its not a matter of hard
Its a matter of knowing what to do. Do they know when to slide over in help defense? Do they know where to set a screen on offense?
I highly doubt Dragovic has ever played hard in his life. However, he knows where he should be on the court. Lane and Bobo have no clue where they should be. This leads to even easier baskets than Roll and Dragovic trying to stay in front of their man
by lil eg not cs on Jan 4, 2010 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
mostly agree
the remaining question is whether you can motivate ND to play harder defense by making substitutions, and whether the hypothesized improved performance is worth the step back you take on the court at the moment in order to make your point. I think sometimes you can trade off some enthusiasm for some experience, but Lane and Bobo don’t (to me) demonstrate any greater enthusiasm for defense than ND, making it both (even) more of a liability to bring them in and less of a positive reinforcement of good behavior in Lane and Bobo.
No you can't
I think ND is set on going back to Europe, not sure how motivated he is to make it to the NBA at this point, so I doubt he cares much anymore. Just my thoughts.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Erm
I wouldn’t compare Ben Howland to Tedford. I’d compare him more to Brian Kelly. If you take out the 13 season stint at a Division II school, he never stayed more than 4 years at any one school and took them to the brink of a Championship. Sure perhaps they were robbed by the BCS blah blah but the point his team didn’t get there.
As for “retaining talent”, is it really better for the kids to stay in school? Would it have been better for Russell Westbrook to stay in school? Perhaps when you are in a town where there is really nothing to do (ahem Lawrence, Kansas ahem) and you are treated like a god among men then yes you might be inclined to stay. BUT, if you are in Los Angeles a town that will throw all the glitz and glamor for multiple life times – for those who have the money to pay for it – then maybe when someone offers you a million dollars, you TAKE IT.
- I keed.
But seriously, perhaps the kids aren’t being made clear about what is in their best interests by some of these coaches. Not saying that is the case, but I don’t think you can tell some of the the kids who stayed that they should stay in school and actually mean it.
If you want an example of a coach who is overzealous about keeping players that he knows are better for being at the next level than they are staying with HIM, look across town. The guy put on a funny skit last January set at a press conference where he pretended to be really mad, thew a hissy fit, then walked out of the room without saying a word to his former QB. It was hilarious.
Oh UCLA you sweet bitch, you've BRUINed me for anything else.
Man crush denial
I deny having a man crush on Coach Howland.
by peggysue69 on Jan 3, 2010 11:31 PM PST via mobile reply actions
NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement ends in 2012
and the 1 and done rule is likely to change then.
UCLA '08
Yeah, but the world ends in 2012 so it's not likely to help then.
:o
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
i'm still with cbh
this year is kind of the confluence of worst case scenarios, a few “what the hell?” and “oh no you didn’t” moments. what does bother me is the fact that when recruiting is going on we’re told that cbh has a narrow focus on guys that fit his style and scheme. yet we’ve had so many transfers and a corps of players this year that do not seem to fit cbh’s approach and defensive scheme. the whole “these guys can’t play man D but we aren’t playing zone” mindset also makes my brain hurt.
Across The Face
Howland needs some PR coaching
Since we’re all throwing in our 2 cents on the intangibles about our coach, what I seriously think would help Ben a great deal is a new outlook on his own public and media relations. Ben has always been press-shy and seems to have a bunker mentality, but it’s really doing both him and the program a huge disservice.
Think about it – is there a less visible head coach of a major, storied BB program? Howland should be eating up the fact that he’s in the #2 media market, but seems treat doing media as a chore instead of a great way to get himself and his program positive exposure.
Ever notice that during halftimes when sideline reporters grab coaches for interviews, Howland is NEVER on? I bet it isn’t because the reporter doesn’t want him, but instead because Ben doesn’t realize how important even brief moments like that can be to helping his and UCLA’s image. Last year, wouldn’t it have been great for the coach from the previous 3 final fours to have been an analyst for CBS at the dome?
I know it might sound like I’m nit-picking, but a lot of what sells recruits and their families is perception, and I’d love to know Howland is presenting the best image possible.
One/done not new
When you talk about recruiting “one and done” recruits, are you talking about recruiting players that would be going directly into the NBA from high school if it weren’t for the age limit? That’s new. If you’re talking about players that leave after their freshman year, that is not a new era. That’s been around for awhile.
The one/done rule brought kids to college ball that would have otherwise gone straight to the pros. For the 3 schools mentioned, UCLA, North Carolina, and Kansas, that involves the following players (based on speculation and recruit ratings going into college because no one can say with certainty who would have gone to the NBA directly)
Self: Collins/Aldrich-It’s hard to say whether or not either of these players would have gone directly to the NBA, but they have definitely been retained. Henry is a freshman who may have gone directly to the NBA.
Williams: Wright, Ellington, Lawson, Davis, Zeller. Out of the players mentioned in B’s post, (Sean May, Rashad McCants, Tyler Hansbrough, and Ty Lawson), only Ty Lawson was affected by the age limit. The rest could have gone straight to the NBA if they wanted to out of high school.
Howland: Love, Holiday. Not retaining Westbrook, Luc, Farmar, Afflalo, Stanback, and Wright has nothing to do with the NBA age limit.
I don’t think the one/done rule has affected recruiting as much as people claim it has. There has always been the challenge of gauging when players will go pro and how to reload. Even the teams that retain talent lose out on younger recruits because there’s no playing time. The difficulty is when teams expect to retain talent, lost out on recruits, and then lose their talent anyway. You can’t blame that on the one/done.
It's not so much...
…how one-and-done impacts our program as it is how the rule change has impacted other programs. The new landscape has injected college basketball with a lot of very young, very talented players who would otherwise not be playing college basketball.
For example, without Derrick Rose, Memphis never makes it close to the Final Four. Perhaps UCLA plays someone else it can match up with and goes on to beat Kansas. UNC never gets close to a title without a lot of their one-and-done type guys.
Kentucky is a top team. Why? John Wall. Without him, they still suck. It’s made a major impact on college basketball and it’s clear to me that CBH has not adapted to operating, both on the recruiting trail and on the floor, to this new college basketball world.
Also...
…you mentioned below that we’d never make it to the Final Four during the ‘07-’08 season without Kevin Love. While he a unique, special talent, one that made us a formidable squad, we made it to the Final Four twice without Kevin Love, but with guys like Afflalo and Farmar, who were exceptional players, but not of the one-and-done variety. Without KL, we still are running out DC, RW, JS, LRMAM, and a combo of AA2/LMR. Are we as good of a team? Obviously not. But I’d take that squad and still give us a real good shot to make it all the way, especially if the teams in our way are deprived of their one-and-done superstars (because, to be honest, Rose had a much bigger impact on Memphis than Love had on UCLA).
I'd argue that we don't have a shot to make it all the way
without KL. We made consecutive Final Fours without him, but we had AA and while RW was good, he wasn’t in the same stratosphere of a college player as AA. Mainly, RW was a poor outside shooter and JS struggled to shoot after the new year so without KL’s inside presence I don’t think we have a chance at a title. That’s not really the point of this thread though.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 4, 2010 8:29 PM PST up reply actions
But you have to remember...
…while we lose Love, a lot of teams in our way lose more important players to their program, as well.
I didn't discount that
but the inability to shoot from the outside without an inside presence would keep any team from winning a national title. That year’s national title winner, Kansas, did not have a one and done guy and would certainly have been better than us. The same goes for fellow Final Four participant North Carolina. I think we’d have not even beaten Xavier in the Elite 8 without Love, while the Sweet 16 game would have been a reallllly close one.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jan 4, 2010 10:56 PM PST up reply actions
Not to mention Florida the previous years
Who had no one-and-dones. In fact, if all their first-rounders left when they should have, we would’ve won it all in 2007.
I don’t think the one-and-done has been CBH’s problem. He’s recruited two of them so far, one absolutely crucial and one a cancer. A lot of the potential stars don’t have the grades to be eligible, or haven’t come from anywhere near the west coast.
It’s fine to point at Derrick Rose, but I think we would’ve beaten anybody else in that final four, so that was more bum matchup luck than anything.
A Half-Dozen Thoughts ......
Several points …….
1) While I agree that the NBA rule is absurd and should be replaced by the MLB eligibility regime, I strongly disagree that it lies at the heart of UCLA’s problem. Players have now been going “hardship” for forty years (see Spencer Haywood). Some stay a year, Some have stayed two or three. But at the end of the day, early entry has created chaos and dislocations for many a college coach. Just ask Dean Smith and Bill Guthridge what it means to have a program disrupted by professional defections. Kentucky may have had the second best team of the Nineties in 1996 but can anyone claim with a straight face that they would have beat Stack and Sheed at the Meadowlands?
2) I think you are vastly overstating the impact that the NBA rule has had on UCLA. In fact, the implication is it has had a dissproportionate impact on UCLA. UCLA has had a grand total of TWO kids leave after their first season ….Love and Holliday. In the first instance, the rule probably helped UCLA as it brought a kid to campus who otherwise would have gone straight to the NBA. In the second example, I don’t think Holliday was going straight to the NBA so the rule was immaterial. You want to know how that rule screwed us ….it brought Derrick Rose to Memphis when he should have been playing on Friday nights. That would have been useful in San Antonio although that being said, we wouldn’t have been in San Antonio had Kevin Love not been forced to spend a layover year in Westwood.
3) The problem here is evaluation and ANTICIPATION. In today’s day and age, you simply cannot have a two-person recruiting class, knowing full well that one of those players is on borrowed time. That makes the Kevin Love class completely inexcusable. Had there been a couple of additional top-75s in that class, the players perhaps would be solid juniors at this point and we might not be having this conversation.
4) Ok, the 2008 Class has been abysmal. Fine, let’s deal with it. But Howland didn’t deal with it. Folks, Howland got a look at these players in the Summer of 2008. And he got a closer look when they arrived in Westwood. Yet even though he got to take this car out on a test drive, he didn’t see any problems. Because if he had, he certainly wouldn’t have been content to bring in this most recent class. A huge blemish on Howland’s resume, in my mind, is looking at that “fivesome” in October of 2008 and saying: “this is my foundation.” I realize it’s hard to jump in that late for the 2009 April signings, but from November 1 on, it should have been a PRIORITY to bolster this past class. As it stands, we now have TWO empty classes and you can call it “three” if you add in the fact that this roster has NO juniors.
5) The author is correct …Howland must do a better job retaining talent. After all, retaining talent is the singlular story of the 2005, the 2007 and the 2009 National Champions. But he has to do a better job of bringing in talent in the first place. And I think that means following this model. Bring in good players who just aren’t good enough to play in the NBA for a couple of years. So focus on 25-75, not 1-10. That might mean no Love/Holliday but it also means just ONE of these current freshmen. If Howland can’t find three players a year from this group, then perhaps he isn’t asking the right questions or looking hard enough.
6) Last point. Howland’s resume has three FF trips in bold. And I agree with Parcels, you are what your record says you are. But would this board be so supportive of Howland if Zaga and A&M hadn’t gagged those games or the Tourney Committee hadn’t thrown UCLA one of the softer regions of the decade? In other words, would there still be this “In Ben We Trust” sentiment if 2006 had ended with Zaga hitting some free thows and 2008 had ended at the Honda Center? Just wondering ……
LOL!
You’re hilarious.
Would we be happy if we had lost more games? Uh. No.
IF we had lost to Zaga or A&M or Alabama…
IF your aunt had balls, she’d be your uncle.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
no, his point...
… is that while we spend our time ripping apart CBH’s recruiting, playing time decisions, management of problem players, refusal to adapt his defense, offensive style and lack of John Wooden’s healthy head of hair, we really shouldn’t be so soft on him.
by britishbruin on Jan 4, 2010 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
MY Point
Thanks for the support Brit ….. but I’ll pick it up from here …..
My point is Howland has a lot more capital in the bank than he probably deserves. Yes, those FF trips count and he has earned plenty of respect. But let’s not pretend that Howland and his “system” was some kind of juggernaut in 06, 07 and 08. Without a massive break here and a small break there, Ben Howland’s resume looks appreciably different and the tenor of this conversation is much different.
I'm laughing even louder now
and so is Brit…
I think once you get to three Final Fours in a row, it’s more than just about breaks. We had some special players who bought into CBH’s system. Every champion has had a massive or small break here and there.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
c'mon, tasser, pay attention
if we hadn’t mistakenly attributed his previous lucky break results to his coaching, we wouldn’t be so forgiving about his current slew of bad results that are obviously 100% caused by bad coaching and have not the slightest thing to do with bad breaks…
Now I am the one laughing
First off, I wouldn’t conflate Ben Howland and the word champion, unless you are speaking of conference championships or NCAA regional championships. Last time I checked, and I had a pretty good seat, he wasn’t wearing the net when the confetti was dropping from the ceiling from the RCA Dome.
Second, I will give you a number of examples of “Champions” who won six games without anything close to a “massive” break and you’d be nitpicking to come up with even a small break. 2009 UNC, 2006 Florida, 1996 Kentucky are three that leap to mind. And before you try scouring a bracket and pointing to the 06 regional between UF and Georgetown as exculpatory evidence, remember, UF was never in deep trouble that night. Certainly nothing like UCLA, being down five, without the ball, and just 70 seconds left.
Third ….. you seem to think I am completely excusing Howland’s record. I am not. Not even close. But I am looking at that three-year span and thinking an awful lot came together. And I am looking at this iteration and what I think next year’s team will look like, and I am wondering what to make of the mess.
Four ….leave hamsters out of this …….
Not my point
I’m saying that even champions need a break here and there.
You are saying that if we take away the games in which CBH’s teams won thanks to a lucky break, then he is not as good a coach as we thought.
I am saying that you can’t get that many breaks without it having something to do with coaching. Luck favors the prepared.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Defining 'talent evaluation'
I agree with dkb particularly on his fifth point. Assessing a player’s on-court skills is one thing, reviewing his scholastic record is another. But overlooking a prospect’s personal expectations re the NBA, a la JH, or DG, can be disastrous. I think it’s a safe assumption that, coming out of high school, five-star recruits are looking ahead to the professional level, not necessarily at the possibility of being part of a championship collegiate program. The Tyler Hansboroughs of this world are in the distinct minority. The Derrick Roses of collegiate basketball are becoming all too common.
Focusing on a roster of three- and four-star STUDENT athletes who make a commitment to the program to stay longer than one or two years (and what’s wrong with asking for that kind of commitment from a kid?) in order to create a DEEP bench and ongoing continuity makes more sense to me. Those of us old enough to have followed Coach Wooden’s program in the early 60s can recognize the extended value of that approach.
What is it that we as alums and fans want out of a UCLA athletic program? Do we aspire to be another Alabama, Florida, Tennessee or – gasp – USC? Do we want to be just another sports mill whose athlete graduation rates are microscopic and which serve, primarily, as minor league teams for the NFL and NBA? Somehow, Furd is able to land good, solid recruits in a variety of programs. Their graduation rates are remarkably admirable. Five star recruits? Not so many.
But I’m old school and my perspective probably no longer applies: I’d much rather have a deep bench of solid team players than one or two one’n’dones. And ‘solid’ means on the floor and in the classroom. There might be five-star recruits who would fit into CBH’s program and who aspire to a university education. These would be young men who would be glad to dedicate at least two or three years (or complete a ‘Hansborough’) to the university and its extended family.
UCLA - the finest public university in the world!
by SecondGenBruin on Jan 4, 2010 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
DC
I have mixed thoughts about us retaining DC.
His draft stock – playing on a weaker team, with less defensive help from his off-guard and less of an offensive threat inside – was probably not going to be any higher after his senior season, so I’m not convinced coming back was in his best interests (and he had already learned what CBH had to teach, IMHO).
Also, I wonder how far CBH recognized this, and went into all-out “win now” mode with last year’s class. Nestor pointed yesterday to CBH letting JS and JH coast by on the defensive end last year, at the detriment to the long-term ethos of the program. I think CBH desperately wanted to make sure that DC’s return – ostensibly to win a championship – wasn’t in vain, and was hoping against hope that JH and JS would pull it together enough offensively to carry the team forward.
Generation Gap?
Not every student/athlete puts the emphasis on “athlete” and “pro”.
DC came back, in great part, because he and his family valued the education he was getting at UCLA.
There is more to life than “draft stock” — there is “overall stock” and no one can deny that DC’s went up by staying at UCLA.
I really do think my reaction to this discussion, and many on BN — which talk about taking the money and running — must be generational.
I see that there is so much more to life than maximizing income. Yet, people I respect around here seem to treat the student/athlete’s experience as a one way track to riches — and think it appropriate to make decisions so as to squeeze every last penny out of the league.
Maybe, it takes a few miles on the tires to really get a grip on life’s highway. When JH looks back, way back, what will he see? For many of those who played the “athlete” and threw away the “student” the look back will not be a happy one. Is it really better to have that last penny at the cost of developing the life skills that will let you use it well?
Brit Bruin, this is in no way aimed at you or this post. It’s just a convenient place to put it.
These $$$$ focused discussions make me feel very old.
sjh
I may have my own cultural gap...
I take your point about there being more to it that draft stock, and noted below that it may have been the right life decision for DC.
I do have one other thing to add on the “overall stock” issue though, which reflects a combination of my cultural background and my more recent educational background in economics/statistics. In a nutshell, it is not clear to me that an additional year of college is unambiguously good.
I am always surprised when the media make a big deal of redshirt juniors coming back for a 5th year in college, as some kind of celebration of the ‘student athlete’. It seems to me that if student-athletes are being serious students, they should be graduating in 4 years. Anyone not graduating in 4 years should be ruled academically ineligible in their 5th year, as they have clearly not kept up with the expected courseload of students taking a 4-year bachelors degree. Doing 4 years of undergrad and a one year masters is a different story, but I don’t agree that extra college is always a cause for celebration. The Matt Leinart situation was a particular mockery. I would hate it if Kai Forbath went the Leinart route (no idea what his academic progress has been, just saying I wouldn’t like it if one of our players was essentially a full-time football player with a side class in ball-room dancing)
Alfred Aboya seems to be the opposite case – a kid who worked hard enough to graduate in 3 years. It would have been good if he had taken a 1-year terminal Masters degree – or stayed on to finish his 2-year Masters degree – but at least there is a guy who is making the most of the ‘student’ part of student-athlete, and no-one could have accused him of quitting on his degree if he had left after his junior year.
Why is this relevant to DC? Maybe it isn’t. But in the same way as I think some players may be able to learn most of what there is to learn from CBH in 3 years, I think it’s possible for some people to get all there is to get out of college in 3 years. A lot of other countries have 3 year bachelor degrees. Some kids might enrol at UCLA, mature quickly and be ready to get out into the ‘real world’ in less than 4 years. Some people may take 4 years to really be ready, and others may not be ready to face the real world after 5 or 6 years of education. All this is to say: DC seemed to be a mature young man with a good head on his shoulders as a junior; I don’t know how much more he matured by coming back (certainly he faced the adversity of not going to the final four for the first time….).
At some point, there are diminishing marginal returns to additional time in college; I don’t know about DC’s case particularly, I just mean to challenge the accepted wisdom that everyone benefits a lot from additional years of college, and that from an ‘overall stock’ perspective the right decision is always to come back.
by britishbruin on Jan 4, 2010 11:35 AM PST up reply actions
[not aimed at you, 66]
Just a convenient place to express something that has been on my mind since the discussion on whether or not Kai should come back for a 5th year…
by britishbruin on Jan 4, 2010 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
Get it done in 4 Years?
I’m not sure that is possible in many universities, and I know it was not possible when I went to UCLA.
I simply could not get all of the courses I needed to graduate. They were full. There were no guarantees. It took me 4.5 years to get out.
From what I understand, that is still a problem in many major universities, today. So much a problem that the University of Minnesota, which has accepted and is recruiting my kid, guarantees that she will get all of your classes in 4 years — even if they have to open up sections to do so.
There are also other reasons people take more than 4 years. Some smell lots of flowers on the path — change majors, take courses that enrich them rather than lead to graduation.
I think your point ought to be are people taking the right number of hours per year, not how many years they take to graduate.
sjh
with all due respect
if PAA can graduate in 3 years, why can’t we expect people to graduate in 4?
According to data on collegeresults.org, 66% of people entering UCLA graduate in 4 years.
My point is precisely that people should be taking the right number of hours per year, but that number of hours per year should be calibrated to finishing a 4-year college degree in 4 years.
Furthermore, I highly suspect that current students are more likely to finish their degrees quickly, given the fee hikes. If you don’t pay anything for your education – as a student-athlete – you don’t have the same motivation to finish quickly.
just an fyi for ucla right now
for UCLA recently was 4 years and a quarter to graduate… so the vast majority do it in 4 year’s
obviously budget cuts and changes etc. may change that soon, but that’s wayyyyy out of scope
Metaphorically Speaking
I haven’t posted for almost a month because I came to realize I was out of my league when it came to the intricacies of basketball, and had no comments that would add significantly to that side of the discussion. I have, however, kept up with virtually every post re basketball and have learned more (about bb) in the two or three months of reading BN posts than I had in over 50 years of being just an avid and loyal fan. I won’t say whether this added knowledge of X’s and O’s and hedges and screens, and boxing out and whatever else might be in the lexicon of basketball technique has made the game more or less enjoyable for me. But I will say (and I will be pilloried for this), that as a fan, no more, no less, I’ve enjoyed this season (to date) as much as any other. How can I say that? Must be a jerk, I am I am. Well, here’s how and why.
I saw my first basketball game at the Pan Pacific Auditorium (any L.A. geezer will remember the place near Gilmore Field on Beverly Blvd — where, as a matter of fact, UCLA played its home games in the early days) in around 1955. Harlem Globetrotters v. Washington Nationals (who else?). I fell in love with the sport right away. From time to time I’d get a chance to watch Willie Naulls and Woody Sauldsberry, also at the Pan Pacific, but mostly I had to listen on radio. Heard some pretty exciting (as well as heartbreaking) games in the late ‘50s between UCLA and Cal, as well as versus my growing nemesis $UC (as we here now prefer to call the ’school’ down by the Coliseum). I think I hated Forest Twobad as a kid more than most of us now hate Petey. Recall of course that I also followed UCLA football (remember Ronnie & his Dad Harvey Knox?) but there was the Rams as well in L.A. and my family had season tickets ($27 for six regular season games and 3 preseasons), so my football passion was outletted through them.
Come 1963 and I enrolled at Westwood. Truth be told no other school in the nation would have me. In those days the UC system was allowed to waive high school academic records and admit promising kids solely on the basis of SATs and a special entrance exam. So instead of the Navy (not the Naval Academy, just the US Navy), I got to go to college. Here’s where my passion really went wild. I’ve posted before on the joy of being in school with Lew and Lucious, Gail, Walt, Jack Hirsh, Lynn Shakelford et al. The thrill came not just in going to Pauley and watching them clean house, but in sitting in classes and hanging around in the same places as these giants (figuratively speaking).
Anyway, the real world came upon me in 1967 and from then until last year, while my passion for the game and loyalty to our Bruins continued unabated, the time to follow closely was just not there and I no longer lived in L.A. But I always knew what was going on in terms of who was coaching, who was starring, and whether we were winning or losing. If we were in the tourney, I’d watch every game. If not, not much interest in watching. Late last year, having contracted an illness, the time I had to renew my avidness (is that a word?) increased exponentially and I began following the team once more on a game by game, even day by day basis.
Now to the point. From my earliest years of watching sports and playing a little here and there to my adult years I have always seen sports in two ways: first, its entertainment, a game that is played. Second, as taught by Coach Wooden and I’m sure others as well, as a metaphor for life itself. In both these respects winning and losing finds its proper perspective. The entertainment value never goes away. In sports, as in life, there are ups and downs, good days and bad. Good years and bad. Sometimes good decades and bad. What we hopefully learn are the real lessons of life and what makes it all worthwhile. We learn to win with grace and a degree of humbleness, and to lose with our pride intact. We hopefully learn from defeat (of which there are all too many) and maintain our enthusiasm and desire to succeed. We see all things in their proper perspective. Winning finds its place, but it is lower on the scale of importance than oh so many other things. And we maintain a sense of humor about it all.
What am I trying to say here? Maybe just the same thing as ‘66 has said: I’m an old geezer with values that differ markedly from the present crop of fans. And I find it sad and disturbing that winning and money seem to be everything, and having a losing season is unspeakable. Moreso than watching young athletes perform while at the same time getting their educations and maturing into adulthood in as beautiful a place as UCLA and other campuses (or is it campi?). This isn’t to say I am condoning any half hearted efforts on the part of our student athletes, I’m not. Nor am I saying that I like to lose. I don’t. What I’m saying is that its all part of life and has to be accepted for what it is. I wasn’t very surprised when I woke up on Sunday morning and the birds were still at my feeders, the sun was brilliantly warm, my internet connection was still up (we’ll that is always a pleasant surprise), the Iranians were still working on their bomb, the polar icecap was still melting, and the debate as to why was still raging. Life will go on whether we win 10 games this year or no more. I promise that. Enjoy the game. And keep on posting. Just don’t let it all get you down. That, coming from an old Brooklyn Dodger fan whose motto has always been: Wait til next year.
by classof67 on Jan 4, 2010 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
I love your post for so many reasons
not the least of which is the stroll down memory lane. Ah, the Pan Pacific — and watching the Hollywood Stars at Gilmore.
I think you said what I wanted to say in a much better way. With age comes a perspective of what was really important and what was not.
I never set out to maximize my income and have never felt bad that I did not. The mile posts on my path are marked by other values.
I, too, was profoundly influenced by Coach. He NEVER judged things in terms of wins and losses — we all know how he defined success. And, I truly wonder what he’s thinking as kids come to school as a mandatory way station on the way to riches. Money is not a key element on the Pyramid.
67, there is one major difference between us and the young ’uns.
When we graduated, we didn’t really worry about whether we would find a job or, someday, be able to buy a house. There were no real ceilings.
We had other challenges — the civil rights movement, and for many of us opposition to a war — and I think those struggles gave us a sense of power and optimism,
Cynicism was simply not a part of my education and it did not taint my confidence in my future.
Maybe, that’s why so many younger people have that “take the money and run” outlook. Maybe, it’s because they don’t see the same wide world of opportunities we had and lack the confidence that, in the long run,they will be ok.
sjh
Thank You '66
I was not sure how my ramblings would go over, but you have renewed my faith in at least our generation. I often think that things today are taken much too seriously. But then, how would I be if I were just coming of age in today’s brave new world?
one other thought on early departures
It’s possible CBH’s style plays into this.
His calling card is teaching people how to play tough defense. He is not know for developing people’s offensive skills.
This seems to me to have two effects on early departures: 1) people learn what they are going to learn from CBH in a couple of years of starting (or will never learn: JH), and don’t expect to be able to improve their offensive skills (or showcase any improved offensive skills in the team offense), and so are less likely to stick around
2) it is hard to raise your draft stock by having a ‘breakout’ DEFENSIVE year, so coming back to showcase your defensive skills is less appealing.
Applying this to our early departures – KL said he was coming to Westwood to learn defense en route to the NBA, and he did so; and I doubt it is ever possible to retain a consensus top-5 NBA pick. RW had an explosive offensive year playing off KL and had shown he already had all the defensive skills of BenBall. AA could have gone after his sophomore year, but came back for his junior year knowing he was going to be the team’s go-to scorer and have a chance to show more offense. JF decided to leave knowing he had picked up BenBall defense and had showcased his offensive skill set as much as he was going to. LRMAM wanted to develop his offensive skills as a 3 in his junior year and take more jump shots, but wasn’t allowed to in the team offense and decided to forgo his senior season rather than continue to prove that he was an excellent defensive player with a nose for an offensive board; he probably would have gone roughly the same place in the draft if he had left after his sophomore, junior or senior seasons.
DC chose not to leave early, and probably didn’t help his draft stock. It may have been the right decision for him, but wasn’t a great business decision.
I guess my point would be that some of the more offensive-minded coaches can say to top talents, “come back next year, I’ll showcase your skills for the NBA, you still have more I can teach you”. I’m not sure CBH can say the same, partly because he does such a good job of teaching hungry players how to play defense in a relatively short space of time.
As for the "One and Done" program itself
It brought us the OJ Mayo and Derrick Rose “issues”. They would not been collegians at all except for that rule.
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.
