Hoops Roundup: A Pointless Exercise Of Going Through Motions
by Nestor on Mar 10, 2010 5:06 AM PST
in Basketball
88 comments
Since we launched BN almost five years ago this time of the year has always been something special. This is the time of the year watching college basketball from around the country became even more fun than usual. As the pool of 64 teams slowly came into shape during those years, we were busy sizing up the marquee teams and going over possible matchups with Ben Ball warriors in our heads. In comparison, when basketball comes up on tWWL or other channels this season, right now I just feel a total sense of dread as it serves up as reminder of the debacle we experienced this season.
Few of us I guess are still thinking the season is not over and that we have a good shot of winning at least one more game in the Pac-10 tournament. For me it just seems prolonging a slow death. Again this season was over a while ago and we have been on a long death march as the head coach hasn't shown any indication of making adjustments to his flawed rotation (unless forced by injuries) that hasn't worked for us the entire season. It is hard to get excited over a matchup against Arizona, knowing we will once again look to win a game depending on smart and patience performances from guys like Rag and Jerime Anderson. Why bother getting worked up over a game which will be just another pointless (yeah sure pun intended) exercise of going through the motions.
Guess the good news is that Reeves Nelson is going to give it a go tomorrow afternoon (HT uclaluv):
Nelson spoke with his grandmother and mother Monday and his mother. Sheila, spoke with Dr. Steven Schwartz, who performed the surgeries. Nelson said his mother is now "more at ease" with him playing and "if she's OK, I'm OK."
"It was difficult to watch the team lose a few games in row," Nelson said. "It wasn't necessarily because I was out, I'm not going to flatter myself that much, but I think with me playing we have better chance to win."
Nelson, who averages 11 points and 5.5 rebounds, injured the eye against Washington State on Feb. 18. He will wear goggles in practice and possibly in the game.
"Reeves is our best and only consistent low-post scorer," Coach Ben Howland said.
While that is encouraging news, I wonder whether Nelson should even play in a game that is not going to mean much at this point of the season. Moreover, if Nelson gets in the lineup, it will probably mean reduced minutes for Brendan Lane, instead of you know who. So, I don't really find this news all that exciting and am not sure how much of a difference Nelson is going to make tomorrow afternoon.
Unlike the Bruins, the Wildcats are coming into this tourney with a bit of a momentum. They have won 3 close games in a row against Stanford, UCLA and Southern Cal. Unlike the Bruins most of their freshmen have developed into seasoned and experienced sophomores. They will also come into this game with most depth they have had all season with freshman forward Kevin Parrom back in the lineup.
For the Bruins to have any shot against the Wildcat they will need to contain Kyle Fogg, who has killed the Bruins with 51 points this season. Bruins will also need to be aware of Nic Wise, who is going to try leave his last Pac-10 tournament on an up note. From Sportsline.com:
All has not been easy for Arizona, or for point guard Nic Wise, the club's only senior. He has been brilliant on some nights but struggled with a young cast around him on others.
But after all manner of dramatics against USC -- including sophomore Kyle Fogg converting three free throws with 0.2 seconds left to tie the score in regulation -- it was Wise who delivered. His layup with 1.5 seconds left in the second overtime won it.
"In a funny way, this game has represented our entire season," Miller said. "And in a funny way, it represents Nic Wise and what he has endured."
Wise has stuck around at UA to play for four different coaches, something Miller said he wouldn't have done as a player.
"I think the world of Nic," he said. "He has a great attitude, loves the game and loves Arizona. If he didn't, he certainly wouldn't have endured the numerous changes that he's experienced. He's our heart and soul."
Giving these two guards extra attention around the perimeter could open things for freshmen forward Derrick Williams inside. Lot of poisons in that lineup to pick from and none of the scenarios look fun for UCLA considering the pathetic defensive effort we have seen most of this season.
I would also add that getting Nelson back doesn't necessarily mean that our defense is going to improve. While Nelson has given terrific effort and has shown more heart and desire on the court that most of the Bruins this season, he has been a liability on defense. Of course he is not as bad as Rag (it is not humanely possible to be as atrocious as Rag on D). With Nelson in the lineup, we have had serious communication issues in our interior zone defense which has broken down repeatedly throughout the season. I am going to guess the Wildcats will have no problem slicing it up on Thursday.
If Ben Howland really wanted to inject some life into his listless program, he would bench Rag tomorrow afternoon featuring a lineup of Malcolm Lee, Michael Roll, Tyler Honecutt, Brendan Lane, Reeves Nelson, and bring Rag, Mustafa Abdul-Hamid, Mike Moser and Bobo Morgan off the bench. However, it is not going to happen. We will go through the same old nonsense we have gone through the entire season. As a result much like time most of us will be going through the motions in what will turn out to be another pointless exercise in this worthless debacle of a joyless season.
GO BRUINS.
0 recs |
88 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Not sure which I agree with more
having RN sit out once more to protect his eyes/let them heal (I’ll admit to no medical knowledge about the benefits or drawbacks of playing), or just having the season freakin’ end already. Yet somehow I’ll be watching…probably won’t get much done tomorrow, as KU’s game is on before ours.
Masochism
#
The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from being humiliated or mistreated, either by another or by oneself.
And especially this one…….
#
A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.
I know, I know, it isn’t the pain that we love, it’s the Love that is a pain.
by LongtimeBru on Mar 10, 2010 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
Win(s) are important for perception
First, I want UCLA to win every single game it plays regardless of the circumstances. But the more important thing is if CBH can sting a win or two together in the Pac10 tournament and maybe get an invite to the NIT/CBE and get another win or two to get above .500 would be very good for perceptions. It wont do anything to make this year any less frustrating, but at least next year announcers and analysts wont refer to our “losing season” when talking about this year. Obviously the situation is slightly different (program rising v. program falling), but it is a little analogous to CRN getting to 7-6 in the Eaglebank bowl in that it allowed CRN to have a “winning season.”
NIT
I doubt we would go to it with a losing record (even if we are invited). I am not going to stoop to the level of hoping for NIT/CBE.
For the record..
..when Hazzard took UCLA to the NIT crown in the eighties, one wag sportscaster opined, “Now UCLA can chant, ’we’re #64, we’re #64..”
God, it's great to be a Bruin!
You make a good point Poncho
or maybe I just inferred it. At this point, some extra wins mean extra playing time. An invite to the NIT would/should serve as a good building block for next year. The younger guys who take playing in March for granted could really use the increased level of competition. Of course, this idea only works if CBH uses this opportunity to play his underclassmen and stops wasting minutes on others.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Wasting Minutes on Others
And, therein lies the rub.
We will learn, tomorrow, whether he is looking forward to a “new season” or doing the same old things.
sjh
We're currently 13-17
so we need five wins to get to .500, since the last game is a loss unless we win a tournament. This means winning the Pac, getting us to 16-17 yet in the NCAA, then getting to the NCAA Sweet Sixteen to ensure 18 wins. If we get to the Pac final and lose, we’d be 15-18. Not an impressive record even by NIT standards. That would still take four NIT wins to get to .500. I like the idea of more play, but avoiding a losing season is not going to happen – just looking at the numbers.
NIT, impossible!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t we have to finish .500 or better to qualify for the NIT? That would mean it is the “Tourney” or bust!
by trublubruin on Mar 10, 2010 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
they have changed the rules on this
no longer a .500 record required…
by britishbruin on Mar 10, 2010 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
They HAVE changed the rule.
Yet no team with a losing record has still ever been invited to the NIT.
by orlandobruin on Mar 10, 2010 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
"less losing" season
You did a great job outlining the realistic outcome of this season KSbruin. The reality is we probably aren’t going to win any more than one game in the Pac10 tournament and the season is over. 14-18 is still better than 13-17 in my book, and 15-18 or 16-18 would be even better and less embarrassing to this program. A “winning season” is not going to happen, but a “less losing” season still could.
P.S. It makes me sick typing that last sentence about UCLA.
by bruinponcho on Mar 10, 2010 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
My fearless prediction
is that ND will get less PT in regulation than the 39 minutes he played against them last time out.
If he plays more in regulation than 39 minutes, I will never again defend a CBH decision that is being criticized on BN.
if I was setting a line
then 32 would be too low (hard to see him getting less, but easy to imagine him getting more); but I might take the under if you gave me 36.
by britishbruin on Mar 10, 2010 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
Note
from truebluebruin24:
What i’m hearing
Is that Howland has said that UCLA would accept an NIT invite, but only if we have a winning record . If we finish with a losing record and are invited, we would turn it down.
I put it at 41
CBH might just find a way…
by bruinhopeful on Mar 10, 2010 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
Reeves on Offense and Defense
You rightly highlight what we have noted in various games later on in the season – RN still has a lot to learn about playing defense, and our defense has looked like it has better communication/awareness/chemistry with other guys playing the 5 spot on defense.
If RN is to make up for that on offense, he needs to play smarter ball. He is our only consistent low-post threat – but that doesn’t mean he has to score a chunk of points for us to be successful on offense. Our offense has looked decent in stretches without him because of good passing, good movement, and good execution of the scheme (it has also looked terrible in stretches, where we really needed the option of throwing it into the post and letting someone work). For him to be a genuine upgrade on offense, he needs to do the things other people have done well – in terms of setting good picks/screens, finding open men with passes not getting caught in double teams, etc – while also being more of a threat to score than other people playing that position. If he forces bad shots against double teams, refuses to pass, fails to make FTs, gets frustrated… then he is a downgrade on defense and no great help on offense. He has the potential to be good, here’s hoping he finishes out the season strong.
RN brings something outside offense and defense
There is a arguably a third component in basketball besides offense and defense and that is rebounding. CBH has said there are no bad rebounds. If RN can hit the defensive boards or even make it harder for the other team to offense rebound, his inability to be a decent 5 on defense is mitigated a bit.
In the 4 games RN just missed we were out rebounded by a total of 30 rebounds. In the last 4 games RN played, we were dead even in rebounds. RN is a big reason for this.
there is something to this
and even more stark when you bear in mind that the teams we just played are the bad rebounding teams
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/statistics/team/_/stat/rebounds/group/21
but also worth bearing in mind that we weren’t just without RN in those games – a part-injured ND was held below his usual 4.4 rebounds per game in each of those games; Bobo was held out of one of those games; BL was struggling with some injury issues in those games.
But undoubtedly, RN is statistically our second best rebounder after TH.
by britishbruin on Mar 10, 2010 1:12 PM PST up reply actions
RN reminds me of DeJuan Blair
Undersized and tenacious at the 4.
"We should have a banner up there: the only team to make the tournament without a coach." -- Baron Davis, remembering his "coach" at UCLA
by inhowlandwetrust on Mar 10, 2010 2:10 PM PST up reply actions
I'd like to see RN work out with
Josh Smith and KL over the summer.
'positives' time
1. In all probability, only 40 minutes left in this god-forsaken season
2. Only 40 minutes left of Rag (face it, he will get close to 40 minutes)
3. We can somewhat shift our focus to winning non-revenue teams like our amazing men’s baseball and our women’s bball to hold us over for the next several months. Heck, even women’s water polo should be fun again this year.
"New Season" Rhetoric
The problem is that the rhetoric can have several meanings.
Here’s the one I’d like: We are starting fresh and NO commitments to playing time have been made. Look at the numbers from the “previous season” and pick a fresh starting line up. With that meaning, we don’t start ND or JA and both get limited minutes — although I think JA gets more.
But, there’s another meaning that justifies doing the exact same thing we’ve been doing — but simply forgetting what’s been going on all year. And, with that approach comes the justification of “We have to win this game, not time to make changes.”
Of course, like Poncho, all of us want to win EVERY game. We just disagree with what needs to be done to do so.
CBH staked the season on big minutes for ND. It didn’t work. We had a dismal year. In a system based on strong D, the weakest D link was never held responsible. It’s not just us saying this. Two Bruin announcers said it, continually.
So, I’m hoping CBH takes this new season and does something NEW with it — shakes up the line up and tries to put a team on the floor that will win these next games.
If we play new combinations and play ourselves into a tournament, that would be great.
But, if it is going to be more of the same, although I will be cheering for us to win, I won’t be upset when we don’t.
And, Nestor, my brother, I feel your pain. I have always declared March Madness as my favorite time of the year. Multiple TV sets, no work scheduled, charts and graphs — the whole thing. Now, I wish it would just go away.
sjh
Yup, this whole month is going to be agonizing
I’d actually look forward to NIT if it meant added mins for our frosh and building for the next season. It won’t. For rest of this season Howland will continue to do things “his way” re. Ragovic. Unfortunately it will cost him more goodwill. All we are left with right now to see what he does this off-season for the purposes of recruiting and rebuilding over next two years.
This season needs to end soon.
I know people are frustrated but this season was anything but joyless
All UCLA basketball games are great joyful events no matter the outcome. I dread the day when I season is truly over because I will be on my couch every game watching it unfold on the court. Hopefully spring practice can distract me until the football and basketball season start.
"I can't believe I ate the whole thing" Homer Simpson
I am glad you enjoyed the a$$ kicking by Long Beach State
If that is your idea of a “joyful event” you are at the wrong place. Our standards are just a little different.
I don't purely get joy out of winning
Watching any Bruin Basketball is special to me because once the season is over I get a feeling I took it for granted. I’ve watched every game so far including the debacle that was LBST : (
"I can't believe I ate the whole thing" Homer Simpson
Guess that's a fair point AMM
It’s always great to see those uniforms. However, for me how the people wearing those uniforms represent the four letters is very big deal. From that standpoint it has been a debacle this season.
Some perspective...
Before the season had someone told Bruins Nation that Michael Roll would be the team’s leading scorer, Brendan Lane and Reeves Nelson would be bigger contributors than Drew Gordon and Bobo Morgan, that Tyler Honeycutt would lead the team in blocks and rebounds, that Malcolm Lee would become the starting PG…what would we have all thought? Exactly.
This has been the Murphy’s Law, Perfect Storm of all seasons. It would be entirely fitting if this rag tag unit surprised Arizona, and played their game of the year versus Cal and played for the marbles against UW or ASU. Anything is possible. That is why we watch. This is the beauty of sports and following your university. It definitely isn’t pointless…Just the thought of our Bruins stringing together three good games with the possibility to exorcise all the demons is reason enough for me. Will it happen? Probably not. Is there a chance of it happening? Miniscule. So you’re telling me there’s a chance….
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
That perspective doens't work for me
If it didn’t take Howland almost 2 months to realize he needed to play zone and all the other mea culpas that have been issued to date, this season wouldn’t have been the debacle it has become.
Despite the early season trouble, this team had enough talent to put together a winning season but our head coach blew it through his string of bad decisions. Not going to hash over that again.
As I said sure there is a chance we can beat Zona or win more than one game. However, I am not going to come here to fake enthusiasm in what has been deeply disappointing and completely unacceptable underachieving season.
You're absolutely entitled to that opinion
I’m just a bubbly guy. I didn’t expect this team to do much (3-4 in conference, maybe a NCAA bid). That doesn’t change how I feel for the university. We all love the program, it’s history and want it to be a national contender. This was predicted to be a down year by every pundit, and they were correct. Sure, the Bruins probably should have an extra 3-4 wins, and CBH should have played the frosh more. We are in agreement, but I really like the guys we have coming in, believe in CBH and know this guy will get it right and UCLA will be rolling again. I hope we play a great game tomorrow. Cal is ripe to get upended by somebody in this tournament, why not us? The Bruins have found a way to beat the top three teams in the standings, that is reason enough for me to have a belief that they could pull it off. What the heck, Drago will even win a game too.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Everyone here predicted a "down year"
However, a “down year” shouldn’t be a losing season at UCLA. We have laid out pretty clearly why so. There is nothing wrong with being “bubbly” but this community has also was based on “reality” to get away from the “bubbly” Bruins who were celebrating “moral victories” over U$C.
Nestor I agree with you
This year has been horrible. But, frankly, based on our basketball history, finishing 3rd in the conference and losing in the first round of the tournament isn’t exactly great – better than a losing record, but in a place where only championship banners hang isn’t anything less than a title really a losing season? I’m optimistic because CBH is a great coach, he is stubborn, perhaps slow to adjust, but the man is an outstanding leader, he has won every where he’s been, this year has been an utter embarassment to him, that will fuel him to get better and this program will be greater because of it.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Howland is a very good coach
However, he hasn’t shown outstanding “leadership” this season in the way he has managed this program. As has been pointed out ad nausea he has “won” everywhere he has been however that came in the context of rebuilding programs not sustaining their success.
Lastly, don’t bring the standard media BS about UCLA fans not accepting anything less that a NC. That is completely BS and it is something we have talked about numerous times over the years here on BN. We are more than reasonable in our expectations and this year beginning of the season we thought we should have won around 17 or 18 games.
So don’t come here saying anything less than a title is a losing season. That is complete BS and it shows you have absolutely no understanding of the narrative of this community. If you don’t, then you should go back to lurk mode and learn a little more about it.
I'm a realist
I’m a season ticket holder, a graduate of the university and have been around the game since I was a tike. Howland is the best coach UCLA has had since Larry Brown. Harrick may have one a title, but CBH is outstanding. His scheme on defense is incredibly sound and he is solid all around tactician. One bad season doesn’t make it all that go away. Every coach has a hiccup. I’m not expecting us to win a title every year. We haven’t won in 15 years.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
11Banners
Don’t write BS like how you are ‘not expecting us to win a title every year’ and then implying it that we do.
Also, if you were a “realist” you wouldn’t com here being “bubbly” about winning the tournament. You pretty much admitted that you were being delusional about our chances.
So again, don’t advance false perceptions about what this community expects from UCLA basketball. I will not give you another warning and let you insult us that way. Thanks.
It's not BS
I think we have a great shot to beat U of A. I think Cal probably takes us down, but they are very beatable. What part of that is false. I don’t speak for all of BN just myself. I’m not going to be negative when I don’t feel that way about the team. They just aren’t that good. That doesn’t mean I won’t root for them and hope they play out of their minds for three games. I really don’t see what is wrong with me rooting for my school and hoping they shock the world.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
What is wrong ...
… is for you to come here and passive aggressive argument that somehow unlike you – the "realist" – UCLA fans are expecting a national title every year. That is completely garbage and BS.
Also, no where I disputed that we have a shot against beating Arizona. My argument is it is completely unrealistic to expect us to win the tournament. Given the data point accumulated this season, it is not worth hashing over a long post.
As far as him being a good coach is concerned
I have my take on it. Yes, the jury is in for the last seven years until this season. But then if he is good, he should be good consistently, down year or not. This past season was a total catastrophe and exposed so many of his weaknesses. I really hate to rehash the rehash of the rehash as to the reasons why. WE ALL KNOW. So from here on out, it’s a brand new phase. We’ll see if he can revive the program. For that, the jury is a long way out .
some perspective on your perspective
We have been up and down, but mostly down.
We have one three-game winning streak on the season:
home vs Colorado State
home vs Delaware State
home vs Arizona State
You hope we can string together 3 good performances in 3 days – as far as I can see, there was only one weekend all season that we strung 2 good performances together over three days (home vs UW and WSU). Add that to the general lack of conditioning/depth on the squad (relying too much on a small core, several of whom have been battling injuries) and I don’t see any cause for optimism.
Odds here suggest we are a 10-1 shot to win the Pac-10 tourney; I think this is probably unduly optimistic to our cause, with name teams like UCLA sometimes being bet irrationally by casual punters…
by britishbruin on Mar 10, 2010 9:43 AM PST up reply actions
When the game is on, we are on
No one here roots against the Bruins. No one.
But, I don’t think we are pooping on anything when we say that we truly hope that in these next games the coaches do some things to enhance our chances of winning — those things being so obvious we need not discuss them anymore.
I for one can see us winning the Pac 10 tournament IF we limit ND’s time and play around JA’s weaknesses.
The only team in the Pac !0 that really handled us all year will not be in this tournament.
We can beat all of the other teams. IF, we play hard D, don’t throw the ball away, and don’t waste possessions by jacking up ill advised, untimely 3’s.
If, on the other hand, we do what we’ve done most of the year with the same players who did it, they are pooping all over things, not us.
sjh
Agree
I understand the reasons why ND is polarizing and why JA is Public Enemy #1, but CBH is all about winning, do you guys really believe that given the lack of viable alternatives at his disposal that he wouldn’t change things up if he felt it gave the team a better chance to win?
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
Uhm
I think it is more than proven that playing Lane more would have been a “viable alternative” earlier in the season. Same goes for Mustafa Abdul-Hamid. So the framing of your question is … well bogus.
Disagree
MAH is a great guy to have on the team, he can make a play every now an then and his shot against UW was amazing. All that said, based on pure talent JA has it over MAH in every way. Also, BL got an opportunity to play along with MM early in the season and didn’t perform. I’m not around the team in practice, but have seen every game, BL has played pretty well lately, but he’s limited.
Life is what happens when you're busy making plans.
11 Banners -- I was with you for most of the season
I stood up for CBH’s decisions, noted that he was driven to win and worked hard to do it, and challenged people here to give me a stronger line-up than with ND in it.
But, as the season progressed, and ND really started to look bad — really bad on the D end, and his percentages on O did not warrant taking the risk he presented, I started to see the merit of playing others to get them experience. My changeover came when it was clear that we were not going to have a great season and I made clear I was willing to sacrifice the “potential” for some wins for experience.
I also made clear that I used the word “potential” because I was not convinced that we would be worse with the young guys than we were with ND.
Things started to change when TH could play real minutes. RN, exploded — not the perfect player, some D problems but a freshman worth playing. And, when we saw extended minutes of BL, he looked good enough to grab more time.
I am in a minority, almost by myself, but I also thought Bobo, given more minutes would find his way. The rap against Bobo was that he got lost on D sometimes. Yet, that is better than a player who is lost on D all the time. Bobo also made some stellar D plays, blocked some shot, and made some very cool passes — which helped create an inside out game.
So, although I once was a champion of your position that CBH wants to win more than we do, and to trust him to do what he needs to do to get there — I cannot buy into it, today. I just cannot understand why ND gets all those minutes when he plays little or no D and ruins possessions by prematurely ejaculating 3 pointers.
I no longer buy the “lack of viable alternatives” arguments that I once used to make.
If CBH really wants to win this tournament, and if he thinks it’s a “risk” to sit ND down more, I’m saying it’s a risk he has to take. There are not alternatives to doing so.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Mar 10, 2010 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
Complete agreement on the above and New Season "Rhetoric" as well.
Even on the Bobo issue. Yes he can get lost on D and yes he gets out of position for rebounds and yes he is a bit slow afoot. He is, however, a young man trying to catch up to his bodies growth, at least that is what I see in him. He needs playing time to learn and get comfortable.
I feel pretty confident that he will physically mature and be a good presence under the bucket. Whether he is a starter or comes off the bench, I hope that he stays and allows us to watch him grow.
by LongtimeBru on Mar 10, 2010 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
with the late season development of BL
and ND deteriorating over the season (rather than performing significantly better once his legal issues were postponed), I see no way in which giving BL a few minutes earlier in the season would not have paid dividends in him being more of a contributor right now and thus giving us more of chance to perform well.
We may have lost a game or two we won – or been blown out in a game or two in which we were close – but when we come to the end of the season and all that matters is our ability to win three games in a row, the tradeoff seems easier.
This is all in the context in which we currently find ourselves. At the time, I think CBH was doing what he thought he needed to do week to week to keep the team competitive. The Petros/Money interview hinted at that – the challenge of trying to develop players while trying to win each week. My sense is that we lost a lot of time that could have been spent coaching players up and getting them ready due to the toxic Gordon situation in the preseason and early season, and then went into bunker mentality.
Seeing BL getting bullied by Boateng should serve as a reminder that he is not yet physically mature enough to play power positions against Pac-10 veterans, and was likely even less ready earlier in the season; but if he had taken his lumps earlier he would be in a better position to contribute right now.
When things are going somewhat badly, I personally find it hard to accept that I should let things go very badly in the short-term in order to further my chances of long-term success. From a principal-agent perspective, it would be interesting to know what CBH’s bosses emphasize – at the end of the season, does he think he is judged on the overall record, or on the product he is producing in the last game of the season, or what? If his thinking is dominated by the idea that a losing season is never acceptable at UCLA, he will be forced to do what he thinks is best for the record; but I think a lot of people here (including myself) would (now) happily trade a couple of meaningless wins on the record in order to have developed some players more, got a sense of which guys can contribute, and having a slightly deeper rotation to use for the 3-games-in-3-days stretch ahead of us.
by britishbruin on Mar 10, 2010 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
Xlnt -- with one added point
I don’t think we will necessarily “… trade a couple of meaningless wins on the record in order to have developed some players more”. I actually think we stand a better chance of winning the tournament by playing the “developing players.”
In recent games, they either built or held leads until ND came back into the games.
It is not a clear trade of “wins” for “development”. I think development may generate wins.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Mar 10, 2010 10:39 AM PST up reply actions
sure
at this point it is unclear how much of a tradeoff (if any) is involved in giving younger players more time; certainly BL looks like he is much more able to contribute now (sounder fundamentals, seems to understand where to be on the court on offense and defense, etc) than he was earlier in the season, so the short and long term may now both be served by giving him more minutes.
Not sure what to say about MM in this context – he may find himself in better positions now than at the start of the season, but he still seems (to me) a worse option on the court than the players whose minutes he could possibly get.
by britishbruin on Mar 10, 2010 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
I am still puzzled by the Drew Gordon departure
All that I have seen is he and CBH didn’t get along, he (and family) didn’t like CBH’s style of play and that players like TH weren’t sorry to see him go. Do we know what actually happened?
by 75NatChamps on Mar 10, 2010 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
+1
would love more information about this. As other posters have mentioned in previous threads, he had ‘anger management’ issues in high school; and TH had a quote about Gordon blowing up in practice if things didn’t go his way.
On a related topic – it sounds like CBH is fine with players getting at each other a lot in practice (DC popping JF in practice held up as an example of being a great competitor), which may not sit well with guys who have a sense of entitlement…
by britishbruin on Mar 10, 2010 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
BL early v. late playing time
I agree with most of your points but not your conclusion.
Don’t forget BL was our 4th String 5 at the start of the year. Gordon, JK, and RN all started, and deserved to start IMO, ahead of him. I think it would be tough for CBH to anticipate that we were going to start five different people at Center during the year.
BL did play in every early season game except CSF, from 3 (once) to 17 minutes. He got a look and at the time was not worthy of being in our top 8 or so player rotation once the PAC 10 started.
I am one who believes a losing season is not acceptable. Thus I don’t have a problem with the seriously under weight and raw BL not playing more this year with one caveat. After all the injuries and problems, in the late season game like OR, BL needed to be on the court at the end. At some point this year he became one of our top 8 players and in the OR game top 5.
Further, now I think BL is more important as a sub than JA. BL brings a lot energy and hustle. Thus toward the end, I would rather have BL in then have MR playing 3 so JA could be on the court with ML. (Caveat, MAH v. BL is a different question.)
My conclusion, is CBH’s wrong playing time decisions did not involve BL as much as they did JA and ND.
I don't know if we really disagree
We agree that he wasn’t in the top 8 ready-to-contribute-right-now players earlier in the season. He was raw and underweight and has (I think) improved on both counts over the season. I think my point is that if we had a choice to make earlier in the Pac-10 season – whether to always play the team you think gives you the best chance to win on that day, or whether to factor in some player development benefits of playing some of the younger guys. We went with the short-term view, and it didn’t pay great dividends – our record is bad either way – and we are not set up well for the Pac-10 tourney. Even the decision to stick with a short rotation – and yes, I know that Coach used to have a short rotation, but he was rarely in quite this type of crisis rebuilding mode – is a short-term vision, and not the way that other rebuilding teams in the Pac-10 have gone.
On the other hand – one point I didn’t make above which I consider to be valid, is that there is some benefit to RN and TH to be learning around players who know what they are supposed to be doing, and thus the coaches can spend more time focusing game time attention on helping those two guys develop, rather than splitting attention between RN, TH, BL, MM, JMM…
by britishbruin on Mar 10, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
Perfect Hindsight v. Near Perfect
If you tell me before the year that JK is going down for most of the PAC 10 AND that RN is going to miss the last 4 games, yes I agree play BL more early. For I believe if we had either of them for the last four games, we beat OR and AZ. Then we are 15-15 and needing one win in the PAC 10 Tourney.
That is why I can’t agree with for more minutes to BL early even now, unless it is perfect hindsight, I don’t think a losing season was guaranteed this year until the OR game. We still almost beat AZ and OR and would have been 500 if we did. And I do think that is an important goal. A losing season at UCLA is not acceptable.
And your last point is valid, TH and RN are in the top 8 for next year and beyond. They are the cornerstones for next year, especially TH. In a perfect world, BL would be better served having a “learning year” to gain weight and learn the more physical nature of the college game. First by practicing against RN, JK, and/or Gordon and getting limited minutes. For example, I think that Bobo improved from FR to Soph despite not playing much.
DC
I think we need to stop rehashing this same argument. Rag was not a top-5 player in this squad. He never was given his pathetic shooting (his numbers have been undeniably pathetic all his UCLA career except for two or three games during Pac-10 season last year and this year) and his complete inability to play defense.
So Rag was never in our top-5. He should have been at best given 15 mins a game and balance of it should have gone to Lane, Moser and Morgan. It’s a simple deal and at this point given the datapoints there is no need to relitigate this. It is pointless and it needs to stop at this point.
You guys were wrong when defending Drago’s playing time earlier in this season. The numbers proved you wrong and at this point move on instead trying to come up with contorting arguments to justify it. Thanks.
Playing 10 or 8
I have said that and agree with you on that. I am not re-litigating that. I wrote above:
My conclusion, is CBH’s wrong playing time decisions did not involve BL as much as they did JA and ND.
I agree with Coach that you only play your top 7 or 8. Coach said practicing his top 7 or 8 together was the only change he made from pre-championships to his incredible run. If you think ND should play 15 minutes a game, then you are putting him in the top 8 players, it seems to me.
Where we disagree in my mind is a much finer point. I think in “potentially close” PAC 10 games one should only play 7 or 8 players. You think one should play 9 or 10.
An example on my side outside Coach, is the last UCLA Championship Team, played only 7 in the “big games.” (JR Henderson and Cameron Dollar were the entire bench.)
That is where I think we disagree. And we may have to agree to disagree.
I think
A coach should never get settled into one single approach of playing just 7 or 8 players or playing 9 or 10. Depending on circumstances there should always been room for adjustment and recalibration. I personally prefer a rotation of 7 or 8. However, given all the inexperience in our season, it would have been better for our program to extend our rotation by giving our young guys legit pt for development. Howland totally blew it on that regard and it was egregious given how he made obvious mistake by making this “the season of Dragovic.”
+1 -- The Goal determines the rotation
and if the “realistic goal” was to develop talent at the potential expense of losing a game we might have won, then playing 9 or 10 would be fine.
What we do know is that we had the wrong 5 on the floor to achieve any goal.
I was one of the people stoutly defending our starting 5 until it became clear that there was no risk to playing deeper and there were two potential benefits — winning games the starting 5 could not win, and developing talent.
sjh
Also
The comparison to last UCLA championship season is just silly. That championship team was anchored by two seniors superstars – Ed O, Tyus – and a dependable senior role player in Cameron. It also had a sophomore star in Charles O’Bannon with Cameron and two immensely talented frosh off the bench. The core of that team was proven and it made sense to stick with a shorter rotation for Harrick.
Coming into this season the “core” of this team was never established. In fact it was flawed with the inclusion of Ragovic, who should have never been gifted with such a huge role in this core given he never proved himself at UCLA.
Add to that with the huge mix of sophomores and frosh, Howland should have taken the approach of extending the rotation with legit playing times, rewarding players for their defense, hustle and team game (instead of rewarding playing time based on unfounded hope that a proven pathetic shooter with all on a sudden started connecting at 40% + clip).
It was pure insanity on Howland’s part and in his insanity he completely compromised away his identity of preaching defense and hard work.
66 has it right and Last Championship Team
As 66 says, the goal determines the season. I agree with BN and Nestor that a losing season is not acceptable.
I think playing 10 in close games, in most circumstances, is going to hurt your chances and may be bad moral. (I think just as it is bad to play ND and JA regardless, it is bad to play someone who is not as ready physically just to play him.) As COACH said the top 7 or 8 need to practice together and you need those reps.
Now, why the last championship team is relevant. The goal that year was a Championship and, despite the great team, that was not going to be easy. To accomplish this goal, we played mostly our top 7 in close/big games (one nit pick, Cameron Dollar was only a sophomore who went on to start as point the next two years). You do not play Kris Johnson in those games, even though three years later he is a starter and a leader. Kris was not ready physically (he was overweight) or developmentally (he was too raw). I don’t think his lack of playing hurt Kris or UCLA. For, by his senior year, he was thinner and ready.
If you accept the goal this year was a winning season, you have to admit it was going to be tough. To accomplish this goal the margin for error is not big enough for you to play 9 deep. As BB pointed out, it would also be difficult to win while developing three freshman at once (and for the PAC 10 a rookie PG) and TH and RN are better and further along. Thus, at the start you don’t play BL. BL is too thin and raw. By next year, BL will gain strength/weight and be less raw. Ideally it would be best for BL and UCLA.
Of course as soon as JK gets hurt, we need to go to BL and the argument is moot.
As I said above
The comparison to 1995 championship is totally irrelevant since the context is not the same. That team came in that season with a strong core. This team didn’t. It is kind of insult to that team’s core by comparing it to this one which included Rag. Actually it’s insult to any UCLA basketball player by comparing him to someone like Rag.
The goal this year was not just a winning season. It was getting a winning season and also forming the foundation for next season. Howland failed on both accounts and he did it by costing the development of young players.
Also
I remember that season pretty damn well. Kris was just overweight and assuming he was either a 3 or 4, he was behind Ed, Charles and also JR. Moreover, Kris also got hurt that season.
Both Lane and Moser were in better physical shape than Kris. In Lane’s case he was not toiling behind someone in the caliber of Charles or JR. He could have played the 4 and was behind Rag and Keefe. As we have discussed ad nausea, Rag should have never gotten 33 mins.
Playing 10 v Playing 8
Means:
ML (25-30 minutes), JA (10-15)
MR (25-30), MAH (10-15)
RN (25-30), JK (10-15) when JK gets hurt Bobo (10-15)
BL (25), ND (15, per your statement)
TH 25-30, MM (10-15)
You have rightly railed that quick appearances aren’t enough, thus at least 10 minutes was the minimum number I used. I think this would really hurt everyone and not give us a good chance to win. I am not sure how certain combinations could score.
AGAIN this is not an argument over ND’s minutes or over how CBH should have rotated players. I 100% agree that ND should not play either the way or as much as he did and 100% agree that CBH’s rotation costs us games, like OR.
I just don’t think playing 10 people is a good idea .
We just disagree
Playing 9-10 guys haven’t hurt programs like Arizona which only has one player averaging over 30 mins. If anything they are in better position to make a move than we are. Same goes with UNC where Roy will have the program back where they belong by next year.
Playing 9-10 guys this season with giving good chunk of mins would have helped our team not just for this year but also for next. Instead the year was wasted and for reason Howland’s seat is warm. If you want to stubbornly stick to just one philsophy that is fine. I believe that every good leader should give himself room to evolve and make adjustments depending on situations.
We have a difference in philosophy how a program should be managed. You think a coach should always stick to same approach no matter what. I think that is insane when the current one is not working. Based on what we have seen this season there is one word to describe Howland’s approach this season: EPIC FAIL.
I will leave it at that and don’t see any point in extending this discussion.
I would never say this
You think a coach should always stick to same approach no matter what.
I strongly disagree with that statement. For example, CBH had to play zone this year because of his team. Further, I think pressing teams, for example, need to play more than 7 or 8 generally. Lastly, this year’s team could not win with “Ben Ball warrior” defense because it did not have the horses starting with its first team PAC 10 star. As a result, CBH needed to focus more on offense.
My last and most important point is that Coach was the greatest in part because he did change philosophies as I posted here.
Do you really see us losing to Zona?
I think we take care of business against UA. However, beating Cal poses another problem altogether! My gut feeling is that ASU will win the Pac 10! They play the style of ball conducive to the pressure that this time of year brings! GO BRUINS!
Nestor is being kind
by calling this season a “debacle”. I’m calling it flat out disgusting. 13-17 would be bad enough, if it were not for the fact that this team is significantly worse than their record. If this were a normal year, with 2 or 3 top 25 teams in the Pac 10 and 2 or 3 more bubble teams, we would probably be around 10-20.
Competing in the Pac 10 this year is Howland’s Final Four run equivalent to playing in the NCAA regional finals in front of 80% Bruin-blue clad fans: Lucky.
I am convinced that this team had enough talent to navigate through this pathetic conference with about the same record if the players coached themselves this year.
Oh, and what a feat it would be to win 3 games in the Pac 10 tournament, with as far as we have to travel, and all the top 25 teams standing in our way. Quite a feat indeed.
Yeah, we Bruin fans here are more than reasonable. Have any doubts about that, try to imagine what fans in Chapel Hill, Lexington and Lawrence would be saying about their coach if he had Howland’s exact same credentials.
This isn’t just a “down year”. This is a once-in-a-generation event. At least, that’s what it should be.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
Winning against Zona
is certainly possible. For one thing, they aren’t that consistently strong, and I pretty much agree with the conventional wisdom that is is very difficult to beat a team three times. But we are faced with a couple of discouraging facts: Howland’s teams have played pretty well when he has time to prepare them, not so well in the next game; then, too, being in essence a .500 team suggests that we are unlikely to win two games in a row. But it is a tournament, and the conference has performed so unevenly as a group, that the unlikely is not that improbable. I have been completely flummoxed by all the minutes that the Serbian bricklayer has gotten, since his weaknesses have been on display for a long time now. Recently, he has added not being able to catch the ball to his repertoire, but we don’t have the luxury of not using him. So, I will be watching with a lot of doubt, but no lack of support for the Bruins, ever. By the way, Tyler Lamb can really play.
Speeking of Tyler Lamb
I watched the videos of this kid and TH back to back and IMHO Tyler reminded me of a younger smaller version of TH. They had many of the same characteristics. I for one am really looking forward to seeing him in a Bruins jersey.
by LongtimeBru on Mar 10, 2010 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
As top prep
we’ve played all these teams twice, already. Shouldn’t we remember some of the prep?
sjh
by Class of 66 on Mar 10, 2010 12:43 PM PST up reply actions
Plus 1
Worst Bruin team I have ever had the displeasure of watching.
I think the lizard years were far worse
We had so much talent and squandered it.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Mar 10, 2010 12:44 PM PST up reply actions
+1000
No comparison, CBH can coach. Even this year, we beat better teams in some games (we beat the top 2 PAC 10 teams, including beating a senior laden CAL on the road.)
Also, anyone remember Larry Farmer? I am not sure who is worse, Larry or Lavin.
That said, this year has been painful to watch at times.
Another nice quote from RN via Jon Gold on MR
“He’s just been the perfect example really,” Nelson said of Roll. “He didn’t play that much his first couple years here, but I saw how much work he put in the offseason, and this season, especially to the young guys like me and Tyler, he’s just been… he leads by example, he leads by words, he does it all really.”
Nice that RN appreciates the right things.
Go Bruins!
Best Bruins Action of the Week
Tonight at the Ford Center ……8:10 EST Tip
Collison and Westbrook hook up.
IIRC
Sophomore Westbrook schooled Rookie Collison last time up… interesting matchup
by britishbruin on Mar 10, 2010 12:27 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
