We Are All Rooting For Howland To Get It Right
by BruinsNation on Mar 8, 2010 4:00 AM PST
in Basketball
Email
Print
What about that flashing red light in the distance, the one just over the horizon? The one that's been there a while, just out of view, that seems a lot closer right now?
That's the end of UCLA's 2009-10 basketball season. The season that seems to have ended months ago, then crawled along towards its inevitable and merciful conclusion.
In the simplest possible terms, this season has not been fun. For anyone. At its most basic level, we fans just want a season to be fun. It's fun to watch the team win, of course. It's also fun to watch a team grow and progress. It's fun to watch a team improve and entertain. Heck, sometimes a team doesn't win enough games, but there's something inherently enjoyable in the way they work, the way they hustle, the way they inspire - final score be damned.
Sadly, the most recent version of Ben Howland basketball failed to meet the fun threshold on every possible level.
As a result, instead of turning to this blog to bond over the team's success, our community gathered to vent. In place of collective celebration, we all have been gathering around a hearth built of bandwidth to criticize, to pick the season apart, and to wonder where it all went wrong.
At Bruins Nation, we've focused on a variety of targets, from those whose play has fallen short of anyone's expectation, to those who built the team and taught it what it knows -- or doesn't know. We've called out players, we've called out former players and assistant coaches, shoot, we've even called out the student section. But, that road we've been riding, the one with the red light just over the horizon, that road like all others leads to just one person: UCLA head men's basketball coach Ben Howland.
Recently, we've been seeing quite a few comments asserting that some of the front page writers were right all along in many of our criticisms regarding how Howland has managed the team on the court this season, from the forever inexplicable insistence that Nikola Dragovic play, to the why-didn't-he-redshirt season of Mike Moser. What we're here to say now, now that the season is ending, is that it basically doesn't matter whether we were right or wrong. What really matters is what exactly will Howland do to get this program back on track and whether he will make strong moves to address the issues we have laid out in detail.
Our main point though lies beneath the very question.
What will Howland do?
Because simply by phrasing it like that, we want to make it clear that the group of UCLA fans/alumni collectively known as Bruins Nation are still unanimously supportive of Ben Howland. Yes, we must reiterate unequivocally that a losing season in Howland's seventh season is simply unacceptable and will be counted as a major strike against the coach. We also must note that this team's record and on-court performance (and the reasons we arrived at this record) justified the heavy criticism we leveled at Howland and his staff this season.
But that doesn't mean we aren't totally behind the coach and anyone who infers from our questions and criticism that we are in any way advocating, discussing, or even considering the replacement of Ben Howland as UCLA's basketball coach has misread both our words and our intentions.
From our vantage point, Howland encountered what we see as a "perfect storm" of early NBA defections, injuries, and recruiting malcontents. Given how it was Howland's staff that failed to foresee and prepare for some of these developments (many that were anticipated by almost everyone else, i.e. Jrue Holiday's early departure), how long it took for Howland to make obvious adjustments and the way he developed personnel on his roster, the season didn't even live up to bare minimum of expectations of putting together a winning record in Westwood. Ironically, and make no mistake, this season still has been an underachieving disaster, because, despite all the problems, we still have a better team on paper than some of the teams that beat us. Even with all the roster problems this team managed to underachieve.
However, while we have lobbed heavy criticism in how he has managed this program, we still think he is the right guy to be in charge of our program at this snap shot in time. Yet our support doesn't mean we have complete trust in him given what we have seen on the court. It means that he has to earn back the trust which was lost this season.
Just remember, voicing concern (even if it is done in very strident and passionate manner) doesn't mean we are asking for Howland to fired. We are not even thinking about "candidates." It's an off-the-table topic until we see how next two seasons turn out. We also want to point out that it is not about being in any "one camp" or "the other." The last thing we want is for BN to turn into the ridiculous civil war cesspool we've seen on other online communities and permanently divide our fanbase and readers.
The fact is, because of the enormous reservoir of good will Howland built up in his first six seasons, he still gets the luxury to turn this thing around in the next couple of seasons. We believe Howland needs to address a critical set of issues and we are going to keep a very close eye on how he goes about addressing the problems concerning our program. Coach Wooden said:
Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be.
So, if Coach Ben Howland is not addressing the issues concerning the Bruin basketball program in a productive way, we are not going to be in denial as the events take place. We will keep firing away in the same manner we have been all along and, if people are not going to be comfortable with that, well, tough.
Finally, we just want to remind the entire community that if and when we stop believing Ben Howland is the right man for the job, you'll know it. Just ask Karl Dorrell.
GO BRUINS.
-Achilles, Ajax, Bellerophon, Menelaus, Meriones, Nestor, Odysseus, Patroclus, Ryan, Telemachus, and Tydides
120 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Appreciate the post
But I never doubted front-pagers commitment to Howland. Where things have become a bit uncomfortable for me is in the personal attacks on ND. By no means do I enjoy seeing him on the court but I think all criticism should rest with the coaching staff. I do not think that fans should be insulting their own players.
I know you all are tolerant of respectful dissent, so I just wanted to point out that BN’s pointed criticism of ND has been a bit much for some fans like myself.
We don't see any issues with the criticism
directed towards Rag. His on court and off court actions signaled he never cared about UCLA. We are not going to back down from any of it. In any event, it is not about Rag any more.
Agree with brand0n
I’ve commented on this in the past, but I also feel the attacks on Dragovic have been personal and heavy-handed. He’s made mistakes (and we can’t say we know exactly what happened in both situations – although he did put himself in a bad situation, that yes, reflects poorly on him and UCLA). But Drew Gordon, if anyone, has disrespected UCLA more than anyone. I remember a game where a time out was called, and as he was walking to the bench. An assistant coach was trying to talk to him. Drew looked away and shook his head as if he wanted to hear none of it. That’s offensive. That’s disrespecting UCLA. That’s the type of action that demands that a player sits. AND QUITTING ON YOUR TEAM – that’s inexcusable. Being a soft European player who the coach leans on is another story.
by rocket rod forever on Mar 8, 2010 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
Disagreement duly noted
But as stated above we are not going to back down or back off concerning our observations on DRago (the only UCLA “basketball” player in last three decades (at least) to get his name on the police blotter twice).
getting tangled up with the law
once for pushing your girlfriend to the ground and the other for getting in a fight with a guy in a public venue is far far worse in my opinon than being a jerk during the game.
Gordon needed to go, but Drago should have been dismissed from the team after the second run in with the law. Once could be a mistake, twice and its on you and you need to go. I wouldn’t tolerate that from a superstar player and sure as hell wouldn’t tolerate it from a scrub.
by silverlakebruin on Mar 8, 2010 11:20 AM PST up reply actions
He shouldn't have been dismissed I think
But he should have been kept off the court until he addressed his legal situation. Howland botched it. Badly.
I'm no Gordon defender...
…but I can understand walking off the court angry and not wanting to talk to a coach. If you’re a competitor, that’s an understandable reaction. Should he have done it? Obviously not, but it’s something I’m sure I did when I was a younger man playing competitive sports.
However, I’ve never gotten arrested or been a suspect in any kind of criminal investigation. Unless you count the time a CHP officer caught me going 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone.
KICK TO THE CURB!!!
Howland could have learned a lesson from a Coach who I feel was overrated until this year: BRUCE PEARL.
He kicked off his BEST player, Tyler Smith (ALL SEC), and 3 other players (who were solid contributers). Somehow, the team jelled, and is likely headed for a #2, #3 seed for the tourney.
I LOVED HOWLAND FOR DUMPING DREW GORDON, AND I WISH HE WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME WITH DRAGO. No matter our struggles this season, I was inspired by the play of Reeves Nelson after Gordon was booted. We lost our best player (ONLY STATISICALLY) I could only think there could have been even more inspirational play from Lane, maybe DohDoh and Mosier.
Excellent points
I agree with this post in many ways. This season has been an eye opener for sure. I must admit, I was a little slow in pulling my blinders up for supporting Coach without question. As things became obviously foul in terms of Rago’s min’s and the lack of heart this team as a whole has shown throughout the year, I became increasingly worrisome, tiresome and just plain frustrated with our Bruins. Like many have said before me, this year is the first year EVER in my life I walked out of a game at halftime because my heart could simply not take the pain of being let down any longer. And it only took until the last regular season game for me to do it :). It was too predictable and I like many here have taken a lot of my anger out on Rago because of his ill advised shots and total lack of effort on defense. I agree that CBH can and will turn the ship around and he has my full support as long as there is noticeable effort on and off the court with our current and future Bruins.
Love the last paragraph.
Fully agree that CBH should have no reason to fear his job security, though there’s no question he has to sense the frustration and disappointment with this year’s team. He knows this kind of year won’t cut it at his dream job. He knows that another season similar to this one certainly won’t help with fundraising for the Pauley renovation; though it can’t be proven, I’m sure it’s down for this year even if you could statistically control for the economy going to crap.
I’m eager to see how he adapts to get the program back to where I’m sure he expects it to be.
(The smartass in me has to point out that all we have to do to get to .500 is earn a spot in the Sweet 16!)
This season has been an eye opener to be sure.
One thing I want to address is the non linear possibilities within our future. You guys state that Howland has the next two years to dig himself out of this hole. But as I see it, this season has been Strike 1 against Howland regardless how well he performs in the near future. I’m not saying we need to get rid of CBH. From from it. I just don’t believe I will put this is season out of my mind anytime soon, Elite Eight or Final Four runs not withstanding.
And that is what I meant by ‘eye opener.’ If Howland should get this program back on track right away, and we compete for a Pac 10 Championship next year and make a really good run in the NCAA tournament the following year. When ever we struggle, I will think immediately of the poor choices that produced this year’s aberration.
I’m with you guys. I sincerely hope and pray for a return to Bruin basketball next year and in the years to come. I really hope Coach Howland learns from this year’s debacle. I’m just saying i won’t soon forget it.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Important note to keep in mind
While this year was a total debacle, the problem has been building since 2006. For reference, I would recommend reading B’s post on recruiting linked in this post and also available under related fanposts section.
Don't I know it.
my point is that this season will be the thorn in my side for years to come. For example, Dorrell gave us many reasons to sour on him; but personally it was the Utah game that changed my mind about him.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
+1
Utah sealed the deal, but the arizona + SC loss during MJD’s senior year started it.
MJD never had a senior year
He was a junior – Drew Olson and Marcedes Lewis were seniors on that team.
As one who resisted much of the early criticism
I have to admit that much of what you said proved to be true.
One point you left out of your “perfect storm” analysis, that you consistently made all year, is that CBH lost some critical assistants. As with early player defections to the NBA, the loss of assistants to head coaching jobs is a bitter sweet reminder of how good a teacher CBH can be. He’s so good, that his “students” — be they players of staff, get great opportunities.
Whether CBH is strong enough to fire and replace assistants will be one of the tests of his ability to fix what is wrong.
This year, CRN, after we lost some of our games, called out himself and the staff. He would say “we just didn’t coach well.” He was right and he built credibility by doing so.
Has CBH done the same? I don’t read behind the firewalls — but I don’t recall seeing anything where CBH simply stood up and put the blame on himself AND his staff.
I will feel better about our future if he has done so — because I agree that our problems are structural and not just player related.
Now — having said all that, I think we can win the Pac 10 Tournament IF CBH controls ND and JA’s minutes and pulls either if they are not playing.
Frankly, I wish the season were over. The only reason I favor a post-season game for a losing team is if we use it to look forward to next year. I’ve lost all hope that CBH will do that and fully expect to see ND in the starting line up on Th.
But, then I think about the match ups and the team that really handed it to us won’t be there. We were in a position to win a lot of games we lost — many because of CBH’s bad decisions on a couple of players. If the Leopard can at least change one or two spots, we can win. And, then … the agony of a quick loss in the Dance.
sjh
Re. staff
We did mention it here:
Given how it was Howland’s staff that failed to foresee and prepare for some of these developments (many that were anticipated by almost everyone else, i.e. Jrue Holiday’s early departure), how long it took for Howland to make obvious adjustments and the way he developed personnel on his roster, the season didn’t even live up to bare minimum of expectations of putting together a winning record in Westwood.
And the highlighted part goes to A’s post that lays it out in more detail.
I think the strongest point you've made on staff, this year is
that CBH, like every “boss”, needs someone to call “Bullshit” on him when it is appropriate. Someone to get in his face when he is being stubborn.
Not faulting this front page post — just pointing out that your points are stronger than appear.
sjh
Definitely
I think how he adjusts his staff this off-season is going to be very telling. It will be crucial IMHO in terms how this program will shape up next 2 seasons (I am not even thinking about just next year) and beyond.
Awesome post
Who exactly is “BruinsNation”? Composite of all the front page writers?
Also, 66 is right on the ball (again) pointing out that the unfortunate part is that there is very little pie on the face of the critics here thus far. We’d all love to be proved wrong but so far it hasn’t happened.
I agree with you guys
But we have to remember that college basketball is a volatile beast. There has been talk of
starting a new season and being 0-0 going into the Pac 10 tourney. I think that’s legitimate. CBH can get his shit together and put the pitiful season behind him and go forward. I’m not by any means predicting that we win the Pac.
But college ball’s volatility really comes into play this off-season. If Josh Smith gets in shape, CBH takes a step back and analyzes how this season fell so hard and reassess his ways, then we may well be positioned to see signs of old Ben Ball emerge again.
This season was over a while ago
And at this point it doesn’t matter what happens in the Pac-10 tourney.
Thank you front pagers
Despite his shortcomings, I am still a staunch supporter of CBH. Of course, that support is not unconditional. I’ve been a lurker on this site for several years and THIS year, I finally created a profile and started to contribute comments, mostly as a means of venting some frustration about hoops and having like-minded people to talk to. This post sums up my feelings about this season and UCLA hoops absolutely perfectly.
Although I don’t always agree with the tone of some of the writings/comments here, I know we all have a common purpose which is love and respect for UCLA. I just wanted to say thank you to the front pagers for their efforts to keep us informed, united and enthused about all things UCLA.
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Mar 8, 2010 9:23 AM PST reply actions
Not much to add
to this very well written piece.
Next year will be very telling. I think it will be the play of RN and TH that will dictate our success next year.
I unfortunately believe, reluctantly albeit, that Bobo is a bust and so is JA. I know Nester and others are holding out hope for improvement from JA, but I just don’t see it. I hope I’m wrong. Until we get a strong PG who can be a true leader on the floor, we’ll languish on the bubble for the NCAA Tournament and won’t be competing for Pac-10 Championships.
I’ll be rooting for our Lady Bruins in March this year. Not sure I would have had the men made the tourney, so hopefully this will add some well earned exposure to CNC’s Lady Bruin Ballers.
one quick correction
Nester = Nestor. As a Classics scholar, that is a pet peeve of mine…
by britishbruin on Mar 8, 2010 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
no worries
just makes him sound like a homebody rather than senior greek hero at the fall of Troy…
Wow, are you sure anybody would still hold out hope about
Anderson being able to improve his appalling skills ?
Still can't believe the PG situation....
Seriously, do PGs really dislike Howlands system that much? How is it we can’t get ONE Pac-10 caliber PG to commit for next year? JA is a joke, the kid is flustered when his man gets even close. ML looks out of place in that position, hope the coaches right now are scouting and recruiting like crazy. On top of that, tweaking our offensive system out of the 1950’s would also help.
Share your frustration, but...
An incoming PG could count on playing alongside TH, an undersized, hard-working but foul-prone RN, a Jekyll-and-Hyde ML (maybe), an improving and hopefully stronger BL, maybe JMM, maybe MM, JA, and some hopefully-good players who have never played a second of D-1 ball. This PG would come into a program where, based on both rumors/Tweets and the allocation of minutes, one/a few/more than a few players are unhappy with the coaching (minus whoever transfers out). A freshman PG would also be looking at junior PGs JA and LJ, and even if skilled enough to earn a starting role, would still likely be on a short leash. It’s easy to imagine that not looking very appealing.
yup
though a really talented PG could see how JA was relegated to the bench even at the obvious detriment to ML’s game. I think the point stands though for trying to attract a solid-starter-but-not-transcendent-talent to play for us – sitting two years behind the JA/LJ combo isn’t very appealing.
One thing struck me between the eyes watching DC playing for NO recently: what an unfamiliar thing it is to me to see a PG with a crossover dribble. The inability of JA and ML (and MAH, for that matter) to be a credible threat to go either way off the bounce may be an underrated factor in our difficulties. Anyone know if LJ has that?
by britishbruin on Mar 8, 2010 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
Disagree a bit on Freshman PG
CBH chucked aside a final four starting center for KL without a thought. (Look he could have played KL some at 4 if he really loved LRM.) I think (maybe it is hope) that a McCallum would start instantly as a PG and not have to worry about being behind JA or LJ.
McCallum says he wants to be on National TV and, even this terrible year, we had multiple times on national TV. I know Nestor and others think it unlikely we get McCallum but I still think it would make sense for that type of PG to come here now, not just for us but for them.
If CBH still starts JA, I demand a drug test of CBH.
Lot of things make sense
For i.e. Holiday coming back for his second season, LRMAM coming back for his 4th season, Howland figuring out early on that Dragovic was player not worthy of more than 12-15 mins a game. Lot of things make sense.
McCallum at UCLA will be a decent fit but it is not happening.
There may well be
one or two high school PGs that CBH might start, but that brings me back to my main point: why would they want to come here? Playing time, yes (assuming a rare star PG, not just an average D-1 PG). Big name school historically, yes. But a stud PG, one worthy enough to start here ASAP, would want to go somewhere where he can run an all-around talented team and go deep into the tournament – and there are a lot more likely places for that than here right now.
KL was a known one-and-done from the start, a rare talent who was a #5 pick in the draft. CBH was lucky to get him and wise to use him. From what little I know McCallum isn’t quite up to that level, but if he is…again, why would he come here?
Why McCallum should come here
1. He has said he wants to start on Day 1 and be a star. He can be at UCLA on Day one.
2. He says he wants to be on National TV, UCLA always is and was on national TV a lot this season despite stinking up the place.
3. He would be playing with at least one sure NBA prospect (TH) and a big time young center (Josh Smith). Other marginal NBA prospects including ML. The cupboard is not bare and this team could reasonably be expected to go to the Tourney and do well in the PAC 10 with a good PG. As a general rule, teams expected to make deep runs in the Tourney are not going to instantly start a freshman PG. (His other most logical choice on his own short list is AZ, which is also not going to the Tourney this year either).
4. In addition to the great UCLA basketball name the summer workouts are incredible. The pros hang out in the summer and if comes early he could be playing with them.
5. DC, RW, JF are all pro-point guards now and came through CBH. Why not join them and learn what they did? DC and RW both over achieved based on their high school careers. Also, what of all the other UCLA pros right now?
I know right now it is easy to look at the glass as half empty and even cracked but if I were a freshmen stud PG, I would look at it as a great opportunity.
I hope I'm wrong!
It would be great for UCLA if your reasons win out. I want you to be right. I’m just not going to hold my breath.
Oh I won't hold my breath either
I am just saying it makes sense for a MaCullum to come here from both sides (UCLA and his own) and I am hopeful because we are on his short list, along with AZ, FL, Detroit (his Dad is the coach) and us. As I look at the list it is AZ or UCLA because FL has a point and I think he is just helping Dad because Detroit does not meet his other criteria
I know of a neurosurgeon
that charges zero $$ for initial office visit. DCBruin, please keep it in mind should that drug test fail.
Stubborn CBH
I hope Ben can turn it around but he is going to have to admit that his stubborness is his downfall. He needs to open up his offense and let the athletes run a little more. His style doesn’t attract the thoroughbreds to Westwood. UCLA will always get more than its share of talented college athletes, but Ben needs to let them play. This year’s team was below average in talent compared to what we normally have but on paper we still have good athletes. I’m willing to say that Mark Few at Gonzaga does a lot more with less talent year after year. On paper, we have better ballers than Gonzaga. I think Mark Few who I compare to Chris Peterson of Boise State could have done well with this years Bruin roster. I like Ben, but I’m just sayin’…
All those calling for "more offense" or whatever
If that ever happens, and we implement a faster paced style of game, I don’t want to hear ANY complaints from you about our defense dropping off, because that’s an inevitable consequence. Not only is transition defense inherently tougher to play than set defense, but these guys do not have limitless energy, and you can be sure that other teams will be eager to run on the Bruins at every opportunity if CBH’s halfcourt M2M defense gets even halfway back to what it used to be, and a faster paced game will facilitate that strategy quite nicely.
So every time I hear “What kind of defense is that? WTF?” as we give up a transition basket, I’ll just respond with “be careful what you wish for”.
Yup
I have never understood the complaint about Howland’s offense. One of the main issues from this year (and also last year) was not how we ran our offense. It was really all about our defense as Howland game and personnel management favored certain players who were all about playing “offense first” without caring much about their “D.” It compromised Howland’s identity which we all fell in love with as “Ben Ball” and essentially shook the foundation of his program.
Moreover, for me it has never been about the “style” of offense but more about “offensive efficiency.” When Howland successfully built his program grounded on defense it was also complemented by a very efficient offense that was predicated upon setting up for the best shots and more importantly eliminating bad shots with lots of time left in the clock. Howland strayed away from that in a big way this season but it actually started last season with Josh Shipp and then metastized in the form of Nikola Ragovic.
We saw the offense first mindset cost us last year when repeated defensive breakdowns (from Shipp, Holiday and Dragovic) cost us games at home against ASU and WSU and later caused us to meltdown in other contests on the road. Howland didn’t do much to hold those players accountable (and when he did it …. i.e. w Holiday against WSU … it seemed as if he didn’t communicate clearly why he was being held accountable) … and that problem carried over to this season.
Class of 2008 has been maligned for good reasons. However, you also have to consider these kids have spent 2 years in a program in which the head coach talks all about defense in public, yet continued to reward his favorite players loads of playing time despite not showing any intensity on D.
So the complaints about offense is pretty superficial considering the issues w/ our program is structural emanating from number of other issues, including but not limited to deviating from the foundation built upon defense.
Not on SportsCenter = Bad
Perfectly set screens and great rebounding position are not going to make SportsCenter highlights. That’s the mindset behind a lot of this. People may not want to admit it to themselves, but when we start talking about nebulous things like “style” in describing what’s “wrong” with the offense, that’s what it really boils down to.
That’s not to say that I believe the offense was perfect even in it’s Final Four years. What I would have liked to see is a Princeton style influence mixed in with CBH’s normal motion. One of my only complaints with the sets CBH runs is that the majority of them are based on hitting open players as they go away from the basket, rather than hitting them in stride for inside looks. Unfortunately at this time, none of these sets are possible because we don’t have confident ball handlers and we lack players (outside of TH starting next year) that have both the court vision and ability to deliver the ball to make either strategy work. With JS2 coming in next year with Nelson and TH, maybe we’ll see either a double post or a high-low kind of thing, but we lack the shooters to make that work. It’s really going to be trouble no matter how you look at it.
Most of KL's appearances on SportsCenter this year appear to be perfect rebounding position
though in most cases, the highlight is someone hitting from long range… I’m probably the only one looking at KL as the ball goes through the net…
by britishbruin on Mar 8, 2010 10:51 AM PST up reply actions
Rebounding gets on the top 10
When someone gets a nasty putback dunk over somebody with good rebounding position. So he’s more likely to help someone get on sportscenter than to get on it himself.
Not on SportsCenter = bad for recruiting
by silverlakebruin on Mar 8, 2010 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
Final Fours
Get you plenty of TV time. If you aren’t going to the final four you better figure out a way to get some sort of publicity, because if you have a coach who doesn’t work the media (BH doesn’t, unlike RN) and you aren’t playing a style that generates excitement (We generally don’t), you aren’t in many high profile games ( see next year’s cupcake schedule) and you aren’t going far in the tourney, your program is irrelevent.
When you are a new coach coming in, you can recruit on possiblity. When you are in your 7th year, you are going to be evaluated based on your product. We have a product that is not particularly attractive for elite level guard talent. We will be able to recruit good solid players and be a top 25 program again, but I don’t see how we get the talent to compete for a national title under Howland unless he changes. And the change isn’t to slow down the game and hope to beat people 55 to 45 . That’s a great game plan if you want to coach Wisconsin or Washington State and know you can never hope to recruit top level talent, but it is squandering the opportunity UCLA has to recruit elite level talent.
Finally, Westbrook was an 06/07 recruit Love was an 07/08 recruit, both recruited and committed when we were a final four program and getting a ton of publicity.
by silverlakebruin on Mar 8, 2010 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
Again
That doesn’t explain 04 and 05. It’s not like CBH wasn’t a known quantity either. National Coach of the Year and had two previous stints as head coach. Also it doesn’t explain RW, because he wasn’t getting offers from any big names. Maybe the TV exposure made him want to come here, but there’s just as much evidence that he just didn’t have great alternatives anyway.
To recap
We got enough talent to reach at least two Final Fours without the benefit of sportscenter or their highlights. I’d say that effectively puts your theory to bed.
As I said, a new coach can recruit effectively
based on potential. Howland was able to do that when he came in. Most coaches can when they come into big name programs. A coach can also recruit effectively based on performance. He has been able to do that as well. When looking at Howland’s performance the last two seasons, he will have a tougher time with that going forward.
So, we can hope that doing what used to work will be successful in the future. Many businesses do that. Some are successful, because it still works, others fail, because their situation and the world has changed.
If Howland is able to get back to Final Fours, I will gladly admit I was wrong about the ceiling for the program under him. I do not expect him to change, so in a couple of years we will be able to see what he was able to do by sticking to his guns.
by silverlakebruin on Mar 8, 2010 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
We don't know for sure ...
whether he will “stick” to his guns for next two years. We need to see what he does this off-season not just in terms of adjusting his staff but also on the recruiting front (finishing out the current class and getting started on the next one). His successes in past years have earned him next two years. If he was another coach, we’d call for his firing right now.
However, as mentioned up top … this doesn’t mean we stay quiet for two years.
One point I've been thinking about
Has Benever replaced a starter he has recruited midseason for another player because the other player plays better defense?
The only Ben Howland Recruit I can remember given a starters role and then having it taken away was when he replaced Keefe with Drago last year, but that was for offense (or shot attempts at least). I am not a guy blessed with a great memory, so maybe their are others, but I can’t recall them. Love started from game 1 if memory serves, and I would say he replaced Lorenzo because of his offense, not his defense as well.
Ben does preach defense and does coach it well, but I’m not sure he has ever replaced one of his recruited starters to upgrade the defense. Has he ever really held his recruited starters responsible for in game defense?
by silverlakebruin on Mar 8, 2010 1:02 PM PST up reply actions
I think KLove was pulled early in the season
Maybe not from a starter’s role, but he was pulled at the end of games, which IMO is more important anyway, until his defense improved so that CBH was comfortable enough having him on the floor in crunch time. That would be one example, but even that is incomplete, because he wasn’t out of the lineup at the end of games for very long. I can actually only remember the Texas game where that was the case.
This Year he replaced RN in the starting lineup with JK
for defense.
RN was the starter but CBH switched to JK. JK was a much better defender and RN had a habit of giving up on defense.
RN still played similar minutes but it was one of the reasons for the switch.
yup
and then even went to BL in the starting lineup rather than reinserting RN when JK went down.
However, IIRC the minute split didn’t change much – so in some sense it may have been more of a tactical switch in personnel based on the pros and cons of bringing RN off the bench as much as a statement about the importance of defense.
It's not like we're advocating for him to stay exactly the way he is
In fact, it’s quite the opposite. However, I don’t believe any of the frontpagers is comfortable advocating for wholesale changes. Right now, what we’ve outlined are better categorized as tweaks. The issue of assistants is probably the most difficult to change at this point.
I'm missing your point with Westbrook?
I thought your point was Howland was able to recruit top notch talent without UCLA being heavily in the media? You are correct that Westbrook was a late bloomer and not heavily recruited until late in his senior year, but I don’t see how that makes your point. If anything, the fact that he wasn’t considered elite and didn’t have a lot of offers makes getting him not quite as remarkable. We got someone who was a lot better than we thought, sort of the oppostie of JA.
by silverlakebruin on Mar 8, 2010 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
The point of that is to illustrate
That a lot more goes into recruiting than sportscenter exposure. We’ve all heard the stories about Keating convincing RW not to sign with anyone until our situation with JF became clear. That’s what I’m talking about. Simplifying recruiting down to sportscenter = recruiting is a gross oversimplification, and it glosses over many issues that are IMO way more important than getting on the Top Ten.
Problem is, we didn't all fall in love with Ben Ball
And the valid criticisms this year have mixed with those incoherent ones from the whiners of the previous several years who only care about pace.
Actually overwhelming majority of us did
The whiners were handful and this place is a pretty good archive to document it.
+1
One of the sad things this season is that it has opened the doors to those who opposed hiring CBH because Big East Basketball was said to be boring.
Three straight final fours shut them up.
Now, they are sliding through the cracks to attack CBH’s offense again.
The front pagers analysis of the season is spot on. The problem is not the system, it is the implementation.
With the right players and coaches, with Ben Ball defense, with Ben Ball rebounding, we have transition basketball at its best — fast and fun AS WELL AS a strong set offense.
The problem is that all of it starts on the defensive end and we have been terrible there, this year.
As to the point that we will never recruit PG’s — I think our record with the NBA PG’s who have learned on our hardwood speaks all that has to be said.
Now is not the time to recycle the old CBH is boring, can’t attract winners and can’t win, song.
In fact, his success inadvertently led to the recruitment of a Fool’s Gold class of #1 recruits. They didn’t think this place too boring.
sjh
I actually think the last two years should shut the old whiners up
Howland has proven, more than once, that he will play guys if he thinks their overall offensive effectives outweighs their defensive problems. This is as it should be — the point of the game is overall value at both ends. But the last two years should prove once and for all how much more reliable defense is than offense in general, and how the “tilt” in attention toward defense is justified.
He said so himself before this season
And it made sense to me then and it does now. Offense can go cold. Sometimes the shots don’t fall. But defense is based on effort, and you should be able to bring that every game.
I remember a game
few years ago against OSU. I believe the final score was 50 to 30, such an ugly game but it was UCLA CBH basketball. Slow on offense on both sides but SO dominant on defense for UCLA. Wasnt the funnest game to watch but was so proud of those four letters
It was Washington State
Jordan Farmar still regards this as the best team performance he ever played in.
Ty, I'm one of those people
and I couldn’t agree with you more. I don’t think we need to throw defense out of the window to improve our offense. I think the Princeton Offense would suit Howland to a T. It is designed to eat up the shot clock, and incorporate the entire team in an coordinated effort to put the ball in the basket.
The occasional back door cut that leads to a slam dunk would not go unappreciated either.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
I know we've had our disagreements on this
But just know that I’m certainly not “all-in” on CBH’s offensive schemes, for the reasons I’ve outlined. I believe incorporating some of the Princeton schemes into our current sets not only improves the diversity of what we are able to do to an opponent directly, but it’ll really give opponents fits when they don’t know which way the ball is supposed to go. It would become foolish to overplay a passing lane on our shooters, because we could just as easily be looking for a backdoor cut, which would necessitate that defenders stay at home on our guys. Our “regular” offense will have that much more room to operate when the defense is worried about giving up backdoor stuff and we can pop free for wide open jumpshots.
Having both Offense and Defense
Ty and N both make valid points but I’m just dreaming about the days when Coach Wooden had both a high octane offense and air tight man2man defense. I remember when we were ranked number 1 and USC with Gus Williams at point guard was ranked number 2. Many thought this was USC’s year, not. It was over at halftime…UCLA 59 USC 13! And I don’t even remember the final score.
I imagine those Wooden days were incredible
I just want the “Ben Ball” days back when our boys played every single defensive possession with pride, gave everything they had to D up their guys, and worked on executing on other end of the court.
something that can never be in a 30-second highlight recap
is the glory of a 35 second defensive stand in which the opponent fails to get a shot off. Personally, that is one of my favorite possible in-game moments, and really gets the crowd pumped up and noisy.
by britishbruin on Mar 8, 2010 10:52 AM PST up reply actions
Agree with both of you completely
We learned to love great D.
It was a thrill to see our guys start a defensive set with fire in their eyes and a take no prisoners attitude.
That’s what I miss most. AA taking personally any score against him. That’s Ben Ball.
Also, I’m one who has supported the players for sniffing the flowers and having some fun while here. But, one of my favorite quotes from any Bruin athlete was AA’s “My girlfriend is basketball.” That is the commitment that leads to greatness.
sjh
They complained about Wooden's offense too.
It was only high octane with dominant rebounding or turnovers created by pressure. Coach Wooden’s offense was a tightly patterned offense, much like CBH. The difference was, after Goodrich and Hazard, the Bruins had the top 5 recruits in the nation, and everyone else (especially in the Pac-10) got the leftovers. Talent wins and produces blowouts.
Wooden once said that CBH's teams play better defense then his teams
It was a few years back, I think 2007, but Wooden did comment on how that UCLA team was better on defense than any team he had ever coached. Obviously, there is no comparison on offense or overall but it is worth noting that Wooden did say that.
Jeff Goodman on Rome re: Grinders v. McD's AA
Excellent post. I just wanted to comment about CBH’s offense and a few of the previous threads regarding recruiting, etc.
I was listening to the Rome show and Fox Sports’ CBB writer Jeff Goldman (not sure where he ranks in terms of BN respect or his credibility) spoke briefly about the current situation at UCLA. One comment that struck me as true (going back to previous posts about recruiting) is that CBH has had more success with “grinders” rather than McDonald’s All-Americans. Goldman also said that our recruiting may be affected by what past players (he specifically mentioned KL and Holiday) have told targets that they disliked playing in CBH’s offense.
I can imagine someone like Holiday/Gordon bad mouthing CBH and the offense, but not KL. I think I read earlier that KL is going to be working out on campus this summer. Anyone hear anything about this? We got the #1 center coming in, and from the looks of it, he’ll need to put in some serious work to contribute next year, but I hope that divas like Holiday and Gordon aren’t having any serious negative impact on our recruiting efforts. Although, if they have any impact, it is likely that the players they are reaching our not BenBall worthy.
Comparison with other coaches should be allowed
Because it is relevant. For example, lately I’ve been thinking about Rick Barnes. Here is a guy who recruits immense talent and has never gone past the elite eight. His overall tourney record is 18-16; at Texas he is 16-10 having lost to a lower seed 7 years out of 10. When he had Kevin Durant he lost to SC in the second round, and badly. This year his first-ranked team has vanished completely.
There are a lot of coaches just like him — fine recruiters with no definite coaching plan who don’t routinely underachieve.
What I’m getting at is this. There’s no question we could’ve won 4-5 more games this year if Howland coached perfectly. But there’s also no question that anything more than a first-round tourney loss was impossible, and even an at-large birth given our injuries nearly impossible. The only difference would’ve been in the winning versus losing record. Well, I’d rather have a guy who can underachieve in an otherwise lost and cursed season as this than a guy who underachieves 4-5 games when his team is good.
There are plenty of coaches in the latter category, and Howland has shown so far that he is superior to them.
We did compare him to other elite coaches to make the point
that an elite coach has never suffered a losing season in his program.
That is true, and my point
Is that I’m more concerned about the level of achievement in good seasons, than what should be a complete aberration. If it’s not an aberration the point will be moot as he won’t be here much longer — but I think we’re more concerned about what this says of ultimate ceilings rather than afraid that something this awful will repeat.
13 versus 17 wins in a season like this does not mean as much to me as 27 versus 32 wins in legitimate seasons.
Sorry we disagree
Both of those factors are important. A losing season is unacceptable and we are not going to let anything diminish that. A 17-19 win rebuilding season can be significant if it is marked by incremental progress and sets up a successful season in the following one.
Moreover, expectations when it comes to hoops shouldn’t just factor win totals. It should take in how the team improved and what standing the program was left in after the season is over. We can’t just throw out numbers in terms of judging seasons with win totals ranging from 27-34 wins. It all depends on context. However, in any context a losing season is unacceptable at UCLA. Period. That is not up for debate on BN.
We also don't compete in a vacuum
The state of college basketball in general has to be considered. Think of this year’s relatively weak field. I think any of the #1 seeds from 2008 would have to be the favorite to win if they were in the field this year (Memphis notwithstanding since they didn’t technically get to the Final Four that year).
Also re: Rick Barnes
Texas also doesn’t hold their basketball team to the same standards we do, and we do so with good reason.
There are plenty of coaches that people can say underachieved – everyone talks about how Roy Williams has tons of talent but can’t win it all every year or win it with his own players. Well he’s now won 2, including one on his own. Same for Bill Self… he was much-maligned for not being able to make it past the Elite 8, and had numerous early losses in the tourney… well now he’s won one and is probably the favorite for winning another. Those guys are also at big time basketball programs.
And none of those guys have had losing seasons. I don’t see why we can’t hold our own coach to have at least the minimum standard of no losing seasons.
Not defending a losing season, or comparing arbitrary win totals
The difference between 27 and 32 wins, as I should’ve elaborated, is the difference between final four/title contention and say a sweet sixteen. It’s the difference between a 1-2 seed and a 4-5 seed. To me those distinctions are the most important, kind of like how in football the most important distinction is between an 8-9 win season and an 11-13 win season — not between 4-8 and 7-6.
I am not excusing an unspeakably awful losing season. I’m just saying that the difference between .500 and losing in a lost year is not as important as between Steve Sixteen and Final Four, as I’m sure you’d agree. Now the effect of a losing season on the future is another case which will be known only in the future. Next year will answer it.
If next year is good, it will help erase the taste of this year. If it’s awful, it wouldn’t matter at all whether this year was 17 wins or 13 wins — it would be equally worrisome.
I’m trying to make an assessment based on what we know so far. We know that with a good team BH has either overachieved or reached potential; and with this awful team with little potential, he made things even worse. To me the first point is more important for the long term.
indeed
CBH might have a better product going into the Pac-10 tournament right now if he had been less concerned with ‘avoiding a losing season’, and might be better set up for next year as well.
A great coach once said
“Material possessions, winning scores, and great reputations are meaningless in the eyes of the Lord, because He knows what we really are and that is all that matters.”
As it is, it seems to me that CBH tried to maximize the number of winning scores rather than starting on a more long-term rebuilding project after the Gordon departure. Whether or not that was the appropriate strategy is unclear, but it seems there was a clear tradeoff to be made and CBH chose attempting to avoid a losing season.
Moser redshirt
Great writeup guys and I pretty much agree with everything you have said. My only small quibble is the MM redshirt issue. To say that CBH should have redshirted him is the worst form of Monday morning quarterbacking.
MM got his chance playing in the first 6 games of the season when TH was out. When TH debuted against Kansas, MM didn’t play, but he did play in the next two games. In sum, MM played in 8 of the first 9 games of the season. Sure he didn’t get tons of minutes in those games, but he was given enough time to contribute and he didn’t seize that opportunity.
At the time, CBH had to operate not knowing what TH would be or how much he would be capable of. Playing MM early was necessary both because TH wasn’t there to fill those minutes and to get MM some experience in case TH didn’t come back or wasn’t as good as hoped for. It pretty much is the same situation that CRN had with regards to Richard Brehaut except that CBH had no real Kevin Craft stopgap alternative.
MM has played 14 games this season and averaged 5 minutes a game in those games. He has not done much in those games to show that he has deserved more playing time (especially when it would come at the expense of MR, TH, and ML). Those 90 minutes of game time will help him next year much more than sitting out the entire year. Plus, I am pretty sure that MM came to UCLA with dreams of playing in the NBA in the next three years, not being a 5th year senior. Redshirting a kid in college basketball essentially tells him that you don’t have any faith in him that he will leave early, something that could be disastrous for an 18 year olds confidence.
Sorry
This is just absurd:
MM has played 14 games this season and averaged 5 minutes a game in those games. He has not done much in those games to show that he has deserved more playing time (especially when it would come at the expense of MR, TH, and ML).
That argument becomes total nonsense given how much time Rago got despite doing nothing to merit 30+ mins a game. Howland as the manager and coach of his program should have anticipated when Honeycutt was going to return (and this is not an unreasonable expectation given he was probably kept informed by the med. staff).
Given Howland’s track record, I doubt Howland would have given Moser time even if he showed something in those first 8 or 9 games. And the min allocation after that was still absurd considering how much time was wasted on losers like Rag.
So to argue that Moser didn’t deserve playing time because he didn’t show it on the court is baseless given how he dealt with Rag all season. And please don’t come back with tired BS about how Rag’s time was justified.
I didn't say a single thing about ND
MM is a small forward. He is far too slight to play power forward. Likewise, TH is a small forward who is too slight to play power forward and playing him at power forward 1) puts him against stronger players where he might be injured more easily, 2) gets in foul trouble more, 3) isn’t as effective as when he is a small forward. The small lineups played without RN with TH at power forward and ND/BL at center have been predictably poor with bad rebounding and bad interior defense. If you want to say that BL should have gotten more time in place of ND that is fine and completely justifiable, but any MM minutes would have come in place of TH, MR, or ML, not ND.
Given TH’s injury history over the summer and the start of this season, I don’t think anyone knew how much TH could be relied on. Some players, especially ones that are built like a rail, are just injury prone. Thankfully TH didn’t get hurt the rest of the season and became the quality player that he is today. You may be right that CBH still might not have given MM more minutes as the season went on even if TH struggled, but that is something that can never be known.
You might be right
Mins allocation
Poncho … reading my comment above … I can see I came at you really hard. However, as DCBruins would tell you I would argue just as passionately with you about this in person. :-) I think the PT this year is a really sore topic because the amount of time that went into you know who’s PT had a ripple effect on rest of the roster (and subsequently impacted the development of our frosh).
On surface Moser is a SF. However, if he was given adequate time in our zone D (which didn’t kick in till the 14th game) he would have enabled Howland to be a little more flexible w our roster moving our Honeycutt and Roll considering Honeycutt can play 3, 4 or may be even 2 and Roll can play 2 or 3.
Moser got few mins in those first few games. However, those mins were allocated rather hap hazardly and he was also subjected to the "quick pull" treatment which was never in play for certain Howland’s favorites.
Also, while Honeycutt had injuries during pre-season from the newsreports it seemed pretty reasonable to expect he was going to come back after first 3-5 games and he did. I am assuming Howland had even better info., which should have gone into his calculation in terms of roster management.
The basis of our complaint here is grounded on the simple fact that our freshmen weren’t treated the same way Howland treated a certain senior. It cost the team and it also cost development of players such as Moser and Lane.
Anyway, you might not want to bring Rag into it but any chatter of mins allocation in our roster will have to involve him considering he ate up so much of PT. It had a ripple effect on the entire program and damaged its foundation. Again, it’s not something we need to debate all over again. Thanks.
No worries
I’m a big boy N, I can take it.
I understand that the ND issue has caused a lot of problems for this program. I have never been a big supporter of ND as I sometimes come across as, I just have always thought that anger directed at him masks other problems with this team (e.g. ML signficicantly underperformed from expectations this year, JA fell short of even conservative estimates of what he could do, JMM not yet developing, JK being JK). I think what it comes down to is that CBH really really really didn’t want to have a losing record. This became the driving force behind this season and he was willing to do whatever he felt necessary to avoid a losing season this year even if it came at the expense of giving some of the younger guys playing time.
CBH and myself both put a lot of pressure on ND to be the lynchpin of this season. In retrospect, this may have been unfair to ND as he was never recruited to be a go to player and never will be a go to player. Had ML become the next NBA player that many thought he was going to be, ND could have comfortable slid into the third option (or fourth with RN) role. Unfortunately, this didn’t happen and CBH was stuck hoping that ND would get hot that day. ND’s defense is not good, but the fact of the matter is unless this team could win games 40 to 38 (something that isn’t likely given the rest of the team’s individual defensive issues), CBH needed someone to be able to score. MR can score, RN can score, ML and TH sometimes can score. Other than that, we have no one besides ND to put the ball in the basket. BL has shown some flashes, but JA, JMM, MAH, and MM aren’t exactly players you can count on to score.
With respect to MM’s playing time, I would have happily seen him get more time at the expense of JA, especially since this would presumably have kept MR from having to play out of position at small forward.
At the end of the day, there are a lot of things in retrospect that we all wished had happened differently. Would they have made a difference, we don’t know. I’m hoping for a miracle for CBH for his team to get on a roll and get him to his goal of a .500 team.
Moser/Anderson
I think we are in agreement re. Anderson. However, wrt to Rag, for us (not just for yours truly but I believe most if not all of the frontpagers) the bottom line was that Howland sold out his principle by going for the “scoring” potential by completely ignoring his proven liability on D. In terms of scoring the “potential” was never proven. Anyway, I don’t want to redebate it.
Bottom line I think Howland and his staff missed some strategic opportunities to work with the personnel they had. They could have done by recognizing the limitations of their existing rotation early on (looking at Rag’s numbers or Anderson’s penchant of not being up to par by mid point of the season) and go with other options (with more upside) on the bench. Moser and Lane had the potential to develop into much better defensive options and thus would have better established the foundation for next season (while also giving us good opportunities to win games based on better team defense).
I look at this way … a coach should always try to get the best combination of talent and athleticism on the court at the same time. Howland’s use of personnel wasn’t optimum in that area with glaring examples being in the form of Rag and Anderson. Hopefully Howland will do a better job of managing his roster in the coming seasons with better assistance from the bench. He clearly didn’t get it done this season.
Agreed
If anything has become clear about Howland in his time in Westwood its that he is a very stubborn/conservative/superstitious person. Change scares him like no other. This has been on display tragically this entire season on many issues. He would much rather take a certain near .500 team than stepping out on a limb and lose a game or two to find a better formula. He is not a gambling man. He would much rather have 50 cents assured than the possibility of 75 cents or 25 cents.
I agree that MM would have been a great defensive upgrade on this team and could have been used very effectively in a LRMAM role (defense and hustle, no offense). Hopefully next year with no one other than TH having a firm hold on a position (ML and RN’s position is yet to be determined), CBH will have a blank slate to start from scratch. Hopefully…
poncho, I think you make very persuasive points in this thread
there are two separate questions with MM –
1) why didn’t he get more time
2) given he didn’t get more time, why wasn’t he redshirted?
You make good points on both counts. Redshirting is only valuable if you think that you and the player both want him to be part of the program in a 5th year. At the time that he played in the games he played in and burned his redshirt, there was no guarantee TH was going to come back and be such a force, and stay healthy. And the development of MM over the course of the season was still an unknown at the start of the season – he might have beaten out TH in practice and earned a starting position, or serious minutes off the bench. The idea that CBH knew at the start of the season exactly what he had in MM, how he would develop and how few minutes he would want to give him over the course of the season, and knowing all that decided to waste a potential redshirt season, is definitely Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
On whether MM should have been given more minutes – this may or may not be considered an independent decision with the decision not to redshirt him. Did CBH ‘owe’ MM minutes by using up a year of eligibility? Unclear. I also understand the perspective of people who think that CBH’s roster/PT management was disastrous and that they are unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt when other people argue that CBH sees these guys every day in practice and chose to give MM the minutes he gave him.
However, I agree with you that arguments about ND’s playing time should be based on whether BL (or JK pre-injury; or JMM with some shuffling of personnel) should have had more minutes. If people want to make that case – or consider that case closed – I think there is evidence in favor of that position, and it is possible to argue that a senior (ND) was getting preferential treatment over a freshman (BL) or sophomore (JMM). But the same case seems much less easy to make when looking at the SF position, where TH had setbacks that kept him competing for time early and MM had a head start. TH forced himself into the team – presumably by what he showed in practice, and then backed up on the court. To suggest that CBH didn’t give MM a fair chance to compete for time seems like a stretch – though I understand why the ND/BL situation gives cause for skepticism.
Good points
Great points BB and you summarize my point better than I can myself.
The problem with the “CBH should have redshirted MM” argument is that it assumes that MM would have wanted to redshirt. I cant imagine a guy who was selected to play in the Nike Hoop Summit would think that he is going to be a five year college player since that almost guarantees a lack of a pro career.
Telling a player that you think they are so bad both right now that they cant play at all and that they will still be bad enough five years from now that they will still be playing in college is not conducive to developing players and their confidence. It also is terrible for recruiting.
Moser might now wanted to redshirt
But it’s a pretty good bet he is probably even more upset with the way he was used this season which was worse than redshirting. His entire year was completely wasted without giving him any sense of confidence and developing him through the season. There was absolutely no strategic vision shown on the part of Howland and his staff with regards to how they brought along the frosh. It’s something that has really impacted the program’s reputation and I am afraid we are going to see the evidence during the coming months on recruiting trail.
I don't disagree that this could be spun against CBH on the recruiting trail
I just hope that the examples of outstanding frosh getting plenty of time – like TH and RN this year, and numerous examples over previous years – make recruits think they can come and play right away if they are good enough.
I know you think MM has been treated unfairly – I don’t know if a potential recruit looks and sees that MM has been treated unfairly, or whether a recruit looks in and thinks that MM must not be that good. Not having spoken to many kids on the AAU circuit, I don’t have a good handle on it… :-)
I think I have a pretty decent handle on the recruiting scene ..
… to know the kind of perception forming over UCLA basketball. It’s not just how Moser and Lane was treated this season.
could you write up a post at some point?
I think it would be highly interesting to hear from you and other people who have a handle on it what the perceptions are about UCLA basketball on the recruiting trail – it normally seems to come up in discussions of other issues (most often PT mismanagement of the current squad, or in assessments of the likelihood of a particular recruit coming to Westwood).
I’m having a hard time disentangling the comments about recruiting from people’s personal assessments of CBH’s program (e.g. “he plays too slow”, “he makes people play defense and no recruit could possibly want to”, “all our ex-players complain about CBH”, “all our ex-players say CBH helped them become the pros they are” etc). Insofar as it is possible for people to make objective the subjective nature of ‘perception’, it would be highly helpful.
I think
It would be better to see how the recruiting shapes up for rest of this year and during spring signing of next season. We are hearing lot of things in the background. I am concerned about the perception but we will see if that perception is having an impact based on how this year’s recruiting class finishes up and how Howland does in early recruiting season this late summer and early Fall.
I think the datapoints we have from those returns will give us something to chew on based on concrete information and will give is a good idea of whether or not Howland has the program on its way back. It will be just as important as taking care of business on the court.
Recruit's mindset: First Team Freshman, not benchwarmer
While its understandable to wish that MM or BL got more playing time, lets not forget that two other freshmen were just named to the Pac 10 all freshman team. Thats 40% of what was a pretty deep freshman class in the conference.
It is important to remember that high school recruits never see themselves as the next MM, they see themselves as the next TH. They believe (and are told) that they are going to make it to the NBA and are going to be stars. Obviously, some of these players get bad advice and face a harsh reality, but I think CBH being able to point to having 40% of the Pac 10 freshmen team to a McCallum or Ziegler means more to these recruits than MM or BL not getting significant playing time.
I agree though that the proof will be when next years class is settled and we are either excited by a big catch or disappointed with the off-season as we are with this current season.
+1
I agree that a kid like McCallum sees himself as a TH not as a MM. The last three years have seen at least one Freshman starter (RN and TH this year), JH last year, and KL the year before.
Given our current PG situation, there is no reason for McCallum to think differently.
Not saying we're going to get him
Just saying it makes sense for both him and UCLA.
Also
Moser’s time could have come at the expense of Rag’s time because inserting him at 3 spot would have allowed us to use Honeycutt at the 4 spot where he would have been a better option that Ragovic.
In any event to argue that some of the frosh didn’t deserve PT because they didn’t show it on the court is just total BS given how Howland treated Rag. Again this is an issue we are not going to debate any longer (it is like still litigating whether Dorrell was a good coach).
You make a fair point ...
Howland burned Moser’s redshirt when Honeycutt was injured and once Honeycutt was healthy Moser didn’t play enough to matter.
I guess if Honeycutt had not been injured, it would have been easier to redshirt MM. And if Moser had done more in those first nine games, maybe he would have played more.
But, really, Moser wasn’t ready to contribute this season. He’s talented, but raw. It’s too bad we wasted a year of his eligibility because Honeycutt was hurt.
We were 3-5 in the games he played.
talent/rawness
my sense is that the guys CBH has asked to redshirt (RyWr -declined; AS-accepted) are guys who we thought wouldn’t have the physical maturity to play their projected position of center. I don’t pay very much attention to the roster management of other schools, but what do other top schools do with these raw guys who play non-power positions? And how raw do you have to be to convince a coach that you are not going to able to contribute to the team after 6 months of coaching?
I agree with the assessment that MM wasn't ready to contribute this year.
He might have helped defensively, which is important. But in the early games, where CBH put him in early and often, he quickly became a liability. Each time in the first 2 pre-season games, when he’d touch the ball, he’d lose it. I know ND was terrible. But those of us who were at Pauley for the pre-season, saw a young man who was not at all ready. Of course, this does make one wonder about the red-shirt. I just am saying , that in these early games, MM came in quickly, but couldn’t stay because he kept losing the ball.
Go Bruins!
ESPN exposure
While this would be nice, it isn’t going to happen consistently sd we sre on the left coast and are not their favored ACC’SEC/Big East. This year we add overexposure of Big 10. Most coverage of anything west of the Rockies must include $UC. They say that the new bureau in L.A. will help rectify those problems but believe it when/if it happens.The lack of exposure of our team can also be the fault of the SID who must realize that with the demise of print media coverage new outlets are needed to be utilized.
Point guards are out there BUT coaching staffs must seek them out not just relie on publicity and all-Star games. Maybe they are not in top 100 but still can do the job. We have had some great PG who may not have been that high on the radar but turned out quite well.
Good Post and Bottom Line: A losing Season is Not Acceptable
So isn’t this post a bit early? We could win the PAC 10 and go to the sweet 16 and then we would have a winning season? (Kidding.)
Thanks to everyone on BN for all their hard work. We may all quibble on the details but the bottom line was you guys got it right: A losing season is not acceptable.
For every bad break, CBH got a few on the other side as well. For example, while this team ended the PAC 10 season with its fourth string Center starting, it also played in the worse PAC 10 in years. While we had some tough losses due to injury (AZ with ML’s cramps being the most recent example), we also got a few lucky bounces like MR’s shot off a loose ball against CAL.
However, CBH has proved he can still coach and for those who have doubts don’t forget he was 6-2 in “Thursday” games in the PAC 10, with the two losses coming in OT and because ML got hurt during the game. He deserves support. This is not a Lavin or Larry Farner situation. There are problems that deserves close watching but CBH is still worthy of our support.
Here’s hoping CBH can right the ship. For my part, I am cautiously optimistic that if CBH can recruit a PG, then we will be a contender in the PAC 10 and more again next year.
Regarding game pace
This is a contentious subject on BN, and I wrote about this briefly. However once I have some time (probably after our season – or maybe after the tourney), I’ll look into doing a more in depth analysis of game pace/tempo and success.
Just looking briefly at Kenpom, we see that the top 30 in Kenpom’s rankings last year, only 6 teams played significantly slower than the NCAA adjusted average. I’ll have to look also at where these teams ended up the year (seeding and underachieving/overachieving in the tournament).
What is interesting is that since 2004, of all the teams that have won it, only 2006 Florida has played at NCAA average speed. All the other years, they were faster and sometimes significantly faster.
This year’s tourney will also be interesting. Kenpom’s adjusted rankings (which have their own significant flaws, though) for this year have 10 significantly slower than NCAA average teams in the top 30: Wisconsin, Ohio State, West Virginia, Baylor, Texas A&M, Marquette, Utah St., Temple, Pitt, Butler. It will be interesting to see how far these guys and where they’re matched up this tournament as well.
I know basketball, unlike baseball, isn’t a great sport for analyzing statistics – but I’d prefer seeing some sort of data behind our arguments rather than anecdotal evidence.
thanks for the heads-up
given that number of ‘slow’ teams, we have an interesting sample to see how the equivalent-tier ‘fast’ teams perform, and how matchups of slow and fast teams seem to turn out.
Also potentially interesting to see whether ‘fast’ teams get preferential seeding from the committee – an angle not explored previously, but potentially a factor in the success of ‘fast’ teams.
I've actually done a little thinking regarding pace
Not saying that playing fast or slow is inherently better than the other, but I can’t help but think all those times we heard the frustrated comments from teams that were “supposed to” beat us but didn’t, and ended up getting manhandled by the Ben Ball D, I can’t help but think part of that is the frustration with our pace. In that case, it would work out to our advantage, making opponents impatient and increasing the likelihood that they’ll rush shots, which is something we actually observed somewhat often back in the FF days. It’s sad, however, that pace is one of the last issues that we should probably be concerning ourselves with at this point, as we have neither the horses to win fast or slow.
I wonder how much our practice style shapes what we play well against
It seems to me that this season, when we were playing more zone in practice we actually looked a good deal more competent attacking the zone than in previous years in which we had superior players.
To bring this to the pace question – our FF defeats seemed to be games in which the pace was too much for us – I remember us having the ball stripped on fast breaks by defenders getting back against Florida. I think our style frustrates opponents (as Bennett’s Wazzu used to frustrate even us), but that if we cannot impose our style on our opponents we struggle to adapt – whether that is in pace of game, or in adapting to situations in which our PG can’t stay in front of his (actually ineligible to be there) opponent, or whatever. Not sure if the answer is to get better at adapting, or get better at imposing our style…
I suppose adaptation is the key
And I don’t really buy that one is inherently easier to adjust to than the other (not that you said this, I’ve heard this elsewhere), I think that depends completely on your personnel. You mentioned something important with the sentences about imposing your pace on the game. That’s big, and you’re right that Florida was the one team (maybe Gonzaga as well) that we couldn’t force to play our game. I think getting better at the adjustment part will take us farther than an ability to play the game at our pace. I think the latter should come naturally if we can defend like in years past.
Solid Post
Very good post. I, like some people who commented earlier, was very disappointed with the personal attacks on Nikola Dragovic. I don’t like watching him on the court and don’t care for his off-court behavior, but I think it should be above us to criticize the kids. He was dreadful and I would have liked to see him benched, but that comes down to the coach, not the kid. Also, he really did try, he is just so slow that it doesn’t look like it. I wouldn’t criticize one of the players-way out of line and I think it delegitimized a lot of decent posts. Hope our recruits turn out to be studs for next year!
by Lets go Bruins clap clap clap clap clap on Mar 8, 2010 6:17 PM PST reply actions
Come on folks. Enough
about Dragovich.
Let’s not rehash the rehash of the rehash. He’s done, about to leave UCLA soon. We need to look forward now, and hope KLove mentors Josh Smith well so that he can contribute right at the get go this November. A starting line up of him, Honeycutt, Nelson, Lamb & Lee should at least be competitive.
I'm not getting my hopes up that
Lee will stay and that Smith will start. Bobo never even gets minutes so I’m not convinced Smith will. However, Smith does seem to have very good character and K Love was out of shape and got great minutes (though he was obviously outstanding). Lee and Lamb would be a very long and dynamic backcourt. I hope Zeik Jones turns out to be a beast and gobbles up the backup guard minutes.
by Lets go Bruins clap clap clap clap clap on Mar 8, 2010 11:41 PM PST reply actions
Coach Howland
Coach Howland is a very nice man but we have to face the facts. He has three final 4 appearances and no championships, plus he leaves the team with the worst record than when coach Lavin was coaching. What was gained by hiring him as coach? He can’t even recruit in L.A., something is very wrong with this picture. Do you really think that if Tyler Lamb is all that great he will stay, he will be one and done? Interested in some feed back!!
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.
