LA Times Uses Coach's Death & Lavin To Attack UCLA Alums/Fans
by Nestor on Jun 8, 2010 5:08 AM PDT
Email
PrintI knew this was just a matter of time. The LA Times dusted up an old cut and paste article about how mean UCLA alums and fans have been to Coach Wooden's successors in Westwood. The guy writing the latest boilerplate hit piece is none other than David Wharton whose track record now includes puffing up Mike Garrett, writing a glowing piece dubbing Karl Dorrell as the "Thinker" from Westwood and a pulitzer piece on the appearance of Layla Kiffin (doing investigative google searches on her "long blond hair and bright smile'").
Here is David Wharton's brilliant analysis of how mean UCLA alums and fans have been to Coach Wooden's successor:
But Harrick ran into trouble by filing a false expense report and lying about it. Then Steve Lavin was fired after seven seasons, leading to Howland's arrival in 2003.
"This is the way it is," Cunningham said. "You have to win here."
One thing seems clear: Wooden never meant to be an intrusion.
Huh? How were UCLA alums and fans responsible for Harrick filing false expense reports?
Wharton than dutifully uses Lavin to attack UCLA alums and fans:
"Whenever I had a problem, [Wooden] was my shrink," the former coach and athletic director said. "I would go over, sit with him, talk with him. He had great wisdom and gave me solutions."
If anything, UCLA coaches say the biggest problem with following Wooden was dealing with fans and alumni — not to mention the media — all of whom had been spoiled by those titles.
How were UCLA alums responsible for Steve Lavin being the biggest joke in all of college basketball? I'd think UCLA alums have been more than fair to Coach Ben Howland. If he was in some other program like North Carolina and Kentucky, he would be even under more pressure for the third losing season in the history of the program. Not only we have been more than fair to him, we have been supportive of him as much as we can, while offering reasonable criticisms.
Of course many of us were not around during the immediate aftermath of Coach's retirement. So perhaps there was some pressure then. However, it is pathetic and ridiculous to attack UCLA alums for failures of coaches like Walt Hazzard and Larry Farmar.
As usual the LA Times devoid of actual analysis and smart commentary, fail to point out the real issue: the incompetence of UCLA administration in going after the right coaches and making smart hires to preserve Coach's legacy. Ben Howland was the first smart hire following Coach's retirement and the results reflected accordingly. It doesn't mean that Howland gets to keep the job without any sense of accountability.
As Howland has said time and again, he is the "Caretaker" of Coach's program. If he is not up to task, there will be discussions about what should be the right move for our school. Hopefully we won't need that discussion but for now it is tasteless on the part of LA Times to use Coach's death to launch another pathetic attack on our alums and fan base. Then again, we expect nothing less from the lapdogs in the Trogan Times.
Now the best way to get back against these clowns is not to link their garbage. The best way to get back at them is to get them exposed using our tools. Don't email Wharton's editors (they are just as screwed up). Retweet our post, Facebook it by using the tool below, and share it with as many UCLA alums and fans as you can to make sure they understand and realize how Jim Murray's section has become a sad and pathetic joke. Don't give them the satisfaction by giving them traffic or filling up their email boxes.
GO BRUINS.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nestor -- Spot On
With one minor quibble: I think Bartow and Brown were good hires — and I’m not sure it was predictable that they would leave. I think Harrick was a good hire and still do not agree with his dismissal; I think it was trumped up because the department did not like him. (Maybe, he too, didn’t send birthday cards.)
All of the remaining hires until Howland were not good and it was predictable that they would fail. WH and LF are two of my favorite Bruins but they were not prepared to coach at this level.
And, of course the greatest failure of all time, the least prepared person to put on the whistle — the lizard.
So, I think you are right. It was not the fan base, it was the AD’s. And, to blame us for “intolerance” is not fair.
And, I fully support your point that CBH has been held to the same standard as his predecessors were. The difference? He is a man of coaching substance.
sjh
I will defer to you guys
About the circumstances concerning the coaches who cam right after Coach. As for Harrick, I do think the action taken against him was extremely harsh but he did break the rules.
Ultimately though the main point here is UCLA alumni/fans have been more than fair to Coach’s successors. The problem as been the UCLA administration which hadn’t been fair to Coach’s legacy, tradition of UCLA hoops and our standard by making number of bad decisions. Those were not the fault of alums and students and it is pathetic that LAT lets their hacks keep advancing the same debunked narratives.
Gary Cunningham was a very good hire
He had a 50-8 record in 1977-1979. He won three straight Pac10 Titles. However, he had two exits in the NCAA’s, losing to Arkansas by one in 1978 and to DePaul in the elite 8 matchup in 1979. He resurrected Coach’s methodologies and has Coach Wooden as a resource. Unfortunately, the attitude was win the National Championship or leave town. He was followed by Larry Brown, who coached the Bruins into the finals in 1980, but Brown had 17 losses in his two seasons.
Not Bartow
I have to respectfully disagree with 66 here on the notion that Gene Bartow was “a good hire.” JD Morgan brought him in not as much for his basketball prowess—after all, Bill Walton had destroyed his team just a few years earlier—but for his piety. Bartow was never at home in the bright lights of LA. He was spiky and irritable at press conferences, and his second year he got one single recruit, and a mediocre one at that. On top of that, he completely overturned the Bruin style of play, opting for what he called power basketball, in which the key was not stamina or speed or discipline, but the number of touches you could get to your big men. Practices were lax, dominated by 5-on-5, not the drills that had characterized the Wooden years. Richard Washington left after a year. So did Wooden recruit Gavin Smith. The vaunted UCLA defense was all but nonexistent. Marques Johnson and Wooden recruits David Greenwood, Roy Hamilton, and Brad Holland were wasted. The destruction of the 1976 team by Indiana was horrifying.
The person who should have been hired was Denny Crum, but he and Morgan didn’t get along, for reasons that needn’t be analyzed here. In the end, Crum won two championships. It was one of the few mistakes Morgan made in his amazing career in Westwood.
Um
I wasn’t even alive when Coach won all of those titles, and I’m sure many current UCLA fans can say the same thing. So, LA Times…what should we do instead? Expect mediocrity? Apparently that’s what their editors expect from their “journalists.” Pathetic.
I can understand the Trogie "perspective" on Harrick
Afterall, relative to what’s been going on over there, lying about an expense report is just child’s play.
Honestly,
What extraordinarily crude and tasteless timing.
If I wasn’t still so sad, this new-but-not-really piece of “quality journalism” from the Times would actually make me laugh.
Really, Lavin? This is who they use an an “example” of our impossible expectations? (Insert guffaw here.)
Well, you have to follow all of the rules, and you have to know how to coach and teach basketball.
That’s actually “the way it is” here, Mr. Wharton. (Now, why don’t you run along and write a nice piece on Layla’s shoe collection or something?)
Love My Bruins
which is sadder?
That the Trogan Times would make another tasteless attack at this time?
Or, that nobody here is surprised?
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Poor little David didn't understand
If anything, UCLA coaches say the biggest problem with following Wooden was dealing with fans and alumni — not to mention the media — all of whom had been spoiled by those titles.
It wasn’t the titles that spoiled fans and alumni.
It was John Wooden’s character. And it’s true, no one could follow that.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
The LA Times still exists?
Wow the Editors must be REALLY desperate for readership to sink to that low. It’s just sad that someone actually gets paid to write nonsense. However, it won’t be long before so-called “writers,” and “columnists” like David BARF-ton will be out o a job since no one reads their garbage. Anyone who tries to defend Greasy Lavin in any way, is like trying to say OJ Simpson is innocent.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
