5 Dates to Circle for the Upcoming UCLA Basketball Season
by DCBruins on Jul 6, 2010 3:03 PM PDT
in Basketball
Email
PrintWith all the injury news on Basketball, I thought it might be a good time to change the subject and look ahead at the other news from last week: the release of the basketball schedule. IMHO there are five games which are key not to this season but the future of UCLA basketball for the next few years.
1. Friday November 12. Opening Game against Cal State Northridge. CSUN Lost 5 players from a 11-21 team, including arguably their best. Last year we opened with an OT loss to a mediocre Cal State Fullerton who went 16-15 for the year and UCLA also lost to Cal State Long Beach. We must beat CSUN convincingly. There is no excuse for losing to CSUN or to be frank for CSUN to be in the game.
Bottom Line on why this game is important: Unlike last year, UCLA always needs to beat "lesser" California teams and there is no excuse for losing these sort of games, ever.
2. NIT Season Tip Off, Second Game. UCLA was beyond terrible in the 76 Classic last year. We went 0-3 and ended with a loss to another mediocre Big West Team in Cal State Long Beach. Why is the second game important? The 2009-10 UCLA team was terrible in games preceded by a game two days earlier or less going 2-8. This is an alarming trend which must be reversed. CBH has shown a great ability to win the first game of a two game set but last year's record was terrible in the second.
Bottom Line: This game is not a must win as we do not even know who we will play yet. However, CBH must be prepared and show that his team will be ready to play in the second of back to back games. This will be the first chance to see if he has improved on this.
Rest after the jump.
3. Friday December 31, University of Washington. Even last year, CBH showed he is a great coach when he has time to prepare. UCLA was 8-2 (counting the PAC 10 Tourney) in the first of a pair of PAC 10 games. The two losses came against Oregon in OT on the road in an emotional last UCLA-Oregon game ever at McArthur Court and at Arizona in a game UCLA was winning until Malcolm Lee got hurt. (IMO we would have won but for ML's injury.) Thus in a injury-riddled-bad-year, CBH had us a heartbeat and an injury from going 10-0 in the first of a pair of Pac 10 games. But we were beyond bad in the second of two and were often embarrassed. One of the top two destructions came against UW on National TV when a number of our players, including Reeves Nelson, literally gave up on Defense. Often on Saturdays or second games we seemed lost and a bit confused. It also seemed that CBH threw strategy out the window and went back to our pre-season plan. For example, inexplicably we often went back to M2M in second games of series (for example in the 2nd PAC 10 game of the year against AZ and in the last PAC 10 game of the year against CA on 3/12).
But the best contrast between the two CBHs may have been the last weekend at home against the Oregon schools. On Thursday, we played against Oregon State whose entire game is based on their trapping defense. The defense wants you to dribble the ball into their traps and on its face would seem to be a tough match up against a team like UCLA last year with weak PG play. Further, we were without Nelson and Brendan Lane, forced to start Drago at Center, and only played 7 players for the game, including three guards. On its face, this was a good spot for OSU. Yet, CBH was brilliant in beating the OSU trap by the inspired idea of playing Michael Roll at point on Thursday. MR would not dribble into trouble but would pass over it. His 7 assists was a career high and we won despite only two rebounds from the Center position and being out rebounded by 15 for the game. We won because the OSU trap did not work and UCLA, a TO plagued team for the season, won the TO battle for the game.
But two days later, CBH admitted he blew it by going away from a hot Brandon Lane and inexplicably had the ball in Jerime Anderson's hands with the score tied 65-65. The next two possessions JA turned the ball over both times (Including a pass with no pressure out of bounds), and in between gave up a three to Tajun Porter and we fell behind 70-65 until a late meaningless three by MR provided the final margin. Two observations, the details of which differ in games last year but something like this seemed to happen often on Saturdays:
1. It was as if CBH on Saturday had decided not to take advantage of the game flow which had allowed Lane to score four uncontested layups. Oregon was defending the perimeter only because our lineup had no inside play (Nelson was hurt). CBH would say after this game: "Brendan Lane in retrospect I should've played him more minutes."
2. CBH seemed to forget the season. In the clutch, the ball was in Anderson hands. Anderson had been benched because he was not a good enough point guard and because of nagging injuries. It was not fair to anyone, including Anderson, to expect him to do well in this pressure filled situation. Much like his going away from zone, on "second games", CBH seemed to be sticking to his pre-season plan as if the season had not happen.
Bottom Line. The contrast between Thursday and Saturday games is something that has to change. The first Washington game at home is a key test. We will beat WSU on Thursday. But how will we do Saturday against UW, arguably be the best team in the PAC 10 next year. Winning this game may not be crucial but showing up with a game plan that keeps us in the game is essential. If we win this game UCLA can legitimately start thinking about winning the PAC 10. If we lose a close game, we won't know until later in the season how far back we have come. If we get blown out, uh oh.
4. Wednesday, February 2, Southern Cal. As bad as the UW loss was, the worst loss of the 09-10 season had to be the $UC game at home. It was bad on every level. It was our worst loss to Southern Cal since 1945. As CBH said: "I feel embarrassed for the program, for the former players and coaches. That's all you can say, it was embarrassing."
A point lost in the embarrassment of that game but one Nestor made is the Trogans played "ben ball" better than UCLA. IMO, this is the most important game of the basketball season. This game will be big for us.
Bottom line: No way UCLA is back unless we beat the Trogans at home. This is must win as UCLA must own LA.
5. Next comes the oddity, Sat., Feb. 5, St. John's. A game that means a lot for reasons not related to these players. A game that was not a big deal when it was scheduled but now is huge. UCLA plays St. John's. Or more importantly UCLA plays The World's Second Biggest Oil Slick, Steve Lavin. .
Lavin has made a living off his lucky break of being a low level assistant on a UCLA championship team that no one would hire when the rest of the staff got other jobs. When this game happens, all the terrible things Lavin did to his players and UCLA will be revisited on BN. And for those who think the Lavin nightmare is over and should be forgotten, keep in mind Lavin is still using the "We" for UCLA and is making his recruiting choices in part based on UCLA choices. (Witness his pursuit of California High School student Remi Barry who UCLA was after first.)
Everyone over 26 will remember the Lavin disaster. The players of this year's team will hopeful do their part to ease the pain by beating Lavin on TV. This game is big for the ESPNs of the world as well. They would love the story of St. John's winning.
Bottom Line: The second big game of the biggest week of the Basketball season is without a doubt the most important non-conference game of the year.
The pressure this season is more on CBH than ever before. Last year can be forgiven but not forgotten with a good season this year. These five games will be key toward that season.
51 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"Further, we were without Nelson and Brendan Lane, forced to start Drago at Center, and only played 7 players for the game, including three guards"
I think I blacked out that part of the season from my mind. Seriously, just read that sentence over again. Its ridiculous!
Drago is a good arguement
For the idea of addition by subtraction
Yep, that is why even the biggest CBH critic
has to admit he can coach. We had so many injuries last year and we were 8-2 in the first of a pair of PAC 10 games despite all those problems.
Hey now
no need to be ripping on my Matadors. We’ve been to as many NCAA tournies as the Bruins in the past two years…
Doesn't change the fact
That CSUN is the type of team UCLA should never lose to. DCBruins is spot on in his assessment.
I know
we’re no CSUF or CSULB but stranger things have happened. Wait we’re as good as those teams….
As long as it is fans
and not the players having that kind of attitude I suppose there is no harm. And as long as we are specifically referring to basketball…
I *want* the players to have that attitude!
I don’t want players in the program who think it’s OK to lose. Period. Losses to tournament-quality, BCS-conference teams are expected, and will happen; but I still don’t want players to be fine with it. If a UCLA player thinks it would be no big deal to lose to a Cal State Whatever, they need to leave the program. Now.
In the immortal words of the pin I got while an undergrad: Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
There is a difference
between thinking it’s ok to lose and thinking you should simply beat a team because they are not a team you feel is on par with your “program”. Perhaps some players on our team feel that suiting up in a UCLA uniform makes them better players and can make up for a lack of effort both during and before a game. I’d rather have a player thinking that any team can beat them on any given day and without their best effort they could lose to teams like CSUN or Cal State anything for that matter.
Bottom Line
They should have enough pride in the privilege of wearing the four letters that they ensure that they do everything humanly possible to beat the lesser California schools. They need to know that losses to conference teams like Cal and Stanford are not desirable, but if the effort is there, there’s not much any of us can say. Losses to CS-anything is unacceptable and an embarrassment to the program.
They should have enough pride
but so should any kid playing at a high major. I’m sure I don’t even need to bring up examples of kids who should try harder. I disagree with the idea that a loss to one team is completely unacceptable while a loss to another is somehow not. Where do you draw the line? Is it not ok to lose to any low-major? What about mid-majors? Only some mid-majors? I doubt anyone was truly upset about our loss to Butler. What about Portland? How we lost aside, would a loss to them be inherently unacceptable?
To me if you try as hard as you can then it doesn’t matter who you lost to. You simply lost. It happens. Sometimes players or even teams have bad nights despite a strong effort and they can lose to a team that is worse than them. Ideally it’s why the games are played. Obviously we should have much more talent on our bench than any Cal State has on their last five rosters combined but if both teams try their best and we manage to lose to one of them so be it. I wouldn’t call it unacceptable.
Now when we lose due to a lack of effort that is another story and almost any loss to a team like a Cal State whatever is going to be due to a lack of effort. That is inexcusable, but to me any loss that is a direct result of players not trying hard enough is unacceptable whether it be to memphis in the final four or to CSUF in the season opener. It is up to our team to decide which losses are ones we should dwell on, not the team we are playing against.
No, it's unacceptable
If a loss to a Cal State isn’t unacceptable, then there’s no such thing as a bad loss. I understand that we may come up short against teams that can recruit on somewhat equal footing with us, but the Cal States do not fall in that category, and a failure to beat them is a failure on either the team or on the coaches/recruiters or all of the above. The players on the team have the opportunity to play for the greatest program in the country, and against certain opponents, they better dig deep and show that they deserve that opportunity.
Yes, losing to low majors like the Cal States is completely unacceptable, and should that happen this year, it will foretell another long dreadful season ahead.
So then where do you draw the line?
At what point are losses no longer unacceptable?
When vegas has you as the underdog vs. Oregon St.
I’d put the line there.
Nice
I have a hard time imagining that there’s a real Bruin basketball fan that doesn’t agree that a loss to CSUN wouldn’t be an embarrassment to the program. These are likely the same people that defended CTS and Lavin to the bitter end because they have absolutely no standards or sense of shame.
Simple really
When someone is cool with UCLA losing to schools like CSUN, he/she is not a Bruin hoops “fan.” Not here.
Good clarification
Because I’m pretty sure I double negative’d myself into the opposite of what I wanted to say there.
I thought this post might bring up some debate
But that was the least controversial part I thought. Geez, I think Nestor got it right: you are not a Bruin fan if you think that a loss to CSxx is acceptable.
And I will add that I went to law school at one of the non-PAC 10 CA Schools at a time they did have a future NBA player and regularly won their conference. However, even on that team they only had two or at most three guys who could break the top 8 of a UCLA rotation.
Again
I appreciate the work put in to this post and I’m sorry if my initial joke derailed what could have been an otherwise positive read for everyone.
That's fine with me
It didn’t derail but I hope you understand the point that UCLA should not lose to CSxx just as UCLA basketball should not have a losing season. Both happen last year and both are unacceptable.
If a loss to a Cal State is unacceptable
at what point do losses start becoming acceptable? By singling out any group of teams, whether they be Big West teams or all low-majors, and saying that losses to them specifically are unacceptable it implies that there is then a group of teams to whom a loss is somehow acceptable. I don’t feel as though losses are inherently acceptable or unacceptable. They are simply losses.
The term bad loss only has merit when being applied to the goals of a team. Is your goal to win the Pac-10? Is your goal to advance as far into the tournament as possible? Is your goal to win the NCAA tournament? In the first scenario a loss to any ooc opponent is irrelevant. In the second scenario any loss is relevant. Obviously a loss to a team that has a very low rpi will have a negative impact on your seeding and perhaps your ability to get a birth but at what point do losses become “bad” losses? Is it an rpi >250? >300? Where do you draw the line? At what point do losses start becoming ok? If your goal is to win the NCAA title then sure your seed will have an impact on who you play but if you really are aiming to win it all you should be willing to play anyone, anywhere and beat them. A loss to anyone prior to the tournament should have no affect on your ability to win.
It is how losses occur that I sometimes find frustrating. I get frustrated when it appears there is a lack of effort by the players and/or coaching staff. Mistakes will happen and we will lose due to mistakes. Nobody is perfect.
I understand that the typical level of talent on a UCLA squad should make it so that a loss to a low-major would be extremely unlikely but the occasional upset will occur and it’s not always a result of lack of effort. Even when we have a lackluster roster it is not always because people weren’t trying, it is sometimes simply a mistake, or many, many mistakes. Obviously when the mistakes pile up it is time to find someone who won’t make as many but I don’t fault an individual or individuals for trying and failing as long as they really did try.
Its kind of hilarious to read
I am just waiting for the post that will also explain to me Steve Lavin was not so bad.
Again,
if a loss to Cal State anything is unacceptable, where do you draw the line as to what is no longer unacceptable? And are losses above that threshold acceptable?
Could you be any more disingenuous?
What you’re asking for implies that there exists some sort of universally agreed upon listing and ordering of the prestige of teams from top to bottom. Such a list obviously does not exist, but that doesn’t stop you from pretending like you’ve made some sort of counter argument by asking for the impossible. Produce this list for me or STFU with your “line” garbage.
The only other way your request makes sense is that you’re asking for a listing of the teams separated into “acceptable” and “not acceptable” and considering there are 340 something teams out there, that’s obviously not going to happen either.
No, what makes this disingenuous is that you know all of that, but are using it anyway as a shield by pretending that there is some sort of reasonable doubt out there because there’s a question we (nor anyone else for that matter) can answer. What’s really happening is that you’re clutching at straws because you know you’re wrong, and the places to hide your misguided opinion behind is shrinking.
You needn't
rank every team. Though if you’d like to find a list ranking all Division 1 teams I think Ken Pomeroy has an interesting and somewhat accurate assessment of teams based on a number of statistics. You can find that at http://kenpom.com/rate.php. It’s a pretty interesting site. Perhaps you don’t think that it is possible to draw a line somewhere that divides losses into “acceptable” and “unacceptable”. I don’t think I could come up with a reason to draw a line anywhere and as such don’t feel that a division truly exists. It’s simply a difference of opinion. I’m not sure why you are so upset over it but since this has obviously gotten far out of hand I apologize for the inconvenience.
Well aware of kenpom. Doesn't change a thing.
You know it’s not a reasonable burden of proof, nor is it central to the main point: UCLA losing to CSUN = embarrassment for UCLA. That is all. Thank you.
In summary
UCLA loss due to lack of UCLA effort = “bad loss”
UCLA loss to csu-xxxx = lack of UCLA effort
by the transitive property
UCLA loss to csu-xxxx = “bad loss”
I disagree
with the premise “UCLA loss to csu-xxxx = lack of UCLA effort”. While it is certainly possible that we have never lost to csu-xxx while trying our best to win I don’t think that labeling a program as one that cannot beat UCLA when they are trying is correct. I’m sure many people would have said the same thing about Butler prior to 2000.
Are you really comparing Butler to CSU-anything?
Losing to Butler in 2009 after they had earned the respect of the college basketball world is far different than losing to them “prior to 2000” so that doesn’t make any sense. Meanwhile, no Cal State has achieved anything of note ever.
I heard St. John’s hired a coach you might like. You should look into switching teams.
When CSUN is 2 inches away
from a national title and has a top 10 draft pick on their team I shall revise my statement.
Any team in the state of California
not named Cal or Stanford is a team we should never lose to.
In the immortal words of the pin I got while an undergrad: Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
I'd rather lose to CSUN than cal or stanford
but I might be biased…
Why not?
I strongly dislike cal and stanford. I’d much rather lose to CSUN as long as it wasn’t something that would be the difference in making the tournament or not making it.
Because losing to Cal and Stanford
Isn’t going to get us savaged by the national punditry the next morning. Coming up short against those teams isn’t going to make people do a double take when they see it in the morning paper.
Cal and Stanford regularly when Tourney Games
Cal stayed with National Champion Duke for a half last year in the NCAA Tourney and won a game. Stanford has made the final four in the last 12 years and regularly appeared in the Tournament.
When was the last time Cal State xx has won a Tourney game? Had a player make it in the pros?
It is not a slam on CSUN, it is a fact that UCLA as a basketball powerhouse with its tradition should not lose to a CSxx school. If the Big West and the CS Schools start to become regularly ranked or win a Tourney game, then that will change. As for now, no way we should lose and it is completely unacceptable.
Just off the top of my head
Paul George from Fresno St. was drafted 10th overall this year…Bobby Brown from Fullerton has been playing in the NBA for the past 2 seasons.
Oh yeah there are players
That is why I added that I went to Grad School at a “lesser schools” and one of the players at that school went on to start in the NBA. While he would have started on a UCLA team, there was only one other player who MAY have played off the bench and there was only one other guy who might have been better than the worst scholarship player.
Thus even though they had a great star, won their conference, and went to the Tourney, there is no way UCLA should lose to them.
Also, I was at the UCLA game when LMU was scoring a 140 a game and went to the ELite 8. We blew that team out. They had Gathers and Kimble but we had Tracy Murray, Don Maclean,Trevor Wilson, Derrick Martin and Gerald Madkins in our starting lineup. Mitchell Butler came off the bench. In other words, they had 1 pro (or 2 if Gathers would have made it which at as a 6’5"PF is doubtful) and we had five future pros (and yes Trevor did play in the pros) and one defensive specialist. Or another way, we had as many pros coming off the bench as they had in the starting lineup.
UCLA should always beat the CSxx and the lesser California teams.
Honestly
I didn’t really think you were slamming CSUN at all and I appreciate your post quite a bit. I made the comment jokingly but when people took it as more than that I was more than happy to try to argue for no reason other than that I was bored though I am honestly curious as to where the line is drawn in terms of what losses are unacceptable and which ones are though that question is not necessarily directed at you.
Nope
Looked like a proclamation of disloyalty to the Bruins plus a snark attack referencing our recent rough patch. You then parade around this “line” bullshit business knowing full well that there are 340 something teams that aren’t ranked in any way that is possible to draw any sort of line and that most of them including CSUN are bad, and therefore are deliberately placing an unfair burden on others. Too bad for you that I’m fine with categorizing my unacceptable losses by the nebulous definition of obscenity: “I’ll know it when I see it”. And I don’t need any line to see that a loss to CSUN is an embarrassment to a program with 11 national titles.
ihyd.bruin
Think again if you take one more cheap shot against any of the moderators. Also spare us the laughable garbage about dissenting opinions not being allowed on BN. If you are actually a regular reader of this community, you’d know how many disagreements DC Bruins and I have had over the year or other disagreements among the respected member of the communities.
Of course diverse opinion is welcome. What is not welcome is though is ignorant comments with cheap shots against the moderators. If you do it one more time, you are going to be gone.
Also, you can justify losing to CSUN and being ok with somewhere else. Not here. Justifying a loss to CSUN is just pathetic and it is ridiculous that there is a thread on it here. That is an insult to UCLA basketball. So don’t bring that kind of nonsense on BN ever again. Will not give you another warning.
If you have the mindset of being ok with losing to CSUN
This is not the place for you. Start rooting for St. Johns instead. Thanks.
Yes exactly my point
Not single out CSUN per se but any Big West School.
good write up thanks
We’ve gone over players a lot and I’m sure will continue to do so…nice to see a look at the upcoming big games. Thanks.
by RealisticBruinFan on Jul 6, 2010 6:52 PM PDT reply actions
Is the Slick John's game at Pauley?
(Very nice report, BTW.)
Bleeding powderkeg blue and gold for 55 years. Go Bruins!
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.
