Can UCLA Basketball Regain Elite Status? The Window is Closing
by Guest Blogger on Apr 11, 2011 4:00 PM PDT
in Basketball
Email
Print
The following post is from BruinBlue. It is being published here with his permission. - BN Editors.
By any reasonable measure of the term, UCLA does not currently have an elite basketball program. That actually hurts to write, but it is true. If we define "elite" as a program which is usually in the top ten, usually earns a top two seed in the NCAA tournament, we are not elite. North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, are elite. Kentucky is essentially there, too, irrespective of whether we condemn the way they do it. Connecticut may not be quite there, but is obviously very close. Those programs certainly don't win a title every year, but they are usually strongly in the running; and by tourney time have earned a seed which strongly positions them to make a big run.
In the Steve Lavin era, UCLA was a top two seed one time, his first year. In the Ben Howland era, UCLA has been a top two seed three times out of eight years. In the other five years, UCLA was no higher than a six seed, or did not make the tournament. Certainly better, but not elite. And of course UCLA has not won a title in any of those seasons. In fact, we have won one national title in the 37 years since the greatest coach of all time in any sport, John Wooden, retired. In that period, Duke has won four titles. Carolina has won four, and more are soon to come. Connecticut has won three, as has Indiana, though nothing at all lately from that program. Kentucky has three as well. Schools with two include Louisville, Kansas, Michigan State, Florida. You will note that five schools have won 17 of those titles; nine schools have won a total of 25 of them. For all the talk of parity, the elite schools ultimately win almost all of the titles. And we have one title in 37 years.
Obviously, we were elite for three years in a row under Ben Howland. I don't think that being elite is something that goes on and off, so certainly you can have a down year and still be elite. But not three years in a row in which you go #6 seed, losing season, #7 seed. And now, with Malcolm Lee almost certainly going pro, we are looking at an upcoming season where we will be at best on the outskirts of the top 25. Four years in a row. And after that? Well, if we have the homerun recruiting season we are desperately hoping for, we will still be too young and inexperienced to be much more than at the low end of the top 20. If we have a good but not great recruiting season, then it's worse than that. It is certainly possible that the year after that one, 2013/2014, UCLA could have a big year. But how long does anyone expect any new big-time recruit to stay here? One year? Two at most?
Squarely facing facts, we are losing players too fast, and not sufficiently replacing them. We all know that every school loses players early, but we lose ours more regularly and more quickly. At least some of the Carolina and Duke players stay. This year, we will lose the only two players who have any legitimate chance to be drafted. We almost always do. Not all schools will, and that is the difference. And then of course, we have been struggling to recruit consistently well. We are not recruiting as well as the elite schools, though we do get at least one really good recruit in most years. Carolina wins titles because they have kept some players longer than expected, and because they recruit like demons. Kentucky recruits a top class every year, and Kansas usually does as well. Arizona is starting to do that. We have not been able to recruit even one top point guard for three years, even though that position was available to any talented freshman who could come in and simply outplay Jerime Anderson. We are now dipping into the ranks of JCs and transfers, clearly a sign that we are having major problems in recruiting.
So there are real problems and concerns. They will not go away by ignoring them or pretending that we are in much better shape than we are, or by saying "We are UCLA! Look at all those championship banners! No one has a better program than we do!" This willful delusion on the part of the athletic department and too many fans, has contributed to our many terrible coaching hires; the belief that was held by too many for about 30 years, that virtually anybody could run this program. The result of course was that we have won but the one national title in 37 years.
So what about Ben Howland? Howland was one of the only two solid hires made in that period, the other being Larry Brown. Howland is one of the better coaches in the college game, in terms of fundamentals. He is also a good person, always supportive of his players when talking to the media, unlike some coaches. And he is very appreciative of UCLA, and of course of John Wooden. However, that is not the whole story. As stated, we have not been elite for three years, now going on four and probably at least five. One can look for excuses and explanations for this or that defection or missed or overrated recruit. But ultimately the bottom line becomes the program's status. And our current status points to there being some significant problems, most clearly our inability to keep any player even one year longer than the first year he has any chance to be drafted; and our inability to recruit at a consistently high level.
Is this due to a personality flaw in Coach Howland? Is his temperament and/or his style encouraging our players to rush for the exits as soon as possible? I actually think that putting the question in this way is counter-productive. Who knows exactly what is going on? Different players have different expectations and personalities. It may be that Los Angeles players are less willing to play Howland's style than athletes at Pittsburgh or some blue-collar town. It may be that the Jrue Holiday saga helped to poison the well; or that too many AAU coaches conduct an unfair whispering campaign against Howland, abetted by some UCLA-hating members of the media. It may all be terribly unfair--but it is indeed the current reality, and cannot be wished away.
We can just sit back and watch all of this happen, hoping for the best. We could also simply inure ourselves to it, feeling that, well, UCLA has too many impediments to elite status in basketball. We are honorable, while too many schools are not. Our academic requirements are higher than most. We are hurt by being in Los Angeles, where the Lakers rule, and there is an NBA mentality. Our fan base is not as passionate as it is at other places. We are simply a program which is not destined or situated to be elite; we were amazingly fortunate to have the greatest coach ever, who made us the greatest program ever, but that period has been over for almost 40 years. Look at where we are in football; far, far from elite. So why should we expect to be elite in basketball? We will always have a better chance to be competitive in basketball than in football, but we do not have what it takes to be elite, not for more than a couple of years out of any decade, at most.
And that may well be the reality. The proof ultimately does show up in the pudding. Either we are not set up to be elite, and thus should be thankful for what we have; or we are not doing it the right way. And if the latter, than one has to consider what has to be changed, and that is stressful, so it is easier for many to prefer staying the course, hoping for the best, sugar-coating the present realities and overrating the future possibilities.
It is hard for me to contemplate still another season of no legitimate championship hopes, the fourth in a row. After a while, it will be hard for most of you, to realize that the best we can hope for is a couple of wins in the tourney, while the elites battle for the title once again. We may be in the unfortunate state of having a coach who is good enough to win enough games with flawed squads, to maintain the status quo, but who is compromised enough in terms of ability to recruit and keep enough athletic and skilled players, to get us back to elite status. And if that were true, what could we do? We can't fire Coach Howland, that would look ridiculous. Some programs might be bold enough to do something like that, but certainly not UCLA. And if we sort of encouraged him to leave, would he? And if he did, whom could we actually hire who might elevate our status? Or would we just end up with one of those nondescript pretty good coaches who are found at programs which win their 20 games and yet are never serious championship contenders?
Well, if one ever expects the UCLA administration to be ahead of the curve in thinking about or improving our status, he is a true optimist. Over the years, the UCLA Athletic Department has made Nero look like an activist. Their approach is to sit and wait...and wait...and rely on public relations a soft L.A. media, or that omnipresent "First to 100!" triumph to buffer them. My belief is that we are in a crisis stage with regard to our basketball program; not as to whether we can usually win 20 games and make the tourney, but whether we can legitimately move back to elite status, and stay there. My feeling is that if we don't get there very soon, so many other programs will have passed us in status and public perception, that it will be incredibly difficult for us to get back there again. Thirty years ago, this was not the case; there were not that many big-time programs, and it was always pretty certain that the right coach could quickly catapult us back to the top. Not any longer. In this era, we need a major commitment, and a forward-thinking and proactive approach from an athletic department which has not shown that for many decades, or our fate will be pretty much sealed.
- BruinBlue
52 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Ugly situation
Pretty much spot on as far as points I discussed in earlier threads. UCLA has trouble right now which starts first and foremost with recruiting. Many top coaches never had a losing season, Howland has now had two.
However, just because Malcolm is leaving we can’t let Howland off the hook as far as delivering an Elite season next year. He needs to do it and there will be NO excuses, injuries, recruiting or otherwise. The fact his players can’t put together 40min of basketball consistently is disturbing. Next year should be win or bust for Howland. His JC transfers and other teams’ rejects that he’s collected need to get hit up the Hoosiers DVD and get pumped to deliver a title to UCLA next year.
Teams like VCU and Butler (twice) got to Final Four with a lot less talent than UCLA. No excuses.
We will not UCLA/Howland off the hook
We will not UCLA/Howland off the hook if an elite season is not delivered next season. But we cannot hold Howland accountable for “two losing seasons.” Lavin was responsible for Howland’s first lost season.
not to be repeating this over and over, but to repeat some of our thoughts
given the no excuse, no turning back attitude, do we, or do you have possible candidates in mind that we can afford if/when Howland, and his “JC transfers and other teams’ rejects,” don’t deliver?
I believe CBH is trying a new strategy, or changing his old one.
He’s realizing that he is losing players faster than he can replace them, and also that we are smack-dab in the middle of a massive drought for California basketball talent. This has lasted nearly 3 years. That being said, he’s trying to fill the gaps in his roster with JC and transfer players, something he hasn’t tried previously. It remains to be seen whether or not this strategy will succeed.
We saw success with Zeek when he was healthy, we saw less when he wasn’t. I believe the Wears are excellent players, possibly the ideal role players for this team and its scoring threats in the post. I am of the belief that Larry Drew was purely an insurance policy if we struck out (God help us) on another PG for 2012. De’end Parker will provide solid role playing ability as well.
So looking at our lineup, we have:
-2 senior pgs: Jones and Anderson, both who have improved, Anderson becoming a decent-good backup at the 1/2 spots.
-a soph and frosh SG, with the addition of a JC: Lamb, Powell, and Parker
-two junior PFs along with two soph PFs (all but Lane will likely play the 3 at some point)
-two soph centers
That’s a decent combination of experience at needed positions (PG, SF/PF) and talent level (SG, SF/PF, C). We can make a solid run, and the ceiling on this team is still extraordinarily high. Yes, losing Malcolm will certainly hurt. But I dare say that this team is as deep and as talented as Ben has ever had. It’s his chance to show the world how his recovery ends.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Smith can be special next year
I think people are missing that. Even if Lee comes back, it will be Smith’s team. Smith is a unique talent in college basketball. For our sake I wish this was the 70s when it was a big man game but he is still will likely be the star next year not just for UCLA but in the PAC 10 and more.
And no one should forget this year, the +/- with Smith in the game was off the charts. He makes us better in all ways. I think he will take the next step next year.
Sigh
He has emphatically stated he is coming back, as has Reeves.
it probably will not
he apparently checked in to his draft stock, did not get positive returns, and decided he was going to stay. seems pretty likely to stay that way
by Captain Leebeard on Apr 11, 2011 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I still believe Malcolm will stay
But I admit it is more wishful thinking than anything else.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Sorry Mexi.
I appreciate your wishful thinking (i’m doing the same), but I’ve heard, pretty emphatically, that he’s gone. Take it with a grain of salt, as you should, but it’s pretty certain.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
No, it won't.
And if you still say it will, where are you getting this?
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
"Elite" status
Howdy all, hope everybody’s been well.
This is kind of a topic about which I’m particularly interested. But I’d like to raise a datapoint – according to your criteria of “2-seed or better,” than UCLA has actually never sustained a position as an ‘elite’ program outside of Howland’s 2006-2008 run, the Wooden era most obviously excepted (though there were no seeds then).
UCLA has never had back-to-back years of 2-seed or better excepting those three seasons. They’ve had only 8 top-two seeds since the tournament began seeding in ’79 (though UCLA was a “1 AQ seed” in ’78, which was its own whole different set-up). Of those 8, Howland is responsible for 3.
For comparison, UNC has had 20 1- or 2-seeds in the same time period. Duke has had 20. Kentucky has had 15. Kansas has had 14.
I mention this to ask the following – at what point does one look beyond the fact that Howland is responsible for UCLA’s only true sustained “elite” success (as defined by this post) of any length? And how quickly does one forget it?
Howland is intellectually interesting because he’s such a lightning rod for criticism of various types, and a wide-ranging group of defenses against those critiques (both his detractors and defenders have varying degrees of success depending on the point of contention, I’d say). I think in some ways, the up-and-down nature of his tenure has contributed to the questions. His average season (even including his first) is 24-10. If one forgives his first year, he’s closer to 26-8. That’s a not-dissimilar season to the one North Carolina just had (26-7 at the start of the NCAA tournament), which resulted in a 2-seed. “Elite” as it were.
But it would be at the lowest end of ‘elite,’ certainly – what would be classified as Year 2 of “reloading,” in their estimation. Howland is also now the longest-tenured men’s basketball coach UCLA has had since the Wooden era (I assume he survives this offseason). No other Bruins coach in that time has gone this long without moving on (willfully or not), and the only one to last a similar length won a national title before being ousted – rightfully in my opinion, given his issues since – for non-basketball reasons.
This post has rambled some, but to slowly corral it back towards a point, I think a question is in order:
Let’s assume Howland is a strong Xs-and-Os coach – there are few that argue his greatest flaws are in this area. Let’s also assume that he struggles in certain interpersonal elements – even his most fervent supporters usually admit he’s… “prickly” at best. I think most accept that he represents the university well as a person, and as somebody who wants to be here.
The above would, in my opinion, generate a coach who can field great teams when he is the benefit of a strong group of personalities (his ‘06-’08 seasons, none moreso than ‘07), but that even high-talent groups may struggle if they lack a certain type of character his play style requires (’09 more than any other year). In all years, he himself will represent the school well, even if his teams might not.
So, the question: Is that enough?
Some say yes, some say no. Some take a waiting approach. Others still bemoan the fate of slipping to second-tier status, but look at UCLA’s non-Wooden history as a more representative slice of the school’s position in modern basketball. (For the record, I lean towards that third option, though that may paint me as weak of will)
And everybody is convinced that s/he is for sure correct.
More from UB at 'Bruin Analysis'
by Underbruin on Apr 11, 2011 4:51 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
To clarify...
“(For the record, I lean towards that third option, though that may paint me as weak of will)”
The third option being the waiting game, lest it was unclear.
More from UB at 'Bruin Analysis'
Who's better?
I think you’re exactly on point regarding the direction and status of our program. But I can’t help but think—who is the solution? Given the salary UCLA appears to be willing to pay, I do not think it is realistic for existing top coaches to come here. The remaining solution is to find a coach with the potential to be top-tier. Some have pointed to Dixon, but otherwise very few names have been offered.
And If we are looking at a coach’s potential rather than their resume alone, then the corresponding question is: might Howland himself might further develop? I hate to use age as a proxy for room to develop, but Howland compares favorably to many of the top coaches today:
At 53 years old, Howland has had 3 FFs. At that age:
Kryzewski had 2 NCs and 6 FFs (clearly better)
Williams had 0 NCs and 4 FFs (clearly better, when accounting that he won a NC at 54)
Calhoun had 0 NCs and 0 FFs (clearly worse)
Calimari (52 y.o.) has 1 FF (clearly worse)
Self (48 y.o.) has 1 NC (indeterminate)
It is true that UCLA as a program is trending downward, but in my opinion Howland is still learning to adapt to the challenge of one-and-done. In contrast, someone like Kryzewski (who is amazingly capable of managing even all the egos on the USA Olympics Team) appears to very naturally understand ego management. Nevertheless, I think with the correct assistant coaching hires and his own willingness to improve, Howland compares favorably with coaches at elite basketball programs.
Another factor never mentioned....
Here’s a factor that never is mentioned about a prospective coach. In this day and age coaches have shoe contracts. Schools have shoe contracts. A coaches shoe contract factors into the equation.
One of the reasons Howland was hired was that he had a shoe contract that was the same as UCLA’s and there was no conflict.
Ever wonder why we have trouble getting quality coaches. Gotta be the shoes!
shoe contract?
Does the coach hold the shoe license or the university? Hypothetically speaking, would there be a supposed conflict if Chip Kelly wanted to leave Oregon after next year for UCLA?
Trending for UCLA
I’m not sure we’re trending downward. Certainly going from a losing record to 23 wins shows movement upward. The real question is whether we’ll keep that trend or fall back next year. I think we’ll keep moving upward solidly into the top 25, even if Lee doesn’t return.
by GoldenGate93 on Apr 12, 2011 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Experience being at the top
Sometimes I wonder if Howland’s troubles, especially in recruiting/restocking, stem from his lack of experience as an elite coach. CBH has always been in rebuilding programs and found success in every team. However, it does take some trial and error to really figure out and adjust to maintaining an elite status. The elite coaches at Duke and NC have figured out how to sustain and keep plugging the holes. When elite players do leave early, some suffer minor dips and get back on top quickly.
I think CBH has never been in this sort of a program that expects him to be top 5 every year. Not that he didn’t know what came with coaching UCLA. As someone else posted, I am also in the “waiting” crowd.
I suppose there are two schools of thought. One is that CBH has the know how and ability to help UCLA restore its elite status given the time for him to find the ropes. Give him time to figure out the recruiting game. This means, being patient with him, and maybe he will be the right fit…eventually. Of course, this would be way too much faith in destiny and a huge “maybe.”
Second is that we don’t have the time and patience with him. If he wasn’t ready for the big time elite program, then he must move on and take his practice and development somewhere else. In the meantime, let’s find another coach. Now the problem with this one is that UCLA lacks the financial capital to hire, let alone maintain, an elite coach. Let’s say we have success for 2-3 years like CBH did, maybe we win 1 NC. UCLA will not be able to keep such an elite coach because the state does not have this kind of funding. So then, we are back at shopping for another coach.
Maybe this doesn’t make much sense, but just throwing out discussion points and keeping it positive…
oh, just so i don't get blasted here...
i know CBH is not yet considered an elite coach, but i meant someone who has experienced being at the top for a few years…
I've written about this here
and I think you bring up a salient point with regards to Howland’s ability to handle success.
When Howland was starting here, he was recruiting from a pool of players who were willing to buy in to his gritty defensive hard working style, and didn’t necessarily have preconceptions of being in the FF every year. Players who weren’t willing to play his game didn’t consider us, so Howland didn’t have to separate them from his style of player. And he had great success with those guys.
When we started appearing in FF’s, suddenly the pool of players willing to come to U.C.L.A. got a lot bigger, as players looked at us as a chance to showcase their talents on a nationally televised level. That became the attraction of U.C.L.A. to many recruits, not the gritty defensive hard working style. And I think Howland, who had never had to separate those types of players from the true BB warriors, got caught up in the glamour and glitz of 5 stars and McD AA’s. (yes I know we had some higly regraded recruits earlier, but they were the kind who bought in from the beginning – not the kind who expected Howland’s system to change to suit and showcase them) He landed the #1 recruiting class in the nation. Look how that top rated class served him.
I am hopeful (maybe it’s a pipe dream) that Howland has learned that there is a certain type of player who fits in his system and can make this team competitive on a national level. If Howland has recognized this, and can identify those types, and then sucessfully get them to Westwood, then the game is back on. But that’s a few if’s. The last 2+ years of frustration should have gotten his attention, and we will see this coming year and in the next recruiting class whether those lessons have been learned.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
I personally think that
UCLA basketball should be judged on its own.
Using our winning traditions as benchmark for measuring the program’s accomplishments in the last thirty seven years since that memorable game at the San Diego Arena, nobody succeeded except Jim Harrick. Bartow, Cunningham came close, never did clinch it. Brown had the best shot. Kiki Vandeweghe’s missed layup was all that stood in the peripatetic coach’s way. Of course the subsequent violations that vacated our runner up spot would have hurt even more had we won it then. The other two coaches belonged in the abject failure category, an NIT banner from one of them notwithstanding.
Just like everyone here on BN, seeing other elite programs, warts and all, stay competitive over the decades depressed me. I know we diagnosed our plight, replete with statistics, comparisons and precise, astute insights based on game by game, season by season analysis even.
A surgeon’s scalpel could not have dissected any better than we did the malignant areas plaguing our program.
This past year, despite the early fumbles, our team’s performance trended on an upward, midseason trajectory until the bright, promising afterglow from the Arizona game dismally flamed out at the tourney. Now that two key players bolted, UCLA basketball again faces an uncertain, dreadful prospect of retooling with young, unseasoned players among veterans incapable of commanding the limelight.
With his temperament, Nelson can play the sheriff’s role well. But I am afraid he needs more than two guns blazing when his deputies have yet engaged in bare hands combats, let alone the vicious, do or die battles with the likes of the Seattle hooligans, hyped up lusty Trojans in their backyeard or the deafening taunts the deserts provided.
Within such context, I worry more about Howland duplicating this fall what he did this spring. Besides, with the gauntlet of conference championship and possible return to Final Four irreversibly laid before him, what if he again fell short.
A big, big decision stands before us.
First of all, I am all for setting the bar high for achievement. Notre Dame’s president is our friend. Fighting Irish does not accept mediocrity. Neither do we. Yet the dilemma cannot be more crystal clear. Westwood does not have a fab five calibre recruiting class playing this fall. Overachieve, we might be within striking distance of our winning objective. To actually accomplish it, I would dearly place any bet on it too. But reality
remains our constraint. Butler’s heroic prime time struggle drove home the lesson.
Without talents, overachieving can only get us at the doorsteps or perhaps half a foot over the threshold. In the end, we would still feel dejected, deflated, forever melancholy asking ourselves why UCLA cannot be the Duke of California, Westwood partisans the glitzier version of the Cameron crazies.
These are rhetorical questions I am asking nobody in particular. But the central, most salient one remains. Win or lose, will the program sustain its growth on its own merits.
Again, for the record
Since we are looking at the big picture, and the long picture, as I have stated before (and the chances of this happening are about as good as pigs flying past my window), when UCLA goes to the Chancellor and says either the football team/basketball team improves to our standards or your job is on the line, we are about where we will be with some good years followed by lots of mediocre times.
Of course, if the above happened, the admission standards might change for the right athletes, majors would be returned that allow athletes to learn something they can use later, etc. Today the overall administration interest in sports is tepid, making the AD and his colleagues look like fools (even though they may be fools after all) since they do not have the authority to run a world class department, yet are forced to face the cameras and explain all eventualities away so the higher ups don’t look bad, and, I guess, look for their pensions…… Sad, but my guess is I am not far off in the analysis.
Mensgym
Even with all our fury directed at the Moron Center lately,
I think your point on the higher administration is probably right on.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Spot on
I believe the university administration’s malaise has spread like a cancer that we can now see on the field/court.
I wrote about this before
I wrote a fanpost on this topic after the end of the football season, which generated a bunch of discussion. I truly believe we can be an elite academic AND athletic institution, but I don’t think there’s any administrative desire to do that.
They would have to sacrifice a couple of things
most importantly, they would need to allow big donors with naming rights, and give the ability to donate to specific sports if people so desire.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I'm not all up-to-date on these things
but is there any reason why they don’t currently allow that? It seems to me that these two sacrifices in particular have a ton more upside than downside.
In theory
it’s because they want to be able to support all of the sports at UCLA, which is a noble goal. But I think if they allow those specific donations, which would likely go mostly to the revenue sports, those sports would generate enough revenue to support the rest of the teams…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Recruiting is an interesting issue
UCLA’s academic requirements are tough, which filters out a good deal of potential recruits. That, and we’ve historically failed to land any decent recruits outside the west coast (LRMAM and PAA are the only ones I can think of)
Phil Matthews was brought in to bolster recruiting, but maybe it would be better to bring in someone with east coast roots.
Matthews and Recruiting
The biggest mystery next year is Parker. Will he be another desperation pickup like Carlino? Or is he another instant contributor like Jones?
Parker was chased by Matthews with CBH closing the deal. If he is Jones like,an instant contributor, Matthews gets a B. If he is able to play backup PG as well, Matthews gets an A. If he can’t break into the rotation, F.
The Moron Center -- CLASSIC!
Gents, great discourse and passion about being True Blue’s and demanding nothing but Excellence from all things that wear the UCLA letters. Love it! Great discussions. Go Bruins!
Agree with Mensgym
It appears that UCLA’s administrators are not really interested in any of the sports on campus. Academics are very important to a great university like UCLA but you also need to balance that out with a great athletic dept. Stanfurd is able to do both (not great yet, but getting there). I will also say that a private school has the ability to accept athletes that don’t meet the academic requirements of that school whereas a state school does not. $c, Stanfurd and other private schools can get away with that. State schools cannot. I am sure some athletes at UCLA barely get in but they basically meet the standards set by the school. Being a high school teacher, I have seen many good athletes not take school seriously. They think they can get in anywhere and I would remind them that good grades will help you get in at any school.
by Forever a Bruin on Apr 11, 2011 9:46 PM PDT reply actions
they also had about a 30 year head start on us
Established 1891 versus UCLA’s 1919. Very jealous of how quickly their football program rose though.
Malcolm Lee is Gone
From an insider at Morgan Off-Center. He hired an agent today.
Source?
Both you & Oswego have mentioned this now.
On the condition of anonymity unfortunately.
A manager in Morgan Center of sufficient level that I would be very hesitant to not trust his word on this one. He said, “Malcolm signed one today (monday),” not “Malcolm has one picked out”, not “Malcolm found who might be his guy” – “Malcolm signed”. Sorry I can’t say more specifically my source. Hope you understand.
by BruinAlum2011 on Apr 12, 2011 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Re academics
The only school among those multiple champions that ranks perceptively higher academically than UCLA is Duke.
I have no answer here, just that CBH raised our expectations so high, and Jrue Holiday drowned them.
Even Duke loses some recruits early
But notice the difference in attitudes:
“It was weighing on my shoulders for about two weeks. That would have been the deciding factor for me coming back — me wanting to win a national championship next year.” – Kyrie Irving
“It wasn’t really conflicting. The biggest X-factor, the thing that would keep me, is the team next year and how good we could be. It could be a great team, but I feel like what’s best for me is to leave this year.” – Tyler Honeycutt
What is an elite program?
And how many are elite. If we’re looking at the top 5 programs of the last 20 years, UCLA does not make it but is in the discussion: UNC, Kentucky, Duke, Kansas and UConn are the most consistently in the top 2 seed lines, and they also have multiple titles. If you expand the definition of “elite” to include the top 10 programs, UCLA would probably be there, along with Michigan State, Arizona, Florida and one of Syracuse, Ohio State or Texas, even though we were not elite these last three years.
Whether we’re elite or not, I do not trust Morgan Center to replace Howland with someone who would do a better job than Howland. And that’s the bigger problem. Until we get new administration (and maybe even after that), Howland’s our best hope for relevance and being in the hunt for occasional championships. So even though I would be ready to put Howland out of a job in 1-3 years if we continue to be borderline top 25 teams, I would not fire him unless Morgan Center will hire a better coach.
My 2 cents
We won 123 games in 4 years from 2006-2009. That seems like elite to me.
Then we had a disaster in 2010 due to 1) early defections to NBA and 2) poor talent evaluation. Both of those fall squarely CBH’s shoulders.
One year later in 2011 we make a solid rebound, winning 23 games, coming in 2nd in the league and making the tournament. IIRC, that was the bar this site said CBH needed to hit. The 2011 team had some big wins, some disappointing losses and a disturbing penchant for disappearing for big chunks of time almost every game. CBH gets the credit and the blame.
I think that with or without Lee we are primed for a great year next year. We are stacked on the inside and could be the best in the nation in the paint. Guard-play is a wild card but should, imho, be anywhere from decent to pretty good. There is depth all around. Not having a home court could be an albatross but it also could bring the team together…we’ll see.
So I think that over all CBH has done a good job and that we are lucky to have him. 2010 may have knocked us from elite status momentarily but I see us being back to elite (win the Pac 10 and be a top 10 team) in just two years time, which is pretty darn good.
by RealisticBruinFan on Apr 12, 2011 10:39 AM PDT reply actions
+ No excuses, still expect Elite season next year.
Work magic and turn one of the bench scrubs into a Malcolm Lee-equivalent Howland.
Final Four Appearances by "Elite Programs" during the Howland years
Final Four Appearance (2004-2011)
3 – UCLA
3 – Connecticut
3 – North Carolina
2 – Duke
1 – Kansas
1 – Kentucky
Other schools with multiple appearances during this 8 year period include Michigan State (3), Florida (2), Butler (2).
Funny thing is
all but Kentucky won a championship. Florida won 2. Butler went to the final game twice. I’m not saying Ben should be out, but he needs to right the ship.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
