ESPN Agrees with BruinsNation on the "UCLA Factor"
by DCBruins on Jun 8, 2011 6:00 PM PDT
in Basketball
Email
PrintAchilles post became the basis of a long post on the ESPN's College Basketball Nation Blog today. The key graph
This post from Bruins Nation -- in which BN visited an NBA draft camp and overheard media types discussing former UCLA guard Malcolm Lee -- goes ahead and calls it the "UCLA Factor." Whether that name is widespread among NBA front offices is beside the point. The concept itself is. A few months ago, I was talking to an NBA front office executive, and he brought up the very same notion without much prompting from me. UCLA players may not have flashy stats in college, he said, and they may not always look like high-flying freaks, but they enter the league as ready to play as any alumni in hoops. They know how to defend. They rebound. They, to put it vaguely, "get it."
First Kudos to Achilles. Second, notice to recruits, NBA Execs want the "UCLA Factor. "
More after the jump
LVBruin gives other side here. But I think LV Bruins chart and arguments are beat back effectively with this line from the WWL:
It's hard to overstate how important this is. Getting drafted early is easy compared to how hard it is to last in the NBA. And yes, while the rookie salary scale is nothing to sniff at, and landing a first-round guaranteed contract is a big deal, the true barometer for NBA success -- and for turning your NBA career into a mind-bogglingly lucrative enterprise -- is landing that first major contract in your third or fourth season. For all the outdated stereotypes that characterize the NBA as a league of defense-averse stars, the best NBA teams know that players like those described above are absolutely crucial to long-term postseason success. They "get it," too.
You can call it by another name but the "UCLA Factor" is real.
While we have some qualms about players leaving early, it is hard to argue with the success of those who made it in the Pros. CBH can coach and teach basketball. The wwl article gets further credibility on what NBA people think as it is not written by someone who is a UCLA writer or even ESPN LA. It is not giving an opinion as much as reporting the fact that "NBA scouts have begun to factor in the success of former Howland players in recent years."
Go Bruins.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Happy ESPN published that and link BN
More national exposure! Now kids will be like, “Hmm UCLA? I think I heard of that school before. They’re kinda like one of those blue blood schools. Won a few championships I think.”
jk, but I enjoy reading articles like these when they’re on the mainstream =)
It's nice of them to 'recognize'
But, I seriously wonder if they would have written up if Achilles hadn’t done so. It’s lazy journalism. Now consider this.
If they (Eamon) are playing this close attention to paraphrase Achilles so quickly, then it stands to reason they were well aware of the SF@Pauley campaign. And yet, not a peep did they make. Sure, it was a bigger story to us, but a significant story to CBB nonetheless and they whiffed on it. Yes, I’m mostly bitter because we got no MSM love during the campaign, which we could have dearly used; but it doesn’t change the fact that if you rely on MSM for your news and information, you are already a day late and a dollar short.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Lazy Journalism
You got that right!
by peggysue69 on Jun 8, 2011 10:20 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Lazy journalism is redundant
Journalism is all you need to say to include the concept of laziness. Do you really need to say arrogant trogan? Isn’t simply “trogan” enough to make the point about arrogance?
What a friggin' cool picture!
What a great moment for DC!!! I love the UCLA factor and so glad it is finally getting some discussion. Good job A. And I agree with MexiBruin. Seems the slight of students should have received some national attention. But really,what a great picture!
Go Bruins!
to be clear
nothing LVBruin says is ‘beat back’ by the above lines. Nowhere does LVB argue that CBH doesn’t prepare players for the NBA, or that the true barometer of success isn’t the full NBA career rather than the first contract. LVB’s main point is that outperforming your draft position is not necessarily a positive selling point for the program to HS recruits.
I personally believe – as is backed by the comments above – that CBH prepares players well for the NBA. But this is something that should be measured by how much CBH improves these players and turns them into contributors at the pro level; outperforming one’s position in the draft just raises questions as to why UCLA players are not drafted as highly as their NBA-readiness warrants.
Hopefully the comments above reflect a growing front-office perception about CBH’s proteges and not just one cherry-picked exec to fit with some lazy journalism. If so, the draft position of Bruins will begin to match their NBA ability, which will strengthen CBH’s reputation as a coach and the attractiveness of UCLA as a destination for top recruits. Certainly, the article above is welcome news.
It is
Because that main point is made irrelevant if scouts are beginning to give Bruin draftees some “extra credit” for coming out of the CBH system. If scouts are getting a better handle on how a UCLA player will play beyond their college box scores, it stands to reason that their draft position will likely change accordingly, which makes the whole discussion about outperforming a supposedly lower draft position moot.
and so far, the number of Bruin draftees given 'extra credit' is...?
So far, none; and the ESPN guy cites one unnamed source. But obviously we can all hope that this idea is starting to take hold. Where Malcolm Lee goes will be the biggest bellweather; Honeycutt’s draft position may end up based on tangibles and flashes of potential, while Malcolm’s will presumably be based on fundamentals, defense and likelihood of being a solid pro.
I totally agree that if things turn out the way we hope they will, the previous discussion becomes moot; but that means both sides of the (specific) argument become irrelevant. Overperforming as a good or bad thing is moot when there is no overperforming. Setting this up as one side of the argument ‘beating back’ the other is incorrect; the grounds of discussion are (hopefully) changing.
and
this shift, if it occurs, will be welcomed by people expressing both sets of views on the discussion provoked by LVB’s post.
This whole thread is speculation
I’m taking Eamonn’s word at face value because I have no reason to believe he’s lying about this. There would be little benefit to him to lie about it. You can choose not to believe what he says. Doesn’t negate the fact that if what he says is true, LVBruin’s point is moot.
I'm not negating that fact.
“I totally agree that if things turn out the way we hope they will, the previous discussion becomes moot” is exactly what I say above. But rendering a topic of discussion moot is not to favor one side of that discussion over another, as implied by ‘beat back’.
Presumably we will see in this draft whether Bruins seem to be getting more generous treatment than in previous years. If so, perhaps it will help us close on some of our high profile recruiting targets. This is presumably also something that will likely grow over time, when we see our BenBall guys get their good second and third contracts, which will only give scouts/GMs more reason to draft our guys higher.
As someone who believes CBH is the best coach our athletic administration is capable of hiring/retaining, I hope this kind of talk and these kinds of articles will fend off for a little while some of the doom-laden prophecies about how he will never be able to recruit the level of talent necessary to return us to glory, etc etc. Perhaps the “joyless” epithet some attach to CBH’s recent teams will come to have positive connotations once it is more clearly associated with “NBA-prepared”, “professional” and “fundamentally solid”.
If X, then Y
Is a pretty basic concept. In this case, if the reports are true, then the discussion on over or underrating prospects is likely to be moot, and thus “beat back” is an accurate description. That’s all there is to it.. Everything else is fluff.
If x then y is a very basic concept in formal logic
But the sequence
1. If X, then Y
2. Not X
Does not indicate falsehood of 1. Actually, it is usually defined to indicate truth. But I’m happy to concede to more colloquial understandings of logic and say it indicates neither truth nor falsehood.
The argument LVB set up was:
If x, then y
Vs the competing hypothesis based on the optimistic part of Achilles post:
If x, then z
You are welcome to say that ‘not X’ makes ‘if X, then Y’ moot. But if so, ‘if X, then Z’ is moot as well. All I am arguing for is consistent application of logic to both sides.
by VeniceBruin on Jun 9, 2011 8:49 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Your problem is your misinterpretation of "beat back"
In fact, the initial premise of LVBruin’s post isn’t even necessarily true, as outperforming draft position is a completely subjective measure, so there’s nothing to disprove. The issue was whether the perception of lower draft position, if true, is detrimental to recruiting efforts going forward. This post shows a factor, if true, that potentially mitigates that line of thinking entirely. So yes, his post is “beat back” in that it undermines the basis for his observation, not that it indicates falsehood, because as I said before, it’s all speculation, and therefore there is no true or false.
I agree that we are basically just arguing about the interpretation of 'beat back' at this point
and not worth arguing further…
I'm not old
and I hate philosophy, or at least formal philosophic arguments.
Same conclusion.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Jun 10, 2011 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think it beats back what LV was saying.
He was saying that kids and their parents have supreme confidence in their abilities and use the college that they attend as a platform to display their talents. This will lead to a high draft pick/high first salary. They are not looking for a school that will teach them the skills necessary to stay in the league, because its their God given gift that will keep them there. Sure, we all know how important it is to learn from CBH, but if our own guys, who studied at his foot for years complain about being held back, how can we expect high school kids to understand the importance in learning from someone like CBH?
formerly Westwood78
Because that's a fallacy
How were you “held back” when you are thriving in the NBA? The only thing that’s held back is flashy individual performance on offense. CBH teaches everything else. The ex-players complain but they are wrong and that is why we push back every time one of them brings it up. It’s simply not true and the word has to get out.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
But here's the thing
The parents and kids who overestimate the value of their God given gifts are most likely to be the the Drew Gordons of the world. We shouldn’t want them. We should only want the guys who actually value the idea of learning and being NBA ready. We don’t want or need the ESPN article as something to help convince more ego driven problem athletes our way, we should be happy about it because (hopefully) players with some smarts will realize that as the word gets out and around, they are more likely to be properly valued for coming out of CBH’s system — AND they will be more NBA ready. I suspect that only some of our former players feel they were “held back” by the system, but if most of them thrive in the NBA, a reasonably smart recruit can certainly see that. The issue for the recruit is whether he will be drafted lower for being “held back” in terms of offensive production. So, if the league does, indeed, come around and start drafting our guys higher than their stats would support, the smart recruit will realize he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by coming to UCLA. The guys who believe they are God’s gift to the game will still go elsewhere and that should be fine with us. Let Calipari have them.
Regardless of all this
isn’t that what all the combines and workouts are for? If you truly are an offensive stud who is just “held back” by CBH, you should have no problem showing your skills in those venues.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I still can't believe we didn't win the championship in 2008
Love, westbrook, collison, mbah a moute… I hate you derrick rose
Troy is burning
by bruinbasketball on Jun 9, 2011 11:16 AM PDT reply actions
What really stinks about the whole thing
Is that Memphis had to vacate that entire tournament run, but it doesn’t help us at all after the fact.
yup.
no help after the fact, and boosts Calipari’s under-the-table sales pitch “you don’t even need to pass your SATs, I’ll get you into the lottery”
I can.
There was no containing Derrick Rose, and prognosticators from early in the season noted the worst possible matchup for our team would be an athletic squad with lots of size. The first example given of such a team? Memphis. We ran into, what I believe, was the one team that could simply out hustle and out-size our players all game long. I don’t believe like some do that we were outcoached… though Ben’s reluctance to put Westbrook on Rose does seem like a gaffe, it would have left us absurdly outmatched against a surging Douglas-Roberts and Robert Dozier. Kevin simply did not play very well against the Memphis big men. Overall, we were just buzzsawed. We would have destroyed Kansas or UNC, IMO.
"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.
