UCLA Basketball: Ugly (Howland) Numbers, Uglier (Guerrero) Spin
by Nestor on Feb 19, 2012 6:22 AM PST
in Basketball
Email
Print
There is not any point in going over the micro-details of the latest UCLA basketball debacle on the road. I did not get to watch the game live. However, reading the comment threads, news stories, and checking the box score, it sounds like yet another predictable and uninspiring loss in yet another ugly basketball season under Howland.
Peter Yoon has the "rapid reaction" post on ESPNLA, denotes that UCLA's road record this season is now at 2-6. That would be 1-6 if you don't count the "win" against Chaminade. The record looks even more pathetic if you consider the fact that UCLA has not played a top-25 program since the tournament in Maui. If you want to get a picture of what a joke this program has become under Howland, you may also want to take a look at these numbers, compiled by the BNers in this thread:
- 0: Number of wins against top 25 teams on the road since 2008
- 1: Number of week UCLA has spent in the AP Top 25 since 2009
- 1: Number of week UCLA has spent in the AP Top 10 since 2008-09 season
- 3: Number of UCLA wins against top 25 teams since 2008
- 23 years: Last time UCLA had to break a Sweet-16 drought spanning 4 years or more. [1981-1989 (Larry Farmar/Hazzard stretch)]
- 1987-1992 : Last time UCLA experienced a 4 year drought without conference championship (prior to Lavin era) was (Walt Hazzard's last season and Jim Harrick's first 3 seasons)
- 1444 days since UCLA basketball has won the Pac-12 conference
- 2-7: Howland's record at MSG with 2 victories coming against Southern Illinois and Drexel (1 point win)
- 0-5: Howland's record in the Pac-10/Big XII challenge
- 10-10: Howland's record against JustSC
- 3 and 64: 3 is the number of losing seasons we have had in last 64 years of UCLA basketball. Ben Howland has had two of them. Although we gave him a pass for his first one. As noted by Fox71, the common denominator has been Dan Guerrero.
And speaking of Chianti Guerrero, Fox 71 has the numbers on how under Guerrero's tenure UCLA has had its worst decades in both football and basketball in modern Bruin history:
Football
Guerrerror's term 64-63 503
Prior10 years 68-47 .591
Prior 10 years 80-33-5 .699
Prior 7 years 54-23-4 .691Under Guerrerror's tenure, UCLA has had its worst decade in modern football history.
Basketball
Guerrerror's term 201-114 .638
Prior 10 years 243-86 .739
Prior 10 years 233-110 .679
Prior 7 years 165-40 .804Under Guerrerror's tenure, UCLA has had its worst decade in modern basketball history.
Not sure what else we can add to those numbers. They simply underscore the point why UCLA alums and donors need to put on overwhelming pressure on Chancellor Gene Block to get this guy out of Westwood.
Both of our major revenue programs have been gutted under his incompetent leadership, and the story will not get happier as long as he continues to draw almost a million dollar per year salary as the highest paid AD in the conference. Guerrero for his part continues to strike tone-deaf and clueless notes in NYC. More on that after the jump.
Following the debacle against an 11-16 Saint John's team which was playing under an interim coach (get well soon Steve Lavin), Guerrero put out more hapless and pathetic spin:
"You look at the team this year and we're certainly not where we want to be," UCLA AD Dan Guerrero told SNY.tv. "We're a work in progress, there's no question about that. Other than the two senior guards [Jerime Anderson and Lazeric Jones], we're still a very young team and we play like a young team in a lot of respects."
The "young" excuse is BS and frankly dishonest for few reasons. First, it doesn't take into account the returning starters Bruins had in the team besides Anderson and Jones. There was a reason UCLA was picked to win the conference featuring returning starters such as Joshua Smith, Reeves Nelson (more on him below) and guys like Brendan Lane and Anthony Stover who had been in the program for multiple years. Not to mention Howland also brought in the Wear Twins who are technically college juniors this year and had one year of ACC experience under their belts. Second, the "young" excuse is also BS because we don't hear other programs that are supposed to be elite making them as they also occasionally lose players to the pros.
Third, the "young" excuse also brings up the point about how UCLA under Howland seemingly has had to make that excuse every freaking year as players get the heck out of his toxic program. Don't forget Chianti and Howlers are already banking on next year, when these guys will be able to throw out the "young" excuse again by pointing to the freshmen coming in to the program. So when it comes to excuses this not only pathetic, but it also comes across as cynically dishonest on part of Chianti.
Chianti also threw out the excuse about Nelson's dismissal:
"It's been a tough year also for Ben as it relates to the guys on the team, having to make the decision to have Reeves leave certainly cost the team in some respects in how they could develop," Guerrero said.
That excuse shouldn't fly with anyone paying close attention this program. Nelson's issue shouldn't have been news to anyone following UCLA hoops on a day to day basis. As documented here over the years - Nelson always had issues with erratic behavior as he often berated his team-mates publicly and played "defense" on his own terms. Yet Howland kept looking the other way and giving him PT without any sense of accountability in his first two years. Moreover, Reeves departure was not an aberration given all the personnel issues under Howland in previous years, the results of which were sadly apparent in the other CBS hoops telecast yesterday.
Lastly, here is the probably the worst excuse (but not surprising one) from DG to date:
"Even though we played 18 home games at the Sports Arena, every one of them was a road game," Guerrero said.
We wonder if the reporters pressed back on Chianti and asked him who decision was it for Bruins to play "road game" at the Sports Arena. The fact that Guerrero even went there demonstrates he expects large chunk of UCLA basketball fans to live in complete ignorance and pay no attention to his own clueless bureaucratic decisions that put our program in disadvantageous situation. As has been discussed numerous times on BN, a competent AD would have pursued all options to have the UCLA games in venues other than the Garbage Arena and minimize our appearances at that Dump.
Guerrero's comments once again confirm how if the Bruin fans want to save the basketball program, they need to be putting pressure on to remove him rather than focusing on Howland. At this point if Guerrero tries to save his bloated salary by throwing under the bus, he will conduct another cluster**** coaching "search," which will probably end with someone like Cameron Dollar coaching at UCLA (with guys like Lorenzo Romar and Mark Gottfried as "tier 1" choices).
We doubt Guerrero is even thinking about a coaching short list and is hoping to cruise through UCLA hoops relevancy by putting together a semi decent season by riding the talents of some "young" mercenaries next season.
Any way you look at the situation it's sad, disgraceful and ugly. It should make your stomach turn if you are an alum who loves what the four letters stand for and you cherish the legacy left behind by Coach Wooden. Things are not going to get better as long as the worst athletic director in Bruin history continue to fiddle away, while the legacy of one of the best programs in college basketball burns down in Westwood.
GO BRUINS.
49 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
How can DG make the "young" excuse when we lost to five freshmen?
Besides, one thing “young” teams do is play with enthusiasm and intensity, even if they make mistakes….
by Seth Chandler on Feb 19, 2012 6:39 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I doubt Chianti is even thinking about replacing BH
Remover, this is the same guy that had to further evaluate Rick Neuheisel’s status after the Bruins were humiliated before a national audience.
Plus, he’s much too busy preparing for his summer wine tasting getaway in Italy.
by Ajax on Feb 19, 2012 7:41 AM PST via iPhone app reply actions
He's working overtime remember?
Feasibility study, planning wine tasting trips and strapping it on. Whew, what a tough job! They couldn’t pay me $700K to do ALL of that work!
Dump Dan!
by bruinclassof10 on Feb 19, 2012 11:22 PM PST up reply actions
Accountability
A word that is sadly lacking when describing Howland, Guerror and the players like obese Josh Smith and many others.
This is damning for Howland, even moreso for Guerrero.
I almost feel bad for Howland. He can’t be happy with his results, and he’s too blind to see why he’s getting them.
Regarding Guerrero – is there a reason we have to reference him by his multiple (well-earned) pejorative names? With no disrespect to the frontpagers, isn’t our point more powerful and easier to receive if it appears that we respect Dan Guerrero the human being while we lay out the reasons we abhor the “job” he’s doing/done? Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a good round of name calling, but when it comes to convincing other people of our position I’m just not sure it’s the best way to go.
Chianti Dan
That’s not really name calling. The guy is scheduled to go on Chianti trips while his major revenue programs have been in the gutter. That’s referencing a fact. Not name calling.
by Nestor on Feb 19, 2012 8:15 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Perception
Given the chance to speak face to face with the guy, using anything less than his name has the varying risk of coming off as any number of things that weaken the perception of our group, and thus the perception of our points of view. To turn his supporters into detractors, I think we need to build as many bridges as possible.
Maybe I don’t know the politics of giving someone the boot or I’m too naive in thinking we can win people over by sticking to the issues (and only the issues). I just think it’s good policy to give certain basic respect to people when making a public argument against them.
If the facts surrounding his tenure
Aren’t enough to turn his supporters into detractors, do you think the Chianti thing is going to make a difference? No, the cause and effect here are switched. These people want to support Chianti, and are using the weak “name calling” thing as an excuse. If it wasn’t that, it’d be something else equally asinine that they’d latch onto to justify their continued support of this incompetent boob.
Yes, I do.
It’s not uncommon to hear voters confirm the negative effects of negative campaigning for those who propagate it. This isn’t a choice between one person or another, but there are some parallels to be drawn. That’s just my perspective.
Of course, all of you frontpagers put in 90% of the work of this awesome community and you deserve the right to set the tone of this debate. Ultimately, I hope we succeed, even if we disagree about how to get there.
Go Bruins!
That doesn't address what I said
The premise you’re pushing is that Chianti is the deciding factor in whether we garner support or not. Our unfortunately extensive experience with Neubs, Howlers, Dorrellistas, etc. has shown that these people let the tail wag the dog. They already know what they want to support, and have no need for facts and evidence to justify it. If it wasn’t Chianti, it’d be some other stupid thing.
Put simply, if you can look at the numbers, and yet decide that Chianti is what turns you on or off on a cause, then you’re not too bright anyway, and some other random emotional argument is just as likely to convince you to change your tune.
I think I directly answered your question.
Yes, I do think that the Chianti thing is going to make a difference. Does the entire debate hinge upon whether or not we refer to him respectfully? Definitely not. I never stated or “pushed” the notion that this is the deciding factor, as you put it. That it makes a difference with some people whether the tone of our argument is one color or another is the premise of my initial post and subsequent responses.
Over the past several weeks, months, and years there has been post after post will well-reasoned, fact based arguments promoting Guerrero’s firing on this site. How many Howlers, Neubs, and Dorrelistas were converted by these posts? Enough, perhaps, to have CRN and the man who was our coach between Toledo and Neu fired.
The exercise of free speech aside, what do we have to gain from extraneous emotional references to the man? What do we have to lose? If you think the answers are “something” and “nothing” respectively, then we disagree. It’s your fine blog, and you can run it how you want to.
Given the body of work on this community
In last 6 plus years we feel pretty good about arguments and style resonating. Not a coincidence that size of this community continues to grow in a robust and explosive rate. If you have anything to add to our arguments please add but at this point no need for hijacking this thread. Thanks.
by Nestor on Feb 19, 2012 11:26 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Didn't mean to "threadjack".
Ty asked a question, I replied, he misinterpreted, I clarified. No need to beat a dead horse, so I’ll gladly drop it.
Back on topic – DG is most definitely feeling the heat, as tasser said below. Explains much of his recent “blog posts”.
What's the evidence to support your position on this, Mr. Gray?
You say “Yes, I do think that the Chianti thing is going to make a difference.” Why? Ty asked for evidence that a particular fan will cast his vote to support our current athletic director because someone here refers to him as “Chianti Dan” or “Doughnut Dan” or “Guerrerror” or “The Man in the Empty Suit” or some other derogatory term instead of using his name and proper honorific. I have seen no evidence of this other than your feeling, which is no better or worse than anyone else’s feeling. Politicians get elected despite insulting nicknames. Both Tricky Dick and Slick Willie got reelected.
I think there is precedent for the use of a satirical nickname to influence public opinion. I remember in history class, maybe in high school, I learned that Thomas Nast’s cartoons which skewered Boss Tweed were deemed to be effective in turning public opnion against him. George W. Bush was always portrayed as stupid despite his having an Ivy League degree and the acumen to fly a jet, which probably very few of us here can boast. Yet if you ask people their opinon of his IQ, the answer will invariably be that his mental functioning is about at the rutabaga level. I suggest that this anecdotal evidence is as good as your feeling or my feeling about the effectiveness of trying to portray Athletic Director Guerrerro (there – proper honorific and spelling of name) as a witless buffoon who has idea what he is doing.
Indeed, my feeling is exactly the opposite of yours. I think referring to him as “Athletic Director Guerrerro” actually lends an undeserving air of dignity and legitimacy to this guy. For example, “Pee Wee Herman” describes the persona of the alleged “entertainer” much more accurately than “Mr. Herman.”
There is room for argument on this issue, of course. I need to hear more to convince me that Doughnut Dan (or Chianti Dan or Homer Guerrerror) has not well and truly earned any of these perjorative nicknames.
We will keep using Chianti
If people get upset over G rated snarl which is based on fact, that’s their problem.
by Nestor on Feb 19, 2012 6:26 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
It's about class.
We have the facts on our side. Why stoop? Precedent is hardly a reason to continue down a particular path. I really think it’s just a waste of time and energy to propagate extraneous negativity. It’s how I handle my life, which is why I questioned it in the first place. How this blog is run isn’t up to me, which is why I’ve respectfully deferred and/or qualified my opinion as such since my original post, and I’ll do so yet again: if the community thinks the tone set forth in this debate is the best way to achieve the goal, then good for them – I can see my point of view has little resonance here.
Bottom line, I hope they’re right, because more important than this issue are football, basketball, and baseball programs (the 3 I care most about) that I can look forward to watching when my crazy-ass work life winds down for the evenings and weekends.
The facts are clearly on our side, but they apparently have not been noticed by those in positions of power
In my opinion, Chancellior Block will never take action to clean up the athletic department until his hand is forced. Chancellor Block is, in essence, the Field Marshall and President for Life Idi Amin Dada of our immediate world. He was not elected into office, and cannot be elected out of office. He can only be overthrown, which seems unlikely, or forced to resign or fired. The latter two events are not likely to happen unless there is some embarrassment associated with him. I am embarrassed about our athletic program, and I’m sure you are, MrGray, but the entrenched bureaucrats are not. Im ny opinion, having facts and class are not working. It’s time to do more. There have been nice efforts to ask the athletic director to resign, but he is still in place. If the Chancellor sees a highliy (very highly) paid member of his staff is viewed as an incompetent boob who is referred to by a nickname that brings disgrace to the university, I think the odds that he will be terminated will increase. The mainstream media is getting it, slowly but surely. If there is a headline in the fishwrap that refers to the athletic director as “Chianti Dan” and questions the merit of his going on an expensive wine tasting trip while school is facing financial crises and while the revenue producing programs in the athletic department are suffering through the worst decade in modern UCLA history, then maybe the Chancellor will feel that his hand has been forced. I will continue to do whatever I can to expose the stupidity that is harming my alma mater (and ultimately the worth of my degree).
I think my efforts are more effective than asking politely that someone be removed from office, and then keeping silent when the polite request is ignored.
I've always had respect for your positions, Fox.
Yours is the best articulation of the reasons to stay the BN course, though wrought with some fallacies regarding my position, if that’s indeed what you’re attempting to reference in contrast to your own. I’m not advocating being passive, polite, or keeping silent. If I was, I probably would have left the vociferous community that is BN quite some time ago. I see the value of the energy coming from this place, I just think that a certain percentage of it is misplaced.
I can most likely see a Times article with “Chianti Dan” in the headline at some point. I expect to see the abhorrent pronouns “Simers” or “Paschke” nearby, too. I’d rather not be in step with their style of incendiary “journalism”. Then again, I can’t much think of a writer in the Times that I’d like to be aligned with.
Please don’t misunderstand – more than I want to see my vision for this debate come to fruition, I want a new AD. BN is the best microphone for our frustrations, and it will continue to be thanks to N (in particular), Ty, you (Fox), all of the other frontpagers, the regular contributors and the community at large.
Thanks for the nice comments.
I wasn’t fishing for any compliments, but I’ll take them.
I just wish there were some way to force the Chancellor to engage this issue. If he said “Dan Guerrerro is the best AD we’ve ever had and I’m sticking with him, period” at least we would know where we stand. The problem is (or at least one of the problems is) that Block simply ignores the issue. I suspect that if I had major, major, major bucks, and suggested to Block that I would make the biggest donation in the history of the world on condition that he fire Guerrero, then old Dan would be shown the door pronto. Alas, I don’t have that kind of money. You and Nestor probably do, of course, but I don’t.
In reply to your earlier post...
just thought it would fit here better. You said you would want to hear more to convince you so let me throw out my thoughts(two cents) for consideration, for you and et. al.
There are three groups to whom this ‘get rid of Dan’ message is being sent. There are those who want him gone, many of which are represented here. For this group, anything said is ‘preaching to the choir’. They are already sold.
Then there is the group who is the ‘supporter’ of this guy. Those are the tough sell. Then, there is the group who is in the middle, the undecided. They need something that will tilt them over.
The entirety could be thought of as giant bell curve. You’ve got staunch supporters, staunch detractors and then the majority who make up the 68% of the two standard deviations on either side of center. I think it is difficult to measure this bell curve, but I’m sure it exists in some form in this situation.
So, the real question becomes how to move the center toward the ‘get rid of Dan’ side. Let’s put the ‘get rid of Dan’ position on the right side of this bell curve and the ‘keep Dan’ on the left. And, no, there is no political reasoning for taking these ‘sides’. Purely random, but necessary for what follows.
May I suggest that those who are on the fence, who need a nudge one way or the other (first deviations either side), need real and substantiated evidence to put them firmly in the ‘get rid of Dan’ side. This has been done on this blog.
The people in the first deviation to the right don’t need much. Just straight up evidence. these people will likely ignore the labels, such as Chianti, strap on, doughnut etc.
The people in the first deviation to the left are the ones who may be somewhat put off by such labeling, but may see through that to the bare naked evidence. On the other hand, some may see the labeling as a tactic of persuasion. They may see it as a way, a need, to bolster an argument and then question the use. Why would someone need to use labels to bolster an argument? Questions may arise as to the veracity of the argument as a whole.
It is the second deviation to the left, maybe even those in the first deviation near that second deviation, that will react to the labeling in such a way that the evidence becomes less valid, less meaningful. They may reason to themselves that this bunch of detractors is simply out to get Dan. Using labels, as if using labels, add to their argument that he needs to be fired. They may entrench themselves even further into their support of Dan.
I think one can see that this is not really a black and white issue, but that of a spectrum and that my example of the bell curve is nothing more than an attempt to give a second dimension (the y axis) to that spectrum.
I posit that taking a high road tack will persuade those in those two deviations to the left to look at the evidence solely on it’s merit and will come to a conclusion based on intellect rather than emotion.
I must say here that I like Ben Howland. And, maybe that has clouded my feelings on whether to retain him or not. Let me explain. I met his guy, after a Stanford game at Pauley, forget which year, the Stanford twins were there. All I know is that he stayed after his postgame with the local sports station to take pictures and sign autographs with everybody in a fairly long line. He went so far as to kneel down so that he was on the same level as very young kids to take a picture. It was well after 11pm when I heard him say ‘is that everyone’ and exit Pauly. I challenge anyone to report the same about coach K.
Anyway, I hope like hell he is able to turn this around because I firmly believe he represents UCLA as well as anyone I can think of as coach of Coach’s program.
Well, that’s it. Thanks for listening. Take it with a grain of salt.
Fox, if your ‘71’ is the year of your graduation, then you are my senior and I thoroughly enjoy your retrospectives of the heady days…“oh my”…yes I do.
Howland, like Neuheisel, is a very decent human being.
Just not up to the job.
by Seth Chandler on Feb 22, 2012 1:30 PM PST up reply actions
Guerrerror's spin smack of the sad lies of an alcoholic.
And we the family are stuck with this A hole until he realizes he has a problem and does something about it. (step down.) Meanwhile, the family members (us) are crying out for an intervention and the only other parent, Block is playing the willfully ignorant enabler.
The White Elephant is firmly entrenched on the living room couch, hogging the remote control and eating all the snacks.
Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. ~ Vince Lombardi
Charlemagne and his three bungling sons
It only took a decade or so to ruin Charlemagne’s empire because upon his death, his three sons Carloman (Block), Louis (Howland) and the eldest and illegitimate son (Guerrero), ripped the empire to shreds allowing the meek to inherit the earth. History doth repeatest.
Wow, that's really funny
Great historical reference.
This picture upsets me greatly
Coach with the 3 men who are running our basketball program into the ground. Despicable.
Dump Dan!
by bruinclassof10 on Feb 19, 2012 11:28 PM PST up reply actions
when his job is on the line
Dan is feeling the heat.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Feb 19, 2012 12:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I really hope this is the case
I hear rumors that his job is on the line, but until I read about a planned sit down between strap on and Block than I don’t believe strap has anything to worry about.
But if he were feeling the heat
wouldn’t his tone be more hawkish than dovish toward Howland?
I hope you’re right.
I wish that were true.
Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. ~ Vince Lombardi
isn't the 1 week we spent in the AP top 25 this year's pre-season ranking?
that shouldn’t even count
by Objection Penguin on Feb 19, 2012 12:03 PM PST reply actions
DG and mediocrity
The directors cup has been given for 18 years to the school with the best athletic progam. North Carolina got it the first year and Stanford has gotten it for 17 straight years, Dan probably is embarrassed by the fact that UCLA has been the number one school in total national championships and would prefer for us to be in the middle of the pack. It won’t be too long before Stanford passes us up in national championships and Dan will have an excuse for that too.How does " We’re # 2 we don’t try as hard." sound. Something like " UCLA’s high academic standards prevent us from competing with Stanford athletically."
"Stanford's AD doesn't strap it on as much as I do"
“What’s wrong with being #2 to Stanford?”
“What’s Stanford?”
“Stanford’s AD is the Cardinal’s #1 fan but I have a blog”
“What’s a director’s cup?”
“We’re doing a feasibility study to learn why we haven’t been winning”
“We have more women’s championships”
“____ may have more championships but remember champions are made here.”
“Adidas has not lived up to our standards of excellence”
The man is such a buffoon, I doubt that he’s embarrassed. If he was embarrassed, he would’ve done the right thing and resigned years ago.
Dump Dan!
by bruinclassof10 on Feb 19, 2012 11:32 PM PST up reply actions
Cardinal's #1 fan
Here is the real problem. Stanford President Hennessey is the self-described #1 fan of the Cardinal.
Chancellor Block has put up a public face of indifference.
Guerrero is definitely the disease, but Block doesn’t care about a cure.
A million-dollar compensation package is for foreseeing and preventing problems.
Not reacting to them.
An airline pilot gets paid to fly the plane safely. Not pull survivors out of the flaming wreckage he has created through his incompetence. Same principle applies to ship captains, CEOs — and chancellors.
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.
