A Defense of Howland
by bruinbiker on Feb 4, 2012 2:53 AM PST
Email
PrintHey all. As the title of this fanpost suggests I'm a 'howler,' and I'm making no attempts to hide this. Furthermore, I'll come out and say that I only began following UCLA sports when I arrived at UCLA in 2006. The first Final Four had already gone down, and I was lucky enough to bear witness to the following two (and watch RW develop from the 06-07 season to beast mode in 07-08, KL, AA, watching DC run the point, blow away people off the dribble, and so many other awesome memories) So you can take what I have to say from these admissions. Now, as an alum, I just wanted to write a few thoughts down about calling for Howland's resignation as this juncture. I'm still not convinced that we should pull the plug on Ben Howland.
I live in South Korea, and one of the things that links me back to America is UCLA and UCLA sports. Because of my work schedule I don't often get to watch UCLA games in any sport. South Korea has really fun internet censorship that I have to sidestep around, which makes getting a quality stream of a game all the more difficult. So when I tuned in at work Friday afternoon and saw the score 65-55 UCLA, I was beyond stoked. I honestly wasn't expecting for us to win this one, and it looked like we were about to pull off a quality road win. Like all of you, I was devastated when we pissed away this lead.
Howland is not without his misgivings. His stubbornness about sticking to M2M has cost us games. His insistence on relying on people like Nikola Dragovic (who by the way, while still on campus punched out a friend of mine over some nonsense) is ludicrous. The things I wanted to address are his alleged meltdown over the past several seasons (which yes, have been painful) and his recruiting/interactions with players.
More after the jump.
KL (#3 c/o 2007)
Jrue Holiday (#4 c/o 2008)
Tyler Honeycutt (#3 c/o 2009)
Josh Smith (#7 C c/o 2010)
(all info scout.com)
etc etc. I could do more homework and call up more of Howland's blue chip recruits, but it's beside the point I'm trying to make. Let's looks at these four for now. KL graced us with his presence. He was never staying a second year and we all knew that going into it. He very nearly carried us to an NC, and the greater Bruin diaspora remains forever thankful for his time at UCLA. Now for the bottom three. Jrue Holiday came on campus thinking he was the next KL style 1 and done, and forced this on us by doing exactly that. Should Jrue Holiday have gone to the NBA? That's debatable. Should he have stayed another year? Probably. Did he really contribute in the way that KL did, where we waved him off instead of shaking our heads? No. Same can be said for Honeycutt.
You want your coaches to attract this kind of talent. Howland has proved that he can draw incredible recruits to the school, and we shouldn't forget this. How much of the result on the court is directly a result of BH. A lot. But he's not the one shooting the ball, not making the extra pass, not walking back on defense,etc. And I don't think BH condones any of this behavior either. I think the issue is on the player who come to UCLA already looking past UCLA for the NBA. There's not much anybody can really do about that. You have an 18 year old kid who has been told that he's the greatest basketball player that's ever graced the earth since probably elementary school, who dreams of being an NBA star. Then they get recruited by a top-tier, storied program like UCLA and their heads inflate even more. We all know Howland for his stubbornness and being hard-nosed. This doesn't sit well with a lot of these high end recruits, when Howland gives them their first reality check that they probably have ever had. And it causes derision in the team, which translates to effectiveness on the court.
Then we have our shining Final Four squads, built on a combination of skill, determination, and yeoman efforts by players who were overlooked by other schools. And we produced stars. LRMAM, AA2, RW, were not initially your flashy recruits with tons of media hype. But they were all integral to our success on the court. There has been a lot written about Howland's ability to develop players, so I need not go further on this point. But I don't think that because so much has been said about this, that we should forget this trait about him and write this off. Howland has proven that he can develop players that come to UCLA ready to learn. This is a good thing.
Let's talk about Reeves Nelson for a second. Reeves is sort of the exception that breaks the rule. On the one hand, he was your yeoman fan favorite in the mold of AA2 or LMR at last initially. He bust his balls, he had a black eye for the first part of his UCLA career, he was tatted up, and it was really hard not to like him. When he first arrived on campus, I was very excited to see where Howland would take this kid. I had nothing but high expectations for him. And last season, he did extremely well, gaining honors left and right. On the other hand, he was an giant headcase, perhaps not in the mold of JH or TH, but still presents Howland the same issue. You've got a prima donna on your hands. Maybe I don't have a lot of faith in people's ability to change or be changed by another's guidance. But I don't think Howland's loss of RN (dismissal) JH (NBA jump) TH (NBA jump) discredits him.
In sum, I don't blame Howland for bringing the wrong kind of kid on campus. It's hard to predict how a player will change once they get into college. By the their rankings, BH brought in some extremely highly touted players like KL, who panned out and was a team player, and JH and TH who just sorta were there. How could you predict the flops of the latter two?
Here's where I'm about to tread on sacrosanct ground.
*braces self*
John Wooden is obviously a legendary Coach. But I just wanted to point out something for food for thought.
From 1948-56 John Wooden brought UCLA a conference championship 6 of 8 years. Then, from the 56-7 season to 60-61 season (5 seasons), JW didn't either win a conference championship or bring UCLA to the NCAA tournament. But, in those off years, where was UCLA stacking up in the rest of the conference?
56-7 tied second place
57-8 third place
58-9 tied third place
59-60 tied second
60-61 tied second
not bad, eh?
Ben Howland at UCLA in 8 seasons has brought UCLA to the NCAA tournament 6 times. Three of these are the coveted Final Four years. Let's look at the conference results on years where we weren't in the Final Four
03-04 (Howlands first year) seventh *ouch*
04-05 tied third
08-09 second
09-10 tied fifth
10-11 second
Give Howland a pass on his first year, and outside of the abysmal '10 season, it's not too shabby. There's still the fact that Howland is still 6/8 on tourney appearances. Now Howland has not met expectations in the past few years, I concede. But calling for his resignation? I don't think that's exactly fair. This season is falling in the toilet rapidly, and I don't expect us to make the tournament short of a miracle run in the inaugural Pac-12 tourney. But still, I wonder if people would have been calling for Wooden's resignation during the 56-61 seasons? I see similarities between the two coaches where they enter UCLA on a high note, become highly acclaimed, then experience a drought. We're definitely in Howland's drought. But is this the time to fire him? I think calling for his pink slip is a bit premature.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
86 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why the Coach Comparsion Fails
You can’t trot out Coach Wooden’s “bad years” for comparison for a number reasons. First they do not make your point.
1. Coach never had a losing season (Opps CBH did not once but twice.)
2. Coach was playing one of those years you cite above with scholarship limits due to other UCLA athletic programs. CBH never had that issue.
3. UCLA was not a basketball powerhouse or famous for basketball in the 1950s. At that point we had more football championships then basketball championships. Today everyone knows of UCLA basketball.
by DCBruins on Feb 4, 2012 6:11 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
also
22 teams made the tournament in the late 50’s. 68 make it now, and Ben is STILL failing to do so
by bucknellbruin on Feb 4, 2012 7:01 AM PST up reply actions
not to mention
only the conference champions got in. If UCLA went 21-1 and finished 2nd in the Pac 8, they would miss the tournament
by bucknellbruin on Feb 4, 2012 7:02 AM PST up reply actions
As in 65-66
18-8 second (I think) in the league. We lost a bunch of games when Edgar Lacey got injured. The league champ was Oregon State, who we beat at Pauley by the nice, tidy score of 79-35. I remember that game vividly. We got so far ahead that the student section stopped razzing an OSU guy for having so many zits on his shoulders that he looked like a pepperoni pizza. Those were the days, of course, when we got in for free (or for a quarter or something like that) and made lots and lots of noise. This was noise left over after the freshman game (featuring, Alcindor, Shackleford, Heitz, Allen and (drum roll for the fifth starter on that freshman team) Kent Taylor).
But we went 18-8, and no tournament. That’s obviously not the same now – 18-8 would probably be a 2 or 3 seed.
It is amusing
You are the second Howland defender who admits outright that you don’t watch the games. When you don’t watch the games you don’t really have the standing to comment on what is wrong or right with the program.
We’d like to read informed thoughts from UCLA alums and students on our programs. Hard to construct informed takes when you don’t watch the games.
by Nestor on Feb 4, 2012 6:50 AM PST via mobile reply actions 3 recs
I didn't read his post
But I’m going to label it as brainless drivel anyway.
Okay, I actually did waste my time on it. In a way it’s actually better that we get garbage takes like this, because as the facts continue to pile up against the Howlers, the takes get dumber and dumber, and it becomes even more obvious that it’s over.
it's interesting
because a lot of what you wrote is true. Unfortunately, I don’t think those numbers mean Howland deserves to stay at UCLA. Putting aside the fact that we simply don’t have a good team this year (which falls on Howland) missing the tournament (where 68 teams get in now, not 20-ish like in Coach’s days) 2 out of 3 years when it’s clearly HIS program is not going to fly.
This team is not at a level to compete for a conference title, let alone a national title – in what may be the worst Pac-whatever ever. This conference is absolutely pitiful, and UCLA STILL won’t finish above 3rd or 4th. To me, in his 8th year following a 14-18 season 2 years ago, that is simply unacceptable.
The biggest point you bring up is the performance in the pitiful conference
It’s unacceptable not to be at least in the tournament year in and year out. It’s another thing altogether not to be competing for the conference title this season. Washington 8-2? Are you kidding me? The talking heads mention repeatedly how the Pac 12 may be a two bid conference with the possible exception of a third if either Cal or UW doesn’t win the tournament. I have watched a lot of games and a lot of different teams this year and I think an argument could be made for only the winner of the conference tourney making it. UW and Cal don’t look anywhere near good enough to be at large bids to me. There are just too many other good choices out there.
by 84 on Feb 4, 2012 7:40 AM PST up reply actions
2 bids is probably predicated on the 68 team field
The play-in games were meant to be populated by crappy high major teams, which describes the entire Pac-12. Bring it back down to 65, and we’re probably a low major level conference where only the tournament winner goes to the dance. It’s pathetic.
You make a good argument
I find myself going back and forth about whether or not it’s time to move past Howland. It’s painful to watch what has become of the program this year. The years of Final Fours seem distant now but I still loved those teams and how Howland coached them.
It wasn’t just that UCLA reached 3 Final Fours but that I truly appreciated the way they played the game. Watching those guys now in the NBA play is a pleasure too. They learned concepts of spacing, defensive fundamentals, and off ball movement that far too many American professionals lack. Most of the Howland era players are noted for their work ethic as well. Something that was either nurtured or recruited by Howland and his staff (probably a little of both). Their teamwork and tenacity was something rarely found these days amongst the elite talents.
I tend to think the downfall of UCLA basketball can be greatly contributed to administrations slow reaction to keeping facilities and funding up to par. The current TV contract has hindered exposure to the program as well. Money was a key issue with the states economic downturn and a terrible TV contract. I’m not sure how much financial support Howland has been able to garner in this time towards his staff either.
This is UCLA we’re talking about, the Bruins should have the best paid coaches because it’s the premier university for college basketball (At the very least on the West coast). Now the university is almost there… with the basketball program at least. There will be a freshly renovated Pauley next year. New assistant’s have been hired, Perhaps Howland’s best recruiting class is being assembled (Shabazz belongs at UCLA, no matter what happens with Howland. He needs to represent the West). Granted, there are coaches doing far better this year with far less. But in comparison to other major programs, UCLA has been falling behind. Is it too little too late?
Your preaching of patience is nice and it’s certainly a point worth noting. However, UCLA basketball was not UCLA basketball!!! back in the 50’s. UCLA should NEVER have a losing basketball season at this point. And as bucknelbruin pointed out above, the tourney field was much smaller then.
Howland is a scheme coach. He teaches a few things very well and if his players fit that scheme then there’s great success. For some reason, the matching of Howland’s scheme with recruits has been way off the last few years. I’m starting to think that Howland might not be the greatest evaluator himself, preferring to bring in fundamentally sound guys but lacking the length and athleticism to run his tough M2M defense (ex. Mater Dei guys). By reading into things, my guess is that Howland’s hatred for mental errors wears on young more talented players on the roster. It’s the only way I can think of to explain why certain guys ride the pine despite the obvious failures of guys ahead of them (Drago something… not worth remembering his name). The idea that Howland plays favorites is a little absurd in my opinion. It’s far more likely his perfectionist nature prevents mistake prone freshman from seeing as much play time as their talent probably warrants.
So by looking at Howland’s tenure I can assess a few things. He’s a great teacher of basketball fundamental’s. Especially in terms of M2M defense and off ball screens and sets on offense. However, he’s got issues in matching the right talent/personality to fit his style of play. This is a major problem given that attrition is going to happen on any high profile coaching staff. Assistant coaches want to become head coaches someday. Also, are their enough big time recruits that fit Howland’s profile? We were all hoping that Josiah Turner would come to UCLA but how long would he have actually stuck around? Tough questions that I’m not sure I have the answers for.
With the upcoming recruiting class, I think he can. Kyle Anderson and Jordan Adams both appear to be tough minded kids who are about winning. Anderson might not bring the intense ball pressure D but has a good understand of offensive concepts from what I’ve heard. Adams is a team captain and lights out shooter. I think, despite everything, Mohamed ends up in a UCLA uniform. If I’m him, I look at Howland providing the much more teaching that he needs to succeed at the next level than a guy like Calhoun (who will pretty much let you run free for a year). Pauley will be renovated and the Pac-12 will be broadcasted nationally. Not only are the Bruins struggling this season but so is the entire Pac-12. Along with a friend, who will set him up with a ton of buckets, they could be a huge national story next year.
So in the end, I’m still left with a toss up. UCLA’s current state is unacceptable given the prestige of the program but I do not believe Howland somehow lost his “Magic”. I go by the opinion that if UCLA is able to lure a big time coach to move Westwood then fine. But if not, maybe some patience is necessary. Let’s see how the new TV contract, Pauley, assistant coaches, and recruits play out for one more season.
BTW, I think this case is different than the football team. I was behind the change there. As for basketball, I’m merely reluctant to make a change. And yes, my opinion is probably emotionally affected by the Final Four runs and the enticement of a possible stellar recruiting class.
We have been as critical of the AD as anyone
But the admin can’t be blamed for the joke recruiting of last 4 years that hasn’t netted a single above average (forget elite) point guard. It wasn’t Chianti who mandated 30+ mins of Dragovic and total degradation of the core of UCLA basketball program.
by Nestor on Feb 4, 2012 8:03 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
indirectly the AD is to blame
if the fall-off in standard of assistant coaches is due to Morgan Center budget decisions (etc). What I can’t tell is whether Howland is really a fairly average coach who had some exceptional assistants in the past, or whether he is a good coach who has been saddled with incompetent deputies recently. (And yes, Howland obviously also shares responsibility for who he hires – just don’t remember much discussion about how it is that we have cycled through assistants. One of the reasons I felt sorry for Rick was that he didn’t get complete control over his assistants at the start, and wasn’t given the firepower to go after elite assistants at any point)
Yeah, I see that point
If Chianti was remotely invested in the success of the hoops program, he’d make sure Howland was feeling the heat internally as well.
What I'm trying to imply is`
that every coach has his weaknesses and Howland’s are probably being exposed. His recruiting/talent evaluation has been sub par. He absolutely must have a staff that excels in this area. Even in the good years Howland had James Keefe over Ryan Anderson (Cal/Orlando Magic. I know this through certain close connections) until it was too late. So everyone misses but at least then the had huge hits as well (Westbrook, Russell). I don’t know whether it’s Howland’s fault or not whether his replacement hires were either mistakes or if he had to hire on the cheap. I don’t think anyone has really looked into it much because everyone was floating off the high of success. Just a question I want to raise.
Personally, I don’t question if he can coach or not. When the team had elite level talent he had them playing at an elite level. The current team is vastly under talented by the Bruin standard. I understand this is a big problem and the heat needs to be on Howland for it. Furthermore he has the wrong talent for the schemes he likes to run.
Now, a good administration would follow the developments on the basketball court and impose changes on the coach if necessary. I would have said to Howland, "I love what you do in teaching these kids fundamentals on the court. But you’re a piss pour talent evaluator and I’m going to make sure we hire an ace recruiter on the staff to make sure that UCLA is represented with the quality of talent it deserves.
Secondly, I’m not only looking at UCLA but the Pac-12 as a whole. The conference sucks! I don’t think it’s due to terrible coaching, there’s a lot of good coaches in the Pac-12 (Montgomery, Miller, etc…). So why has it all gone wrong the past few years? TV exposure may have a lot to do with it. It’s hard to recruit kids if their friends and family can’t watch the games.
So I don’t argue that Howland has been getting it done recently. He hasn’t. So my gut feeling is that the program hasn’t received the support it needs and his issues aren’t really on the court but off it. A lack of recruiting savvy can be made up for with an excellent staff (look at what Mora just accomplished). My worry is that we’re ready to throw the guy out the door just as he finally got some top notch recruiters (again look at the recruits we have and potentially have) and a flood of exposure, money, and renovated Pauley to uplift the program back to premier.
by abasketballfan on Feb 4, 2012 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
I don't have a problem with CBH sticking to M2M
The problem I have is how poor we execute it. For someone who’s forte is M2M, Howland’s teams do not have (nor have ever had) that total lock down ability I associate with great M2M. The Runnin Rebels of the early 90s are a great example. They were suffocating.
In many ways this is very similar to Neuheisel’s failed tenure. Our offense always looked terrible, and our QBs never improved. For a guy that is both an ‘offensive guru’ and a former QB himself these traits were unforgivable.
Back to Howland. The lack of quality defense means he is either not the Defensive Genius he is made out to be, or he is recruiting guys that cannot play his style of play. Either example points to him being unfit for the job.
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
Question
It seems to me that using your methodology of assigning and comparing pt values to the results (conf championships and touney runs) of CBH with those considered his peers (CK, RW, JC, RP, Boeheim, et al) since 03 (start of tenure) at UCLA would be a good statistical measure – and perhaps less subjective measure – of hs performance. Had you considered? Not to discount the anecdotal stuff (Dragovic, Collison on Rose, Pg recruitment, etc).
Hail to the Hills of Westwood.
It's more of the latter, if you asked me.
Howland’s struggles reminded me increasingly of what Bobby Knight at Indiana, Tubby Smith at Kentucky faced towards the end of their tenures.
The players that once thrived at Knight’s military bootcamp coaching style just were not there anymore because of changing times and rapidly evolving basketball culture.
Lexington simply grew tired of its coach. The ominously repetitive problems he seemed unable to come to grips with every season totally wore out the fanbase.
To his credit, Howland has no penchants for temper outbursts. He is hard nosed, not desperately vulgar as Knight was He also knows basketball as well as Smith does But perennial recruiting woes utterly hamstrung his coaching. They persist ominously too, becoming more magnified as each season arrives.
To put it bluntly, the Howland fatigue is fast becoming an issue that we are grappling with.
"Howland Fatigue"
Hmm, not only is that phrase fairly appropriate, it’s dangerously catchy.
Facepalm
Is this the kind of deductive reasoning they teach at UCLA these days?
(1) I don’t watch the basketball games
(2) But I’m in a position to make an informed opinion on why our basketball program is failing and
(3) Everyone who says Howland should go is wrong.
Or even worse:
(1) Coach Wooden, taking over a program no one had heard of, at a university less than 30 years old, located in a West Coast city that was substantially smaller and without the media dynamic of today, methodically building it into basketball’s premier basketball program over a 15-20 year period, in an era with a very small NCAA tournament field, while playing in the PCC/Pac-8, didn’t win a championship in his first 15 seasons,
(2) Ben Howland, inheriting the program with more national titles than any other, that produced some of the games’ best players of all time, playing in the nation’s second largest media market, in a city of stars, in an era with an expanded NCAA tournament field, hasn’t won a championship,
(3) Somehow equates to Ben Howland deserves more time.
I guess there must be some class at UCLA that teaches these people how to take apples and compare them to oranges.
I want those minutes of my life back
Give Howland a pass on his first year, and outside of the abysmal ‘10 season, it’s not too shabby.
Let’s “give him a pass” on 2006-2008 and throw 2003 and 2010 back into the mix. How shabby does it look now? We’ve made the argument that 2003 isn’t on him ourselves because it makes logical sense, but you’ve provided no legitimate reason why 2010 isn’t completely his fault and shouldn’t be included in his record. 2012 is turning out to be a similar disaster. I suppose we’re going to “give him a pass” on this year as well for some random, illogical, arbitrary reason.
While you’re busy making stuff up, you might as well make your argument by throwing out all of his losses. Give him a pass as you say. After all, all those other teams were just playing on a Magical Level those days.
Or to put it another way, let's give Howland a pass on the losses this year.
Other than the games we’ve lost, we’ve looked pretty good. And Chaminade – well, they’re a darn good D-II team, by golly.
Actually, I was hoping that someone would articulate the reasons why Coach Howland should not be terminated immediately (immediately as in now and not at the end of the season), and I thought this might be it. Alas, this attempt, which I assume I Biker’s best effort at marshalling evidence, is beyond weak. It is simply an apology for unacceptable performance. It makes me think of the parents (generally it’s yuppie parents) of a screaming toddler having a tantrum who keep cooing, “Well, Tad, it looks like Zoe needs a time out.” No, mom, Zoe needs a spanking. A pilot who’s flying the plane toward a mountain doesn’t need an apology for why he’s about to kill everyone on board. He doesn’t need a time out. He needs to be replaced pronto.
So sorry, Biker. I read as much as I could, but you just had no arguments that amounted to anything. We all know Coach Howland is a good man. We all know that he has the team’s best interests at heart. He may even still be a good coach. He’s not doing an acceptable job of recruiting, or disciplining or coaching now, and he hasn’t for about the last 50 or so games. I’m done. We gave Coach Neuheisel 49 games and then pulled the plug. The last 49 basketball games show me that Coach Howland’s performance does not warrant his retention for even another minute.
I'm not going to read this because the title enough is nauseating
But I do feel I can comment on this without reading it and compare it to the Dorrelian supporting nimrods of lore.
by charnaw on Feb 4, 2012 10:30 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I'll give bruinbiker some credit for writing this
I appreciate him presenting a dissenting opinion without criticizing the majority of those here who disagree with him. He didn’t preemptively play the victim card either. Also, South Korea is even more in exile than Denver (and the 3 feet of snow in my years this morning), and I have to scramble to see half the games here.
So I admire bruin biker for voicing his opinion, and for outlining is reasons for it the way he did. I can’t argue with someone presenting a viewpoint like that. But I can disagree with it.
I’ll focus on two things. First:
In sum, I don’t blame Howland for bringing the wrong kind of kid on campus.
I do entirely. I wrote a post 2 or 3 years ago about our number one recruiting class and how it all went so wrong. Howland’s success was built on players who were hungry gym rats with a chip on their shoulders, and who would do anything to prove they were the best. With the FF successes, Howland had every kid in the country wanting to come here, and he picked guys who looked very talented, but who clearly lacked that killer me-against-the-world mentality. Those were kids who would not have picked U.C.L.A. before the FF successes. They just wanted a place where there was a bright spotlight that could shine on them. We were all surprised by the failure of that class at first, but Howland has not yet corrected or recovered from that mistake. And that’s on him.
My other big issue:
Give Howland a pass on his first year, and outside of the abysmal ‘10 season, it’s not too shabby
We are all willing to give Howland a pass for the first year when he had to fix up the smoking crater that Lavin left behind. And I might even say that Howland’s overall record is indeed, “not too shabby”. But “not too shabby” is not good enough for U.C.L.A. Every other year tournament appearances are not good enough. Sub .500 years are not good enough. I’m not saying we need to win the Pac-12 every year, but we better be competing for it every year. We better be in a position to make the NCAA’s every year. We better get past the Sweet 16 with some regularity. The difference between bruinbiker and me is where we set the bar for U.C.L.A. basketball, and that is why Howland’s last 4 years (counting this one) have not been good enough in my mind.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
incidentally
any Black Keys fans?
Video for Howlin’ for You is pretty epic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLSpj7q6_mM
with lyrics that could easily be adapted:
I must admit
I can’t explain
Any of these thoughts racing
Through my brain
It’s true
Baby I’m howlin’ for you
There’s something wrong
With this plot
The actors here
Have not got
A clue
Baby I’m howlin’ for you
Mockingbird
Can’t you see
Little girl’s
Got a hold on me
Like glue
Baby I’m howlin’ for you
Throw the ball
To the stick
Swing and miss and a
Catcher’s mitt
Strike two
Baby I’m howlin’ for you
Good for you Bruin Biker
I thought you put together a thoughtful post with good points. You knew you’d get lambasted, but went for it anyway.
I think you make good points in his favor. Howland is an excellent coach. I personally wonder if he’s a good coach for UCLA, though. I don’t believe he’s recruiting the wrong players, either. He’s recruiting the right players. Unfortunately, I don’t think his style is suited for the elite. His style is suited for grinders like his early FF teams here and the type of players he had at Pitt. With a couple of exceptions, those teams were not made of elite recruits. It’s frustrating to see him recruiting better than the FF years, while the play falls so far behind.
Bliur, are you suggesting that somehow it's not the Coach's fault because he picks guys that won't respond to his coaching?
That, at least to me, sounds like the guy who murders his mom and dad and then pleads for mercy because he’s an orphan. If Coach Howland needs a certain type of player to win, then why on earth does he not recruit that type of player? Or to put it another way, why is he unable to adapt his coaching style to the players he has on the team?
History lesson. From 1949 to 1966, Coach played a high post offense. The center was always at the free throw line on one side or the other. Then this kid named Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor, Jr., came into town. Coach figured out that Alcindor might be better in a low post instead of a high post. He changed his approach when there was a reason. Alcindor graduated. The next center was Steve Patterson, who was 6-9. Guess what. We went back to a high post offense. Until Patterson graduated and Walton came in. Then it was back to a low post.
See the point? Coach managed to make do with elite players, but that’s because he recognized how to get the maximum performance out of those players. Let’s not forget the first undefeated team had starters at 6-5, 6-5, 6-3, 6-2 and 6-1. Coach knew how to coach. Our current guy obviously doesn’t know how to coach the guys he has.
I don't really follow the whole murdering parents line
But to answer your question, like you, I ask, “why is he unable to adapt his coaching style to the players he has on the team?” This is why, as I said in my post, I wonder whether he’s the right coach for UCLA.
He’s been able to get great players, but can’t seem to coach them. I certainly wouldn’t prefer he get “lesser” players that work with his coaching style. UCLA’s coach should get the best players, and coach them well. I’ve seen Howland do each, but not together, and I wonder if those two are mutually exclusive for him.
In other words, I agree with you. Don’t lose the forest through the trees, Fox. (And I won’t murder my parents;))
What were his "good points"?
Can you point out his good points that can be defended in a credible manner?
Second this
List the good points you see in there. This includes the rebuttal to it in the comment threads here if it has been rebutted. If you want to have a discussion then let’s have at it, but you merely stating that they are “good points” do not make them so.
You know what they are
And you both rebutted them – fairly well. There’s no need to rehash this. The funny part is that if you read my post, we’re more in agreement than not. You guys just don’t know what to do with yourselves when I agree with you.
No, I don't
Because I don’t see good points in the original post, so I have no idea what you’re referring to.
blur - I didn't ask the questions to pick on you
But seriously what are the good arguments for suggesting Howland remains a long term a viable option given the overall body of work – which we have been painstaking detailed. Folks can read up all posts, fanposts tagged “Ben Howland era at UCLA” to go over all the macro and micro points that have been discussed ad nausea here.
I get that you wanted to support biker for the effort. I get that and I respect that. However, there is no good points made in his post above. I think the sooner we come to realization of that, the better for this program.
Okay, fair enough. I'll point out a few:
Good Point: Howland can recruit. He got Love, Smith, the 2008 class, etc. Next year will be good with or without Shabazz. UCLA absolutely needs a coach who can recruit. When asked what his secret to coaching success was, Lou Holtz always answers, “good players.” Being able to recruit is an excellent reason to keep a coach.
Counterpoint: How in the world does he get these prize recruits and get the results he has? The 2008 class blows my mind. 0 for 5? Really? That was the consensus #1 class. I can understand if one doesn’t pan out, or a couple have a bad attitude, or one was overrated, or gets homesick, or whatever. But 0 for 5? For the best class in the nation, and none of them pan out? Indefensible IMO.
Good Point: Howland is bringing in the right kind of players. Similar to above, you just can’t argue with the talent he’s getting. I don’t care what style coach you are, you should always get the best players.
Counterpoint: If he isn’t having success with the players he’s recruiting, he should recruit different players.
Another Counterpoint (mine): If you’re not able to work with elite players, I question your qualification to coach UCLA. I will never suggest we recruit lesser players. We should only recruit the best players, and have a system that works for them. I don’t see Duke and NC trying to grind out wins with their superior talent.
Good Point: Players arrive expecting to play college for only a year, then leave. It’s very tough to deal with this turnover.
Counterpoint: Other teams seem to make it work. I can understand wanting more Hansbrough types but you need other superstars. Kyrie Irving was one and done and Duke seems to be doing okay. And as much as I hate Kentucky’s philosophy of getting all one and dones, their success over the last few years proves this counterpoint.
Good Point: Howland is a great coach. He is.
Counterpoint: This is UCLA. Maybe we need a better coach.
If they're so easily countered
They aren’t good points. They’re debunked. Not to mention these “good points” aren’t even true.
You’re not a great recruiter if your roster balance is atrocious, as in not getting a real PG in four straight classes.
He is not bringing in the right players, or he wouldn’t have to kick them off the team, or try so hard just to do the simplest things in his defensive scheme.
All the other schools deal with early defections. Perhaps they leave Howland’s house of horrors faster cause they don’t like playing for him.
He’s good at X’s and O’s and preparation and teaching. That doesn’t make you a good coach in Div 1. You are also expected to manage the program.
Any other “good points” that I can destroy?
It doesn't work that way
Just because you make a rebuttal, doesn’t mean the original point just disappears. Remember your poll a couple weeks ago? Apparently more people are pro-Howland. So even though I agree with you, I’m not sure you’ve destroyed anything. Nestor asked quite respectfully, so I gave my opinion.
Furthermore, I think it’s insulting to UCLA to suggest that a young Bruin graduate just wrote 1000 words of dumb, meaningless drivel. If that’s the case, what does that say about our university? Fortunately, you’re mistaken. Biker has some good points, and it was a thoughtful post.
Nah, they're not good
Because they’re not well thought out. If they were, it’d be difficult to counter them. But as I just showed, it was quite easy. You are mistaken, and are wrong. That is all.
Blur, there is a sad fact of life about opinions.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but it is a fact that an opinion can be incorrect. The prevailing opinion in 1492 was that Columbus would fall off the edge of the world. That opinion was wrong. Saying that in your opinion, Coach Howland is a good recruiter is wrong. Sorry, it’s wrong. Unless, of course, you can show me the elite point guard that we had on our team last year or this year.
Another opinion is that he’s bringing in the right kind of players. Again, your opinion is incorrect. Reeves Nelson was not the right kind of player to be playing for UCLA. Josh Smith is talented, but he is not committed. And on and on. How many players have left the program? If they were the “right kind” of player, they would have (or would of, for those who prefer it that way) stayed.
We can go on and on. The bottom line is that it’s pretty simple to refute your opinions because not only are they not backed up by facts, the facts show just the opposite.
Here’s one for you. In my opinion, the 2011 UCLA football team went 11-1, but elected not to play in the Rose Bowl as a mark of solidarity with the trogans. That’s my opinion. Can you refute it?
Once again you prove my point, Fox
“And on and on. How many players have left the program?”
A bunch of good players left earlier than they should have: Holiday, Stanback, Farmar, Moser, Gordon, Lee, Honeycutt, LRMAM, and others. You’ve seen the “all-transfer team” references. You don’t think those were good players? I guess UNLV just had a couple roster spots to piss away on Moser and Stanback. And I’m sure no other coach in the country would want Josh Smith.
Nice touch with the Christopher Columbus reference.
That doesn't prove your point at all
Recruiting doesn’t end when they sign an LOI. He doesn’t get credit for players that left and went to other schools. Those are players who for one reason or another, ended up not fitting in. It is a failure of evaluation and by extension, a failure in recruiting, exactly as Fox has stated.
Biker, at some point I must conclude that you are willfully blind
You say I prove your point because Coach Howland can’t keep players who he recruited in his program. How does that prove your point? He can’t get a point guard. Does that prove your point? He can’t keep players. Does that make him a good coach? Truly, Biker, if you would open your eyes a little, you would realize that does not make him a good coach.
But here’s what your argument lacks – some facts.
Fact Number 1. Since 1948, UCLA has had three losing seasons. Coach Howland has had two of them.
Fact Number 2. In the last three years, including this year, UCLA is 50-39. That’s a winning percentage of .561. Since 1948, no UCLA coach has had a winning percentage that low. Forget about comparing anyone to Coach. Here are the coaching records since him:
Bartow 52-9 (.852)
Cunningham 50-8 (.862)
Brown 42-17 (.711)
Farmer 61-23 (.726)
Hazzard 77-47 (.621)
Harrick 192-62 (.755)
CHP 145-78 (.650)
Howland 195-85 (.684)
Howland 1st two years (inheriting his predecessor’s mess) 29-28 (,509)
Howland next 4 years (when all was well) 123-26 (.825)
Howland last 3 years (when the wheels fell off) 50-39 (.561)
A winning percentage of .561 would be fine at lots of places. That winning percentage – basically 5-4 which translates to a 17-14 season – really is not acceptable at a school which considers itself elite, in my opinion. If winning 56% of our games is acceptable to you, then we will never agree.
Here are a couple more facts. We got beat by 20 by Middle Tennessee at a nominal home game. We also got beat this year by 16 three different times. Four of our ten losses have been devastating, unwatchable blow-outs. We lost a game to one of the Oregon Schools by being out-scored by 20 points in the second half. We lost a game last weekend despite having a 10 point lead with only a few minutes to go. I offer no opinions as to why those happened, or as to who should be faulted for those disasters. I offer the fact that each of those things happened.
Those facts, in my opinion, justify the dismissal of the coach. If those facts do not warrant the coach’s dismissal, then we will never agree. I am confident that there are facts which drive your opinion that Coach Howland is doing a job which warrants his retention. You have yet to share those facts. I have not changed your mind, obviously, but you have done little to change mine. You started this – this thread is a defense of Coach Howland. Your argument has not been anything other than emotion based so far. If you have factual arguments, then bring them. If not, then accept the fact that your have an indefensible emotional argument. There is nothing wrong with that. I have an argument, defensible mainly in my mind , that opera is almost without exception the only music worth listening to. I can go on at length on this subject, but the numbers don’t back me up. (Mozart remains a better composer than Snoop Dogg, no matter what.)
Something happened
A detailed post disappeared.
I’m not going to do it again – my points were to look at the records of our coaches since Coach. The last three years under Coach Howland have been the lowest of anyone in terms of winning percentage. Also, this year we’ve been beaten by 20 once and by 16 three times. That’s four blowouts. We lost a game by being outscored by 20 in the second half, and we lost a ten point lead with only a few minutes to go.
Those numbers do not warrant Coach Howland’s retention. That’s the summary. There were references to Mozart and everything in the post that disappeared. It was a work of art. It would have brought tears to your eyes. But, alas, it is laying in a pile of electrons somewhere in the bowels of the SBN.
Mozart, Columbus, murdering your parents, UCLA football went 11-1 last year
I’m officially lost, Fox.
Apparently, because you can't follow basic logic
Which is why you’re the kind of person who wanted to keep giving us Neubian excuses for why Rick shouldn’t get fired.
The rest of us are having no problem following along.
Thanks B
Your insults might work on other weak-minded people you deal with, but you’ll have to come stronger than that with me.
How can you bring up football and then suggest you’re able to “follow along?” Let’s reread some of the posts and threads back when Mora was hired.
Why Howland needs to go
Blur, I have to start by saying I was a “howler” too. That was about a year ago. I had faith in Ben Howland even though the BN writers were already starting to express concern and saying his seat was “warm”. I didn’t like it when we starting criticism of his every move, from the concept of “Ben Ball”, hard-nosed M2M, calling timeouts, to personal development. To me, he had built up too much faith in his 3 FF seasons for us to be questioning him so harshly on a down season in 2010.
Things started to continuing swinging upwards. In 2011, Howland brought us back to the tourney and we had a legitimate shot at Sweet 16, and a deeper run since the other seeds were being knocked out. I was still a full believer, saying, “See, just have faith in Howland!”
But then came the crash. Howland lost not only 1, but 2 key players. Honeycutt was probably going to go, but Lee? Common. He also failed to bring in an elite PG prospect yet again, instead taking L. Drew as a transfer. Josh Smith didn’t get any better or lose any weight in the offseason. And then… the disasterous collapse.
My faith had been shattered. And my arguments on BN could no longer stand.
My point is these “good points” you are alluding to were already made after the 2010 season. The fact that Howland had a good class on paper, but was vastly overrated. But here we are again in 2012. We can’t make the same exact excuses again. Like B’s post, Faith in Howland has been lost…
Again
I’m not supporting Howland. If you read my posts, you’ll see I have my doubts. I’m in agreement that we probably need a new coach.
The disagreement seems to be over whether or not there are any positives about Howland.
Sorry, blur.
I didn’t catch that nuance. My fault. There are positives about Howland, in my opinion. He’s a great guy. He has a great sense of perspective and a great appreciation of UCLA history. Those are surely positives. I don’t see any coaching positives, unfortunately. Maybe there are some that I don’t see.
What about those Mora posts?
We will certainly stand by our criticisms of the hiring process. We have every basis to express serrious reservations when Mora was being discussed.
Now when it comes to recruiting Mora has addressed those concerns and we have made the point on the main page multiple times that we are happy that Mora made our skepticism wrt recruiting moot. Now comes the part about proving himself on the field.
We always go back to what we write and followup. As for you, you’d earn some credibility if you were to admit that your blind faith in Neuheisel even after the Arizona debacle was nothing short of delusional and you were baseless for attacking us for critcizing Neuheisel.
We have no problem discussing openly if were off on something. I wonder why it is so hard for you to admit you were just flat out wrong in pushing blind faith. Otherwise you look to be arguing just for the sake of argument. That is extremely counterproductive and disruptive to conversation here on BN.
by Nestor on Feb 5, 2012 11:01 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Nestor is right
I know of one person who made a 180 degree change regarding Coach Mora – me. I was sure that since he had not recruited since at least 1984 (he says now that he never recruited ever) that we would not be able to convince anyone to come to UCLA. Well, I admit error. He was perfect. He did far better than any of us had a right to expect. Can he actually coach? Obviously we have to wait and see, but I’m encouraged at this point.
Facts changed my mind about the abilities of our coach. (The selection process remains horrible, but perhaps the blind sow running our athletic department found an acorn.)
The facts about our basketball coach changed my mind about him. I do not think he’s the same coach who took us to three Final Fours. The numbers say he isn’t. I am unwillling to support a wonderful guy who is a mediocre coach. If that were the case, I would still want Coach Neuheisel in place. No one was a nicer guy than him.
I have a selfish reason for wanting a resurgence in Bruin athletics to start now rather than later. I don’t have that many seasons left to watch. Tempus is fugiting.
I did not have blind faith in Neu after AZ
And I only mentioned football because Bellepheron brought it up
Goodbye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
You have ZERO credibility. Your takes on football were flat-out wrong, short-sighted, and laughable. And it’s laughable that you claim I’m not able to follow along, citing my opposition to the way Guerrero f**ked up the coaching search as some kind of evidence. BTW, you can’t even use Mora as an example, since you didn’t want him either. Or did you forget you said “[i]f DG announces we hired Mora tomorrow, I’m going to vomit.”
See, the difference between us and you, is that, as Fox does below, we’re willing to admit we were wrong about Mora’s ability to recruit. So far, he’s done phenomenal, but that doesn’t change our criticism of how Chianti Dan totally f**ked up the coaching search. It’s pretty much accepted fact that he lucked into this (just like Mike Garrett lucked into Petey).
Instead of taking the time to follow Fox’s points, you made snarky little jibes at his points, which is why I reminded you that you don’t have the credibility to take shots at Fox, when you are the same fool who rode the Rick train to the bitter end.
And don’t try to re-write history buddy.
You started by trying to lower the expectations for Rick this season, claiming our reasonable expectations were too high (oh, and not before taking shots at other long-time, regular posters at BN). You followed that nonsense up with a Neubian post called “I still have faith in Neuheisel” which is laughable.
Rick re-paid your faith with the ass-beating at Arizona. Of course, while the rest of us were ready to pull the plug on the failed Rick Neuheisel era at UCLA, you instead wanted to play the “wait-and-see game” making a laughable comparison to the Green Bay Packers getting hot at the end of last season, which you got LOL’ed at for. It was so Neubian, it’s not even funny.
And of course, you were one of the legion of morons who thought hiring a disgraced cheater like Jim Tressel would be okay. Gee, funny how NO OTHER COLLEGE will touch him.
But you’re just another apologist who looks to make excuses for mediocrity whenever you can (like you did with Josh Smith embarrassing himself on Twitter), and your history on BN is nothing but arguing for the sake of arguing. Whatever folks say here, you decide to argue the opposite, just because you like being argumentative.
It’s counter-productive and it’s old. Nestor told you that you’d earn some credibility by admitting you were wrong about Rick. Your lack of credibility carries over to your takes on basketball, which are simply wrong.
And BTW, you are getting banned. Why? Because you have a history of breaking community rules. You know how many times you’ve been warned for lecturing us how to moderate BN. You know how many times you’ve been warned for making snarky jibes at long-time community members (Fox 71, Class of 66, MexiBruin) who actually contribute more than idiotic drivel. And once again, you decided to lecture me on how to moderate BN.
So you’re being shown the door. But not before I publicly shame you for the revisionist toad you are. You won’t be missed. If you want back in, you can email the BN editors an apology for your trollish, counterproductive behavior, and promise to actually follow the community rules.
I also disagree about your credibility comment
If you think I have none, that’s okay. But it appears the stance of BN is that there are absolutely no reasons to keep Howland. None. He has no redeeming qualities. An argument can’t be made for any positives in reference to Howland.
If that’s the case, my comment is “give me a break.” You guys do a great job of supporting your points, and I understand your motivation to oust Howland. But to suggest that he brings nothing to the table is false. Respectfully, that approach lacks credibility. (And I truly don’t believe that is your approach, but it seems this discussion has just turned personal at this point. I never wanted to attack BN, rather support Biker.)
Don't play the internet victim card
Because if you keep doing, like you have a history of doing, you will find yourself no longer participating on BN. It’s getting very old.
Blur, I accept the fact that you are officially lost
I conclude that you choose to stay lost, because many people have laid out the facts that will find your way.
There is a Biblical admonition to shake the dust when you leave if anyone will not listen to your words. I’m done trying to persuade someone who persists in ignoring objective facts. The dust you see represents my departure. If you follow the trail of dust, maybe you will no longer be lost, but that’s up to you.
You remain my Bruin brother and I wish you well, but further discussion seems pointless.
Ah, I think we're getting closer
“Those are players who for one reason or another ended up not fitting in.” I think we both have the same suspicions as to what those reasons are (Howland.)
What I’m trying to say is those were good players and other teams wanted them. Holiday, for example, looked restrained and disinterested during his one year at UCLA. Can you imagine him at Duke or Kentucky instead? I think he would have flourished, even if only as a freshman.
Maybe it’s just semantics, but I would say that if he recruited the wrong players, their individual fates would all be the same anywhere they went. And I just don’t think that would have happened. Gordon might have had a better attitude, Holiday would have had an impact and maybe stayed another year, Stanback and Moser would have gotten better opportunity, etc. It just defies the law of averages that all those elite prospects couldn’t find their way at UCLA. But those players were heavily recruited and Howland got them. So that’s why I say he got the “right” players – but he’s not suited to handle the “right” players.
It’s still an indictment on the coach, but of his style rather than his recruiting.
Maybe you're getting closer
I’m staying exactly where I am. If your recruits don’t pan out or they end up going elsewhere before they make an impact, then you are doing a bad job of recruiting.
I guess you're right
There’s no possible way we can agree on anything
Bruinbiker, you have to discredit Howland for Holiday and Turnover Honeycutt going pro a little
This might be Howlands biggest flaw, players dont want to play for him. Holiday was not ready to go pro but had to get out even though he would have been the starting point gaurd just like he wanted to be. Honeycutt and Lee bolted even though first round was not likely and with a possibility of no NBA season. Players dont like Howland and they certainly dont respect him. It hurts but we need to move on
Those are just three examples
Several other players bolted earlier than they should have because they got tired of Howland. Then there were the players who just transferred (essentially were run out of the program).
Simply put, the downswing of 10-11 through the present is due to correctable mistakes
Unfortunately for UCLA and Ben Howland, he took a very long time to address many of those mistakes, and hasn’t entirely addressed all of them either.
Howland gets next year. That’s it. And assuming Muhammad and Parker are UCLA-bound, then the expectations get ratcheted up that much more. His seat is about as hot as it can get.
Bruinbiker
I disagree, but I totally respect you for putting your opinion out there. This is a tough site and you knew you were going to take some heat as everyone on this site has good opinions. But don’t let some of the comments make you feel like you can’t post on here. It’s just a passionate site. I’m sure if you met these guys in person, you’d all get along well.
True.
Everyone here likes Coach Howland the person. Everyone here wants him to succeed. Most here, unfortunately, do not see any reason for his retention (some, like me, asking for his dismissal immediately, others giving him until the end of the season.) Everyone would be willing to have his or her mind changed with a cogent statement of reasons.
Be Coach Howland’s advocate. Explain why he should be kept for whatever period of time you’re comfortable with. I have been looking for those reasons over and over again, but no one has taken the time to post them. And don’t say, “Ah, you know what I mean,” because I, for one, don’t know. I can’t see any reason to keep this man, who I admire and respect, past February 4, 2012. Where am I going wrong?
in defense of bruinbiker
The guy is as dedicated as anyone is to watching and following ucla sports. How would I know this? Because he’s one of my best friends since our first week in college and he would (and still does when needed) wake up anytime between 5am-8am to watch ucla football/bball while in Korea. And let’s be honest, given how shitty our teams have been, that’s dedication. I’m not saying every single point is right, as I know I don’t agree with a good chunk of it, but like anyone else here, he wants to see ucla at the top of the pyramid, not at the bottom like we are now.
Cool story, bro
But that’s not the issue. He’s no less of a Bruin for not being able to watch games due to his location. But wrong and ignorant is wrong and ignorant, and if he knew he hadn’t watched the games, he shouldn’t have tried to trot out this drivel knowing full well that many of the people he is talking to have actually seen them, and have far better standing to assess the coaching and the current state of the program than he does.
No one doubts Biker's pedigree.
We have invited him to change our minds. I would love to have my mind changed about Coach Howland, because the likelihood of his continuing as our coach is much higher than his being fired. In fact, nothing would please me more, because I love Coach Howland the man. Alas, all you need to do is look at our won-lost record during his tenure. Coach Howland has had two losing seasons. His predecessor had one, and was fired. The last time we had a losing season before Coach Howland’s predecessor was in 1948, when Wilbur Johns went 12-13. Three losing seasons in 64 years. One losing season was enough to get the charlatan before him fired, and Coach Howland has already had twice as many.
To you, maccabits and to biker and all the rest: I know you are my brothers, and want exactly what I want for our alma mater. We want to be relevant. We want to not be mocked. We thought we had it with Coach Howland, but the numbers don’t lie. I would like to see all Bruins united and to demand with one voice that Coach Howland be dismissed. The voice of BN is pretty loud, as events of the past year have proven. I want to convince you to come around to my way of thinking. At least consider these points.
We appreciate you sticking up for your friend macca
But as I mentioned above no one attacked his Bruin card. It was his poorly constructed arguments that were taken apart. He kind of made it worse playing the victim card below. I hope he understands that no one is going after him personally but more at his poor arguments and admission that he made them without watching the games.
I knew what I would write would bring down the firey wrath of the gods
And it did.
I’m not even going to go into trying to defend myself and rebut things like I don’t watch games, because I watch as many as I can. It’s difficult out there.
I’m just curious as to why people with an opinion that isn’t party line BN need to be absolutely assaulted? I think BN is a great site, and I’ve been reading it pretty much since its inception religiously. I think the work that’s done here is fantastic, and there’s no better place to read up about UCLA sports. But what changed over the last year? Sometimes when I read BN, I can actually see the venom seeping out of my monitor and burning holes in my desk. We’re all UCLA fans, aren’t we?
It's really quite simple biker
You made an argument that was so simple to “assault”, because it was not supported by any evidence. If you had made a compelling argument, we couldn’t attack it so easily. Could we? For every one of your points, we gave you the facts that refuted it. You are mistaking the good leftover emotions from Howland’s earlier success for facts and it is clouding your judgment.
Feeling that Howland has earned leeway because of 3 Final Fours is an emotion refuted. Y the facts of the performance in the last 4 seasons.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I'm getting tired of people...
…who come here, say something, and when people say they’re wrong, immediately trot out the “internet victim card.”
It’s old and it’s lame.
You must be a Mayan
In addition to predicting the end of the world this year, you’ve also managed to figure out that emotional arguments based on flimsy reasoning would get savaged here on BN.
Bravo.
You ask “what’s changed over the past year”. It’s simple. The facts. In all of our time here on BN, we’ve admittedly been all over the place. 6 years is a long time. Things change. Circumstances and facts change, and our opinions, the “party line” as you refer to it, which is tied to them change with it. Those that hang on too long while logic and reason no longer support the “old” ways of thinking are left behind, and quickly. That’s the way it goes.
+1, wait -1. well, 0! (jk)
i still think there is room for both on this site—provided the author states his intentions clearly.
For example, “My opinion on x,y,z is driven mostly for my love of _, but I see that the facts do not support __” or “I don’t want to wait until Mora coaches a game, I’m so exited about UCLA football already!” Sometimes you just want to post comments that are expressions rather than arguments for or against something (I am particularly guilty of this).
We are all passionate Bruins, and we all experience our passion in different ways. Sometime the remarks by the front pagers, see Bellerophone’s above, can be quite harsh—but they are always based on fact (he even took the time to link to exact comments!). I suppose what I am trying to say is that posting emotional material is OK, as long as it is well-stated that it is just that. I think what everyone does NOT think is OK, is masquerading emotional opinion as fact. It’s sad that UCLA alumni need to be reminded that when making an argument, logic together with facts, are the only acceptable method of communication. (I don’t know, maybe we should all start submitting finger paintings as comments)
by UCLA_beer&mathematics on Feb 6, 2012 5:35 AM PST up reply actions
Again, not sure what your point is here
It is laughable for you to suggest you were “assaulted” in any way. Your poor arguments were shredded just like any bad lawyer’s weak arguments are taken apart in a court room. No one here “assaulted” your loyalty to UCLA and love for Bruins. You were taken to task because you outright admitted to not watching the games. When you don’t watch the games, it is pretty tough to form informed takes on the program and your takes came across uninformed and poorly constructed.
Second you wrote this:
But what changed over the last year? Sometimes when I read BN, I can actually see the venom seeping out of my monitor and burning holes in my desk.You do realize our football team when 4-8 and our joke of a hoops program is on it’s way to an NIT season. You don’t expect us to hold hands and sing kumbaya? Do you? You are seeing strong emotions because people who are well versed on the overall circumstances around our programs know how powers at Morgan Center have been driving UCLA into the ditch. Ben Howland’s poor coaching, leadership and lack of effort to hold him accountable is a big reason for that angst.
How do you make a Point?!??!
Ah Gee its too bad that Rick who bleeds blue and gold lost to USC 50-0. Is that what we should say? Rick was very loyal to UCLA, he just sucked as a coach. It is pretty hard as a Bruin fan not to be mad at that stuff.
I am actually mad now at our Basketball program but not the players. These kids play hard, they just aren’t that talented. That is not their fault. I love the effort they give and they are doing what the coach Howland says. But it is bad when the coach won’t play zone because he loves man to man. The coach will play a senior that would not be the best athlete in the Wooden Center pick up basketball games most days over a Freshman who is the best athlete since Westbrook. Or an AD who plays us in a run down arena on our arch rivals campus that the rival rejected.
But I digress. If you tell me it is okay for UCLA to lose 50-0 to USC and teams like Arizona, or miss the NCAA Tourney 2 out of 3 years, then go to the official site and read Chainit Dan’s updates.
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.
