The press credential and the access it gives is a special privilege.  I got a couple when my son got me gigs at Fox Sports.  But I know I would have been booted quickly had I abused that privilege, or if I had acted like a jerk or an absolute moron.

And that's what we're getting with our MSM press coverage.  I have heard that the fishwrap reporter is bashing our guys.  (I don't read the fishwrap, so I'm getting this second hand.)  

I think a GREAT story for the UCLA SID to release would be a story that certain MSM guys had been told they would not be getting credentials for the next game.  They can, of course, buy a ticket like anyone else, but they will not be in the press box snorting the free food, and they will not have their homework done for them with all the press kit stuff (e.g., instant stats, instant injury reports, etc., etc.)

The UCLA SID can explain that the credentials had been pulled because of a lack of professionalism - bashing student athletes, getting stuff just plain wrong, and that sort of thing.  

No one is asking for puff pieces.  Just accurate pieces.  And if the guy who gets the credential can't do the job, then let him buy a ticket like anyone else.  

The fishwrap would scream bloody murder, and so much the better.  It would mean that horrible newspaper would get the close scrutiny that it can't stand.  

That paper (a joke of a newspaper that it is) has always been skewing stories against the Bruins.  Their sports writers (if they even deserve that title) have always tried to stir up controversy and undercut the Bruins' accomplishments.  For example, in today's Trojan Times, the picture on the front of the sports page shows Shipp's block at the end of the game, but the caption reads "Josh Shipp got credit for the block on Donald Sloan..., but it appears the UCLA forward might have gotten more than the ball."

The Trojan Times is subtley trying to perpetuate the myth that one call determines the outcome of a game and that UCLA has been getting more than its fair share of calls this season.  

By the way, that same caption on the front page concludes with the following: "Shipp was scoreless in 37 minutes, missing four shots from teh field."  Of course this is just stating facts, but its inclusion in this caption just doesn't sit well with me personally. It seems to highlight the Trojan Times' opinion that Shipp played poorly and got away with a foul at the deciding point of the game.  

but i'm sorry, he had an awful game. he's supposed to be a senior (or junior) leader on this team, and he just didn't ever get anything going. doesn't mean he can't have a great game next week. luc had an off day also. it happens.

Two things,

The first thing is thank you for your post.  We all need to be reminded sometimes that there is more to basketball than making baskets.  Even some coaches don't know this (see Duke).

But I still feel that this post is a bit of a straw-man argument in some cases.  I don't think any intelligent Bruin (which sadly, is not always a redundant phrase) SERIOUSLY feels that Shipp does NOT contribute, or is a BAD player.  What many think is that expectations are higher for him, as a starting 5 of a national-championship-bound UCLA team.

I think Shipp is a great player when he is shooting well, and a good player when he is not.  However, we should note that the quality it takes to be on the starting 5 of a UCLA team is "great" not just "good".

I thankfully rely on BN for my Bruin news, living in Northern California.  The SF Chronicle has enough to deal with by covering the tree sitters at Memorial Stadium and whether the Ben Braun era is coming to end.  The news about UCLA picks up when the Bruins are playing Cal or Stanford, but otherwise the coverage is fairly scanty.

The LA Times was pro-$C in the late 60's and early 70's when I was at UCLA, so some things clearly never change. Just like turning down the sound, as suggested from time to time, perhaps not reading the fishwrap would be prudent.

I do think, by contrast, that the TV coverage for this game was at a higher level.  Bilas pointed out Shipp's shooting woes, but he did not call him out to be pulled or call him heartless.  

I wish that the entire BN could adopt a more rational approach.  Thanks, 66, for your usual perceptive post.

What exactly did Plaschke say that was wrong? I just read his article and what i got from it is that we are good, but we cant continue to play like we did saturday if we expect to win it all. That seems right to me.

for reminding people of all the other contributions JS makes.  It would just be a much easier road for the Bruins if he was hitting his shots.  Thanks goodness for his block, so as Fox71 pointed out we ended up with more points.  As long as they play TEAM ball, we will continue to advance.

will have a breakout game before we are done.  his patience will be rewarded!

I remember last year at this time we were all concerned regarding AA's shooting slump.  This year it is Shipp's.  Perhaps these slumps are related?  My reasoning is as follows: AA was playing masterful one on one D on our opponant's best player.  This year that role has fallen to Westbrook.  I submit that Shipp's defense has improved drastically over the course of the year.  I've watched almost every game this year and do not have a problem with JS's play.  In fact, I think he is actually a better ball player this year than last.  He has learned to play very effective team D, which is why we can lock down opponants the way we do. In all cases, I will take his focused D and intermittant offense over his offense-only play in previous years. He is working harder on D, which is probably taking energy away from his O.  At some point he will find his stroke and when he does...we will be witnesses to his evolution as a complete basketball player.

Your comments are right on.  They are not unfair bashing.  The angst stems from those who call him "useless" and "heartless".  This is unfair (and absurd) bashing.