UCLA Jumps (Over Memphis) to No. 2 in ESPN Poll

by bluestreet on Mar 3, 2008 3:42 PM PST

Bumped from the diaries. GO BRUINS. -N

UCLA cannot play offense!

UCLA's defensive intensity is not there!

UCLA cannot shoot!

UCLA should have destroyed Arizona on their Senior Day!

UCLA will not go far if they keep playing without focus.

Haters can keep on hating, but we will just keep enjoying our hoops team:

From: John Saade Photography's photostream (Flickr)

UCLA jumps Memphis in this weeks poll and is now the number 2 team in the latest ESPN poll. Here is the ESPN writeup on their poll:

UCLA (26-3) received six first-place votes in its move from fourth to second in the rankings. Memphis (28-1) also received six first-place votes in holding steady at No. 3. Also the AP poll is now out. Bruins are number 3 in AP poll (with 12 1st place votes).

Also not surprisingly Bruins are now the number 1 seed in Lunardi's bracket on ESPN.

Go Bruins!!

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.

0 recs | Comment 61 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Final Four? Not at this point

A third final four appearance in a row is always possible given our coaching staff, talent level, and style of play.

However, although our current roster is probably good enough to beat the Pac-10 teams, I am not sure how far we will go this year based on our last few games. I will cut the team a little slack based on their performance yesterday - it is late in the season, they were playing on the road, and they were playing a UA team that is on the NCAA bubble. Having said this, I give all the credit in the world to KLove, a freshman who is playing with more energy and focus than the upperclassmen, other than maybe RWestbrook.

Earlier in the season, we had games in which the defensive intensity was there for 40 minutes. This was not the case yesterday. And, offensively, we continue to struggle, especially from outside. With Mike Roll out for the year and Josh Shipp's shot and confidence having gone AWOL, it's not hard to imagine KL being double and even triple teamed come tournament time. Thankfully RW, JS,and LRMBM can slash to the basket when necessary.

I am hopeful that this team can turn it back on when it counts and hope for favorable matchups in the tournament. If not, a sweet 16 or elite 8 loss is a real possibility.

by Keith on Mar 3, 2008 11:11 AM PST 0 recs

"cutting the team slack"

for pulling out a road win in Arizona. Okay then.

by bluestreet on Mar 3, 2008 11:14 AM PST up 0 recs

Good thing the team

doesn't give a damn about Keith's judgment of their play. It still shocks me that with all that has been said and everyone who claims to agree that the Pac 10 is the most difficult conference to get through, that we still get posters that belittle an accomplishment like a particularly difficult road sweep in the desert. It also amuses me that these are the same people who dog on Shipp for not shooting enough and also got on his case earlier in the year for shooting too much and "ignoring Kevin Love". Pick a misguided complaint and stick with it please.

I'd also like to point out that the reason that we have jumped to #2 in the polls is because other top teams have had far more disturbing close calls or even losses to teams with less talent than Arizona. It is erroneous to believe that only a perfect team will make the Final Four. You have to beat 4 other teams, and every team in the country has a weakness. Last week was proof of this.

by Tydides on Mar 3, 2008 11:24 AM PST up 0 recs

You're correct

There hasn't been one team that has stood head and shoulders above the rest. Every team has a weakness. Based on our total resume, we definitely belong in the top 4 in the country. 8-1 on the road in the toughest conference in the country says something.

As far as nitpicking goes, hey, isn't that what dedicated fans do? I think we can all agree that Shipp and co. will need to be playing at a higher level on the offensive end to have a good chance of bringing home #12.

"I just think, at the end of the day, UCLA is not a great job." Brian D'Oh!n, 12/07

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 3, 2008 1:16 PM PST up 0 recs

your post is different

I agree with you. But I know you are not a bandwagoner. Its tough to take nitpicking from some folks who come across as nothing short as bandwagoners.

You have always been balanced with yours takes godblesstyus95.

by bluestreet on Mar 3, 2008 1:37 PM PST up 0 recs

Cut ME some slack

First of all, although the Pac-10 is much better this year than in the past, only two Pac-10 teams, UCLA and Stanford, have any realistic shot at an elite 8 or final four but so do the Big 12 and ACC.

Secondly, although going 2-0 on any Pac-10 road trip is nothing to be taken for granted, sweeping the Ariz. or Oregon schools this year on the road is not nearly the accomplishment it would have been is years past. HSendek has done a great job this year at ASU, but if JHarden leaves, they will back at the bottome of the Pac-10 next year. And, Arizona is 7-9 in conference this year for a reason.

Third, I have never suggested Josh Shipp should shoot less and pass more. In fact, I would rather see him shoot at least 7-8 threes per game until he gets his rhythm and confidence back. This would not and should not affect the number of touches KL should continue to get. My point is that when you watch the games, Josh is passing up 3-4 open shots that he would normally take if he was on his game. If this trend does not change, we can and should probably win the Pac-10 and be a #1 seed. But, if you think we can reach that 3rd final four in a row with Josh Shipp shooting 5-33 (16%) from 3pt range (his 3pt stats over the past 6 games), I think you are sadly mistaken.

But, don't get me wrong. I would much rather win playing BH style of basketball than ever go back to the Lavin days of semi/unorganized chaos. Although it was a lot more fun watching BDavis, EWatson, DGadzuric, MBarnes, etc. running and gunning their way to upset victories, all this got us was a bunch of Sweet 16's. So, all in all, we are on the same side - we just see the strengths and potential pitfalls a little differently.

by Keith on Mar 3, 2008 4:32 PM PST up 0 recs

Arizona State

What does Harden possibly turning pro after this season have to do with how hard the Arizona road trip is this season?

While there are only two top 10 teams in the Pac-10, WSU can easily win 3 games in a row and get themselves into the Elite 8. And that said, the toughness in the conference is the fact that there aren't really weak teames (sans Oregon State) in the conference like there are in other conferences.

by Raisin on Mar 3, 2008 4:47 PM PST up 0 recs

ASU

Harden is easily their best player and with him, ASU is only 8-8 in conference and has only beaten one team ahead of them in the standings - WSU. If you take Harden off this team this year or if he goes pro next year, ASU will be battling OSU for last place in the Pac-10.

And, WSU is 5-5 in their last ten games with 4 of those losses at home - not a team priming itself for a run at the elite 8 or beyond.

by Keith on Mar 3, 2008 5:42 PM PST up 0 recs

Ok

but how ASU is NEXT season when Harden leaves has nothing to do with THIS season, which I believe was the point of contention when you challenged the strength of the conference THIS season.

You're original point regarded how strong a sweep over the Arizona schools on the road was and that we shouldn't get overly excited so let's take a look and see what other top schools can boast back to back road wins of the quality we produced this weekend.

#1 UNC- Ohio St., Kentucky
#3 Memphis- Middle Tennessee St., Cincinnati
#4 Tennessee- Xavier, Gonzaga (in Seattle)
#5 Duke- Virginia Tech, Maryland
#6 Kansas- Have not won back to back road games

Of the top 5 teams (outside of us), only Tennessee can claim better back to back road wins than what we just pulled off this weekend. I'd say that makes what we did pretty impressive, no matter how we played because when you go on the road it's usually not going to be pretty.

A word of warning: At BN we look for thoughtful and well reasoned analysis. If you interpret facts differently and disagree with someone in that regard, nobody will be upset (except for Fox because as he likes to remind us, everyone who disagrees with him is wrong). So please bring your thoughtful and well reasoned analysis to BN because we'd love to have it, but don't come in spouting off statements of no substance. Welcome to BN.

by ryebreadraz on Mar 3, 2008 6:01 PM PST up 0 recs

Xavier and Gonzaga are good teams

But I'm not sure Gonzaga in Seattle is a match in terms of location/atmosphere for a road game compared to the trip to Arizona. I could be very wrong about this (no idea about the level of bandwagonning in Washington), but having to travel accross the state might put a damper on the Gonzaga contingent, even if it is considered a home game. So while it would definitely be a road game for Tennessee, thousands of miles from home, it isn't the homest of home games either.

In short, Tennessee beat the better teams, but I would give the pressure/coping factor edge to us.

by jaffa on Mar 3, 2008 8:02 PM PST up 0 recs

The point is

even the other top teams don't have back to back road wins like we just pulled off. Tennessee is the only team that could make a claim to it and it's arguable. What we did this weekend was impressive, no matter what Keith says.

by ryebreadraz on Mar 3, 2008 8:06 PM PST up 0 recs

Again

Not sure what the heck you are trying to do by diminishing our accomplishments. Yes Harden is a star for ASU. But they showed sign of improvements at the end of the last season.

Have you already forgotten our last year's team which struggled to beat ASU both at Pauely and in Tempe. Are you going to dismiss the accomplishments of our team last year because they struggled against an ASU team with an awful record.

Some people like you will always find a way to see the glass half empty, who only show up here to grumble, b!tch and whine.

by Nestor on Mar 3, 2008 6:03 PM PST up 0 recs

You didn't answer the question

Just like your other post where you make some assumptions against some mystery opponent that fits your argument (presumably one that has 5 7 footers and plays zone so that the only way we could win is on Josh), now we're talking about ASU without Harden? Can we win if Josh doesn't shoot? Yes. How do I know that? 5 game winning streak. That's how. Most of that streak has occurred during Josh's "slump". As long as opponents continue to respect his ability to hit an outside shot, he will be able to set up his teammates. The team that dared to give him some room (due to their zone) paid for it to the tune of 17 and 8 assists. Okay, we're more likely to win games if Josh hits 5 3's out of 5 every game. That's a no brainer. I'm talking about what he is contributing now being equally important to the success of our team as his 3 point shooting.

It's a ridiculous assertion you make that the strength of a conference is based on the number of Elite 8 or Final Four caliber teams. If that were the case, what makes Conference USA much different from the "major" conferences like the Pac 10 with "only" 2 "elite" teams? Even if Memphis had another conference rival that was "elite", if you think they still wouldn't take heat beating up on the Rice's, SMU's, East Carolina's, Tulane's, etc. of the world, then you are sadly mistaken. By contrast, only ONE of our conference teams has proven woefully inadequate out of ten. Our 9th place team (Cal) is plenty capable of handing anyone else in the league an upset. They were even considered a bubble team up to a week ago. The 9th place team! Our 8th place team (UW) actually pulled the upset off on us. And on up the list it goes. It's the depth of the conference this year that makes it so tough, and ASU and Arizona are casualties of this depth so far this year. That we're even talking about a possibility of a 9-9 team for the first time making the field of 65 is a testament to the depth I'm talking about in the middle of the conference. I would take our Arizona and ASU over a lot of other conferences' middle of the pack teams. Wake Forest or Miami in the ACC, Oklahoma or Texas Tech in the Big 12, Mississippi or LSU in the SEC, Ohio State or Minnesota in the Big 10, I would rather go on those road trips than go to the desert like we just did if I wanted to pick up a couple of wins.

Bottom line: Road sweep is big, denying this is foolish. Thursday is bigger, and we're probably going to need more Shipp. That's how the matchups go.

by Tydides on Mar 3, 2008 6:22 PM PST up 0 recs

How soon they forget!

Let's stop this incessant whining . . . UCLA clinched last year's Pac-10 title and was a possible #1 OVERALL SEED until rolling over against a bad UW team in the final regular season game and topping that off with a first round Pac-10 Tourney exit in overtime against a Cal team we had blown out 5 straight times. And the result? We drop to the #5 spot and a 2 seed, and proceed to play great ball until running into the Gators in the Final 4 (which won't happen again). And, yes, we have Love in the middle this time. I like our chances.

by charnaw on Mar 3, 2008 11:22 AM PST up 0 recs

Short memory

I think just by going to Final-4 lot of people think last two year's team were "great." But compared to last two years teams, this team has been way more steady this regular season. And this team built this 26-3 record even after getting hobbled by all those injuries.

I love how all the bandwagoners who are coming on BN to nitpick away.

by bluestreet on Mar 3, 2008 11:25 AM PST up 0 recs

Well, Keith...

...I'm going to just point out the obvious: If you really did not believe that our Bruins are headed to another Final Four, you wouldn't bother writing here at all. You go on to say that they're good enough to win the Pac-10, and then highlight some of their most obvious strengths. Well, the Pac-10 is the toughest conference in the nation week in and week out, this team is actually better in many ways than last year's, and, yes, we now have Kevin Love.

So I'm guessing that you truly are a real fan, that you do believe in our guys, and that you just need a place to vent your March stress. Every game will not be a blowout--they will have to fight for it.

Isn't that why we are fans, and why we are so proud of our heralded team? I think so.

Love My Bruins

by Bruingirl83 on Mar 3, 2008 2:00 PM PST up 0 recs

AP has us #3

And 12 first place votes (11 more than last week). Why does that #12 look so good? :)

by charnaw on Mar 3, 2008 11:23 AM PST 0 recs

Win on Thursday

as long as we win the conference and don't bomb out we'll get the #1 seed out west. That's what's on my mind right now, not what the polls say. It is nice to be loved by the nation though.

by ryebreadraz on Mar 3, 2008 11:27 AM PST 0 recs

we need

to close out this week and get 1 win in the Pac-10 tourney and then I assume we are going to be sweet shape. This unexpected jump helps though.

by bluestreet on Mar 3, 2008 11:29 AM PST up 0 recs

Yeah we're good, BUT

I hate raining on parades, but what I saw yesterday were sloppy 3's, Ok defensive rebounding, and a lack of focus. We're not going past the final four unless howland throws our players on the court to shot 300 3's before the tourney, and we have to WANT this more than any other team in the tournament.

by UCLABRU1 on Mar 3, 2008 1:02 PM PST 0 recs

tough to please

and this is from a .

by bluestreet on Mar 3, 2008 1:33 PM PST up 0 recs

I meant

That comment was TFF coming from a Dorrell fan.

by bluestreet on Mar 3, 2008 1:34 PM PST up 0 recs

A great coach once said...

"Great teams always find a way to win"

by uclaenfuego on Mar 3, 2008 3:52 PM PST up 0 recs

sunday curse

i think someone mentioned this somewhere else...but maybe our performance is indicative of some sort of sunday curse. Last time we played on Sunday, we had similar issues, no? Lets hope in the tournament we get no sunday games

by uCla on Mar 3, 2008 11:35 PM PST up 0 recs

We won't

play a Sunday game if we stay out west. The Anaheim sub-regional is a Thursday-Saturday setup and the West regional is also Thursday-Saturday. Then, the Final 4 is Saturday and National Title Game Monday.

by ryebreadraz on Mar 3, 2008 11:57 PM PST up 0 recs

thurs.-sat.

thats why we love the pac ten scheduling...we get tourney ready all year...except on those "cursed" sundays..isnt sunday a day of rest anyway...lets just scrap those games next year hah

O.A.

by Ollie on Mar 4, 2008 1:18 AM PST up 0 recs

Road Warriors

8-1 in the toughest conference in the country. That's impressive. And I think this poll is a reflection of the respect nationally for what we've done. Sweep of the bay area schools at home, and I think we lock up a 1 seed out west, no matter what happens in the Pac-10 tournament.

"I just think, at the end of the day, UCLA is not a great job." Brian D'Oh!n, 12/07

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 3, 2008 1:04 PM PST 0 recs

Lunardi's bracket

I'm a bit confused. I could have sworn that last week (and a few weeks before), the #1 seed in the west played at Omaha and #2 seed played at Anaheim, but now it's vice versa?

by LYC on Mar 3, 2008 1:11 PM PST 0 recs

It's the pod system

that was introduced a few years ago. The sub-regional sites are not tied to any region. They can be moved anywhere in the bracket to ensure the higher seeded teams can be closer to home. A team can be in the East regional and play their sub-regional in Anaheim.

by ryebreadraz on Mar 3, 2008 1:13 PM PST up 0 recs

Thanks for the clarification

by LYC on Mar 3, 2008 1:15 PM PST up 0 recs

Tournament Sites

UCLA is basically assured of playing in Anaheim for the first two rounds regardless of their seed and regardless of their region. High ranking teams get to play near home in the first two rounds. It helps with ticket sales. Stanford will probably be there too but would probably not be in the same region and we wouldn't have to worry about playing them unless both get to the final 4.

Kansas has the same advantage with playing in Omaha.

Lunardi has generally (except for last week) that those two teams will be the top 2 seeds in the West.

USC, which won't be seeded as well, won't get the Anaheim Advantage.

by mizzou on Mar 3, 2008 1:29 PM PST up 0 recs

I wouldn't quite go that far

From my understanding it's definitely not a lock (ie. 100%) that we stay out West. We have significant business to attend to this week; if Stanford were to win out, they have as much desire to stay west as us.

by bruinhopeful on Mar 3, 2008 2:20 PM PST up 0 recs

We're guaranteed to play

our sub-regional in Anaheim. There are rules on how far away a top 4 seed can play and we're all but assured of that. We may not be in the West regional though and get to go from Anaheim to Phoenix.

by ryebreadraz on Mar 3, 2008 3:00 PM PST up 0 recs

I stand corrected, thanks Rye

Where, in that case, is the worst-case regional located? Other than Phoenix, I assume you have to go way East.

by bruinhopeful on Mar 3, 2008 4:18 PM PST up 0 recs

With UNC looking like

they're going to get a #1 seed, the worst would have to be playing in the East Regional, which is in Charlotte. Playing the Tar Heels in Charlotte would be akin to playing them in Chapel Hill. If Texas were to get the #1 seed in the South, playing them in Houston would be a chore as well. The last regional is in Detroit.

by ryebreadraz on Mar 3, 2008 4:20 PM PST up 0 recs

Thanks Rye

And, "ouch" and "ouch" I suppose.

That #1 means a ton. But in March, you never know though.

by bruinhopeful on Mar 3, 2008 5:02 PM PST up 0 recs

Another thing

that people forget:

We've already played these teams once. They know what to excpect, how to gameplan better. All the other teams we meet in the tournament from now on won't have faced us before. (Unless we face another Pac-10 team, and then we know we've beaten them somwhere between 1-3 times already this year.)

by melliott2 on Mar 3, 2008 1:34 PM PST 0 recs

Also

Off the top of my head, I can only rememeber two teams, West Virginia and Florida, that we've played at least twice and failed to beat once, in the last three years.

by melliott2 on Mar 3, 2008 1:50 PM PST up 0 recs

These UCLA "fans" are something else

A few years back there were UCLA fans who wanted to celebrate a close LOSS to SC in football.

Now there are fans who whine about being rated #2 and #3 in the polls, and complain about a close road win against UA.

by bluegold on Mar 3, 2008 1:45 PM PST 0 recs

Also the same "fans"

who celebrate all that glory in Karl Dorrell.

by bluestreet on Mar 3, 2008 1:46 PM PST up 0 recs

But it's not his fault--it's the QB!!!!

(sarcasm)

by bruinhopeful on Mar 3, 2008 2:20 PM PST up 0 recs

Funny Thing Is

"UCLA cannot play offense!
UCLA's defensive intensity is not there!
UCLA cannot shoot!
UCLA should have destroyed Arizona on their Senior Day!
UCLA will not go far if they keep playing without focus."

This is the stuff I'm hearing from all these Jayhawks fans out here.

They sound SCARED to me. (Just like last year.) :)

Love My Bruins

by Bruingirl83 on Mar 3, 2008 3:03 PM PST 0 recs

we are the best team in America

That being said, it is all about effort and execution (which you do control) and matchups and streakiness( which you don't)

I hate the pac 10 tourney, because I don't like the idea of all those games together at the end of the season. I wouldn't mind if we lost early and took the time to get ready for the real tournament. Wasting so much emotional and physical energy a week before the tournament seems like a waste to me.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Mar 3, 2008 4:17 PM PST 0 recs

We take care of business

this week (sweep the Bay Area schools) and the tournament will be irrelevent for us, because I truly believe that will lock up a 1 seed in the West, and at worst a 2 seed in the West, which is essentially the same.

The tournament will be relevent for bubble teams like Arizona, Arizona St., Oregon and Cal, who will all need solid showings to have a chance to make it into the dance. With those teams having so much to play for, and us so little, I wouldn't be surprised, nor too upset, if we made an early exit in the Pac10 tourney. And, as you allude to, it may be a blessing in disguise.

"I just think, at the end of the day, UCLA is not a great job." Brian D'Oh!n, 12/07

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 3, 2008 7:34 PM PST up 0 recs

I'm not so sure

A sweep this weekend and a win in the first round of the Pac 10 tourney would make me feel secure. If we sweep then lose in the first round, I wouldn't be too sure.

by ryebreadraz on Mar 3, 2008 7:43 PM PST up 0 recs

Pretty confident

given our respect nationally, and given what happened last year when we lost in the 1st round, that a sweep, outright regular season Pac-10 title, and a 28-4 record (assuming we lose again in the 1st round) we'll be dancing as a 1 or 2 in the West, no?

Of course, I would love to see us win out and remove any shred of doubt altogether.

"I just think, at the end of the day, UCLA is not a great job." Brian D'Oh!n, 12/07

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 3, 2008 7:51 PM PST up 0 recs

The problem with losing in the 1st round

of the Pac 10 tourney is we won't be a 1 seed. Dropping to a 2 seed makes it dicey because we've had a distinct home court advantage over the #1 seed in the Elite 8 the last 2 years. The committee may ship us out to make sure the #1 seed isn't at a disadvantage over the #2 seed.

by ryebreadraz on Mar 3, 2008 7:58 PM PST up 0 recs

Guerrero

Isn't he still on that committee? ;-)

One game at a time. Got to beat the 'Furd on Thursday, and that won't be easy.

"I just think, at the end of the day, UCLA is not a great job." Brian D'Oh!n, 12/07

by godblesstyus95 on Mar 3, 2008 8:05 PM PST up 0 recs

Concur about the pac-10 tournament

especially this year given the level of competition and the grind of regular season. The only positive may be in allowing the team to work on various aspects of their game heading into the big dance.

This team isn't perfect, but 26-3, 14-2 in conference, #2 in the country is pretty impressive, especially given the injuries they endured. There are areas that need work, but this team has showed me they know how to win. They play within the Howland system. They can grind with anyone and will be focused come tournament time. Staying focused and not becoming complacent after going to two consecutive final fours is an accomplishment. If any team can make it three in a row, my money is on the bruins. Klove is the missing piece and can matchup with anyone. I like our chances and can't wait for the real tourney to start.

by Bruins095 on Mar 3, 2008 5:17 PM PST 0 recs

We'll be alright

I see that Keith's comments started a firestorm of discussion here. I think that's a good thing, though I don't necessarily agree with his POV.

Frankly although the UA game was not our best performance I cut the guys some slack. Every team has ups and downs in performance over the course of the regular season. Pac-10 being a 18 game round robin grind - that's going to happen to anyone. Frankly I'm more interested in how we do vs. Stanford (I expect us to win that one).

Bruins have historically been a team that gets up for big games, and I think our guys will be up for this years tournament. Thankfully no Florida Gators team that matched up well against us exists any longer, and I think we match up well vs. many of the other powers, even Kansas.

I'd say our 3 keys to success in March are (in order of importance)

Lockdown "D" (particulary perimeter defense). 3 point flurries from a hot team can overcome great man-to-man execution. Our guys really need to switch from doubles and read screens quickly to do so (remember Lee Humphrey killing us in last years FF game?). 40 minutes of defensive intensity, no lapses for stretches of time.
Feeding the ball to Love and getting him involved. You all saw the UA game, esp. the second half and know how important he is. Nuff said.
Perimeter (not just 3pt.) shooting. I think DC, JS, and RW will be there in March, they may not shoot 80% but if one or two of the three drain clutch shots, we'll be okay.

I had Keith's trepidations last year, and I was freaked out before we faced Kansas in last year's Regional Final in SJ. Was at the game and was completely wound up, weary of Kansas. What happened? DC and JS showed up and made clutch shots even though AA had a bad shooting night. We won, and pretty well in the end. Their confidence carried them through.

I say if we do #1 and one of the other two we'll be okay and make it to the Final this year.

Winning it? If we're clicking we do it.

GO BRUINS!

by Saracen on Mar 3, 2008 7:05 PM PST 0 recs

Afflalo vs KU

Actually, Arron had his best game of the tournament against KU. He went 10/15 shooting and hit 3/7 treys. Shipp only went 2/7 but had that huge three pointer at the end of the first half.

by Raisin on Mar 3, 2008 7:42 PM PST up 0 recs

Afflalo

Your are spot on Raisin. Good memory. I stand corrected.

I mixed up my memory of AA vs KU, with AA vs. Pitt (the game right before in the tournament). He was 3-11 from the field that game and was off, but kept getting fouled on drives to the hoop and making his FT's. What a Rock.

What's funny about that game was that JS's 3 pointer was one of 3(?) Bruins 3's that went up and in as the shot clock was going down, and those were just daggers to KU.

Exhausting game to watch!

Anyways, we don't have to be stellar from 3, we just need to make those clutch shots when we have to. I think this year's team can step it up and do so when they have to. DC definitely can.

by Saracen on Mar 3, 2008 9:32 PM PST up 0 recs

In case anyone disagrees re: Lee Humphrey,

He went 4-8 on threes in both 2006 and 2007. I think all of them that left may have actually been smarter than they appear: they realize a 3 point sharpshooter like Humphrey can be really key, putting the team over the top. He was going, so they had to go, or be exposed as a lot less than everybody seemed to think they were.

by jaffa on Mar 3, 2008 7:49 PM PST up 0 recs

I'm impressed, but also shocked.

The focus on basketball in general, and the upcoming games in particular, is very impressive. Great insights and analysis.

But I have to say that the focus is so overly narrow that it's shocking and not just a little bit disappointing. I really expected a little more from my Bruin brothers. Not one comment on the picture at the top of this diary. I guess it's again time for us Geezers to explain that there is more to life than basketball. Guys, wake up! Those are some of the best looking women in the history of the world, and not even one comment?!?

by Fox 71 on Mar 3, 2008 8:58 PM PST 0 recs

As an FG

(fellow geezer), my input may not address your shock. Upon gazing appreciatively at the photo, my comment is this:

I wasn't aware that there WAS a comments section.

by Bruinut on Mar 4, 2008 1:20 PM PST up 0 recs

reminicient of my current facebook picture

Though I have to admit that the above photo has a much better zoom and quality than I could get from the 300-level of Pauley.

by bruinhoo on Mar 4, 2008 10:17 PM PST up 0 recs

Bluestreet, First off

I stand by my comments. Not only did we manage to save money from Dorrell going to the chiefs, Dorrell will always be a class act in my eyes. Regardless of his record, he is still a Bruin, and was on the same team Slick Rick was throwing to in that great rose bowl win. And yeah I was also pushing for Norm Chow and Rick anyway. I still respect Dorrell as a UCLA alum, and a great athlete and competitor. Our 3's are sloppy and we're not going to be very successful in the tournament unless we improve on them. So yeah, I'm a Dorrell fan, Sorry if I like to root for bruins no matter where they end up.

by UCLABRU1 on Mar 4, 2008 12:52 PM PST 0 recs

BRU1 with the Minority View.

CTS was a bad coach and a bad leader. The numbers show that. Some of the deeds he did (reported here at length) show that he needs to work on his "Mensch" game, too. To me, he wore out whatever cachet he had as a former player with some of the stunts he pulled, culminating of course with his desperate use of the claim of racism.

I am fairly confident that is the Majority View, at least here at the BN. I doubt if either of us will convince the other to change his mind. And now that CTS is gone, I really am not inclined to continue any debate about him.

You get as many last words on CTS as you want.

by Fox 71 on Mar 4, 2008 1:11 PM PST up 0 recs

I'll start off by saying

This debate is beating a dead horse. "In my opinion", you can't say Karl Dorrell didn't have the heart. It was his alma mater, he took the job under different circumstances at a pay that is hardly reasonable in a town with tremendous football talent.

I was very passionate about the new coaching hire, and if you want to read some of them head over to dumpdorell.com and you can read a great website that had nothing to do with personally attacking Karl Dorrell, but wanted to see a change.

So as i'll reiterate for the 3rd time, I see no reason why I can't wish an alum who tried his best with what he had to work with, it unfortunately didn't cut it.

Case and Point:
Our 3's suck, and we're not going to win the tournament against teams that average over 50% outside the perimeter, especially in those last second games. I believe, and "the majority" believe this needs to be worked on because we CAN make 3s.

by UCLABRU1 on Mar 5, 2008 5:49 PM PST 0 recs

Really?

I guess we might as well not go to the tournament then. You know, in case we run up against a team that averages over 50% outside the perimeter. I mean, what's the point, we're going to lose anyway, right? Teams that shoot over 50% won't necessarily do so against UCLA. We play pretty good defense, in case you hadn't noticed.

And you are way, way off about Karl Dorrell. He did not "try his best with what he had to work with", that is quite possibly the most inaccurate statement ever made to sum up his tenure, unless you are talking about his brain when you say "what he had to work with". He turned out to be a stubborn, unimaginative coach who REFUSED to look at what he had to work with and was forever married to a system which he really didn't quite understand, instead of molding his system to the type of players he had on his team.

Finally, it's "Case in point", not "Case and Point".

by tasser10 on Mar 5, 2008 10:15 PM PST up 0 recs