Ben Ball News & Notes
Our Ben Ball warriors jump in the polls is predictably the lead story in the LAT’s UCLA report. In addition Pucin also attempts to cover the story of man biting dog. In other words she spent few sentences to report on Packer’s tomfoolery on national TV:
Howland answered Packer the same way he began his post-game media conference after the Arizona win, praising Shipp for his game-long effort at getting the ball inside to center Kevin Love, who scored 24 points and had 15 rebounds.
Howland also said Shipp was being too unselfish when he passed the ball to guard Russell Westbrook in the last 20 seconds. Shipp is an 83.6% foul shooter, though he missed three free throws early in the game; Westbrook shoots 70.8% from the line. Westbrook missed one of his two free throws, leaving UCLA with a 68-65 advantage but allowing Arizona the opportunity to tie or win the game.
"I always want Josh shooting foul shots at the end of game, Josh or Darren [Collison]," Howland said. "I was like, 'Josh, I always want you to shoot the foul shots.' I want Josh getting fouled, always, to close out a game."
First, it is amusing to hear all the cackle about Shipp needing to shoot more after hearing the early season drone about how Shipp was shooting too much (and yes I was one of those people who at times thought Shipp sometimes forced it a little too much early in the season). If anything Shipp right now is playing within control, taking shots within the flow of the game. Does he needs to work on his defense? Sure he does. However, people who never have any kind of perspective or lose sight of the big picture by whining how he is not like the Shipp we all saw in his freshman year will never take into account how the kid is coming off two hip surgeries.
Second, it is comical on the part of clowns like Packer to criticize Shipp passing up his shots, when he was doing the right thing in the second half by always looking to go to Kevin Love down low. Earlier in the season we heard all the BS about how JS/KL were having chemistry issues. Yet there we were on Saturday, with lead for Pac-10 on the line, Shipp and his team-mates were constantly looking for Love downlow.
So WTF? When Shipp shoots a lot we hear the whine he shoots too much but when he is doing the right thing, playing within the flow of the game, looking for KL down low, he is not shooting enough? I mean these observations that your hear from clowns like Packer and then being parroted by arm chair coaches are beyond asinine.
Anyways, thanks to JS and his team-mates doing the right thing – looking for KL all second half – the big fella was able to carry the team. He also happened to be one of the players of the week in WWL’s "Weekly Watch":
GO BRUINS.
41 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Two more observations....
I hope Texas is the # 2 seed in the West so we have a chance to exact some revenge!!
Go Bruins!!
If we get Texas, I hope it is in a regional
Packer Actually Said . . .
It is a legitimate point that our team is harder to defend when we force the opponent to worry about our outside shooting as well as our inside game. But as usual, Packer overstates the case so much that he makes a fool of himself.
Packer's point is rather dumb
I hope LMR takes advantage of the extra minutes he should be getting Thursday.
wrt the Lopez Twins
Packer = Expert Witness
The ONLY qualification for being an expert witness is exactly the same as the ONLY qualification for being a TV color man: Someone has to hire you. Once you're hired, voila -- you're an expert on whatever subject you say you know a lot about. You can say whatever stupid thing you want, and it doesn't matter, you're an expert so it's weighty and makes others rub their chin and say, "Hmm, you know, I hadn't thought about that." Well, as Packer found out from Coach Howland, just saying you're an expert doesn't mean you are in fact an expert.
(During the off season, it would be interesting to post stories about the stupidest expert you've ever deposed.)
Unethical Witness
You Said It
Disillusionment
The bulk of my early practice was on behalf of poor people -- as an attorney with CRLA. When I taught, I did a substantial amount of pro bono work.
In every state in which I practiced, power was given great deference and respect by the judges -- poverty was not. A righteous case on behalf of a poor person was not treated in the same manner as a case betweeen wealthy behemoths.
As both a trial consultant and trial lawyer, I've been in most every state. The pattern is universal.
While doing criminal defense work I soon learned that there is not constituency that favors a "fair trial" for one accused of a crime. Judges are free to be total pro-prosecution jerks, at the expense of allowing the prosecution to ignore Constitutional and procedural guarantees -- because, who's going to stand up against them? After all, they all want to run on the "tough on crime" platform. Who cares if they convict a few innocent people?
The corruption of the criminal justice system by politicians who run for DA and judge on the "tough on crime" platform is nowhere more appaling than in Houston -- where the prosecutors have put more people on death row than anywhere else in the country. Problem is, they did it with fabricated or corrupt "scientific evidence". In the last few years, we've been freeing death row inmates who were clearly innocent. Of course, we can't free those who were already executed.
On the walls of the Justice Department, in DC, is the saying: The United States wins its case when justice is done.
Our system is so perverted that that saying is being ignored. Prosecutors view a conviction, a notch in their briefcases as the standard -- not a fair trial or justice. That is wrong and it sickens me.
And, you don't want to get me started telling stories about how real corruption -- money going to judges either directly, through supporters or through campaign contributions has affected cases I've worked on.
Lately, my "pro bono" work has included working with some top notch US Attorneys in one of my favorite southern states -- putting corrupt politicians, the kind that takes money for "favors" in jail. Some day I'd like to shine that same beam on the bench.
As I get older and more experienced, I see the simple wisdom in WC Field's statement: "In the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls."
I have loved the law since my first day in law school, when trembling I stood up to recite, only to be told how stupid I was. I loved it so much I taught it for many years, and I cannot seem to break away from it -- even though I have competing interests.
I truly look forward to the change in values that will bring in an Attorney General, prosecutors and judges who worship the law more than they worship power. I know that day will come. I just hope I'm around when it does.
Interesting, but...
Also, I won't even pretend to have the experience or wisdom you have, especially when it comes to the law.
But that being said, saying "[p]rosecutors view a conviction, a notch in their briefcases as the standard -- not a fair trial or justice. That is wrong and it sickens me" is kind of an unfair generalization of my chosen vocation.
I mean, I certainly don't disagree that there are certain places where prosecutorial misconduct, racial bias, etc. runs rampant. But not every prosecutor thinks that way.
I just wanted to throw that thought out there. And while I know you want "prosecutors and judges who worship the law more than they worship power," don't worry, that day is coming much sooner than you realize.
Trust us young folks. I promise we won't screw up the world. Or, if we do, well, uhh, at least UCLA will still be the greatest university in the world.
You are absolutely right. I overgeneralized.
Prosecutors have the power to do justice -- the have tremendous discretion and the ability to control how the law is enforced at the street level. They decide who gets charged and with what they are charged. Defense lawyers follow the parade with a shovel. I've done a lot of criminal defense work and know I would have been more effective had I been the prosecutor rather than the defense attorney.
There are many good prosecutors and I've worked with them. I've worked with one of the US Attorneys who left the job during the Gonzalez machinations. His apparent sin? Prosecuting corrupt Republican politicians.
I have always said that my ideal job was to be the United States Attorney in a major city. Once, while I was teaching, I was asked if I wanted to be nominated for that post. I didn't and the job went to one of my colleagues.
I apologize to for my overly broad strokes.
But, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I was yearning for a return of justice to the Justice department.
No need to apologize
Ironically, I'm currently assigned to the organized crime section at a U.S. Attorney's Office (gotto love that RICO)
I really think it's unfortunate that the political machinations at the top-level of the Justice Department have done much to undermine public confidence in our federal prosecutors.
I don't have a lot of experience, but, for what it's worth, in my measly two years of working (and by working, I mean to say, for no pay and no academic credit . . . the joy of being a law student) for the Justice Department and a District Attorney's Office, I've never met a prosecutor with questionable integrity, honesty, or sense of justice.
Perhaps that speaks well of the local bar, or perhaps, I've just been incredibly fortunate (or incredibly naïve for the cynical out there).
From the admittedly little I've seen though, it seems like that while things aren't exactly up to par back in D.C., the line-level AUSAs and DDAs I've worked with and for have been incredibly fair, honest, and just.
And as for me? Don't worry, I promise not to suppress any exculpatory evidence or exclude jurors on the basis of race.
And as for you, after November, there might be a lot of U.S. Attorney posts open. Should dust off the old resume.
Very Interesting Discussion Here!
Perception
That's the public perception, as far as I have been able to tell in 34 years as a lawyer. We laugh when we hear the same lawyer jokes told over and over. And the problem is that there is a grain of truth in the lawyer jokes, and that's what makes the jabs hurt just a little.
Steve identified one group of problems - a corrupt judiciary and corrupt members of the bar on the prosecution side. There are similar problems throughout the system. I remember coming back from my first trial - a court trial that was taken under submission. The boss asked where I had been and I told him. When I told him what judge I had drawn, he asked whether I was representing a plaintiff or a defendant. When I told him a defendant, he told me to start ordering the record, because that particular judge had NEVER ruled in favor of a defendant EVER. So my first trial was my first loss. That was also my first appeal, and was my first win on appeal.
That sort of justice on the civil side has existed as long as I have been a lawyer. And of course there are the stories of how the "trial lawyers" fight contribute so much money to so many legislators that the laws end up getting skewed in favor of plaintiffs. (Apparently the "trial lawyers" didn't like the fact that defense attorneys also tried cases, so they changed their name to "consumer attorneys" a decade or so ago. But I don't like that either - I'm a consumer. And I have represented consumers, but I digress.)
But it's not just contributions to legislators. I have no first hand knowledge of this, but there are stories floating around about a particular lawyer contributes the maximum to the re-election campaign of EVERY judge, just to make sure that no matter who he draws, it will be one of his friends.
Steve, your perception of injustice is something that you saw with your own eyes, and is something that is wrong with the system. The other side of that coin, of course, is the most famous trOJan of them all who is living comfortably in my new home state instead of finalizing his appeals before he gets the aisle seat in the smokehouse, as the old saying used to go.
It's too late for me. I'm half-retired. It's time for the young guys to make noise. One thing - take umbrage at lawyer jokes. Ask the joker whether he wants to represent himself when he's wrongfully arrested, or wrongfully sued, or has been hurt by someone's negligence, or when he wants to leave his estate to his heirs in a particular way. Another thing for you young guys - call out your adversary when he or she tries to pull a fast one. And the toughest of all - call out the judge. (Frankly, I would do that anonymously unless I was serious about getting out of the law business.)
OK, my steam of consciousness is over. (And I think I started this because I was reminded of an expert who said that no throwable rocks should be left within throwing distance of any road because of the likelihood that it would be thrown at a car. I had to take the depo at his home/office, and sure enough, he had throwable things on his front porch, which he could have thrown at my car.)
Oh, I wish...
Not that I would, but boy, I wish public service was rewarded a bit more, at least financially.
Then again, I didn't get into this kind of stuff for the money.
But, back to the subject, your points are well taken on this youngin'.
Then again, my only client is the People and neither personal injury nor estate planning are my strong suits (or so my grades would indicate).
Lessons from My Very First Court Appearance
My farmworker client had had his car taken by a lendor for alleged non-payment of an unrelated debt. The taking clearly violated a recent US Supreme Court case. I went to court over-prepared with a brief and case citations.
The case was called, I argued my heart out -- just as I had in Moot Court Competitions.
The other lawyer got up, said "Your honor, that's a US Supreme Court case, and you know what we think of them here." He then sat down.
I got up for my rebuttal, and the judge and other lawyer walked out of the courtroom in the middle of my first sentence.
I was stunned and said "May the record indicate that the judge is walking out of the courtroom .... " only to realize that the court reporter had gone with them.
I had with me a great community worker -- a young man named Ruben Rodriguez. (CRLA hired locals to guide us misplaced out-of-towners and to be the bond between our office and the community; they also did a ton of advocacy work.). This was his first time in court with me. He just looked up at me with a knowing smile and drove me back to Madera. (Ruben, who died far too young, was always my hero. He had the courage to work and organize in Madera and be a part of our program -- even though he was stigmatized for life by doing so. Unfortunately, he suffered a stroke in his late thirties and died a few years later. His brother, Armando became a judge in Fresno. His nephew David, a lawyer. I lost track with them more than 30 years ago, but am pleased to honor his memory here.)
It took two years to reverse that ruling. But, I did. I still remember the client's name and every bit of that moment.
Over the years since then, I've gotten a bit more experience. Although no one has walked out on me, I've been in courtrooms where justice had departed years before.
I do work on both sides of the bar -- plaintiffs and defendants are my clients. And, I've seen prejudice cut both ways.
Fox is right. Part of the problem is the money flowing to judges and the lack of integrity on the part of the judges who take it -- either unofficially or as "campaign contributions". Both the plaintiff and defense bar have made solid investments.
There is also geographic prejudice. You don't want to come into some parts of Texas, to try a case, without associating a local lawyer. I call them "due process" mannequins. They do nothing and charge a lot. But, if you don't use them, you get home towned.
I once had a Texas lawyer ask me to be a mannequin in a CA court. I told him that he didn't need me -- that the CA courts were not that way. I was proud to do that.
My strong sense, having been in courts in almost all of the states (mostly as a litigation consultant), is that the great divide in the system is one based on class, not race. I believe that the rich do better than the poor. I think justice is easier to achieve in commercial fights between to big companies UNLESS one of those companies is local and weilding political power. I also think class explains the OJ verdict. I could write about it forever, did a lot of research on it and ALMOST sold a made for TV movie based upon the concept of doing the trial over, this time with a competent prosecution team. (The story of that pitch, at Showtime, and what happened in the room to a "sure thing" is one that I'll never forget. I once thought about creating a producers' anthology of "what went wrong during my pitch" stories ... but that was years ago.)
Ah, the memories of an old man who is pleased to retain some memories.
Yes, this is all off topic, but not really.
There are Billy Packers in all walks of life, including on the bench. And, it is up to us to all be Ben Howlands and "call bullshit" on the posers.
National Media Guys
That said, I am not all that upset about Packer. National Media guys are WAY LESS informed about specific teams then people like us. They do games every week, and thus they have only the week to prepare for the game, interview coaches, etc. In this case, Packer was doing research for our game most likely starting Monday--and his game comments would have been more on point except that Shipp had a great shooting game against ASU (was Packer watching??). Even so, one game doesn't necessarily mean a shooter is home free, so Packer continued to focus on Shipp. Remember, the talk was all about Shipp for two weeks before the ASU / Arizona weekend, so you have to expect national guys to pick up on that and run with it.
Anyway, every rabid college basketball fan in the United States can generally take issue with national media coverage of his or her team. It's just impossible to expect national media guys to know the team like a rabid fan, and it's easy to criticize national coverage from the rabid fan perspective. In some ways, however, National media's job is to cover a game or team to those parts of the U.S. which doesn't closely follow a certain team or conference. And, I don't think Packer was wrong to focus on Shipp in that respect--since I think Shipp was the biggest inside-UCLA story over the preceeding two weeks. I do think Packer could have recognized Shipp's contributions other than shooting--but that is usually missed by our local guys--so it's tough to expect Packer to do it. That's also why its so great Coach Howland educated America on Shipp, because he does know the team better than anyone, especially Packer.
Anyway, interesting thread.
Re: Packer
A huge key
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 4, 2008 12:21 PM PST reply actions
Agreed...
Lopez family
didn't he say that it was like
Packer is a hater. He was looking for a story. Shipp is a good player, and I could see him getting on the all conference team next year. Sure he didn't play a perfect game, but the team won.
The 4 on 5 comment was total BS, Shipp contributed a lot more than Kirk Walters who froze up on the last chance for Zona. How many points did his man Jawan Mclealan score?
by stephons on Mar 4, 2008 12:43 PM PST reply actions
It's a bit unrelated...
I found it a bit ironic that when you run WWL's NBA Lottery Mock Draft on the default setting (so that the teams draft based on where they currently stand), OJ2 ends up on LA's second-tier team.
To compare: Farmar was the face of a resurgent UCLA program. OJ2 was supposed to be the face of a "resurgent" U$C program, that well, will be enjoying the NIT (then again, I suppose that the NIT is resurgent by their standards).
Farmar ended up with the winning franchise, the team with titles hanging from the rafters.
OJ2 could end up with the bottom-feeders, the standard for futility in pro-basketball.
Rather fitting. Hope it comes true.
(Except for the part with the Blazers taking RW at #13...one more year RW, please!)
Some of us
The Clippers--riding out a little injury bump this year, what's new--will have a very high draft pick and will be looking for a shooting guard or PG. This weekend we got to see Mayo, Harden, Bayless, Westbrook, and Collison all in one weekend. The guy most likely to stick around is probably Harden, because he wasn't on the radar at all at the beginning of the year. Westbrook has climbed above Collison on most charts, and Bayless has moved past Mayo.
Having Farmar and Ariza on the Lakers is pretty fun.
by zhivooden on Mar 4, 2008 3:15 PM PST up reply actions
Agree, but disagree...
What I mean to say though, and I think what other posters here on BN have meant, is that LA, in terms of basketball, is a town divided.
There's UCLA and the Lakers. The successful program/franchise, with storied histories, Hall of Fame players and coaches, past and present, championship banners hanging from the ceiling.
Again, I certainly agree that not all Bruin fans are Lakers fans. I'm sure many Bruins love the Lakers, while many others love the Clippers, or Warriors, or, God forbid, the Kings. Likewise, I'm sure many of us love the A's or Dodgers, or, despite better judgment, the Giants or Angels.
But when it comes to basketball in LA, UCLA and the Lakers are the standard of success, while justsc and the Clips are, well, you know...
Then there's U$C and the Clippers. The symbols of futility. The teams that celebrate for just making it into the NCAA Tourney/NBA playoffs. Where standards are low. Where it's rare to be the top team in town. Very rare.
Oops...
I probably should clarify that I don't want to lump Lakers fans and UCLA fans together. I agree with you on that. I myself am a loyal, bleeds blue-and-gold Bruin that supports the Warriors. Not every Bruin is a Kobe-lover. I know that.
What I mean to say though, and I think what other posters here on BN have meant, is that LA, in terms of basketball, is a town divided.
There's UCLA and the Lakers. The successful program/franchise, with storied histories, Hall of Fame players and coaches, past and present, championship banners hanging from the ceiling.
Then there's U$C and the Clippers. The symbols of futility. The teams that celebrate for just making it into the NCAA Tourney/NBA playoffs. Where standards are low. Where it's rare to be the top team in town. Very rare.
Again, I certainly agree that not all Bruin fans are Lakers fans. I'm sure many Bruins love the Lakers, while many others love the Clippers, or Warriors, or, God forbid, the Kings. Likewise, I'm sure many of us love the A's or Dodgers, or, despite better judgment, the Giants or Angels.
But when it comes to basketball in LA, UCLA and the Lakers are the standard of success, while justsc and the Clips are, well, you know...
Interesting that
by UCLAMD89 on Mar 4, 2008 9:14 PM PST up reply actions
I was thinking the same thing...
I do suspect, though, that both Kevin and DC will be considered first rounders, albeit in the later half of the first round.
I really hope someone convinces KL to come back next year to improve his draft stock. If RW stays too for another year of seasoning, we'll have the exact same squad, minus the beloved LMR.
Imagine that, with the new Fab Four coming in next year. Wow. Talk about depth.
KL, LRMAM, JS, RW, DC to start.
Roll, AA2, Keefe, Stanbeck, Jrue, Malcolm Lee, Gooden, and Jerime on the bench.
Would there be any team even close to being as deep?!
Assuming everyone stays and only LMR graduates (and I recognize that's a HUGE assumption), would that situation even be possible? Would it be a scholarship problem? What happen to our current "extra guys" like Abdul-Hamid, Robinson, etc.?
Not Enough Scholarships
I believe that guy will be KLove.
It's not that I don't think he has a reason to stay here because I do, but as far as improving draft stock, NBA teams draft on potential and athleticism, and I can't see another year changing that for Kevin. He would have a more NBA ready body, but he will be behind the same amount of freakish athletes and leapers who don't have even a fraction of Kevin's skill/smarts and who will struggle to get past their first contracts while Kevin goes on to have a solid and lengthy NBA career.
Assuming...
Would CBH really start Jrue over either DC, RW, or JS?
I certainly agree KL is the most likely departure. But with LMR leaving too and only Gooden coming in, we're going to be lacking in size up front again. Not that I doubt LRMAM and AA2, but neither is a true C, both much more suited to playing the 4.
I could certainly see a smoother transition if KL stayed, RW or DC left, which would keep us steady up front, while opening a starting spot for Jrue.
Just some thoughts/questions.
I know what you're saying
It's be fun to watch...
We're really going to need AA2 to pick up his game next year and cut down on the bad fouls. I suspect, if KL does leave, he's going to be indispensible to our ability to shut down opposing big men.
Not that I think it's too much of a cause for concern (I trust CBH will always come up with a game plan to win, no matter who we play, and no matter who we have on the floor).
I'm excited to have another for-sure FOY wearing those magical four letters next year. There's no way a kid with Jrue's talent will waste it (like OJ2) under the guiding hand of CBH.
To change gears though, the rich are getting richer. We're considered a solid 1 or 2 seed and we're bringing in the top recruiting class.
Order has been restored to the universe, indeed.
That would pose a scholarship issue
Basically, we need one player to either enter the draft, or transfer. I would rather not see anyone transfer (Drago or Stanback are the only ones that would make any sense re. eligibility) due to the massive outflux of players that I forsee after the 08-09 season (Aboya, Luc and Shipp graduate; Westbrook and Jrue Holiday likely declare, as would DC/Love, it either/both were to stay). That would leave us with 7 returning scholarship players in '09 (Drago, Keefe, Roll, Stanback, Anderson, Gordon, and Lee).
Abdul-Hamid, Robinson, etc are fine no matter the scholarship situation. As walk-ons, the scholarship limits that could affect the team if no one leaves early won't have any affect on them other than the possibility of even fewer minutes for the walk-on guards.
If it happens
If you DON'T think Packer is a stiff
Packer has company
Bill Packer Ruins March Madness
I think Josh Shipp is a great player, but I would have liked to have seen him take Buddinger off the dribble. Josh is so creative, that he could have made Buddinger work on defense more, would have gotten himself to the free throw line, and the Bruins would not have had such a small margin of error at the end. Also, by beating Buddinger, Love's man would have to contest the drive, leaving Love open underneath for a pass or a rebound.
That being said, a win is a win. It was an exciting, although sloppy game, and the Bruins are back near the top of the polls. My only real concern is that if this choppy play happens during the tournament, somebody will make the last second miracle shot, and we'll go home. I would absolutely hate that.
Collison and Love continue to carry the team. Collison's outside shooting and Love's consistent scoring and rebounding, are indispensable to winning. Actually, without everyone's contributions, Mbah a Moute's defense and rebounding, and RW's lock down defense and consistent offensive contributions, the team would not be successful. Team is spelled UCLA, and I love those guys. Thank God for Ben Howland.
Packer vs. Musberger
Musberger can head down some rocky roads and get a little nutty--his main goal always seems to be to maintain enthusiasm, which isn't such a bad thing in an announcer--but he seems to be the opposite of Packer when it comes to the Bruins. My impression is that his respect for UCLA, Howland, and Bruin history is quite genuine, and he appreciates a good Bruin team and will give them credit. And in general he won't go out of his way to nitpick, find holes in the Bruins' game, and side with the opponent on calls... which is the problem with the annoying Billy Packer.
Somehow I forget about how horrible Packer is until the beginning of March, and then all of a sudden the fingernails are scratching down the blackboard all over again...
by zhivooden on Mar 4, 2008 3:25 PM PST reply actions
Kevin Love - Pac-10 POY
Player of the Year: Kevin Love, UCLA. Why do the Bruins have a chance to win it all this year, as opposed to hitting a brick wall in the Final Four? Because they finally have a low-post hoss who can score, rebound, defend, pass and force other teams to play UCLA honestly. Those who thought Love was an overrated Great White Hope have been proven double-double wrong.

by 



















