No more one and dones

by uclahy on Apr 18, 2008 6:20 PM PDT

I am happy for Kevin Love and his future in the NBA. No criticism or regrets about his effort, spirit or personal contributions. He was great in every way, but the whole concept of these one and doners leaves a sour taste in my mouth even though K Love's situation was the best possible good example of a one and doner. He was classy in every way.

But is this what we want as our program, UCLA? Just keep reloading fantastic one and doners and say, wow, what a great college we have when in fact we're really just a revolving door, minor league player development league for the NBA?

I mean, how many classes does a one and doner have to take before he moves on the pros? Two quarters worth, maybe? How many units is that? 20% of what's needed to graduate? A guy's on campus barely 7 months and he's a "UCLA" legend? I don't know.

I just don't like it. To me, it takes the student out of student athlete. These guys are just marking time, going through the motions. Yeah, I'm gonna finish my degree. Of course, I'm gonna make a few million dollars before I get around to doing it, and yeah, I have over three years of classes to take, part time, and I haven't even picked a major yet, but yeah, I'm gonna do that. Sometime. Someday. Really.

Star Trek teaches us that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. Look what is happening to our "team" and with it the team concept.

Two players are already gone, two more are on the verge and our only salvation is that we hope our new recruits will be so good we can just reload, throw UCLA on ther shirts, and we have another UCLA "team." Of course, if they're really good enough to take us back to the Final Four next year they'll all probably be one and done, too. And we can recruit more "UCLA" one and doners. Great, right?

And then we can hang a banner high, number 12, that says UCLA for sure, and say we're Number 1, but of what? Something we still call "college" basketball when our players don't even stay long enough to get an AA degree?

Funny, in this last tournament, Western Kentucky and Drake and Xavier and all those other mid majors reminded me a lot more of the old John Wooden teams I worshipped than any team that just relies on some big one and doner. And I don't think the Pyramid of Success includes cutting corners, recruiting hot shot one and doners, and doing whatever it takes to get to the pinnacle.

I remember something about success being the self-satisfaction of knowing you've done your best, as a team and as a person, and not just winning at all costs.

Call me old fashioned. Some will call me naive. College sports is Big Business. Fine, but the emphasis should still be more on college than money, right? Can't we win with men that really want a degree? Or even more important, wouldn't we be prouder if we had teams that really were teams and not just a short stop for some guy on the way to his "one and doner's" road to personal riches and fame?

Can BH or any college coach only win the big one by sacrificing the school's integrity? We can only win it all with lottery picks? If so, I'd rather not, thank you.

Just food for thought.

Go Bruins!

0 recs | Comment 51 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

go root for Western Kentucky then

Don't hang around here and root for UCLA hoops.

by Nestor on Apr 18, 2008 6:33 PM PDT 0 recs

Great, more uneducated BS from uclahy

by Tydides on Apr 18, 2008 6:50 PM PDT 0 recs

Yeap

Not the first time he put up a BS diary.

by Nestor on Apr 19, 2008 9:13 AM PDT up 0 recs

Hy has a point, sort of

We are in a way a victim of our Coach's success in developing players. Guys who would not necessarily be one and done elsewhere get recruited by a great coach, and because the great coach has recruited guys of great character, he teaches them their trade so well that they become very attractive draft choices.

So we can't say we won't draft one-year wonders, because Coach Howland is just too good a teacher. I don't like the constant turnover either, but it's something we have to live with. I would much rather have short term guys of good character (something we can depend on with Coach Howland) even if they might not be as good as someone like Huggins or Calimari might go after.

by Fox 71 on Apr 18, 2008 6:51 PM PDT 0 recs

"CBH, Stop doing your job so well"

CBH, we want you to win...but do it without the most talented players in the country because they MIGHT leave after their first year...or their second year...or their third year.

His job is to build a team that represents our school, does well academically (Team GPA over 3.0. Check.), and to help his players develop and put the team in the best possible position to win some games. This is CBH's second "one and done" player in the past 5 years, and the first one he himself recruited.

I thought it was bad when we had the spoiled UCLA fan talking about how only titles are acceptable, but this is so much worse. Apparently it's not enough for some people that we run a clean and successful program with quality recruits, now CBH has to do it with lesser talent because of some random fan's interpretation of what college should mean to every college student.

by Tydides on Apr 18, 2008 7:38 PM PDT up 0 recs

Maybe we should have a height limit

No one over 6'0" would be allowed. It can't be too much higher - we won banner no. 1 with a starting line-up of 6'0", 6'1", 6'3" and two at 6'5".

But even with that sort of restriction, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we weren't having this same debate next year.

by Fox 71 on Apr 18, 2008 7:42 PM PDT up 0 recs

I am in favor of your height limit

but mostly because I have four years of eligibility left and I am under 6 feet so my chances of wearing the four letters would go from none to virtually impossible.

by Tydides on Apr 18, 2008 7:55 PM PDT up 0 recs

worthwhile

not sure where the line is between constructive and deconstructive criticism on the state of Bruin Hoops, but I share a lot of Hy's meanderings... mostly about where this leaves us... all of us college hoops fans, UCLA notwithstanding where calling a kid a student athlete is concerned.

A student athlete can drop the "student" at at will and pennies fall from heaven... but if she drops the "athlete", what happens again?

GO BRUIN BLUE.

by theREAL_LOGAN5 on Apr 19, 2008 6:30 PM PDT up 0 recs

I respectfully disagree, uclah

As much as I'd like to see Love hang around and give UCLA hoops another strong year (or two or three), he has the right to make a decision.

I'm sure that I'm not the first person to post this idea, but it's not like athletes are the only people at UCLA who go to college to make money. Aside from people who plan on becoming professors, most people go to college as a road to a career. We wouldn't rip on a business student who does not earn an MBA because he or she found a more lucrative opportunity elsewhere.

If I ruled the world, I would be tempted to make the NBA and NFL require college degrees so athletes have something to fall back upon if their pro careers fizzle out.

But that would ignore the fact that some players might get injured in college, costing them their scholarships and potential pro careers. Additionally, some athletes may not be interested in college, and there's really not a reason to force that upon them. These players are 19- and 20-year-old students, and shouldn't have to bear the burden of being academic role models so we can feel good about ourselves.

I guess I'm ranting, but there's no perfect solution that's going to satisfy everybody here. If Coach Howland wants to take a chance on likely one-and-dones, let him go for it. It's not like the team is losing a lot of games with this guy in charge.

by FreewayBruin03 on Apr 18, 2008 7:09 PM PDT 0 recs

I'm with Freeway

As much as UCLAHY made some good points, the reality is that a program is measured as much by the NBA all stars it produces as by the Championship banners it hangs up.

Ask yourself, would you really turn down a chance to be associated with a Kevin Garnett, Lebron James, or Kobe Bryant? These are all guys would would have been One and Done for sure.

Think about this, as much as UNC was known for it's basketball program before Michael Jordan, it was Michael Jordan that has elevated its profile to the status it has now. Jordan wanted to play for UCLA, but was never recruited by us. Can you imagine a combo of Wooden's legacy and Jordan's legacy enshrined at the Morgan Center. Jordan left at what was at the time early departure. No one in this group would turn that down.

I know I wouldn't.

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Apr 18, 2008 8:05 PM PDT up 0 recs

clarification

I didn't mean to write that professors don't have careers. My intended point was that most students are seeking careers outside of academia, and see college as a step toward that goal.

by FreewayBruin03 on Apr 18, 2008 7:13 PM PDT 0 recs

well lets hope

the NBA makes its age limit higher, then we wont have to worry about one and done.

by uclaov1 on Apr 18, 2008 7:16 PM PDT 0 recs

No way NBA would ever consider raising age limit

Let's face it. Basketball is young men's game. With its gruelling schedules, players age fast. Their skills visibly decline before us. The last we check, there aren't too many Kareems, Karl Malones out there that can play close to forty years of age before they rertired. In fact, if you're past 31 or 32, you have hit that point of no return already.

That said, the younger the players, the more years they can perform before their game goes downhill. Were the Kobe Bryants, Kevin Garnetts to stay even one or more years in college before they came out, then collectively NBA would have potentially lost several years of its marketing revenues based on these superstars' marquee selling values.

So $$$$$ is the core of everything here.

by Htse005 on Apr 18, 2008 10:54 PM PDT up 0 recs

There won't be many 4 year stars, but

I think there's a decent chance the NBA will move to a two-year rule.

by SuperBruinMan on Apr 19, 2008 12:08 AM PDT up 0 recs

On the flip side...

The NBA gets a few players a year that are already known nationwide. Kevin Love is essentially premarketed; there's no need to try to build name recognition. Kevin Durant wouldn't be Kevin Durant if he had gone straight to the NBA. Greg Oden helped revive some spirit in Portland. If Kobe or Garnett had dominated college for a year, they might've had a few more years of mega-marketability, instead of waiting while they developed in the NBA.

by jaffa on Apr 19, 2008 1:07 AM PDT up 0 recs

I agree

Look at Kobe's stats for his first two seasons in the NBA. He started 7 games, played 21 minutes a game and averaged 11.7 points. Had he gone to college for one or two years, he would have been playing 35 minutes a game and scoring 30+ every night. Which two year scenario would have been a more effective marketing tool for the NBA? I would have to lean towards the one with Kobe NOT riding the pine for Del Harris.
Admittedly that's just one example. KG came in and was averaging 17 and 8 by his second year, but I think there's something to be said for getting some playing time in at the college level instead of not getting it in the NBA.

by TempletonPeck on Apr 22, 2008 1:54 AM PDT up 0 recs

The NBA desperately wants to raise it

David Stern pushed hard for the age limit to be higher when it was included in the current CBA (Stern ideally wants 3 years out of HS, knows he will never get it, so he/owners tried for 2 years, settled with the players association for the current 1 year). The league and owners are fine with some increase in the limit, it is the players union that are against it.

by bruinhoo on Apr 19, 2008 8:32 AM PDT up 0 recs

It's been shown that age isn't the most telling

factor in declines - instead it minutes played, which will obviously be greater at a younger age for a player drafted directly out of HS.

But you do have a very valid point that athletes with less wear and tear on their bodies who can make spectacular plays are the lifeblood of the NBA.

That all being said, I'd be shocked if they didn't go to a 19/2 year rule, 19 for the international players and 2 years for US players, to throw the NCAA a bone.

by seattlebruin07 on Apr 22, 2008 10:45 AM PDT up 0 recs

NBA is for adult players

Until recent years, most NBA players' entry age is approximately twenty two and up. So given a year or two to adapt and transition into the professional games, they flourish and contribute well, with some becoming impact or even franchise players around twenty four or so.

They maintain their peak performance, barring injuries, until their early thirties or so. Kareem Adbul Jabaar, Karl Malone and a few others are the exceptions notably.

You and I know well the drastic change in the NBA landscape when the floodgate opened in the mid nineties. Of course some of these high school seniors are genuinely skilled, albeit raw and underdeveloped socially among the adult players.

Some came through well, warts and all. Unscathed, they became the impact players pundits projected them to be, chief among them Kobe Bryant. Of course, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Jermaine O'Neal and others trail not too many steps behind either.

What soured NBA executives, appalled team members is the case of Kwane Browne, mentioned in my previous posting. Washington Wizards' #1 lottery pick, Michael Jordan's personal choice, Browne's
immaturity, inability to adapt and, most of all, a destitute mindset handicapped by the cultural impoverishments of his deepsouth upbringings pushed his handlers' tolerance over the brink.

Sports Illustrated carried a well documented, lengthy, objective chronicle based on first hand observation of the team's difficiculties to even acclimatize, let alone ease him into the adult NBA itinerant lifestyles. Sadly, they became daily grinds against nature. His vaunted hoops skills,in glimpse and flashes on the court, paled in comparison with his off the court monumental struggles in all facets of life in cosmopolitan America.

That, plus other unspoken problems associated with the NBA suddenly flooded with teenagers barely over their adolescent thresholds seemed the last, unmistakable straw pushing the players' union and NBA settling on the one and done rule.

Do you recall Moses Malone and Bill Willoughby, two of the pioneers in high school players going directly in to the pros in the late seventies and early eighties ?

Moses Malone survived well. Bill Willoughby languished briefly with Atlanta Hawks, never heard from again.

I am not retelling innuendos but these are facts. With so much disenchantments to one and done rule, soon they need to revamp it. That's my take.

by Htse005 on Apr 22, 2008 11:56 AM PDT up 0 recs

Who's leaving the NBA, anyway?

Every year it seems like 30 or 40 guys come out of college early, and there are a couple of rounds of drafts. So every year, the teams (I looked - there are 30, with a roster anywhere from 13 to 15 guys) look to turn over basically 20% of their roster. To some extent, some of the "one and done" players in college are likely to find themselves "one and done" in the pros (unless of course they have some huge guaranteed contract.)

So with all the talented new guys coming into the league, does it mean you're washed up after six years? In six years, a team will have drafted at least 12 new players, so a former one and done guy rom college could find himself out of basketball and totally washed up at age 23 or 24. Anyway, there just isn't enough room on rosters for all the good players to fit into.

(Sort of babbling now. I'll stop.)

by Fox 71 on Apr 18, 2008 7:30 PM PDT 0 recs

The Math doesn't add up

That's why the first round is so important. A lot of these guys that go in the second round will never make it because their contracts are not guaranteed. The math goes against first rounders too. They have their rookie contract, between 2 to 4 years, to impress their GM or another GM enough to sign them to a second contract, or they too disappear from the league. The clock starts the minute David Stern calls your name. That's why I'm hoping guys like RW are truly ready, because there isn't much time to make an impression, and I want all of our drafted Bruins to have long and successful careers at the next level.

by Tydides on Apr 18, 2008 7:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

Thanks for the post, UCLAhy

I'm out the door right now, so I can't give the complete response that I would like, but you've addressed some of the same concerns that I have about the future of our program. Namely- do we want the most talented players coming out of high school, regardless of the cost, or do we want to build a cohesive unit, even if it means being at a disadvantage to start the season? For me, it's not that easy of an answer.

by insomniacslounge on Apr 18, 2008 8:12 PM PDT 0 recs

Most Talented Players

I think that there are two extremes at either end of a continuum- a) get the most talented players, period, knowing that they are one and done and don't worry if they bring an entourage and major attitude, or b) don't recruit any player who is likely to be a lottery pick after one season.

I don't think that Coach Howland actually is at point a) on the continuum. He is clearly not at point b) on the continuum.

Fans can certainly be frustrated that KL left after one season. However, he came to UCLA to be part of a team, not merely to show off his skills. I am also guessing that he did not drop classes to keep up his grade point (a la $C).

There is a middle ground between a and b, where the team includes players who share in common a hard work ethic, determination, and a sense of team, whether they are potential lottery picks (KL), underappreciated high schoolers who rapidly develop (DC and RW), and blue collar workers who give their all on and off the court (LRM). Where the team happens to be at any given point (closer to a or to b) will vary based on the physical, mental and attitude talents available.

We don't need to be Memphis (point a above) or Western Kentucky (point b above). We are UCLA.

by islandbruin on Apr 18, 2008 9:27 PM PDT 0 recs

You lost me at..

"Star Trek teaches us.."

Don't quote fictional sci fi TV shows as support for your position. It completely destroys any shred of credibility you otherwise may have had with readers on this site who look to facts and substance to support their positions and opinions.

If we learned anything from our previous three trips to the Final Four, its that talent wins championships. You can't expect a college basketball program or its coach, to win consistently, but do so without the necessary tools (first tier talent players). To expect otherwise is naive.

Frankly, it is more likely IMHO, that the NBA will revert to the old rules and allow kids to go to the NBA directly from High School before they make them stay another year in college.

So, given the nature of the college basketball system, you have to seek out the best talent that fits your system (athleticly and academically). If you don't go after the best players, you can bet your life the Calhouns, Caliparis and Krzyzewski of the world will. And you'll be waiting forever to hang banner #12.

Go Bruins!!!

by Bald Eagle on Apr 18, 2008 9:42 PM PDT 0 recs

Why can't we learn from a TV show?

You lost me at..

"Star Trek teaches us.."

Why can't we take a life lesson from a TV show? Just because a message is sent through the medium of television doesn't make it any less relevant than an identical thing said by a politician or any other public figure. Isn't the idea espoused here (Just because you can doesn't mean you should) a perfectly valid argument?

I think that Ben has done an admirable job refusing to compromise academic integrity and personal conduct standards for a gifted but troubled player (HI ALEX LEGION! HOW'S KENTUCKY? AND YOUR MOM?). I am entirely OK with the idea of one and done - I did not go to college for the sake of going to college - I went to college so I could learn to be an engineer. Kevin Love went to college to learn to be a better basketball player, and he has, and now he's ready for his career. Good luck to you Kevin, and we appreciate the time you've spent with us, but we understand that you gotta look out for yourself eventually.

by seattlebruin07 on Apr 22, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up 0 recs

Where do I even begin???

You cite programs like Xavier, Drake, and Western Kentucky that keep their players for four years. You know why? Their players are not nearly as talented as any players at UCLA. Many of them will NEVER play in the NBA. Do you really want our program to not produce NBA caliber players? Why don't we see these teams in the national picture every year? Because it takes four years of playing together before they can even try to compete with teams like UCLA.

You also mentioned that we "keep reloading fantastic one and doners." Last time I checked, Kevin Love has been the ONLY one and done player since Howland has stepped foot on campus (with the exception of Trevor Ariza in his first season...no comparison). In addition to Kevin Love, we stand to lose Darren Collison after THREE years AND earning his college degree. Alfred Aboya will also graduate in three years. Nobody will blame Russell for staying in the draft after TWO years if he is deemed a top 20 pick. And I fully expect Luc to be back for his FOURTH year as he alluded to the fact that he would pull out of the draft if he is not guaranteed to be a first round selection. So, where are all these one and doners that you speak of?

By the way, college basketball is very different these days than it was during the Wooden era. Players didn't leave early. As a result, to compare these teams to the Wooden teams is impossible. I'll take the quality players and people that coach Howland continues to bring in, (gasp!) even if they are so talented that they leave after 1 year! Its the only way to compete with the other top teams these days. Like it or not, its what college basketball has come to. In fact, if we had a few more of the one-and-done type players the last few years, just maybe we could have matched up better with Florida and Memphis. THERE'S some food for thought for you.

GO BRUINS!

by rgalloucla on Apr 18, 2008 10:36 PM PDT 0 recs

I can't ignore this comment, either:

"Can BH or any college coach only win the big one by sacrificing the school's integrity?"

You referred to recruiting one and doners as sacrificing a school's integrity. Really? What did Kevin Love do at UCLA that was so horrible that ruined UCLA's integrity. As I recall, your whole first paragraph was commending Kevin Love on the class and integrity he has displayed throughout his time at UCLA.

The only way we'll sacrifice our school's integrity is by recruiting guys like Robert Dozier that hit their girlfriends or guys like OJ Mayo that break their teammate's jaw, or offering Leisure Studies as a major for our athletes. As for great STUDENT-ATHLETES like Kevin Love, keep them coming, Coach Howland!

GO BRUINS!

by rgalloucla on Apr 18, 2008 10:50 PM PDT up 0 recs

Dozier's a douchebag

but OJ Mayo has been a model citizen and team player across town. About the Hackett incident, two things

By all reports, Hackett is a genuine asshole on the court - we've all played with guys like that, and no ones ever sorry when they get punched in the face.
Just remember, Darren punched Jordan two years ago - the only reason is wasn't a bigger story was that it didn't come out until the Final Four, at which point both guys just laughed it off as "hey we're competitive people, what did you expect was gonna happen?"

Based on his hype and the ridiculous ball-throwing-into-crowd incident, I was ready to hate Mayo from the minute he stepped onto SC's campus - instead, I've come to enjoy watching him play (when he plays unselfishly and to his true talent level, which is obscenely high). He's been a model citizen, and been nothing but complimentary of UCLA and Kevin Love. A large part of me thinks that his handlers are the reason he has a terrible rap, and the kid himself isn't all that bad.

by seattlebruin07 on Apr 22, 2008 11:00 AM PDT up 0 recs

College basketball recruiting

Here's my take:

Basically anyone in the top 10, a 5 star, immediate impact player, if he lives up to the hype is gone after one year. Yet, rarely do these type of players lead their teams to championships. Carmelo Anthony is the only one I can think of.

Your top 10-50 players, 5 star and 4 star "tweeners", are really the ones IMO programs should really be excited about landing. Sure, some leave after one year, but many, because of certain limitations, are "forced", if you will, to stay 2-3 years. They may not be that immediate, high impact player, but by staying longer they bring leadership, cohesiveness, and stability to the program during their tenure. If you look at it historically, these are the type of players leading their teams to championships.

I'm not saying that Howland should stop recruiting these 5 star studs. Yet when we look to the future, those 4 star gems may actually be the ones that should really get us fired up.

"You don't make it to the Final Four three straight times for no reason..Obviously coaching has something to do with it." Darren Collison

by godblesstyus95 on Apr 19, 2008 8:54 AM PDT 0 recs

Good point

How many stars did AA, JF, DC and RW have when they came aboard?

And no offense to Love, but am I the only one here who's going to miss Westbrook more?

by FreewayBruin03 on Apr 19, 2008 8:57 AM PDT 0 recs

Uhm ...

JF was a 5 star recruit.

AA, DC, and RW were 4 starts. RW was a steal in a sense that he badly wanted to come to UCLA and held out. Otherwise he could have committed somewhere early.

Holiday is a 5 star who could turn out to be a one an done.

By the logic of this absurd diary we shouldn't take him and let him go to UNC.

by Nestor on Apr 19, 2008 9:11 AM PDT up 0 recs

thanks for the info

by FreewayBruin03 on Apr 19, 2008 8:29 PM PDT up 0 recs

Bit misguided...

A lot of the one-and-done equation is simply luck. Of the top 50 or so recruits each year, most of them have the potential to be first-round picks. Many have the potential to be one-and-done. How long they take to develop or display that potential to NBA scouts is a bit of a crap-shoot. We're lucky enough to have Howland developing our players, which I believe makes it more likely they will harness and display that potential after a year or two, but would you want it any other way?

What is the alternative? Do you draw an imaginary line and only take players who are 4-star or lower? Do you only take on projects who you know will take time to develop, if they do? Is that even a sure-fire approach to rid yourself of one-and-dones? Don't forget, LRMAM was almost one-and-done because of the success he had his first year, and I don't think any recruiting service would have guessed that.

I personally think it's much better simply to trust Howland to bring in quality kids, and let the chips fall where they may. I don't think the MBA program worries too much about someone leaving their program early because they've got a multi-million dollar opportunity hanging in the balance. As long as our program is being run the right way, and Howland continues to bring in kids who take the school and their classes seriously, I'll be happy with the outcome.

by cabz on Apr 19, 2008 11:56 AM PDT up 0 recs

Any true nerd knows

that Star Wars is more applicable in this situation.

Star Trek? Really?

by Koach Karl I on Apr 19, 2008 11:43 AM PDT 0 recs

Unrealistic

One of the biggest factors in UCLA getting close but falling short of the ultimate prize the last three years has been the talent of the opponent they've faced. Now uclahy wants to avoid going after the most talented players because it's possible (and in some cases probable) they'll be gone after a year? That's just short-sighted. Yes, we as fans enjoy the chance to watch the players grow and mature over 3 or 4 years, but it's unrealistic to expect a program of the stature of UCLA to avoid going after the most talented players in the country simply because they won't hang around at least 2 or 3 seasons. Was having Love worth it, even if it was only for 1 season? Abso-freaking-lutely. I don't think UNC, Kentucky, or Kansas will avoid going after players who could be 1-and-done and neither should the Bruins.

It does make it difficult to form a team into a cohesive unit at both ends of the floor, but given the performance of Howland the last three seasons, taking 3 very different squads to the Pac-10 title and Final Four, I think BH is well-suited to this task. And besides, think of what happens when you get someone like Hansbrough, who decides to stay in school when he could have left after his freshman season. If UCLA avoids potential 1-and-dones, they will also miss out on those who stay longer and have amazing careers.

I also don't buy how someone like Kevin Love has damaged the integrity of the program. I couldn't imagine someone else better representing the school during their time here. He wasn't getting arrested, wasn't flunking out of school, and wasn't recruited in a shady manner, unlike the way Huggins got Bill Walker to come to K-State (yes, I know Walker isn't a 1-and-done, but he likely would have been if he hadn't blown out his knee). If you think a program led by Howland won't have integrity, you're dead wrong.

UCLA would be selling itself and its fans short if they didn't go after the best players possible simply because they might leave after a year. That is just the landscape of basketball today and as much as we would all like to see players wear the blue and gold for four years, it isn't going to happen here or at any other top program.

by McNown to Farmer on Apr 19, 2008 12:47 PM PDT 0 recs

The name of the game

Since we can't change the one and done rule, we might as well enjoy and relish it until something else crops up.

I'd say the heck with it, do it like any other programs do, go for the best that suits our needs. So if we won it with them, fine. Say goodbye and start with another bunch again. If this bunch can't win it, then ask who'll stay, who'll go and find somemore to replace those leaving and hope for the best again.

There's a saying that goes like " if you can't defeat your enemy, then join their company. "

by Htse005 on Apr 19, 2008 11:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

Learningd & Teachings

That crackpot quoting Star Trek is unbelievable.

When nit vomes to stuff like this, I always put my trust in Yoda.

by artybruin on Apr 19, 2008 12:56 PM PDT 0 recs

Spell check for above

Learningd = Learnings

Last sentence should read:

When it comes to stuff like this, I always put my trust in Yoda

by artybruin on Apr 19, 2008 12:57 PM PDT 0 recs

I actually liked it the first way..

..way you wrote it. You sounded like one of those SS interrogating officers in the old WWII flicks. You know, "Ve haf vays off mekking you talk."

God, it's great to be a Bruin!

by whp68 on Apr 19, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

Thank you.....I think

by artybruin on Apr 19, 2008 3:38 PM PDT 0 recs

donna mench..

God, it's great to be a Bruin!

by whp68 on Apr 19, 2008 6:52 PM PDT up 0 recs

Wow...how shortsighted is that diary post?

What's the difference between being at UCLA and for 3 years and 2 quarters but not graduating? At some point people decide to do something else with their life. They have that right. It's not an embarrassment.

What about Bill Gates? did he embarrass Harvard? What about Steve jobs dropping out of Reed College? What about actors/actresses that get discovered while in college? Should they postpone their careers to get a college degree? Otherwise would they be an embarrassment?

Also you do realize people can go back and get their degree right?

UCLA should be doing EVERYTHING they can to support its students, even if it means other courses of actions aside from being a student at UCLA. If their dream means that they shouldn't be taking class at UCLA then UCLA should support that. The goal of UCLA is for people to become SUCCESSFUL. A college degree is a means to an end. Learning is NOT just confined to the classroom.

Geez no wonder some people believe you're only a Bruin for 4 years (or in this case, 1 year) -- it's because of attitude like this.

by BruinEd03 on Apr 19, 2008 5:24 PM PDT 0 recs

I'm proud of our early entrants

As I recall, Farmar was on pace to graduate in 3 years when he left after 2. I don't know if he is continuing, but should he decide to, it wouldn't be al that difficult to complete his course list. If he has already done so, then my apologies to him.

Afflalo has already stated that he will be back at UCLA over the summer to complete his coursework and graduate when he left after three years.

Kevin Love has recently stated that he feels the need to come back and get his UCLA degree to "put a smile on (his) mom's face".

Do these sound like guys who are not taking UCLA seriously? Does the team GPA of over 3.0 sound like a group of guys who are slacking in the classroom?

by Tydides on Apr 19, 2008 6:39 PM PDT up 0 recs

Honestly, they get so much help

and take such easy classes, they better have 3+ GPAs. Not that I'm not a hell of a lot more proud of having Arron and Jordan and Russ on my team then say... Robert "where's my girlfriend, I need to hit someone" Dozier and Shawn "I'm 23 and a true sophomore w/o serving in the military or some legit excuse" Taggart

by seattlebruin07 on Apr 22, 2008 11:04 AM PDT up 0 recs

Are those classes

easier than the "Leisure Management" classes at Memphis? I don't think so. Sure I carry my South Campus Academic Superiority card like all other engineers, but we should at least recognize the difference between relatively easier UCLA majors and other schools' major offerings.

By the way, I've seen some of the schedules for our student-athletes, and their days sound absolutely booked. I'd hope we're giving them some assistance.

by Tydides on Apr 22, 2008 11:15 AM PDT up 0 recs

I'm not saying we taught Russell Westbrook

to weave baskets, but I'm aware of just how much help student-athletes receive. Also, I am a south campus major - I'm arguing that their classes are easy...

They're definitely worked, but they get a LOT of assistance from the athletic dept.

by seattlebruin07 on Apr 22, 2008 12:11 PM PDT up 0 recs

And I'm Saying

if I had the responsibilities of these athletes on top of my responsibilities as a student, I might require some assistance as well. I also guarantee there is no "Leisure Management" equivalent at UCLA in terms of difficulty or lack thereof.

by Tydides on Apr 22, 2008 12:38 PM PDT up 0 recs

Back when I graduated (a long time ago)

there was a placement service of sorts where the school tried to help you get into a career that would allow you to use your UCLA education. We have a much better placement service now, and his name is Coach Howland. He is helping students maximize their potential. Coach Howland is helping the players get placed in a career area that will allow them to use the education he and the other coaches gave them.

KL and RW are just a little more visible than I was when the school helped me with my first job in the insurance business.

by Fox 71 on Apr 19, 2008 7:14 PM PDT up 0 recs

Career Services

This may reflect my aging baby boomer state, but if I remember right, for the class of 71, career services was in a quonset hut. Does that sound familiar?

by islandbruin on Apr 19, 2008 9:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yeah, I think so

Realizing that I was going to graduate and would have to go to work turned me into a zombie, so I don't really remember a lot from that time. I remember an old building (and there were quonset huts at the time) and a nice lady and a lot of 3 x 5 cards thumbtacked to a bulletin board.

As I recall also, before there was Pauley, there were a bunch of real old bungalows in that area and the area further south. These were OLD buildings. I thought it was somewhat appropriate that one of these ancient buildings housed the Department of Archeology.

by Fox 71 on Apr 20, 2008 4:47 AM PDT up 0 recs

Ha

I love the Bill Gates example. Definitely typifies the average career path of a college drop-out. Admittedly, I thought about using the same example but decided to read all the comments first in case someone beat me to it. I happen to agree with you completely, but there aren't too many dropouts out there who go on to be the richest human beings on the planet. Just saying.

by TempletonPeck on Apr 22, 2008 2:10 AM PDT up 0 recs