A good friend of mine has made up tributary t-shirts to our newest Ben Ball warrior - Kevin Love.

Inspired by the magnificence that is a 6'10" 260lb. bundle of joy, the shirts are a combination of Byzantine and art nouveau styles.

When asked what "KLuv Your Mom" means, the artist simply replied, "if you have to ask, then perhaps this is not a shirt for you."

For those among us that have partaken in recent offerings of Cameroon Crazies, Howland is my Homeboy, and No Mata What offerings, may I humbly present KLuv Your Mom.

Kloveyourmom.com

Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins.Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins.Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins.Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins. Go Bruins.

Bumped from the diaries. Thanks again to Nars for putting together this wonderful series. If you haven't done it yet before you take a look at this make sure to read Part 1 and Part 11. A masterful effort. GO BRUINS. -N

Finally, the last of a three part series.

Personnel Effects:

To me, the biggest difference of the rules change is in the number of players that require defensive attention at the 3-point stripe. From South Carolina coach Dave Odom, "I think what you're gonna find is that with the new line teams are going to edge their way into a comfort zone, and it will take 2-3 years before we begin to get a real feel for the effects of the new line. There will be some differences early on; I don't believe you'll see as many 3s next year. Players are comfortable at 19-9, 20, maybe 20-2, but once you get that extra step they become uncomfortable." Odom said Dominique Archie was a "good example" of a player who would be greatly affected by the line moving out a foot. "The 6-foot-7 freshman swingman took just 32 attempts from 3-point range last season but made 11, a respectable 34.3 percent. But his coach believes his confidence would diminish at 20-9." Sound like anyone we know?

Don't cry, we still love you. Just no more 3's.

Last year, Luc was a player at the margin. Statistically, Luc made 1/3 of all three point shot attempts (10 of 30). With the NCAA average hovering right near the 40% mark, Luc was below average, but only slightly. This was still a shot that required a defender expending some amount of energy/attention to negate. The problem for attacking the zone is that when Luc is forced a foot out he is out of his range and the marginal attention that Luc commanded is reduced. If he takes the same 30 shots and is only rewarded with 20 points, he's become a liability to the offense compared to his 50% aptitude elsewhere on the court. So where does this hurt the most? Against a zone defense where Luc can neither be effective distributing the ball from the high post, nor be seen as a threat from 3 point distance.

The second order effect of the rule change may be that more coaches are willing to play small. There could certainly be a proliferation of 3 and 4 guard lineups where pure shooters are increasingly valuable. We have seen that trend already with Villanova and Oregon making deep runs in the tourney the past two years but putting 4 guys on the floor who could really stroke it. Especially with the lack of "quality big men" in the college game, we're seeing a lot of teams move towards creating mismatches with smaller players.

A smaller team can spread the floor on offense and make it difficult to guard you man-to-man. And, on defense, they can be effective pressing full-court or playing zone. Since the zone enables teams to cover-up defensive liabilities, small teams may be able to get away with putting smaller players on the court - as long as they can still clean the glass. Furthermore, small interchangeable parts fit well into a Princeton style offense which could exploit the better spacing and balance that the rule change seeks to provide.

Conclusion:

In my opinion (not worth much, I know) the teams that benefit most from the rules change play zone defense and don't have any marginal 3-pont shooters. These teams will have people who have the green light and people who don't, but no `tweeners.

I think that the general stance is that the new line will reduce the number of upsets in the tourney will decrease as a result of the rule change. I'm not sure I buy into that argument. For mid-majors with solid outside shooting, their relative advantage will actually increase. I don't see Adam Graves at Butler having any problem with stepping out a foot. The real losers here are the marginal 3-point shooters. Perhaps we'll see even more importance played on relative specialists like Lee Humphries or Mike Roll for whom range isn't an issue, but often times finding space is. With the added spacing and pressure put on defenders to cover more ground, I would think that sharp-shooting but under-sized Cinderellas are the ones who benefit most from the change.

What does this mean for UCLA recruiting? In a game already dominated by guard play, guards will play an even bigger role. They will be required to shoot from deeper, cover more ground, and create penetration against more zone defense. Likewise "pure" big men will be more valuable given that there will be marginally more room to operate in the post - assuming the guards can keep their defenders honest. Given the recent developments in UCLA recruiting, Howland is likely ahead of the game again.

In summary, what does this all mean? Are we going to win it all in '08? Yes. But, I say that every year.

Bumped from the diaries. This is Part II of three installments of Nars' analysis. He posted Part I yesterday. GO BRUINS. -N

The Effect on Man to Man Defense

The Basics:
Even the term "Man to man defense" is an oversimplification of this defensive philosophy. While all man defenses are predicated on individual match up responsibilities, the actual systems utilized by different coaches are actually quite varied. From Old Man Bennett's pack-it-in man, to Howland's big-to-big double, to Shaky Lute's Matador defense (yell Ole! as the offensive player blows past you), each system is unique in its philosophy. Given that I really only care about UCLA, let's focus there.

While there is much individual responsibility in this defense, the ability to help each other is vital. The proverbial line, "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" fits perfectly when we talk about Howland's man-to-man defense. Using superior on-ball defenders and great help defense, Howland's defense has made mince meat out of opponents. The primary tactic the team uses to disrupt the flow of the opponent is guard pressure and a devastating post-to-post or big-to-big double team.

I would argue that the two most devastating things to a man defense are PG dribble penetration and a good low-post entry pass. With a ball-hawking PG defender like Collison, the more serious threat becomes the post-entry pass. Against quality big men, and the Pac-10's got lots of them, Howland usually doubles on the post entry pass with the secondary defender coming from the other post. To visualize this imagine Luc (X4) coming over to help Mata (X5) while Shipp (X3) slides down to defend the PF while AA (X2) drifts out to challenge shots by either off-ball opponent wing.

The beauty of this tactic is that to beat the double, the opposing team needs its C/PF to make a clean cross court pass to a wing in space with the ability to knock down a three. The other key to beating this trap is to have two skilled big men where the second big can exploit the size mismatch against the SF coming for help. Really, we've only seen one team with the skill at both positions to consistently beat the trap both ways.

Usually, teams will double in the post with the other on ball defender. In this diagram, Collison (X1) or Afflalo (X2). The problem here is that you eliminate the ability to help with other defenders that are on the help side. Secondly, the C/PF (5) still has a good path to the lane given the angle of the double team. Lastly, you open up their PG (1) or SG (2) for a shot that is hard to close out on. Otherwise, initiating the trap with the SF (X3) defender is difficult since they have so much ground to cover.

Marginal Contribution:

Positive:
Again, the point of this exercise isn't to break down the defense to see if it works (it does), but rather to see what the marginal impact is of the rules change. As opposed to the zone, the impact is less dramatic.

Looking at the two best ways to break down man defense, it isn't as readily apparent how the line will impact the defensive scheme. First, the ability of an opposing guard to break down a defender off the dribble won't be impacted by the line placement. However, perhaps there is a second order benefit to the rule change. As help comes off dribble penetration, it usually results in an uncontested 3-point opportunity for the opponent. This shot will be marginally more difficult given the new rule change, and thus aid the defense.

The second way to really break man to man defense is through the post entry pass. I feel that given Howland's preference to double in the post, the rule change will have the biggest impact in this part of the scheme. Given the commitment to stop opposing big men with a post-to-post double, Howland teams are more likely to let opponents bomb away from 3 point territory than score inside. Hell after an AA2 elbow to the face who in their right mind wouldn't look to pass out of the double? So making the best scoring option more difficult certainly aids to the defense.

Negative:
The rules change is attempting to create better spacing and reduce physical play. Both endeavors are detrimental to Howland's system. The frontline has been as physical as any in the country the past two years, and its prowess has been eating up space and shutting down passing lanes.

Furthermore, the system is predicated on the double team. When there is more spacing, it makes it more difficult to properly execute the double team. However, of all the ways to double, Howland's keeps the distance the shortest, and will likely be the least impacted by the rule change. Since they aren't doubling with a perimeter player, the wings only need to slide down to cover the 4 in the opposite post rather than come cross court to initiate the double. But all things considered, this is clearly a more difficult task when the players have more ground to cover.

What I think we may see more of is a double by a wing coming from the on-ball side of the court. Say, DC is matched up against a poor outside shooting player like Justin Dentmon at UW, he could double into the post without worrying about Dentmon making him pay with a 3 pointer. Only speculation here, but look for different double teams from Howland in the new system.

Tomorrow: Part 3 - Personnel Effects

From the diaries. Nars drops more knowledge on this post than Bilas does in an entire season. GO BRUINS. -N

The new 3 point line:

The men's basketball rules committee approved a measure last month that would move the 3-point line back one foot in 2008 - from 19 feet, 9 inches to 20 feet, 9 inches. Approved by the playing rules oversight committee on May 25, it marked the first major alteration to the 3-point shot since its adoption in 1986-87.

Committee chairman Larry Keating  - yes Kerry's Dad - said two proposals were considered. The other proposal would have moved the line to 20 feet, 6 inches, the same distance as international 3-pointers. Both proposals were still significantly shorter than the NBA line, which is 23 feet, 9 inches at the top of the key and 22 feet at its shortest point in the baseline corners.

The rationale for the rules change was to "help create more space between perimeter and post players, and it could help the rules committee eliminate some of the more physical play (Howland style defense?) something it has tried to reduce over the past several years."

I know many of you are thinking, "Who cares? I'd rather keep hitting refresh to see if Jrue has committed yet and get into a pissing battle with some SUC troll." Why this topic is so interesting to me is that in conversations with old coaches and knowledgeable fans, I've heard many varying opinions on how this rule change will affect the game, and in particular, UCLA.

With the summer doldrums in full effect, I thought this topic of discussion warranted some vetting. Here is the first of three installments of my summer project - The new line: Zone Effects

Zone Effects:

The Basics:
A normal zone defense is based covering areas of the floor, as you will see in the Syracuse 2-3 zone. I reference the `Cuse a lot given that they are the poster child of the 2-3. Even as a young hoopster, my old coach would yell `Cuse if he wanted 2-3 or Indiana if he wanted man.

The 2-3 zone defense scheme has been around since shortly after Dr. James Naismith nailed the peach basket to the balcony. Several championships have been won using it exclusively: Michigan State in 1979 and Syracuse in 2003 come to mind. Though having Magic and `Melo couldn't have hurt, either.

While many teams use zone as a "change of pace" tactic, the 2-3 has been the bread and butter of Boeheim and the Orange since Jim B had hair. Predicated on big rangy guards, and active wingmen, the 2-3 has been the bane of Big East foes for years.

Hell, Zone D is so basic, even Wiki has some commentary on reasons a zone defense can be effective:

1. The size and quickness of the players can effectively take away the open 3-point shot.
   
2. Teams spend most of their time working on man-to-man offense.
   
3. It is easy to know what teams will do against you. There are far more man offenses to prepare for than zone offenses.
   
4. It keeps good players out of foul trouble.
   
5. It hides a bad defender.
   
6. It can be an effective defense to rebound and fast break out of because of the players' positions in the zone.
   
7. It can change the tempo and momentum in the game.

Up to this point, I think we can all agree on these aspects of the zone. What is important is the marginal contribution of the rules change and how that makes a zone better or worse.

The rule change: Marginal Contribution

Advantages:
Given that zone defenses are predicated on defending the ball - i.e. the zone shifts with passes more than player movements, strategies for countering the zone can be generally be classified as either penetration focus or overload focus.

Penetration focus attacks will often attack the gap in the middle of the lane in a 2-3 or 2-1-2 variation. Getting the ball between defenders elicits a collapse response from the other defenders, opening the court for other offensive players. The most classic way to exploit this gap, is to assign a forward to operate in the high post area near the free throw line to catch and distribute the ball. A forward in the high post area can also set screens on the players at the top of the zone to allow penetration by the guards. Unfortunately with the new rules change, this distribution ability is limited by the fact that "open looks" are going to be disadvantaged from 3-point land. The old adage that you shoot out of a zone was reliant on outside shot making. That's only going to be made marginally more difficult given the rules change. Dribble penetration accomplishes the same goal, but without pulling a forward outside of his "comfort zone", thus making ankle breaking guards even more valuable to zone attacks.

The second general method of attack is predicated on overloading the zone and making a defender guard two positions. To me, this is most easily accomplished with quick accurate passing. This misdirection is most often accomplished with swing passes and skip passes over the top of the zone. Against a zone, look for UCLA to try to "overload" a Syracuse-style zone by sliding shooters behind occupied defenders and into the "short corner" (3-ball corner pocket) and get a great shot because the weak side of the zone has to be concerned with guards on the wing. This was AA's bread and butter against the zone since other defenders had to respect the shot of DC, Shipp, Roll, etc. This technique for getting open looks is going to be marginally disadvantaged since the shot created will be a foot further and the number of players that will require being guarded at the new line will be impacted.

Looking at the other side, teams playing zone get beat too. Its not perfect, and in that light I looked for an example of when the Orange abandoned their zone for man defense. Last January 30th, the Orange switched to zone against the Irish. Why? "I don't think we could have beaten Notre Dame playing zone tonight," Boeheim said. "We had been successful playing zone, but they're better attacking it and they're shooting better. The four or five times we played zone, they scored. So the zone was not going to be a winner tonight. We probably would have done better if we'd stayed all zone, but we would have been behind and you'd always look back and say, 'What if you'd played man-to-man?'

In that game, the Irish hit the floor with 4 players shooting over 40% from 3, and the 5th was a mauler down low. What killed the Orange is that there were 4 options on the court at all times looking to get their shot off from distance. Thus, if the new line knocks even one of those options "outside of their comfort zone" then the offense is much easier to guard against. At the margin, the 40% 3-point shooter must become a 60% shooter from the field for the offensive team to be no worse off than before.

Disadvantages:
The two biggest weaknesses of zone defenses are the ability to defend the perimeter and control the rebound. Above is the case why the new rule change will help with the first, but the question is what effect will it have on the latter. Basketball physics (according to Fran Fraschilla - so consider the source) says that 70 percent of misses taken from one side of the court end up on the opposite side, thus making zone defenses especially susceptible to weak side rebounds and put backs by the offensive team. Finding a body to box out and seeing overloads on the weak side is already difficult in a zone, and will only be more so with the new rules. Here's why:

With the greater spacing, defenders will be forced to cover more ground between the offensive players and the tin. The larger gap between backcourt and frontcourt defenders will make boxing out a more difficult task. It stands to reason that with more effort on rebounding there is less opportunity to run a break in transition and more opportunity to give up easy "chip shots" and put-backs to offensive players.

Tomorrow: Part 2 - Effects on Man-to-Man

I feel like I let a whole nation down yesterday, and I take full responsibility for the loss. I have watched or attended every single game this year, and without exception we've won when I wear my customary "game day" attire. If we play at home, I wear my white game shorts with 2004 Den shirt. If we play away, I wear my blue game shorts and 2006 shirt. Whenever we have lost this year, its been a case of me messing with karma and we all know what happens when you mess with karma...

Herein lies the woeful tale of how I have single handedly tried to ruin our season.

Oregon: Anger. After a poor start to the game, I tore my shirt off in anger, thus upsetting the gods and allowing Brooks' game winner to fall.

Stanford: Sloth. Following our annihilation of Cal, I was too lazy to wash my shirt for the Saturday tilt. I figured that we'd be fine if I just wore one of my other Den shirts, unwittingly allowing Larry Hill to go off in the second half. Clearly, I had underestimated the importance of the 2006 Den shirt for all away games.

West Virginia: Shame. I had to watch the game at a bar, and I shamefully hid my game shorts under a pair of jeans. Unwilling to subject myself to the criticism and stares of other patrons, I cowardly concealed my undying devotion to our team (to be fair, only true weirdoes wear basketball shorts to bars). I somehow thought I could keep seeing the same winning results without true sacrifice. I know now that this is not possible, and I believe that Florida will learn this lesson soon.

Washington: Gluttony. After one of Josh's breakaways in the WSU game, I accidentally spilled salsa on my lucky shirt. My gluttony proved costly, as I was unable to treat the stain until after the game. Can't take a shirt off mid-game, remember? As a result, my shirt was not in "game condition" for the Saturday match up, and again my antics cost the Bruins dearly.

California: Envy. Finally, yesterday I bowed to the excitement of the Pac-10 tournament. In year's past, I've always loved how devoted the fans are on the first day of the tournament. Nothing says devotion like skipping out from work on a Thursday to go watch 4 games. The fans there are always decked out in their team's finest wears. Not being able to resist, I donned my recently purchased "Howland is my Homeboy" shirt. I had always envied fans with customized/unique displays of loyalty. Sure I got a lot of compliments yesterday, but again I broke with tradition and cost the team. I'm certainly not saying that I think the Howland shirts are unlucky, its just that I messed with our mojo and now must live with the results.

The way I see it, is that we've got a week to get this thing straightened out. Maybe it's a good chance to rest tired legs and nurse injuries, but more importantly, it's a chance to do laundry. I implore each of you to break out every "slump-buster", lucky charm, and superstitious act at your disposal.

There will be plenty of time for other t-shirts after April 2nd...especially ones that celebrate a National Championship.

The Pauley renovation post by Menelaus reminded me of something I saw earlier this week.

On Tuesday I was watching the Ohio St/Indiana game on TV. I expected to see a hard fought match up and a good game. I got that and more...

I also got an overwhelming desire to purchase a wide assortment of designer, department, discount and specialty store goods, but at prices substantially lower than competing department and discount stores. Where could I find such items? Value City!!!!

Mid-way through the first half, I paused my DVR to see what the script below the giant "V" on the floor said - it was killing me. To my surprise it read "Value City". What the deuce is that? I quickly googled the phrase, hoping that Clark Kellogg's nickname was "Value" or something (wouldn't that be awesome), but lo and behold Value city is a Midwest Marshall's. Ha! Can you imagine us playing at the Ross Dress For Less Center?

Moral of the story: OSU sold its soul to a department store. Don't let this happen to us. Everyone needs to pitch in when the time comes. If you would rather see John and Nell Court as opposed to Value City on the court, step up. I have read several posts on BN that promised donations to the athletic fund if we beat `SC, but were then reneged once FSU handed it to us. I have read others that say they won't donate until KD is gone.

Does this ring a bell Godblesstyus95? "A large sum of $$$$$ (yes, that many figures) that awaits the UCLA Athletic Fund if the Bruins beat SC tomorrow. I promise I WILL SEND IT if it happens!!! Otherwise, my wife gets a real nice gift for x-mas this year. Are you hearing me, DG??"

How about you, Drummersix? "I'm in grad school and on a student budget, but after that USC win, I felt compelled to donate to UCLA.  Well thanks to KD, I'm tearing up the check and will be able to afford food this week.  Thanks Karl!"

Well, I hate KD too, but any dissatisfaction with the football program cannot be carried over to the Pauley renovation. If and when the time comes, I ask that everyone steps up and does not let Pauley become corporate. This is OUR team, and we don't live in Value City.

Back on November 26th, University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer fired UO athletic director Bill Moos. Moos was at the Oregon helm for 12 years. Per President Frohnmayer's request, Moos will continue serving as the athletic director until March 2007.

I haven't heard anything about the subject since, at least not officially.

Last week someone close to the program told me that Bellotti has been chosen to take over the post. Apparently, Bellotti is a bit worn out from head coaching, but wants to continue to be involved with the university.

Still, one has to wonder why the change was made. Apparently there are two schools of thought surrounding the decision.

Answer 1: Part of a preemptive strike to avoid sanctions for recruiting violations. Specifically in regards to Hairston and Porter's recruitment.

Answer 2: Bellotti is hugely popular with UO alums, and will embark on a gigantic fundraising campaign to bring their facilities up to par.

In either case, the Ducks are likely going to be hunting for a new HC.

Looking at the second order recruiting effect, any inconsistency at UO has got to help us.

- Perhaps we should have told Drew Davis that - Scout reporting he's gonig to be a duck.

And that's 200 words.

We did it last week and we can do it again. UCLA +14. Spread the optimism.

Seriously, Nestor can we have a rule instated that every third diary and every other post has to be something positive?

I don't care if its women's table tennis, or Hedrick Hall's IM water polo team, but football is making me depressed.

I love the site, and read every tidbit and post, but sometimes it makes me want to jump out a window. I have a UCLA football helmet in my office, and I can only take so much trash from my co-workers. I rely on BN for uplifting UCLA news to keep me sane.

I'm not an apologist or supportive of KD et. all, but what I'd like to either see more posts on basketball recruiting or the demise of our Pac-10 foes.

On such a note, how dumb must Chauncey Washington be? It cracks me up.

For all of those wondering, Kelvin Kim is alive and well. My Intramural BB team squared up against Kim and some of his buddies in the semi-finals of the IM tourney last week. Until now, it's been pretty tough to evaluate Kim based on his ability to stand still while running out the clock. After playing against him, it's safe to say that standing still is his best skill. Imagine Brandon Lloyd, but much shorter, slower, and no range.

Before everyone goes crazy and rushes to his defense, Kim is a decent high school player, and a guy you wouldn't mind having on a pick-up team at the local rec center, but we'd be in trouble if KK ever had to do anything but stand around and dribble. Is that a bit harsh? Yes, but its true. Hey, UCLA would be in trouble if I had to play too.

To KK's defense, his team did win, but only because a guy on my team pulled a Lou Piniella on the ref and got the boot. Classic stuff really, but 4 on 5 wasn't much of a game after that.

In 2004 I attended an admit weekend for Duke's business school (FU-qua). I watched them play their game vs. the UCONNvicts from inside Cameron Indoor Stadium. I was amazed to see such passionate and diehard fans. There were probably 3,000 kids packed into their stadium. The game was preceded with a message from Coach K asking fans not to "burn too much stuff down if Duke should win." When Duke lost, I saw numerous fans crying and thrashing around on the floor. As a huge hoops fan, I've probably seen hundreds of games on TV of the Cameron Crazies going nuts, and in person they certainly didn't disappoint. Needless to say, I was impressed.

On Monday, I watched the game in Pauley Pavilion. Honestly, the UCLA fans put the Cameron Crazies to shame. Not only were there at least three times as many people there, they were all louder and more passionate that their Duke counterparties. There were more people in face paint, more people in hoops gear, and more people living and dying with each shot. Another glaring difference came when the lights were turned down and all of the championship banners were lit up. There were a few more in Pauley than in Cameron (like 8). From fans with homemade Roll jerseys to "Lorenzo Mata has a posse" t-shirts, the UCLA crowd was more imaginative and proud than any fans I've ever seen. Lastly, when the final horn sounded our fans didn't thrash on the floor, but rather stood and applauded their team. While there were a few teary eyes in the building (myself included), our fans were appreciative rather than disappointed. I am not only proud of our team but our fans.

As a UCLA undergrad during the Lavin era, I witnessed dwindling crowds in the student section and less and less pride in the program. Monday night's game has totally replaced the visions of an empty student section watching CSUN dance on the UCLA logo at center court. It's pretty clear that our program is on par with any other school in the country, and I think that our fans are there too. Anyone who thought that Howland wouldn't be a hit in "tinsel town" ought to take a look at how many people filled the seats on Monday to just to watch a giant tv.