Throughout the broadcast of the Mississippi State game, and especially at half time, the network focused on John Wooden, his Pyramid, and his teachings. I think many of us should have paid more attention to those segments than to the game because they anchored "student athletics" in a way that is sometimes overlooked in the quest of the false satisfaction of victories.

John Wooden was, and is, first and foremost, a teacher of young men. And, his broadcast comments were all rooted in his philosophy that the basketball court was not different from the English classroom -- they were both places where coaches taught and students learned life lessons. He taught the importance of character and detail, the value of hard work, and that, win or lose,  satisfaction was in knowing one did one's best.

Many do not know that the principles of the Pyramid were developed when he was teaching English, (in a high school if I recall correctly) and not as an attempt to mold a basketball team. They came to prominence because of his success on the basketball court. But, I'd bet that he molded and shaped more people while teaching English.

So, it is with a teacher's mind, one that taught 30 years in a Big 10 Law School, that I approach this Fan Post.

Ben Howland is the perfect Caretaker of the John Wooden legacy -- because he brings that same teacher's mind and perspective to the classroom/court that Coach brought when I was a student.

One need not be a "teacher" to be a successful coach. One can win basketball games with X's and O's without paying much attention to character, discipline, focus and effort. Calipari's teams and sc's last couple of years, under Timmeh, show that. But, at the end of the day, have those coaches prepared their players for life the way Coach and CBH have?

Ben Howland embraces all that is important in the Pyramid, the legacy and the overall value structure of UCLA. He is the right man for the job, win or lose, and I am pleased that no one here seems to doubt that.

So, let's talk about some of the issues that this losing season has been bringing up after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

Credit: AP Photo: Nick Ut

There are some themes running through the basketball thread all of which deal with the question as to whether CBH is the right man for our job. 

Some talk of replacing CBH if he does not succeed. Some act as though he is a dinosaur whose style and time have passed. And, still others, posit that he will leave on his own for the NBA so we should line up a replacement. (Don Mclean? I love Donny Mac. But, really? Do you think he'd support the idea of replacing the Caretaker?)

More insidious is the allegation that he cannot recruit players because no one wants to play his "style" of basketball.

Not one of these themes accurately reflects either CBH's history here, or the reality of who he is as a man and coach.

Continue reading this post »

Anyone else see this? Were they finally seeing the truth? No. They were using a metaphor. (I'm see a lot of that today.) What they were saying: sc is getting a lot out of Barkely because they are taking the risk of calling plays that either succeed big or crash. sc is throwing all of their offensive currency out there -- nothing cautious, trying to make big plays. Sounds like a debate we've been having here BUT: In the next sentence they praised the sc O line, noted that sc could send out multiple receivers AND protect Barkley from a 6 man rush and blitzes. Barkley routinely gets 4 or more seconds to throw. And, they also pointed out that sc's receivers have been catching the ball. Point: To take the risks sc is taking with its freshman QB you need the ability to protect him and give him time to throw and receivers who catch the ball.

When we can do the same, we will throw more currency on the table.

sjh

But, hey, the headline about the "best money can buy" seems a clear case of using a double entendre

This follows on a FanPost I put up yesterday part of which talked about giving up some wins to develop younger talent. There is so much back seat coaching going on -- which is clearly a byproduct of frustration -- and has also been a part of other sports discussions, including basketball, that I'm having a hard time figuring out the factual or policy basis behind some of the posts on who should be playing and why. It seems to me there are two ways to go:

First, we can have a meritocracy. Be the best at your position and you play. The value of this system is that there is competition at all positions and "competition" and "survival of the fittest" are part of the great American way. Whenever our coaches have said, "We are going to compete at every position" there have been strong posts of support. We are very Darwinian. However, this system only works if we trust those who oversee the competition to judge it. They are there, every day in practice, know with a degree of certainty we lack, who is screwing up in games, and have the background to make the difficult choices as to who plays and who does not. I suppose one can support a meritocracy and yet not trust those who judge the talent. But, if not our coaching staff, who? People who watch UCLA football for 4 hours, either in person or on TV, or the coaches who are there all the time.

I opt with the coaches. I am not opposed to throwing out merit to use a demographic based selection process -- let's play the freshmen and sophomores to get them ready for next year and the year after. No matter, they are not as good, today, as some of their elders -- the theory is that they will only get better by playing -- not just practicing. The fact that we may lose games that might have been won is a cost of that decision. And, the fact that younger players may be more fragile of body and mind may have a negative impact on the desired long-term strategy.

Yesterday, I threw in a hybrid system. Compete for every position, but in a push, go younger. The upside is that we lose little on the field and gain experience. The downside is that such a system does not respect some intangible values that kept some of the older players here during some desperate times. Why do I bring this up again, this time in more depth? Because, no matter the system, be it meritocracy, demographic (with two young guys at a position), or hybrid -- someone needs to make the ultimate decision as to who plays. And, who better than the coaches?

I know that some use blogs to vent and rant. I just skip those posts. But, I think it incumbent on those who are seriously suggesting that we are playing the wrong people to step up and explain why, with more than "I just think so." Not that I don't trust you. But, until I am convinced otherwise, I will trust CRN and CNN more.

We are where many of us thought we'd be. I do not like losing. There are no moral victories. But, I am not surprised by where we are today, 3-4 and at the bottom of the Pac 10. And, for that reason, I'll not make ultimatums or decide, today, that our season was a failure. 

1. It's normal to make pre-season predictions and talk about expectations BUT they are but educated guesses (and to some extent wishes) as to how things will play out. We are pretty much on schedule except -- we beat a Tennessee team that many thought would beat us and we lost to an Arizona team some picked us to beat. I think Arizona is better than many pre-season people thought it would be and Tennessee might be a bit weaker (but, had they been able to win, yesterday, our victory would look bigger. We are in a strong conference. (Even UW looked good, in early games -- and probably because of Locker (we are learning that you cannot win the games you must win without great QB play). If you picked us to go 8-4 or 7-5, even 6-6, you picked us to beat some teams that are better than we are.)

Calling for 6 victories and a bowl game, before one snap, is built upon assumptions about how talented other teams are, how even the conference is AND which of our players will be injured.

I think the critical injuries -- that destroyed pre-season predictions and expectations -- were those to Hester and Prince. Prince is not the QB who played the Tenn. game. There is something different and noticeable. I think the injury took a lot out of him, emotionally, physically, and in "sharpness"; I question whether, under the pressure of "must win" games, he will get it back.

My point: I can't be disappointed in the players or the coaches for being what most of us thought they'd be -- a less talented, young team.

2. James Washington is right -- we are too young and lack the talent to do much more than we are doing now. (This is a negative way of interpreting his comments. He's much more positive about UCLA and every criticism has a tag line indicating that things are and will be better. I am amazed about his attitude, especially after he was passed over for a coaching position. He has every reason to be bitter or snide -- but he isn't. He is a Bruin.)

Washington continually pointed out that we are playing 33 freshmen and sophomores. And, channeling some of the comments here, on BN, he pointed out that we are not just talking about experience -- we are talking about body strength and size. Give these guys a couple of years in the weight room and watch out. (Where have we seen this before? On the hardwoods where we've seen some great transitions between the freshmen and sophomore years. Can we all say RW together?)

3. Washington was also on point on our QB position. We have inexperience surrounded by people who just aren't making the plays the QB's need them to make.

Let's not forget how inexperienced Prince is. He didn't even play his senior year in high school.

Kevin Craft is what Kevin Craft is. He gives us all he has but it's not enough. We should thank him for being the best he can be. A lot of his team mates haven't reached that point, yet.

Brehaut, in the best of all worlds, would have been redshirted. We couldn't do that because we are so weak at QB. It's no surprise to me, in his clean up minutes, he does not shine.

However, I'm sliding to the camp that would like to see him start a game.

How good are our seniors? We all seem to agree with the commentator who does not see an early round draft choice -- other than Price (a junior) -- on either side of the ball. Once more, Washington is channeling BN when he points the finger at CTS. 

What few seniors are playing, with the exception of ATV and a courageous, playing hurt Carter, we are not getting a lot of leadership from our seniors. Logan Paulson has just never come into his own. Now, he's dropping passes and picking up stupid penalties. 

As maddening as the young guy mistakes are, I really can't blame them too much. They should not be playing. They should be learning. Rosario will be an incredible receiver when he "grows up".

3. Randall Carroll's Tweet: I'm really torn about this. I resent it and there is a part of me that wants him sanctioned. Then, I realize that he is young and immature and that  young and immature kids say stupid things. (Some of us Geezers do to.). I wish he had not done it, but I trust CRN and CNC to deal with it. 

I really don't like Divos (male Divas). If this guy has a bad attitude, I trust they will get rid of him. He's already been sanctioned once. 

But, I'm hoping he is just a young, disappointed kid with a big mouth, a kid who if taught correctly can channel that energy appropriately and help the team, 

4. Finally, we are not "just like last year" or "worse than last year." There is one difference between this team, all of CTS's teams and last year. We are not rolling over and accepting defeat. We have been in all of these games and have never stopped playing hard.

That, to me, is the sign of growth.

I've said this before and it may be my mantra for the season: We are disappointed because we are losing games that we could be winning. Games that in the preseason we did not think we'd win. So we get close and lose and the disappointment is all the greater because -- with a few plays here or there, a few less penalties -- we'd win. 

And, therein, I think, lies most of our frustration. I, for one, take this as a positive sign.

I am not surprised or disappointed about where we are now. We are where I expected us to be. And, in a few years,  we will be where I expect us to be, back on top where all UCLA teams belong.

The last 3 losses are on me.

I know, we can defer the blame on play calling, bad D, stupid penalties.

But, I know better. For the last three games, I've tainted my mojo and caused my team to lose.

My rituals? I put a picture of my Dad in a comfy seat beside me. I tune in the game, and join the thread. I wear Bruin gear. I have a key chain that plays the fight song which I play at great moments to fire the team up. I move the keychain around either in my hands or, if we need momentum changes, I move it somewhere near me. I make my adjustments just like the coaches do.

For the last three weeks, Jen's HS games have conflicted with our games and I've abandoned my alma mater for my daughter -- the right choice but with terrible consequences for my Bruins.

I've not run rituals or been on the game day thread.

And, today, I will do the same thing. Jen's game starts at 6:00 CDT.

So, I am calling on all of my Bruin brothers and sisters to kick up their mojo to cover for the disappearance of mine. 

If you bake, bake. If you drink, down one for me. If you spin in circles, can you do a circle for me?

Maybe a group ritual would work. Maybe we should share some here so we can expand the energy.

We will need mojo, today. I'll try to figure out a way to make a "location" contribution.

But, I need the rest of you to bail me out and to make up for my absence.

sjh

PS. Part of my ritual is to NOT look at the score before I watch the game on DVR. I don't want to mess up all the good work you are doing. I'll join in, after watching the DVR and then reading the threads. 

Bumped. Despite the reflections from this past weekend I agree with everything 66 laid out below. GO BRUINS. -N

In fact, when this crew took over the bus it was abandoned, at the side of the road, and had no wheels on it.

I think it is healthy to question authority. I grew up wearing a button that said so.

So, I appreciate the constructive dialogue about the coaching staff though I disagree with much that has been said. In the context of what we have and where we are, I think the coaches are doing a good job of using the talent on this team.

What I don't think is fair are the unsubstantiated attacks, particularly on CNC, that he is "too old" (Uh, maybe that one hits a bit close to home for me) or that his prime has past.

Now, two days after a disappointing loss, I think it is time, once more, to reinforce many of the posts of the weekend by reminding all of us, including me, where we were just a few years ago. 

Our program was a complete disaster -- abandoned by the side of the road, no wheels on the bus, no replacement parts in the garage, and no mechanics qualified to fix it. 

CTS and his crew destroyed this program. We had no offensive scheme for our players to learn. We recruited poorly and foolishly did not make sure we were bringing in players to fill all of our needs. The so called "skill players" found themselves without those who make them look skilled.

In came the new crew, CRN and CNC -- both of whom had very successful records and, as coaches, solid reputations. (As one who explored the "charges" against CRN, I will not concede that he had stains on his record.)

At the time, they were jumping in to rescue a program that was in disaster. It takes courage and commitment to do so.

They could have gone to fully functioning programs that gave them the resources to succeed from the get go -- sort of like buying a fully functioning well maintained bus. Doing so would have obviated the need to do all the hard work that makes rescue projects so much more than maintenance or improvement projects.

Rescue projects are tough. Rescue projects take time. But, rescue projects are rewarding. It takes special people to take on the challenge and CRN and CNC are special people.

I think we all agree that they want to win. And, are passionate about both UCLA and bringing us back to our rightful place in the universe. 

Where we disagree is that I am a lot more hesitant to question their qualifications to do so or some of the decisions they have been making.

No one predicted a winning season. Most of us thought we would be 5/7 or maybe 6/6. We will be.

We thought we might lose a game we should win, and if we played better than expected, win a game we should have lost.

We are right on that projection.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

1. We still do not know how good this team is. We have beaten three teams, but none is a touchstone we can use to compare ourselves to other teams.

It is still to early in the season and comparative schedules are yet to be meaningful. I did not see Tenn. play, but it sounds like their D played well -- that may tell us a little bit about or O.

But, or D may not have had a meaningful test yet. KSU came into last night's game rated having thrown for 363 yards in its two prior games (28/57/2/3). Against us, it threw for 199 yards (better than previous games) 21/35/2/0. They came in with an average of 4.48 yards per rushing attempt and we held them to 1.9. However, their previous two games were against La-Lafayette and Massachusetts. Their passing game was better against us than against those two teams.

2. I am more concerned about our D than I am about our O. Don't get me wrong. I love our team and our D. I love these kids. But, I fear many of us are drinking the Kool Aid. I write this section in response to a post in the game day thread, last night. Someone referred to "Kevin Crap" and then went on to say that at least we had a "top 10 D". I wrote a long response but could not post it because the thread had changed. I will write about Craft, in a moment. This is about the D. Before last night's game, our D was rated 30th against unranked teams. I don't think we will move up much after last night. 

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. Simply despicable on the part of the Los Angeles Trojan Times. GO BRUINS. -N

Those of us who write for a living know a very simple truth: The pictures we choose to illustrate our words are far more powerful than our prose. They set the tone, convey the emotion, and shape the reader/viewer's reaction.

When we are reporters rather than fiction writers, when there is a reality that we are purporting to present, minimum standards of intellectual honesty demand that we select images that truly represent the facts -- images that don't create a wrong or false impression, images that don't create a false reality. Images that don't create a false sense of the people about whom we are writing.

Images that don't border on inciting racial blowback.

That is why I was so upset to see the images used to illustrate Chris Foster's LA Slimes piece on the suspension of our four players.

Simply stated, Foster presented something we've never seen in the reporting about those who get in trouble at our cross -town rival, he presented a "line up array" of pictures calculated to make our kids look "bad":

Think I'm nuts? Let's look at the picture he used of Morrell Presley:

And, now the official UCLA picture:

Difference in tone? You bet. 

Honestly, deep in your heart, and taking race out of the picture, which looks more threatening and menacing?

The only pictures they could get?

Uh, no. The official UCLA website has pictures of all of these players:

You think they didn't know about these pictures? They did, They used Viney's official picture BUT they cropped it in a way that is less than flattering? Knox official picture has a faint smile; not the line up picture. And, for Carroll, they chose a picture, like Presley's.

As a matter of pure presentation, one could have cropped the official pictures to present a more true image of the player without taking up more room on the page. Rant begins after the flip.

Continue reading this post »

This has been, perhaps, my favorite week on BN. 

From the pregame articles, to the game day thread, to the incredible follow up stories -- I have never been more excited by a body of work in any online community. Hector and 11's posts, and the threads that followed, were works of art -- good writing, good reporting, good humor -- unique contributions.

It seems like we have evolved to a level where our common understanding of what being a citizen here means. I was particularly pleased by a game day thread with many new contributors and almost no personal attacks on our players and coaches. This was a great game day thread. And, the story telling that is showing up in the FanPosts is unique amongst the blogs I visit. Finally, add in the amazing visual contributions -- photo's, video's -- where else can you find stuff like this?

And, for this, Nestor deserves a lot of credit.

Nestor has built a community that demands excellence in content and behavior. And, during this week, the standards have been constantly met or exceeded. It is no small task to draw the line between honest criticism and personal attacks -- but that line has been carefully drawn here to the benefit of us all. And, by his personal example, with all that he posts every day, Nestor makes clear that content is King here. This isn't a place to come and spew crap.

Every once in a while, I visit another site, just to check it out. I'm stunned at what passes for dialogue and content. Some of it is shallow, some mean, much of it snarky drive by posts.

It's the kind of stuff that would not be tolerated here.

I think we can all agree that nothing less than excellence would flow from a base that has either graduated from or become aligned with UCLA.

But, to create a place where so many diverse people come to contribute in such a deep and positive way amazes me.

Perhaps, I am more impressed, today, than I have been for the years I've been here because I'm trying to build a community of my own on a blog I started a couple of months ago. It is really hard work. Much harder than I expected. 

Every so often, someone comes here, steps over the line, and then attacks Nestor when he asks that they step back and play nice. Sometimes, the attacks on Nestor are more aggressive or spill beyond our pages. No matter how strong one is, that stings a bit; and no one wants that negative energy in his or her life.

There was a thread last week where that happened. I was going to write a letter of support and appreciation to Nestor and the front pagers but never got around to it.

But, I do think, every so often, we have to say "Thank you" lest you think we take all of this for granted.

We don't. We appreciate this place. And, we appreciate you.