SB Nation User Blog: Class of 66

Random Thoughts On the Basketball Program: An Old Teacher's Perspective

Class of 66 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:56:13 -0000

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.

1. I think there is merit to some of the posts on recruiting. I have been there. I served on my law school's recruitment and admissions committees. Most of the time, we evaluated talent well.

That's a way of saying that all classes are different. All classes have a "personality". As teachers, we wanted kids who would go all out, work hard, pay attention -- do the very best they could do. Most of the time we got them, some times we didn't. Disappointed or not, they were ours for 3 years and it was our job to help them get the most out of themselves that they could.

Note I said "that they could". No one can force a student to be his or her best. That student has to want to. That desire is manifested in effort and attention.

CBH may be facing some of these issues now. He may have picked some kids who on paper or in interviews looked good -- but on the floor, don't.

I think it is absolutely correct to call for a revaluation of "admissions" criteria.

One problem is that the characteristic that most differentiates a true Ben Ball Warrior from just another athlete is effort. The players who many of us love the most were not the most talented in their classes -- the were the ones who bought into CBH's "selfless game", team first, lock down D, and leave it on the floor philosophy.

How do you recruit "effort". There is probably an implicit assumption that any kid who is a "5" is a "5" because he plays hard. I think we are learning that is not true. Just, as I learned that just because a kid got a perfect LSAT does not mean he would do well in law school or be a good lawyer.

I think those of you who are calling for a "deeper look" are on the right track. Whether the prima donnas will allow that deep look is a question we will have to face. But, if they won't, fuck em.

2. Do you redesign the curriculum because some of the students want to learn something else?

DG made clear that he wanted CBH to change his approach to the game because he, DG, didn't like to play the way CBH wanted him to play.

Reminds me of my junior year at UCLA. I took a Poli-Sci course in Political Parties thinking I'd be studying Democrats, and Republicans. Wrong. The professor taught us more than any of us wanted to know about African Political parties -- he was the world's leading authority on the subject. Is that what I wanted? No. Did I learn something? Yes. Quite a lot. And, it has served me well ever since.

Could I have avoided the shock of learning about Hootsie's and Tutu's? Yes. By reading the course description which I never did.

Is there any serious high school basketball player and family that does not understand what CBH will teach? Is there anyone who thinks you come to UCLA to play street ball? Do you think CBH went into homes and said, we will "change everything for you"?

In many ways, these kids and families know a lot more about CBH and the way we play than he knows about them.

Yes, we may have made some recruiting mistakes. But, I cannot understand how a kid who comes here does not understand the demands that will be put on him. All out effort all of the time. If that's not what you want, don't take the class.

I want us to recruit kids who will live by the Pyramid and understand its definition of Satisfaction.

3. So what is a teacher to do with a class that is not learning? Throw out the curriculum?

I once had a law student come up to me and explain why he was never prepared in the criminal law class I was teaching by saying "I am going to be an investment banker. I don't need to know criminal law." I'll spare you what I said to him -- but I didn't change the course.

I did my best to teach what I thought had to be taught in ways that reached as many students as I could.

I think CBH is doing that. He believes in teaching D, footwork, positioning -- keeping the ball in front of you and all of the things that led to three straight Final Fours.

I am sure that he is trying hard to find ways to get his players to buy in -- be it basing game time on practice effort or knowledge of the system.

Some people are calling for him to throw in the towel and just let the kids run. The truth is that his system lets the kids run IF they can force a turnover or grab a rebound. His system is based on transition offense and we've had little this year because we are not playing D.

Also, for those of you who want to change the class so that we become a "run and gun" team -- uh, we've been there.

Can you say "Lavin"? He had no curriculum, no set of values, no idea what he was doing and he did not teach. (Don't believe that, how about Barron Davis looking at the banners and saying "We would have hung one too if we had a coach.") Lavin just let the guys run. And, they ran the program into the ground.

Many of you seem fond of saying that "Coach" changed to accommodate his players -- as some form of justification for the idea that we should play a more run oriented game. Coach was very much like CBH. Structured, organized and focused. Down to the minute of every practice. The idea that he somehow would go wherever the players thought they wanted to go is so far off that it is laughable. I was there. And, I've read the book.

Some criticize CBH for being "stubborn". You know who else was steadfast when it came to his principles? Coach. What would have been easier than to let the nation's best young player have hair that was a bit too long? We all know the story -- Bill Walton was given a choice. A haircut or the team. Some might call that stubborn, too.

Lavin gave in. He just waived his arms around and looked busy.

CBH never stops teaching. No matter how far ahead or behind we are he never stops teaching. In the worst moments of the MSU game you could hear him screaming instructions -- giving lessons, even if it appeared that they were making no difference or of no importance.

4. CBH's job is to teach his students -- not to "entertain" you or me. He is a university coach with a responsibility to follow in Coach's steps to make his students better people as well as better players.

The word "entitlement" has been bandied about here, lately, in referring to some of our players. The argument goes that because of their preseason hype, they feel entitled to start and entitled to play they way they like to play.

I see "entitlement" on BN. More than one poster has said "I am entitled to be entertained". And, "I find the way we play to be boring." Want entertainment? You live in the entertainment capitol of the world. Go watch the Lakers.

Phil Jackson has one mission -- to bring in the dollars. He need not build character or teach. He has to put out a product that appeals to the masses even if the tools in his box don't shine with character.

And, for those of you wanting to be entertained -- I've searched on some of your posts -- I don't see any complaining about being bored during the Final Four repeats.

I think what you're saying is that you feel entitled to win -- that you can't enjoy anything short of a victory. Not the full out effort of a less talented player or his growth over a period of years.

Entitled to entertainment and entitled to win are, in my eyes, bandwagon philosophies and have no place in the world that Coach built.

5. Am I happy with where we are now?

No, not really. I see a group of underachieving students not grasping for and learning everything that their teacher has to offer. And, I see a somewhat frustrated teacher. But, that teacher has been through this before and I trust him to get things straightened out. I think some of the change will come in the form of players transferring out. IIRC -- Stanback didn't jump ship. He consulted with CBH and decided that there were other places where he would learn more. Same with DG.

We did well when the players and the system meshed. I'm not in favor of changing the system. If the players won't change to fit it, I'd change the players.

Which is one reason why I keep going back to a point I've made here often: Were the world perfect, as a teacher I would have preferred to grade effort rather than accomplishment. I learned that from Coach and I think the philosophy serves us well in all areas of life, including the class room and the basketball court.

More Long Term Perspective On Ben Ball

Class of 66 — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:38:31 -0000

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.

First and foremost, no one in his or her right mind should be talking about replacing the nation's best "teaching coach" and perhaps the man whose personal values most resemble Coach's. He is called The Caretaker for a reason. He has brought us back, the right way. This is UCLA. We win championships, in all sports, with honor and integrity. There is no one in the world in whose hands I'd trust this program more than CBH. Leaving for the NBA? CBH has said that the UCLA job is his dream job. Don't think he's had opportunities to jump to the NBA or to other schools, for a lot more money? There have been rumors that he has and he didn't. Now, let's revisit history a bit. When CBH was hired to replace the impostor, there were segments that wailed and whined that we had hired the wrong man. That his style of basketball -- grind it out D and low-scoring victories -- was boring. That this was the west coast and we demanded run-and-gun, show time basketball -- or we would be bored.

(Sound familiar. That wailing can be seen in several threads on BN. "Let the kids run!" is the battle cry. For those with any sense of history, that is exactly what the lizard did -- as he ran the program into the ground.)

As CBH put his system into place, two things happened.

We started to win.

AND, people began to appreciate the beauty of well played D. And, as our D got better, and our rebounding stronger, we got to run in transition and score.

Just as classical music is an acquired taste for those who started with rap or rock, fine D is an acquired taste. And, those who took the time to learn how to see it learned to appreciate it.

And, more people began to appreciate it when we started winning and made our "3 straight" run. Then, the comments in the threads were about our lock down D and how great it was. These kids didn't come here playing that kind of D. They bought in, learned it, and played it -- to our benefit and theirs.

You know who else appreciated it? The NBA coaches who inherited the kids CBH trained. The lunch bucket kids who were never projected -- out of high school -- to be first rounders, became first rounders. And, starters. Why? Because they were fundamentally sound and could play D and rebound. Think the NBA doesn't care about D so that recruits shouldn't? Read what the coaches of our first rounders are saying. And,read how much credit these NBA coaches are giving CBH for his work.

Let's talk about recruiting a bit. If you are a hot shit high school player -- one that can run and gun -- and you think you will be in the NBA soon, where should you go to college?

Probably a place like UCLA where you can round out your game and learn to play D.

If you're the parent of a hot shit kid, where should you advise him to go? Probably to a school like UCLA and a coach like Howland. And, because both UCLA and Howland are unique, you would send your kid to UCLA.

That's how KL came into our picture. This was the hot shit kid of his time. His parents and family friends knew more about basketball than most. And, they had their heads on straight. They were not living through their kid or interfering with his basketball education. I'm sure they rankled as he sat on the bench during early crunch times -- but they kept their mouths shut and watched as he quickly developed into the player he is now. Why did he come to UCLA, to learn lock down D -- which was the missing component in his high school game.

Every once in a while there will be kids who don't fit -- whose expectations or those of their parents -- are not IMMEDIATELY met by our system. That happens. (I changed majors at UCLA several times. I did not blame the departments I left -- I just realized I belonged elsewhere. And, bless my parents, they did not go to the department chairs and demand curriculum reform so that I could learn the disciplines my way.) And, notice that I said IMMEDIATELY. I like DG. I like his passion. But, he is a kid and apparently, like many kids (and some of us adults) lacks patience and has some sense of entitlement. If he does not want to be here. Fine. Not everyone should. But, I sure wish he had decided that at the end of last year and that it didn't appear that one of his main reasons for leaving was that we (or as his parents put it "they") were losing games.

All that said, I really don't hold CBH accountable, in any way, for DG. Not for recruiting him, not for his patience in trying to work things out with him, not for his refusal to change his system to accommodate this "gifted" player (he didn't do that for KL or anyone else), and not for ultimately letting go in a most graceful way.

I won't repeat the outstanding points that gbruin made in his front page article. And, in many ways, this is a response to some of the comments in that thread. And, I don't want to debate them here.

I just wanted to add perspective. Some times, I think that the comments in that thread are made by people with no institutional history. And, then I realize that that's probably true. They may not have been around during the times that we cite to give historical dimension. I think it a Geezer's responsibility, especially one who was around when the first banners were hoisted, to hold a long-term perspective and, once in a while, to share it.

Gameday: sc's Offense Is the Best Money Can Buy

Class of 66 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:07:33 -0000

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

Who Plays? Meritocracy v. Demographic Selection Standards

Class of 66 — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:03:43 -0000

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.

Random Thoughts on the Arizona Game and Where We Are

Class of 66 — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:09:55 -0000

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.

Someone Please Bail Me Out

Class of 66 — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:09:00 -0000

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.

The Wheels Are Not Falling Off the Bus

Class of 66 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:12:35 -0000

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.

Our first two games were games we projected we'd win. And, we did. Tenn was a game which, in all fairness, we projected we'd lose. We won it. We are one up.

Then, on the road, and without our starting QB, we played a Stanford team that was probably a pre-season push, but until last weekend looked good -- and lost.

I don't think anyone projected an Oregon win. It is simply too good a team. I have no idea why they stunk up Boise, and I watched the whole game, but they rebounded strong and are a genuine top 10 team.

That, after these games, we think we could have/should have won each should inspire us to support our coaches. They got us where we had to be -- playing with mostly untested parts that have not really worked together enough to create a strong working whole.

There are all these rumblings that we should give up some chance of winning to develop our younger talent.

We are playing our younger talent -- not in an effort to create a development year -- but because we have no choice.

On O, with very few exceptions, we are playing first year people. The only area where we are not is at receiver and I think the concerns expressed by many here are valid. But, because we may not be pleased with the play of a couple of seniors does not render the coaches subject to criticism for not giving young guys, across the board, a chance to play.

We are shaky at QB because had everything worked out for us, we would have had a senior QB.

KC was never projected as a starter. The fact that he is our most experienced QB does not mean he has the skill level to succeed in this league. But, he has the heart and plays to his full potential. I think he is a warrior and will always be on his side. In fact, in some ways, I think we have the best chance of winning when he plays. I choose experience over RAW talent. But, the coaches disagree and I respect them.

So, what are they doing? They are going young at QB. Just what people are demanding. And, when you go young at QB, you run the risk that an offense won't work -- not because the OC can't make it work, but because a young QB can't make it work. Holding the ball too long. Throwing to the wrong guy -- into coverage -- inexperience.

You cannot blame the coaches -- especially those of you who want us to play young -- for trying to put those young players into positions where they can succeed by dumbing down the playbook.

And, as much as I appreciate the rousing debate on which young QB should play, frankly we've not seen enough of either to second guess the coaches. (Those on BN who have attended practices seem to be supporting the coaches' choices.)

The D, has more experience, but still has some young guys starting or playing a lot of minutes. Losing Hester was huge for a young, inexperienced team. I am not a big fan of this D -- it was DW's D, but I must concede it played better against Oregon and I was really pleased to see it do so. Yes, we still have tackling issues. But, we did cut down on destructive penalties.

We are a little less than half way into our season. We are in a competitive conference. We have not rolled over in any of our games and that is a sign of growth. Even in losing, we are getting better. I still believe we will win 6 games (including a win over sc) and a bowl game.

The coaches are stocking the garage with parts and rebuilding the Bus as best they can. Unfortunately, they can't keep it in the garage until it is perfect. They have to take it on the road, every week. They have to make it run as best they can until they have everything they need to make it run well.

When it is restored, when it looks like the classic Bus that was once UCLA football, if we maintain it, it will run forever.

And, we will be singing the praises of CRN and CNC in the same voice we do with CBH. We gave CBH time to get his wreck back on the road. And, we must do the same for CRN and CNC.

Some Random Thoughts About the KSU Game

Class of 66 — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:11:47 -0000

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.

Here are some opinions and some numbers. I write this section, not to criticize the D, but rather because I am tired of the criticism of Kevin Craft and the praise for the D. Neither are soundly rooted in fact.

I see the ugly remnants of the CTS/Walker D this season. Inconsistent from the get go. Why must we start every game by giving up a long drive? Why do we wait until late in the game to dominate? Why can't we stop a spread? Even a spread by teams that have not been or will not be highly ranked?

At times last night, our tackling was atrocious. Shades of the past.

And the penalties. Don't get me started. Yes, some were SPTR penalties, but when you have people in a hole, giving first downs or improved field position by penalty is not the way to win games.

I'm so sick of the complaints that the O forces the D to be mediocre. For the last few years, this has been a D that cannot get itself off the field. This year, the added wrinkle: Our D is starting with better field position than it has in the past. Thank you Locke.

In the first quarter, fresh off the bench, the D was on the field for 9 and 8 play drives. In the second quarter, one 3 and out and 6 and 7 play drives. The D, on it's first time on the field after the half, gave up a 14 play drive that resulted in a touchdown. The following: 3,6,3,11 and 4.

The O Drives: First quarter --11 (touchdown), 4 (field goal), Second Quarter -- 6(interception), 8 (field goal) 2 (end of half -- we had time but ran out the clock), Third -- 5, 4, 4 [this was our very bad 3rd quarter. Fortunately, Nestor turned the momentum by changing the game day thread]. Fourth -- 10 (Field Goal), 4 (Touchdown) 5, 2 (fumble) 1(end of game).

I've always thought Time of Possession was a meaningless statistic -- often misinterpreted. In the past our Defense Apologists have used TOP to blame our O for the D's failings. When you look at the drive charts, you see another story.

3. Get Off Kevin Craft's Back: Yes he had shaky moments last night and a tough 3rd quarter, but he delivered a win. For those of you who think Kevin Prince is so much better, look at the numbers. It's a bit hard to compare because although both are listed as having played 2 games, in reality, Craft has played but one. Craft has a higher efficiency rating 124/105, but they are quite even elsewhere. Completion percent? Craft 54.2 Prince 55.8. Each is averaging 1 TD and 1 Interception per game. Craft is averaging 4.5 yards per carry and Prince -10. And, BTW -- the longest pass play this season? Craft's 51 yard TD, yesterday. (And, he had a TD called back by an "interesting" penalty call.)

Would I rather see Craft start? No. But, we don't jump down Prince's throat if he has a bad series or makes a mistake. Let's give Craft the same allegiance.

Kevin Craft is a Bruin Warrior worthy of the same support and adulation we give our other warriors. His commitment and effort cannot be challenged. And, he delivered a win last night.

4. The best part of the team? Other than the MVP (Kai Forbath) the O line. It is playing way better than anyone expected. Opening holes and protecting our QB's. From what I hear, the Tenn. D is for real. So, I think it safe to say the O line has had a real test this year and we have reason to believe it is much improved. It certainly is in attitude. The looks on the O line players faces are so different from the looks in prior years. They are clearly on a mission to prove themselves and they are doing it.

So, where does that leave me? Thrilled. We are so clearly on our way back that I can see the glory days on the horizon.

But, I have tempered expectations. We have yet to play a team that is great. I think Cal is great. During the first weak of the season, after watching UW play LSU, I posted that I am now officially worried about that game.

At the beginning of the year, many of us said that we thought we will win the games we are expected to win and will steal a win or two of those we are expected to lose. I think that will hold up. We have one "unexpected" victory over a Tenn team that is probably not going to fall like last year's team. I think we will beat sc (I always think we will beat sc, but this year I think that even more.)

We are a young team starting to master CRN and CNC's systems and I think we will "overachieve" this year.

sjh

PS. The suspended players: We missed Viney last night -- but for the most part Sheldon Price played a good "first game". The two big losers in the group of 4? Carrol and Presley. How are you going to keep Rosario out of the line up?

Shame On LA Times: Newspaper Posts Racially Charged "Line Up" Photos Of UCLA Football Players

Class of 66 — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:45:24 -0000

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.

Three paragraphs back, I asked you to take "race" out of you interpretation of the pictures.

Unfortunately, in our society we have not reached a point where we are, in fact, race neutral.

Instead of moving us farther down the egalitarian path, the election of our first Black President has made more visible some of the latent racial hatred that we have yet to eliminate.

I do not play the race card lightly. Read my body of work here. And, know my life. I have never used race or difference as a way of justifying disparate treatment.

But, at the same time, I have to question why the Slimes chose to present these four Black athletes in this "line-up" manner when they have NEVER done it before with the white athletes at sc.Or here. Or anywhere. Do you recall a similar picture gallery of the sc players who posted and maintained that hateful website?

They chose to give the pictures an interpretation that does not fit the story.

How can I say that?

Because, no one knows what the story is. No one accept CRN, the coaches, the team and the AD. The alleged offenses have never been made public. What little we know is that there are no public reports of criminal activity. That CRN acted quickly and decisively. And, that those of the four who have spoken out have taken responsibility for what they did.

At a time when we are thin in our defensive backfield, and when our first string running back is out, CRN stepped up and suspended these players, all of whom would have seen game action.

THAT IS THE STORY. That UCLA has high standards of conduct. That we enforce them, to our detriment. And, that our players take responsibility for their actions.

This should have been a positive story. Instead, it was a vapid story with sensational photographs.

One last thing. I cannot wait to see what Kurt Streeter has to say about this -- Streeter who has seen racial implications in stories before (even when many others could not). Certainly, the man who defended Karl Dorrell and claimed he was the victim of racial prejudice will do the same for these four Bruin athletes. I can't wait.

sjh

PS. No, I don't read the fishwrap. It is not a part of my life. I only saw this article because a good friend called me, upset and asking for a "reality check". Unfortunately, we both saw the images the same way. I felt moved to write about my feelings.

Nestor Deserves a Lot of Credit

Class of 66 — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:12:42 -0000

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.