SB Nation User Blog: Guest Blogger

Coach: "Only You Know If You Succeed"

Guest Blogger — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:18:59 -0000

Coach

The following are excerpts from Wooden On Leadership, a present I picked up for X-mas. I was reading it yesterday while flying home from snow covered DC. For some reason the following grafs from Coach about his team from 50 years ago (pp. 11-13) really struck me and wanted to share it with rest of you. I highlighted the parts, I also marked up in the hard copy while I was reading it. Oh if you don’t have a copy of Coach's book, you can pick it up by going here. Anyway, here is Coach talking about his 1959-60 UCLA basketball team. GO BRUINS. -N

In 1959-60, UCLA struggled to stay above .500, and, in fact, we had to win our last game of the season to finish with a record of 14-12. From a win-loss point of view, it was the worst year I’d ever had as head coach at UCLA. Some fans began to grumble about our "poor" results": "The program is mired down," some said, "Wooden can’t win in the postseason"; "UCLA doesn’t have a post-season." And there were other things said along that line. I had a different opinion.

The 1959-1960 season had been a success and pleased me a great deal, especially when I recalled a prediction made by Sam Balter, a well-known broadcaster and sports writer. In assessing UCLA’s chances at the start of the year, he said, "I’ll push a peanut with my nose down The Miracle Mile in Beverly Hills if UCLA isn’t below .500 this year." I received no calls from anyone who disagree with Sam’s prediction – and for good reason.

The preceding year – 1958-1959 – UCLA had been third in our conference. Four of our five starters on that squad wouldn’t be returning, including future Olympic gold medalist Rafer Johnson, Denny Crum (later to coach Louisville to two NCAA national championships), and Walt Torrance, perhaps the best player on the team.

I’ve often said that as a leader I’d rather have a lot of talent and little experience than a lot of experience and little talent. In 1959-1960 we didn’t have much of either. And there was an additional handicap beyond our control.

A few years earlier, the football programs at UCLA and some other schools in the conference had been hit by scandal: Payments to athletes had exceeded the conference’s strict limits the football programs at the schools involved in infractions had been placed on probation, and part of the penalty included a strict restriction on postseason play such as the Rose Bowl.

The penalty against UCLA applied not only to football but to all sports including basketball, even though we had played by the rules. Thus, for a time, UCLA basketball had been ineligible for any postseason tournament play. Some athletes with considerable basketball talent who might have attended our school no doubt had stayed away. All this – lack of experience, limited outstanding talent, ineligibility, and more – impacted on our ability to outscore opponents.

Therefore when I reflected on the 1959-1960 season with its 14-12 record and the sizable obstacles we faced, I was of the opinion that our team might have gotten my best coaching up to that point in my career. And nobody knew it but me. That was fine.

I also believe those student-athletes under my leadership came as close to reaching 100 percent of their potential as some of the later UCLA teams with perfect 30-0 seasons. The 1959-1960 group just didn’t have the extreme level of talent that championship teams possessed. However, I do not judge success based on championships; rather, I judge it on how close we came to realizing our potential.

Consequently, in looking back at all 27 years I coached the Bruins, I wouldn’t put another season ahead of 1959-1960 for what we achieved in that regard. I have great pride in what we accomplished that season.

The team had come very close to achieving the formidable task of maximizing their abilities individually and as a unit. We stuck together, worked hard, ignored what was beyond our control, and perfected – or tried to – those things that were under our control. Our team achieved success.

And yet the critics were complaining. (Sam never got around to rolling that peanut down the street with his nose). We were a success, but nobody understood it except up. But us is what mattered.

- Coach John R. Wooden

Drew Gordon Has No Heart

Guest Blogger — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:11:18 -0000

"Coach Howland with a few words for Drew Gordon" - insomniacslounge (flickr)

View full size photo »

A guest blog post from Bruin Blue. With his permission we are publishing this post which also went up on Bruin Report Online. GO BRUINS. -N

That of course is what Gordon said about his team last year. "[W]e just don't have enough heart." And what did he mean by that? What is "heart" to Drew Gordon? Playing hard? Doing everything you can to win? Fighting through adversity? He must have meant something like that. Of course, we are not used to seeing a player say something like that about his own team, particularly a freshman who was on a team dominated by seniors who had gone to the FInal Four two or three times. But Gordon decided that they had no heart, and was helpful enough to tell that to someone in the media. I'm sure his teammates appreciated it.

At the time, it seemed like maybe Gordon was a hard-trying player who was so bitterly disappointed at a couple of mid-season losses, that he was just venting out of frustration. But later evidence seems to indicate that Gordon wasn't including himself in that harsh criticism, but was directing it at the players who were playing ahead of him. They had no heart, Gordon believed. When he got in there, he would show us some heart.

Well, this year, he got his chance. He even broke into the starting lineup. He was playing quite a few minutes, doing pretty well, particularly compared to some of the others. But he apparently vehemently disliked the way he was utilized. The specifics are not certain, but probably he didn't like being used at the center spot, thinking that as a sophomore, he deserved to start at the "4," even though I personally have never seen him make a shot over eight feet. Maybe the offensive style utilized by his coach was not to his fancy. Maybe he didn't like to ever be taken out of games, particularly when the coach thought he had made a mistake or two or three. Even though of course the coach took other players out for the same reason, and Gordon was never benched for any extended period.

So Gordon didn't like these things, and he let the coach know about it, right in front of other players. He disrupted practices, muttered profanities at the coach during games. When the coach finally reacted by suspending him for two practices, he and his family decided that, seven games into his sophomore season, he was through. Done. Walked away from his team, his teammates, the program. Not to his liking, you see. He shouldn't have to put up; with not playing the position he wanted to play. He shouldn't have to do what the coaches say, in practice, or in games. He shouldn't have to show respect for the coach, the program, the university, in front of the rest of his team. Why should he? He is Drew Gordon, and he'll do exactly what he wants to do, or he's blowing this scene. "Later, homies," as he apparently wrote on his Facebook or Twitter page.

Of course, I'm entitled to an opinion, too, And mine is that Drew Gordon has no heart. Heart would be doing your very best all season, trying your hardest to help the team win, rooting for your teammates when you are not in there. Realizing that this particular team is not as strong as we all would like, and everyone has to follow the gameplan, listen to the coaches, support their other teammates. Not walk out on all of them because you weren't getting what you wanted, seven games into your sophomore season. Those teammates, they all had their goals, too, individual and team. They all wanted to win, to have a good season. That''s what being a team is--everyone trying to sublimate their own goals to that of the team. Apparently Gordon didn't think that his head coach, who has been coach of the year in three conferences, who has two Sweet Sixteens and three Final Fours in ten years at two major programs he had to rebuild, knew what he was doing. At least Gordon wasn't about to listen to him, or put up with the coach's way of running things. So he left, seven games in. And someone who does that has no heart.

Fortunately for Gordon, the way that the world, and particularly basketball, works these days, is that if you have enough physical talent, you can get away with just about anything. You can be a semi-reformed gangbanger, you can choke your coach, you can father twelve children out of wedlock, you can insult the fans, go into the stands and start attacking them. You can do just about anything. The world is all about you--if you've got the physical goods. And if you do, you get untold riches; lots of money, lots of women, lots of free time. You don't even have to play that hard in the NBA, during the regular season; very few do. So when you have a chance to get that rich, to make it in that way, many people deem it acceptable to put yourself far above anyone else; to push anyone aside in order to make it to the big payoff. And if that means having your parents make comments about how you just didn't like the style your coach played, comments that will undoubtedly damage him and his program, that's just the way it is played these days. And when you walk away from your team, which needed you, that's just what a guy has to do, if he wants to get into the NBA good life. I realize that you are not the first one to follow that creed, although you are about the first one I've seen who walked out on his team seven games into his sophomore season, a season in which he was a starter. But it's a lousy creed, an incredibly selfish one, and I am old-fashioned enough not to buy into any of it.

The man who made this basketball program, the living legend whom the court you have finished playing on is named after, would have seen you for what you were. He wouldn't have tried to ruin your life, he would have let you leave if you chose, because it is your right. But I doubt that you would have ever been recruited by him, because he wanted players with the right attitude, every bit as much as skill. Players who think team first, self second. Players who respect their coach and teammates, and do not let them down seven games into a season. Players who don't hide behind their parents' excuses and thinly veiled condemnations of the coach and program, while they eagerly look forward to going to another program where they might get their own way. Players who act like men, even at a young college age. Players who have heart.

- BB

The Donahue Curse

Guest Blogger — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:01:46 -0000

Rebumped. I was going to write a post which would start with recounting the nightmare from Donahue years. Instead of reinventing the wheel, rebumping this post from November 7, 2007. While I am supporting of Rick Neuheisel, I hope he understands that if he wants to break away from the the culture of mediocrity that has engulfed UCLA football for more than a decade, he needs to break away from the legancy and mindset left behind by Typhoid Terry. GO BRUINS. - N

Bruin Blue with a must read post on Typhoid Terry who is working OT to play the violin for CTS. GO BRUINS. -N

A number of UCLA alumni and fans have at least some positive things to say about Terry Donahue. I do not. I have nothing against Donahue as a person; but I hated him as a football coach. And I mean hated. From the first season, when he was totally outcoached by John Robinson in the conference decider, and then embarrassed the university by not even showing up against Alabama in the Liberty Bowl, I knew that he was a mediocre-at-best coach who was going to hide behind UCLA's talent and natural advantages over most of the teams in this conference, and probably last a long time. I didn't know how long, of course. I still regret the loss of that 20 years of my football fan life. Following UCLA football has never been the same for me after that experience. Year after year of essentially nothing; losing to almost all the good teams, trudging to victory over the bad ones; never competing for a national title, despite a host of Pro-Bowl-type players. And on and on and on it went.

I know that some will argue; and point to the Rose Bowls (four in twenty years), and the other Bowl wins, and the victories over USC at the end. I used to be more vehement about such arguments, but it's so dreary to relive that now, that I seem to lack the energy. Otherwise, I could tell you stories about some of the most pathetic, cowardly, stupid decisions ever made on a football field. Well, just to make my point, and for the sake of amusement, I'll give you three.: In 1978, UCLA was loaded, with Theotis Brown, James Owens and Freeman MacNeil as offensive threats; Jerry Robinson and Kenny Easley on defense. Donahue managed to lose to a Kansas team which ended up 1-9 Later, he played an Oregon State team which finished 3-7. OSU had no offense at all; only a really good field goal kicker and a good punter. In typical Donahue fashion, the Bruins had slogged to something like a 12-10 lead, entering the fourth quarter. There was a strong wind which was against UCLA in the last quarter; but even knowing that, Donahue had played as conservatively as possible in the third. So in the fourth, what does Donahue do but continue to run the ball into the line on every play, apparently fearing something awful will happen if he throws it. What happens is that on each change of possession, UCLA gets pushed back further and further; as their punter, with the wind, keeps outkicking ours. Finally, with about eight minutes to go, UCLA is stuck back on its four yard line. Donahue, acting like a bad poker player who keeps betting the same amount on the same bad hand, has the team run three more conservative plays, leading to a punt. The punt goes about thirty yards, and OSU gets the ball on our 38. They run three plays for a couple of yards, and their FG kicker then kicks the winning field goal.

The second is a game against Oregon in 1980, I believe. (Rich Brooks, of all things, coaching Uof O). UCLA is on probation that year, so even for Donahue, who loved to play for ties, there was no reason not to go all-out..And remember, there was no overtime back then. Anyway, Oregon is leading 20-14 with about six minutes to go. UCLA drives down to the Oregon 27, where it's 4th and 3. With what thought in his head, we will never know, Donahue has the team kick a field goal, to make it 20-17. Oregon gets the kickoff and is able to run out the clock. I can only imagine that Donahue was thinking, "Well, a field goal is three points, and if we kick it we are only down three. Then if we get the ball back with a couple of minutes to go, we can perhaps kick another field goal and end up with a tie." Here is one more. In 1989, UCLA is having a dreadful season. They are playing Washington, who the week before had lost to USC, thus knocking themselves out of the Rose Bowl. In that game, Don James could have played for the tie late, but needing the win, went for it and lost. Well, in this game which now meant nothing but pride to either team, UCLA surprisingly got ahead early, 21-0 Washington rallied to cut it to 24-21. Late in the fourth quarter, UCLA went on a potential game-clinching drive. First and goal on the UW 6, Donahue did what he always did--run three plays into the line. Now there were less than 3 minutes to go. Donahue had the team kick a FG to make it 27-21. Now, what did this accomplish? In Donahue's limited mind, it meant three more points. In the mind of anyone else, it meant nothing, because Washington wasn't going to go down and kick a FG to play for a tie (again, no OT then). So what happened was that UCLA kicked off, Washington ran it back to about the 45, and went down to score the winning TD, 28-27.

I hope those stories were interesting. There are more.

Those who did not live through that era cannot possibly comprehend how unbelievably, suffocatingly stupid and cowardly Donahue's coaching was. But then again; perhaps you indeed can. For incredibly enough, you are seeing it repeated, in slightly different form, in the coaching of Donahue's disciple, Karl Dorrell. The only difference is that Donahue (and his great recruiting coordinator Bill Rees) brought in better players, so he could mostly beat the bad teams on the schedule. And every once in a while Donahue managed to bring Homer Smith in to save his offense. Other than that, though. it is eerily similar. Steve Axman was there. Bob Field. All the legends which helped make the Donahue era what it was. And believe me, the Donahue era is still very much with us.

For apart from the various games, the lack of fundamentals, the strategic blunders, the major import of the Donahue nightmare was what it did to the psyche of UCLA football. Before Donahue, expectations had been high in Westwood. Tommy Prothro was an unlucky coach, because with even decent luck, he could easily have gone to four Rose Bowls in six years here. He did finish in the Top Ten four times. Pepper Rodgers was 17-5 in his last two seasons and was essentially run out of town for not being able to beat USC. Ah, those were the days. Dick Vermeil won the Rose Bowl and finished #5 in his second year. And then along came Donahue. In the middle of his tenure, Donahue said, "Winning a National Championship is not a realistic goal at UCLA.." Donahue made up every excuse to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy. He blamed steroids for his teams' inability to beat Oklahoma and Nebraska (1-7 against them). He once said that the L.A. riots had hurt his recruiting. Every Spring, without fail, Donahue would be quoted by the Times as to how injuries had just decimated his club for the Fall. It was Donahue who started this nonsense about the only thing that mattered here was competing for the Pac-10 title. This was undoubtedly because his record against ranked OOC teams was about .250. What Donahue did was to lower the bar to where his typical 7-3-1 season was sufficient. UCLA stopped being the national power that they had been under Prothro, and became a program which simply settled for hanging around the #15-20 range year after year.

And essentially that's where we've been ever since. Yes, we had that one glorious run under Toledo, and then fell back. We've had worse seasons, of course; as our talent edge has dissipated. But the essential motif of the Donahue years has sunk into the Bruin psyche so much that most of our fans have become inured to hoping for those 7 or 8 wins to call it a successful season. How else could our current coach who has lost six games in three of his first four years still be here? Surely he wouldn't have been at any one of twenty major programs; and not at the UCLA of 40 years ago. But because of Donahue, his disciple Karl Dorrell is not held to any significant standards. Four more losses this year and people are still arguing for him to be given another chance. That's all a residue of the Donahue years.

I think that Donahue is still very much with us. Not just psychologically, either. He has his fingerprints very much on this program. He has his corps of acolytes in the Morgan Center; and of course his cadre of ex-players: Norrie, Stevens, Cook. They are always the ones who argue for patience with the current coach; they are always telling everyone that UCLA has all these disadvantages relative to other programs; and that expectations are too high in Westwood. It is as if they are all the pod people in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," because they always say the same thing; and they are completely wedded to the Donahue philosophy. They are the ones who get the UCLA color and postgame jobs; and they all repeat the mantra over and over, until the press media believes it. And now, as five years ago, when it might be time to choose another coach, here they and Donahue are, somehow using their almost hypnotic influence to suggest someone from their cult. Rich Brooks, who of course was one of Donahue's assistants here in the '70's, and who was supposed to be Dalis' replacement hire had Donahue taken the Atlanta Falcons job.. They are running out of names, but here they have found another one. It was a setback for them that Greg Robinson had gotten hired by Syracuse, thus exposing his ineptitude, or assuredly Robinson would have been right on top of the list this time. They still have Johnny Lynn; maybe Dick Tomey. Ron Carragher was Brooks' OC at Kentucky. Like the sinister members of a cult, they spread out across the country, only to be called back when the master needs them. And what does Donahue need now? Why, to keep his own legacy where he wants it. Should UCLA ever hire a big-time coach, it might actually become clear to too many people just how mediocre the Donahue era really was. If UCLA ever actually starts competing for national titles, the comparisons to Donahue's regime will not be positive for him.

Okay, perhaps I'm being a little bit overdramatic for effect. Donahue is not a sinister person, just an inordinately sensitive one who happens to know too little about coaching and finding coaches. My fondest wish is that he would somehow go far away from this program, and take all his minions with him. They have poisoned the well of UCLA football, far more than any basketball coach ever did to that program. Harrick is good-natured enough to be a big fan of Ben Howland; and Lavin, as awful as he was, really never brainwashed the Bruin alumni to accepting his brand of ridiculous underachievement, just the A.D. and Chancellor. But Donahue did manage to completely change the mindset in Westwood, and we are still suffering from its effects now. And as far as I am concerned, our biggest barrier to actually hiring the kind of coach we are all hoping for, is Donahue--in person, by dint of his cult of supporters, and by virtue of the effect he still has on far too many people in the UCLA world. When you hear that Rich Brooks is being mentioned as a possible replacement for Dorrell, you have to know that this is the Donahue effect being felt again. When there is a long thead in another forum suggesting that UCLA consider hiring Donahue again now, you feel as if you are in an H.P Lovecraft nightmare. The Donahue curse must be lifted once and for all, if we are ever going to travel out of the gloom into the sunlight.

-Bruin Blue

Smoking Gun: Trojan Bias In The LA Times Exposed?

Guest Blogger — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 01:11:52 -0000

RSM Bruin fan recently had a very interesting email exchange with Bill Dwyre , who was sports editor of the Times for 25 years until he stepped down in May 2006 to write as a columnist. In this exchange Dwyre seem to essentially hints at a Pro-Trojan bias (cover up?) by his colleagues in the sports section. GO BRUINS. -N

I've had some back & forth dialog with Bill Dwyre, the former editor of the Los Angeles Times in recent weeks, since the Mayo story broke on ESPN, and I thought I'd share some of the recent comments on the LA Times coverage of 'SC player transgressions that Bill has provided. Take them for what they are worth.

First, I sent a scathing email to just about everyone in the LA Times Sports department, along with most of upper/senior management basically lambasting them for their pathetic and embarrassing lack of journalistic integrity relating to the activities taking place within & around the 'SC athletic department.

From this email I received a lone response, which was from Bill Dwyre.

"I don't know if anybody else will answer you here, but, for what it is worth, I can tell you I'm damned embarrassed and I don't even run the section anymore."

My reply to Bill was that I appreciated his response and that it was truly a shame what has become of the LA Times. It's lost all its journalist integrity and professionalism and that the likes of Jim Murray must be rolling over in their graves.

Then a few days later after Menelaus on BruinsNation had updated the list of mischievous 'SC player activities, I sent it off to the same email distribution list as my original email. (Sarcasm alert) I let them know that since they seemed to be asleep at the wheel, I would try to help them restore some of their pride by providing them with the list in order to help jump start their pending renewal of investigative journalism. I said that I felt the tide was turning and that they would begin to actually do some of their own work rather than continue to only report on the work other true journalist performed (i.e. Yahoo, ESPN, AP, etc.)

The lone response from this email, again, was from Bill Dwyre.

"Pretty damning when you put it all together like this…."

My response back to Bill was that the most embarrassing part of it for the LA Times should be that not a single bit of all that was listed was uncovered, investigated nor pursued by the LA Times. Nearly all the information was made public by news sources outside the city. The LA Times only reported on most of it, after another news source broke the story.

To this Bill responded with what I consider to be a very enlightening comment, which prompted this post.

"Well, you are right on most counts except for one, the Mark Sanchez case. I investigated, pursued, wrote twice, at great length, and never got a word in the paper. I'd love to send you copies, but I'm not allowed to. But I sure have them.

Plus, although I no longer run the sports section, I hear that we are taking a good run at the O.J. Mayo case, although we've already been hammered by ESPN pretty good on that one.

We had the news of all these stories you mentioned, but not all that much in-depth follow-up."

To me his last email showed a clear and methodical strategy by the LA Times editors to keep things as quite as possible when it comes to negative publicity regarding 'SC athletics. Bill essentially says that the writers are doing the work, but the editors are vetoing it and not allowing it to be published.

- RSM Bruin

UCLA/Southern Cal Track Dual Meet

Guest Blogger — Sun, 04 May 2008 16:38:29 -0000

Huge thanks to Jack Rosenfeld for emailing us this report and some great pictures from yesterday's dual meet at Drake. GO BRUINS. -N

The UCLA men's Track and Field team won the annual dual meet on Saturday by a score of 89 - 74 Southern Cal at Drake Stadium (all time record vs Southern Cal is 34-41). After losing last year, the Bruins won their 28th victory over Southern Cal in the past 30 scoring meets. The men took advantage of the distance races, the field events, and the 110 m Hurdles to build a comfortable lead such that the meet was clinched before the triple jump and the 1600 meter Relay were completed. UCLA swept the 5000m, 3000m Steeplechase, High Jump, Pole Vault, Shot Put and Discus.

Kevin Craddock ran a very impressive 13.46 seconds, winning the 110m Hurdles.

More pictures and wrapup after the jump ...

In the Shot Put and the Discus, UCLA Football Guard Darius Savage scored a total of 6 points by placing second in both of these events with marks of 17.96m and 57.09m respectively:

As mentioned Bruins took advantage of the distances races:

The women's competition was a different story. The women started off the day with a 3 -6 deficit after taking second place in the Hammer Throw competition on Friday. Then they took second place in the Javelin--the first event of Saturday's competition--giving the Trojans an early 12 -6 advantage. The deficit continued to grow after taking second and third in the 5000m and third in the 3000m Steeplechase. By the time the first relay started, the Bruins were already down 25 - 11. The women staged a comeback including sweeping the 800 m, High Jump, and Pole Vault, as well as great performances by Nicole Leach and Jolanda Diego in winning the 400m Hurdles and the 200m respectively.

With three events left and 23 points still at stake (the 1500m, Triple Jump, and 1600m Relay) the Bruins had a slight 2 point lead. Yet UCLA could not dig deep enough to capture the victory. UCLA took second in the 1500 meters, which gave Southern Cal an 1 point lead. Then Trojans won the 1600m Relay by 2.55 seconds, which gave them a 6 point lead with only the Triple Jump yet to complete. At that time, USC was going 1-2 in the Triple Jump and UCLA would need to overtake both of those top two positions to win the meet. Renee Williams, with her fourth round jump of 12.88 meter overtook second place, but neither she nor Keneisha Creary could over take Southern Cal's Michelle Sanford as Southern Cal beat UCLA for the first time since 1992 86 -77. Here are some pictures of the women's competition:

The complete results of the meet can be found here. For those that are not too aware of the scoring of dual meets in Track and Field: the top three places in all events--except relays--score points. First place is worth 5 points, second place is worth 3 points, and third place is worth 1 point. Relays are scored 5 points for the winner and 0 points for the loser.

This is also Coach Jeanette Bolden's first dual meet loss in 73 attempts during her 14 year tenure as the women's head coach. UCLA now leads the series 21 - 4.

- Jack Rosenfeld

My UCLA Story

Guest Blogger — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:04:29 -0000

"Riles" have been around the UCLA online message boards for a long time. He was one of the original critics of Steve Lavin. He also was one of the first posters who called out Karl Dorrell. Oh he loves Ben Howland like the rest of BN. And just like BN he was one of the first to get on the hire Rick Neuheisel bandwagon last December. In other words, he is one of those UCLA fans who have always followed/supported our programs based on reality based facts and who has a knack of getting things right. Well the kid posted this magical story on BRO yesterday and he was kind of enough to share it with rest of us here in the Nation. Amazing stuff and congrats to Riles. GO BRUINS. -N

When I was 7, my aunt Patty, a UCLA alum, took me to my first UCLA Football and Basketball games. My belief is that I was the fill-in for her son, who was a UCLA student at the time, but was attending games with his friends. She needed someone to go to the games with...I liked sports (hell, she started me on hockey, too). This became a regular thing. The '86 Freedom Bowl. Arizona road trips. SC @ the Sports Arena. Learning about John Wooden. Hearing about how bad Hazzard was as a Head Coach. Listening to game broadcasts on the radio. Basically, I was hanging around someone on a pretty regular basis that was a big UCLA supporter.

This is what led to me taking on UCLA Basketball and Football as something I was interested in - more than passively. I grew up playing traveling (ice) hockey, and didn't have the time to dedicate to competitive basketball or football. I stuck to watching UCLA in my downtime. I can remember watching 4.8 in an ice rink in Harbor City. I can remember the year after (or maybe it was 97), Charles O'Bannon hitting a game-winner against SC at the buzzer. Karim Abdul Jabbar (Sharmon Shah) go from side to side, and reverse his direction a few times before getting in the endzone. I remember finding UCLA Basketball Forums on AOL when I was 13/14, and reading posts with some good info from MrGladstne...early internet. Thank Science for Bruin message boards and blogs and what they have become.

So all of that said, I've always had a conflict about being a UCLA "fan" - in the sense that that is all I can be. I've never been a student there. I can't debate really on issues like admissions, budgets, etc. I'd sit back and think, "How and why do I support this institution in which my real connection is that of my aunt who introduced me too it (rather matter-of-factly, I might add. USC was never an option.)?" I don't know. I've never been able to reconcile it, to be honest. As it came time to apply to schools to transfer to, I had to think about life as a guy who used to be a UCLA fan. It's weird. I guess I could root for the Ducks. Or the Bears. Or the Gauchos. Longhorns? Maybe. It wouldn't be as fun, though.

In 2001, Patty passed away after a second bout with cancer. I wish she was here to read this note I received yesterday:

GO BRUINS

-Riles

Focusing On The Hilltoppers

Guest Blogger — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:14:30 -0000

Brittany Page, a Bruin senior (from San Diego) majoring in English sent us the following preview helping all of us zero in on the Hilltoppers. Brittany is graduating next quarter in June. Enjoy. GO BRUINS. -N

Top-seeded UCLA takes on No. 12 seeded Western Kentucky in the Western Regional semifinal in Phoenix, Arizona on Thursday.

The Bruins rallied behind Kevin Love and Darren Collison's combined 40 points, to defeat a dangerous Texas A&M team, 51-49, on Saturday to advance to the next round of the NCAA basketball tournament.

Western Kentucky, making its first NCAA appearance in five years, has been one of the surprises of this year's tournament. They upset No. 5 seeded Drake, 101-99, in the first round when senior guard Ty Rogers hit a deep three pointer at the buzzer. In the second round, the Hiltoppers beat No. 13 seeded University of San Diego, 72-63, to advance to the Sweet Sixteen for the first time in 15 years.

The Hiltoppers (29-6) press teams in hopes of forcing an up-tempo game and are known for their ability to expose and defeat opponents by shooting plenty of three pointers.

As a team, Western Kentucky is 18th in the nation in three point percentage shooting 39.4 percent, with four players shooting over 40 percent from beyond the arc. UCLA Assistant Coach Scott Garson told me this morning in a phone interview:

"We have to do a great job defensively and a great job in transition."

"We have to get back in transition and have to guard guys who not only can shoot the three very effectively but who can beat you off of the dribble. So we will have our hands full but I think our team is very excited about this matchup."

Western Kentucky is led by an experienced backcourt consisting of senior guards Courtney Lee, Ty Rogers and Tyrone Brazelton. NBA scouts have been watching Courtney Lee much of this season as he led Western Kentucky in scoring. More from Coach Garson on Lee:

"He is a very good player and has a great chance to do very good in the future of basketball."

Lee is shooting 40.4 percent from 3-point range and averaging 20.3 points per game. He scored 29 points in the NCAA tournament's second round when Western Kentucky defeated USD.

This will be the first time UCLA plays against Courtney Lee, but his game is similar to a player they faced in the PAC-10, James Harden of Arizona State per Garson:

"He compares a little bit to James Harden of ASU who is obviously also a great player."

"Lee has the ability to shoot threes, score off the dribble and rebound like Harden."

It is safe to say that while UCLA has not directly faced Lee in conference and non-conference play they will try to defend and contain him much like they did with Harden. Although it will be a team effort, Russell Westbrook, the PAC-10 defensive player of the year, will be in charge of defending Lee since he usually takes on the best perimeter player while on defense.

While the Hilltoppers will attempt to speed up the pace of the game UCLA will try and maintain their control of the tempo. Here is Garson on tempo:

"When you can control the boards you are able to control the tempo of the game."

"Darren Collison is a great point guard and he knows when we want to push and when we want to slow it down and run our offense."

UCLA Coach Ben Howland will seemingly counter Western Kentucky's presses by controlling the tempo with a disciplined halfcourt set led by point guard Darren Collison.

While the Hiltoppers have scored an average of 85.5 points a game, their defense has not been as successful, allowing opponents to average 81 points per game.

The main advantage the Bruins have over the Hiltoppers is in the low post with 6-foot-11 freshman sensation and PAC-10 player of the year, Kevin Love playing underneath.

The Hilltoppers will use 6-foot-9, 190-pound sophomore Jeremy Evans and 6-9, 260-pound D.J. Magley to guard Love. Once again from Garson on their inside game:

"Evans is a great player who has more blocked shots than anyone on our team and Magley I'm sure is very excited to play against Kevin."

"We expect them to do a good job down in the post."

The Bruins will no doubt try to get the ball inside to their bigs as often as possible to expose this lack of low post presence and the size advantage they have over the Hiltoppers. They will attempt to get the ball into Love at the low post as much as possible for the high percentage shots and to exploit the offensive threat he poses.

Both teams have proven themselves thus far in the tournament and this matchup will be nothing short of a great game. Here is Garson one last time on the key for tomorrow night:

"The key to winning is always our defense and rebounding."

"We have to play great defense and make it a battle of the boards. The key for this game will be taking good shots, our shot selection and rebounding."

UCLA has the obvious size and tournament experience advantage over Western Kentucky; however the key to the game for the Bruins will be defense and tempo. If UCLA establishes the tempo and defensive presence early in the game and stick to their game plan, they should come out with a victory. But, this will be no easy feat for UCLA, as Western Kentucky has proven they are capable of pulling off upsets.

- Brittany Page

A Report On Our Gymnastics Team From Pauley

Guest Blogger — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:33:57 -0000

Many thanks to Jack Rosenfeld for sharing this story on our women's gymnastics team. Regular readers of BN should know Jack. He is the uber talented photographer who is always kind of enough to send us his wonderful pictures from Pauley. Thanks Jack and good luck to our Bruins for rest of the season. GO BRUINS. -N

Tough day at Pauley. The women were in the lead after the first two rotations. They had a tough beam rotation, including two of the women falling off the beam. One of them was Brittani McCullough, who had very strong vault and uneven bars. After her beam performance, she had her ankle worked on and re-wrapped before her floor routine. On her first tumbling pass, she hurt her ankle on the takeoff, but was able to finish the first pass before being unable to continue.

She is out for the season with a ruptured Achilles tendon. UCLA finished third, as McCollough could not complete her floor routine and UCLA used senior Natalie Padilla's 9.1 score. Although it would have been tough to win the overall meet without McCullough's floor routine, UCLA might have been able to take second place with a stronger beam performance. Tasha won the all-around and Jordan took third. UCLA finished third behind Arkansas and Alabama, but finished ahead of Cal State Fullerton.

Great way for the Schwikert sisters to end their Pauley Pavillion careers.

You can find more photos of the meet on the Bruin Report Online's other sports forum.

- Jack Rosenfeld

Jack Gets His Autograph (from Maurice Jones Drew)

Guest Blogger — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:50:11 -0000

We reached out to 'lvucla' after a reader of ours emailed us this story. Again a huge thank you to lvucla for being kind enough to share this beautiful story with rest of the Bruin Nation. If any of you who are reading this know how to get in touch with MJD please make sure he sees this post. GO BRUINS. - BN Ed.

A couple months ago my son and I sent an 8 x 10 picture of Maurice Jones-Drew to his PR firm in hopes it would get personally signed. Weeks went by, and I even asked Jack, my son if he thought Maurice would sign it and send it back. Jack told me Maurice is very far away, and he probably gets "millions" of letters and it probably wouldn't happen. I honestly had no clue if it would really get personally signed.

Well, low and behold, it came! It even said "To Jack" which was great. I was going to frame it and hang it in his room so he could wake up and see it. However my best friend had the best suggestion ever. He said that it would be way more exciting for Jack if he was actually able to get it from the mail box himself. It has been really cold here, so I had to wait until it "warmed" up to take him to the mailbox without wearing gloves.

Well, thanks to my best friend's suggestion, I put the picture back in the envelope and put it in the mailbox. It was truly an incredible moment for me as a dad.

What you will also notice is we are covered in snow (30 degrees) and my son is wearing a sweatshirt and was totally fine. (I don't want any child abuse allegations!)

The quality of the video is not as good as I hoped for on you tube, but you get the picture. It was an incredible father/son experience.

-lvucla

lvucla graduated from UCLA in 1992. lvucla and Mrs. lvucla run a small legal practice in the very small town of West Branch, Michigan which is in Northern Michigan. Jack is 5 years old and loves the Bruins. To no surprise, Kevin Love is his favorite Ben Ball warrior. GO BRUINS. -BN Ed.

The Howland Era Revisited

Guest Blogger — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:34:33 -0000

Our friend Bruin Blue is back with a little commentary on UCLA hoops following Saturday's game. Please note that the following post represents BB's commentary and not the view of Bruins Nation. I noted to BB that I disagreed with this take slightly because I think, even with the new rules, Howland's coaching style works as good as anyone else including Roy Williams, and I am not worried about mass defections to NBA as are some of the alarmists on message boards. Nevertheless, this is an excellent read which gives us a lot to think about. Also note that BB told me that this is not meant to be a negative essay at all. In fact, if anything, the main point from this essay is to appreciate Coach Howland's coaching abilities in today's college basketball world of coaching with mostly talented underclassmen while also dealing with injuries GO BRUINS. -N

Two years ago, before the Final Fours, and after a loss to Washington, which ignited a lot of debate about Howland's coaching, I expressed my opinions about Howland. My belief, then as now, is that he is one of the very best coaches in college basketball, probably the best defensive coach out there. However, like any coach (outside of the nonpareil John Wooden, who even so had a couple of critics), Howland is not impeccable or infallible. His offense is not a thing of beauty, and we seem to need at least half the game to figure out an opponent's zone. He substitutes rather more than I would like; and while the early timeouts are a legitimate approach, they can be a problem near the end. Put it all together, and there is no coach whom I would rather have at UCLA than Howland, as his abilities far outweigh these slight negatives.

However, what we are seeing now at UCLA is the burden of high expectations. It was one thing two years ago to be overjoyed to beat Gonzaga and then make our first Final Four in a decade. Last year, we expected more, but still many of us (including me) were not very confident that we could beat Kansas and do it again. Now, this year, we expect a Final Four, or at least will be quite disappointed if it is not forthcoming. And of course a National Title is something that we consider a very legitimate goal. In fact, if we don't win it this year, we may not for several years; and that would be disappointing to all. So it seems as if the excitement of beating Washington State or Arizona or Stanford has mostly dissipated; and most of us are anxious for the tournament to start. That is great in some ways--that we have gotten so far--but it also causes us to take things for granted, and in some sense spoils much of the season.

I will admit that I am trying very hard to keep my love for college basketball and UCLA basketball at the level of the past. To me, the NBA, and all those players leaving so early, has made this very difficult. There have been a lot of discussions on Bruin message boards about which players will leave this year, and who would do what in the pros. We watch Kevin Love, and for all his abilities, realize that his UCLA career is almost over. Worse than that, all the natural improvement he will make in the future will not benefit our program. He is a freshman, and as polished as he is for that level, there are obviously things he needs to improve. He will, but we won't see it, unless we care to watch the NBA, which I do not. Whatever he can do this year is what we will benefit from, and that's it. We are obviously still struggling to adjust from our guard-oriented approach of the last two years to one which emphasizes feeding the post. Sometimes in games one can see the two approaches conflicting with one another . Again, if Love were here three or four years, it would all fit in; but as it is, we have only the one season to master this, which seems terribly unfair. And as good as Love is, he is not a physical marvel like Greg Oden, who was more likely to dominate in his one year of NCAA play. How good was Christian Laettner in his first year? No one remembers, because he got to play four. It's really painful for me to see Love, as good as he is, and realize that if he would just stay and learn from our coaches, he would be a dominant player in a couple of years. But he won't; and that is what Howland must deal with.

Which leads to a key point--that I think Howland is hurt more than the other top coaches by this current state of affairs. Howland is a teacher; his players improve from year to year more than most coaches' players. If things were as they were thirty years ago, with no NBA defections, we would be the best program around. But in this era of the top players going one- or two-and-out, it's the programs like North Carolina which can bring in great offensive talent every year, which get the advantage. Roy Williams' style of coaching (and he is a fine coach, but not as fundamentally sound as Howland in my view) is perfect for this era, because his offenses are readymade for players with great offensive skills who can come in for a year or two. Howland's style is made for players to learn and grow into. Howland's juniors and seniors would be better than Williams', except that we aren't going to be having any juniors and seniors, except for "project" types like Mata and Roll.

So it's the battles of the underclassmen; and UCLA's academic and fit requirements make it difficult for us to match Carolina and Florida and Kansas in yearly recruiting. We get our share; but we couldn't match Florida's talent in the last two years, and may not be able to prevail with our underclassmen-laden class this season. Realize that we are starting a freshman (Love), a backcourt of a still-injured junior (Collison) and a junior (Shipp) who is really playing out of position, and a frontcourt of a very raw junior (Aboya) and an often-injured junior (Luc). Our backups are a sophomore Westbrook, a sophomore in Keefe who is just rounding into form, and our one senior, the hard-trying but obviously limited Mata. And that's our team. Yes, other teams are no more experienced, but some have better athletes. And so we go 16-2 to date, and are obviously one of the top seven or so teams, but we may well not make it all the way once again.

Next year, if we lose all those players whom people are speculating about, we will probably be a little short again. Again, if Howland could ever get a team of all juniors and seniors, we would be awesome; but we apparently never will. So our underclassmen compete with those of the other big-time schools; and in the end, talent with good coaching may trump our slightly lesser talent with better coaching. It did the last two years. Howland has probably taken us as far as we are likely to go in this era of short-time players and constant turnover of talent. We are a perennnial Top Ten team, but so are others; and there is no real reason to expect our freshmen and sophomores to consistently outplay the underclassmen of Carolina, Kansas, Memphis and Duke, among others. I wish that the NBA would go away, but it won't. Every year will see a mostly new UCLA team; and Howland will do everything he can to teach as many fundamentals as possible. Maybe that is why we are apparently going after Renardo Sidney--because he realizes that if he is going to rigidly adhere to "fit," he is going to likely fall short at the very end every season. Howland's coaching is as good as anyone's--but coaching can only take one so far, the way that college basketball exists these days.

- Bruin Blue