Hi tasser et al, hope you've been well. Warning - this is fairly long. Sorry.

This is a post in response to Tasser10's analysis regarding UCLA's predisposition to the run.

I disagree with the belief that Neuheisel's run game is because he believes the defense is good. I think it's because he sees the defense is bad. A passing offense is high-variance relative to a running offense. Even a weak passing game, when examining yards-per-attempt, tends to be more effective than a strong running game in a vacuum. UCLA's awful, AWFUL passing game last year still averaged 5.3 yards per attempt (one of the worst in the country). But that would be considered an excellent yards-per-carry rushing game. This year, the 2nd-worst YPA nationally is 4.8 - that would be equivalent to a top-40 rushing attack (Texas is 37th at 4.82 YPC, for reference). The variance introduced by failed passes, though, is overly damaging given the nature of football's offense (3 tries to gain 10 yards, or failure).

Continue reading this post »

I can't help myself with the MSM-style puns for diary titles. I can see how copy editors at the Times could get caught up with them. Heh.

Anyway, I'm surprised this hasn't yet been noted, but I figured BN might be interested. While some moan and groan about the 'doom' of the basketball program, Ben Howland simply gets back to work.

Since it's premium content, I can't post anything beyond what's listed in the free preview, but frontpaged on BRO is: "There are some big basketball recruiting developments involving the #2-ranked player in the class of 2009, post player Renardo Sidney, and the #3-ranked player in the nation, 6-5 small forward Lance Stephenson..."

From what I've been able to gather, Lance (who visited UCLA over the weekend) would like to go to college with his friend Renardo. Think not unlike high school/AAU teammates Gred Oden and Mike Conley. Sidney and Stephenson are currently on the same AAU team themselves, the L.A. Dream Team (I'm not one to believe in superstition, but that has the potential to be awfully prophetic).

Sidney, as has been suggested in the past, would probably like to stay in Los Angeles. Rumors have him very interested in coming to UCLA, with the big hurdle being his grades. Questions of character have arisen as well, which I have to imagine figure in to any scholarship offers. Either way, now some are suggesting that if Stephenson goes with Sidney, he seems to prefer UCLA over other west coast options. This provides the Bruins with the tantalizing prospect of being able to bring in two top-5 players together.

Sidney, I think, has been covered already as a targeted player. Stephenson is extraordinarily talented - there is a documentary of his quest for basketball success currently in the works (or done? not sure...) called "Born Ready." He's 6'5, out of NYC, EA Sports' National Player of the Year in the junior class. Can play the 2 or the 3, I believe. Actually played with Jrue Holiday at the Elite 24 Hoops Classic last summer, with the two being named Co-MVPs of their team.

I've heard things both good and bad regarding both players, but I believe that if they can both get themselves eligible for admission, the team would take them (something that I seem to recall being suggested by multiple sources, at least in Sidney's case). Both players very well might be in the 'one-and-done' mold, but offer immense talent for their short time available. Given the good we've seen Kevin Love do, it would be hard to pass up not one, but two players who hold similar game-changing potential, at the least. Pairing them with Reeves Nelson would give the team another fantastic group of signees to follow this upcoming one, a likely top-10 class.

To paraphrase a well-known sports cliche, "it's not rebuilding, it's reloading."

... Ok, first I must apologize for the absolutely terrible pun in the topic (apropos though it may be, as you'll see). I couldn't stop myself, and I can only beg forgiveness.

Anyway, word is coming down the pipeline that one of 2006's higher-rated high school QBs, Sherrod Harris, is considering a transfer away from Texas. I have seen UCLA's name pop up among the potential landing spots more than once. One time on a UM forum - mentioned because UM and UCLA were supposedly tops on his list - and in a random comment on a Texas board. I don't have access to UT's premium content (nor UCLA's, for that matter - though I haven't seen any topic titles mentioning this on the Bruin premium boards), so take this with the enormous grain of salt it requires. And let me clarify here - Harris is definitely *considering* transferring. The question is, a) will he?, and b) is UCLA really a potential destination?

I would also advise caution given that he's transferring at least partially, it appears, due to playing time issues, and UCLA isn't exactly short of QBs, and they're well-spaced across the classes as well. Furthermore, UCLA was never on the radar when he first came out of high school, though there are plenty of reasons why that might have been the case. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that Harris believes UCLA would be a good fit for him. Especially given UCLA's QB struggles the past two seasons, he might feel the opportunity exists for him to earn his way onto the field, something I get the sense appears to be unlikely at UT.

And if it's true, I can tell you without any hesitation that this kid would be an unbelievable fit. Beyond being a gifted athlete (word on his 40 time varies greatly, but is usually pretty quick - Rivals has him at a 4.45!), the guy is a stellar student. If I'm remembering correctly, his SAT score was in the 1300s (using the old '1600' scoring range), and he had a perfect 4.0 GPA. He's also apparently a great kid personality-wise.

Again, let me restate that this is both extremely early-warning (he's only giving indications of a desire to trasnfer), and that UCLA's prominence on his list might be completely wrong. To borrow from Brian at MGoBlog, on the 'rumor credibility' scale this probably ranks around a 1.5/5: Between "clearly biased speculation without backing" and "Some guy saying something on some board that claims insider info due to a chance occurence." If this turns out to be unfounded, I apologize, but I felt that some folks might be interested in the FB program's doings in the few days before the roundball team returns to the court.

(UB's note: if this turns out to be false, I'm canning this diary, just a heads-up)

Update: From ShaggyBevo.com - "Sherrod has not made any decisions at this time. He is focused on Spring Drills and doing the best he can. He is a Longhorn." I'll stay on this for the moment, but it sounds less likely as the day goes by.

Bumped from the diaries. GO BRUINS. -N

Cross-posted from Standing in the Shadows of the San Gabriels - some images embedded over there as well.

I would like to note before I begin that a lot of my football knowledge has atrophied greatly. I haven't played competitively for a while now (flag football, of course, does not count =P). So please take anything and everything that follows with an enormous grain of salt.

That being said -

In Nestor's post on the LA Times interview of Neuheisal and Chow, there is this comment by BHW linking to a speech by Chow, and a sample from his playbook. As an aside, I would like to note that, contrary to what I think is being suggested, this is not the entire Norm Chow offense, only the 5-step drop patterns (and a couple of 7-drops if they're still in use - see below). Hence the 'partial' in the diary title. There are different passing sets (the 50s/90s/etc), and obviously there are no running plays listed. Nevertheless, it's a good sampling of what he seems to like to accomplish with his offense, so I thought I'd look through it. But far more instructive, I found, was the link to Chow's presentation on the precepts of his offense. It offers a great look into his thought processes, and I'd highly recommend reading the whole thing if you have some time to kill. If not, hopefully this post will help some. To continue.

Summary point number 1, is to understand Chow's "rules" for quarterbacks and offense in general. In his speech, he lists them as such:

1. "[The QB should] Never give a command that will be misunderstood, and always give a command that will be understood."
   
2. "We want to know what the QB saw on the play and why he made his decision."
   
3. "The third rule for the QB is that he is never wrong."
   
4. "Always throw the football to the receiver. Throw the ball straight ahead." [ed - In case this isn't clear, he's talking about mechanics and simplicity together. Get in the right position and throw to the open man. Do your work off the field so that you don't have to think about it ON the field.]
   
5. "We are going to protect the QB, otherwise nothing works."
   
6. "We try to make it easy for the QB... He is concerned about throwing the football. He has enough to worry about." [ed - There's a handful of read examples in the full article, if you're curious about some specifics.]
   
7. "We are going to try to control the football with the forward pass... there are two statistics we believe in. One is the time of possession. We feel we need to win this battle. The other statistic we want to win is the turnover battle... What does this mean in our terms? Check downs!"
   
8. "The third aspect of the passing game is this: We want to kiss it... Keep It Simple Stupid." [ed - My personal favorite, as always.]

Then he starts getting into the gist of his offensive mechanics. Important concepts will be bolded for your convenience.

He mentions his 60 series. The '60' is the protection, the 'ones' digit is the pass patterns.

"We may call the play 65 for example. This means the lineman know it is basic 60 cup protection. The 5 is the pass pattern for that play... The mistake that coaches make is to make it too complicated." Paging the WCO to the white courtesy phone... The West Coast Offense, to the white courtesy phone, please... Anyway.

He then talks about using 3- and 5-step drops and play-action, as well as establishing the run. Big money graf for me:

"Also we need the ability to sprint out at times. [emphasis added] The reason you need the ability to sprint out is this: If you can't handle the defense on the inside you can take the ball outside; if we get beat on the outside, we can step up in the pocket; if they come up the middle then get to the outside." One of the reasons USC was so dangerous with Chow heading their offense was their ability, and willingness, to use the entirety of the field in both protection and release point, and it's clear that has always been a hallmark of his offense, and not just a reaction to having Reggie Bush's speed (is making a 'bought and paid for' joke too easy here?).

To control the blitz and hard edge rush, use screens and traps/counters - use their eagerness to get into the backfield against them. Another money quote:

"We don't run the 7 step drop game when we can not protect the passer. We run the football. We throw the ball on timed routes, we throw the screen and draws, and we are going to run some gimmick plays just to slow the game down a bit. This is our game plan every week." He starts discussing the passing schemes USC's offense designed to attack the zone. He calls it "building triangles."



No word if Tex Winter plans to sue for infringement. Though he doesn't say it explicitly, I'm assuming the idea is that by creating a triangle with your potential receivers, you're likely to find the "hole" in the zone with at least one of them. Additionally, the receivers all move 'obliquely' (that is, both down the field and across the field), stretching the zone to widen the spacing. More after the jump ...

Continue reading this post »

Turning into a bit of a conversation with myself here, as I've mentioned a couple of times in the past, I'm doing a series of posts on UCLA and USC basketball, using some modern statistical analysis. You can find my first post, explaining what these numbers mean, here. Again in case you missed it before, I'm using David Berri's Win Score metric, which attempts to quantify all a player's stats into a single numerical value. After laying out what I planned to do, I first took a look at USC, titled "Why O.J. Mayo is overrated - part 9,745,398,606". I posted a brief summation in a diary here on BN. I can imagine you get the gist of that one.

Now comes today's post, "Why UCLA is very lucky to have Kevin Love, part 34,785,900". This title, too, is fairly self-explanatory, though the post itself goes into much more depth. The short version: Love is good. Really good. Like... best in the country good. And Luc and Zo are much better than people give them credit for being, while Shipp and Westbrook are perhaps a tad overrated (though, I hasten to add UCLA's top 6 players all have a higher Win Score than O.J. Mayo, heh). A sample section, some of the analysis on Mbah a Moute and Mata-Real:

Probably the biggest surprises in this group of stats are the high rankings of Mata-Real and The Prince. Zo and Luc (despite his 3-point follies) are high-percentage shooters that rebound the ball extremely well. If it sounds familiar, it should - nearly all high-value players in Win Score do so. Because he's a smart, well-coached player who picks his spots to shoot while going after every rebound Mata-Real scores well in this stat. Furthermore, he's actually one of the better shot-blockers in the Pac-10. Let's correct for playing time, as a theoretical exercise. Assume a linear increase to Zo's stats, relative to his minutes played. Now change the number of minutes Mata-Real plays to the number of minutes Kevin Love has played so far. In that case, Zo would average around 2 blocks a game. That's around the same level as the much more touted shot-blocking of Taj Gibson.

In comparison to Lorenzo's focus on boards and blocks, Luc's high score shows the value of a well-rounded game. He doesn't necessarily excel at any one aspect, and in fact has regressed statistically each year he's been at UCLA (more on this in a later post). But he still provides plenty of value to the team in nearly every category. His turnovers are a bit high for a 3/4 on a team with plenty of ball-handlers, but that's about his only real weakness. Much like Lorenzo's offense, Luc plays defense very intelligently - he avoids fouls, grabs a handful of steals and blocks when he can, and protects the defensive glass.

All in all, it's interesting how modern statistical analysis can in some ways support what you believe: UCLA as a team is better than USC by a pretty sizable margin (yes, I know UCLA lost at Pauley - and the Yankees let the Red Sox come back from 3-0, odd things happen in sports), Kevin Love is an absolute beast. In other ways, though, it challenges what you originally thought: Westbrook is a bit overrated, Roll won't really be missed (obviously, the stat can't measure the impact of having so few healthy bodies, but based solely on production he didn't really add anything). Hope you folks find this moderately interesting. My analysis of this team version last season comes up next, and, uhh... I imagine it might be rather vehemently disagreed with.

Still, one must soldier on! Go Bruins!

So, as I mentioned in a previous diary, over at my blog I'm putting together a rather sizable new-stats analysis of this year's UCLA team (both as it stands alone, and relative to last season), and of USC. My USC post is now up here, titled "Why O.J. Mayo is overrated - part 9,745,398,606." I started with 'SC because I was curious to see just how much more valuable the addition of Davon Jefferson was than Mayo. Short answer: a sizable amount. If you're not interested in the numbers, the basic gist is that Mayo puts up lots of points, but does so in an inefficient fashion, and without adding much else.

Not only is Mayo not the best player on his team, he barely cracks the starting 5, with a VERY pedestrian 4.568 WS/40 (ed note - WS/40 = Win Score per 40 minutes... The average point guard has a WS/40 of over 7.5)! A closer look at his numbers explains the low total - not only is Mayo an inefficient scorer, but that's about the only thing he's even remotely competent at doing. He doesn't rebound very well, and though he's so/so at acquiring assists, his massive 4 turnovers a game far outweigh whatever benefits his passing might otherwise offer.

Much of the analysis is built on Professor David Berri's Win Score metric. Imagine my surprise when, going to check on his page as I posted my own entry, I found an analysis of many of the current pro draft prospects had just been added, using the same metric! It seems I'm not the only one who had the idea, and in fact, guest poster Erich Doerr came to the same conclusion concerning Mayo, that "Despite the... level of hype, O.J. Mayo has been Telfair-rific (not a good thing in the world of Win Scores)." He covers a number of other top players, and interestingly, upcoming foe Chase Budinger fares even more poorly than Mayo.

Doerr also includes his notes on Kevin Love, as "there are several Win Score powerhouses that are seemingly overlooked.  Win Score superstar Kevin Love seems to be projected as a late to mid first rounder." I have my own conclusions concerning Love and the entirety of this season's Bruin team (as well as, like I mentioned, a comparison between last season's team and this one), but that's pretty much the same conclusion I had. Kevin Love has been a huge boost to this year's team - OJ Mayo has been barely a contributor in his team's successes.

Bumped from the diaries. GO BRUINS. -N

Cross-posted from Standing in the Shadows of the San Gabriels. N, if I'm doing this incorrectly, please let me know. Thanks. -UB

Editor's note: If you're interested at all in the sabermetrics number stuff that follows in this post, please feel free to check out my blog, which Nestor was kind enough to BlogRoll earlier this month. I'm putting up a big post there with regards to this year's UCLA team vs. last year, and why OJ Mayo barely even deserves to be in his team's starting 5, much less its main star. It's a bit too tables-and-numbers-heavy for a diary, which is why I'm sticking it over there. As for what's going on here... Read on, if you will.

I thought I'd chime in with a few observations. Humor me, please.

First, it's great to see Darren Collison getting back to the form we all believed he could, and would, display all season. I was of the opinion that he had never fully healed from his knee injury, and it's only been in the past few games that he's really started to look like the Collison of last season. Much more aggressive in the lane, more willing to push off his knee for those little floaters in the lane, and to elevate on his outside jumpers. Anybody who has played basketball knows how, in truth, shooting form starts not from the arms, but from the legs. Even a tiny tweak can be enough to throw off a player like Darren, whose shooting method is already slightly unorthodox. So major kudos to him for his inspired play this weekend, and I have full confidence that he is beginning to once again trust in his knee. Just a great sign.

Second, Kevin Love. We all knew he was going to be good, but I'm not sure we realized just how good. Depending on your personal view of the importance of possession usage, Kevin Love is either the best, third best, or 19th best offensive player in the country. Slightly confused? I'll try to explain. For those of you not familiar with his work, Ken Pomeroy is THE name in modern (read: moderately sabermetric-style) basketball statistics. In addition to his KenPom.com site, he is one of the head writers for Basketball Prospectus, which is a must-read for unique takes on the game. With regards to his methodology, one stat he uses is ORtg, or 'Offensive Rating,' a stat that addresses the number of points a player produces if he were to use 100 possessions.

Anyway, at KenPom.com, he lists the top players in the country in Offensive Rating - in other words, the best in the country at producing points for their teams. Kevin Love is the #1-ranked offensive player in the country, measuring players who use 24% of their team's offensive possessions and up (in other words, star players). He's a small distance in front of UNC's own Psycho T. The two are a fairly sizable distance in front of every other player on that list. If you'd like to peruse the full list (really quite interesting) you can find it here. The first list on that page is players who use more than 28% of their team's possessions. See Mayo, OJ, who is below the league average efficiency of 101 despite using 30% of his team's offensive opportunities - K-Love is at almost 130. Love, despite his extremely high efficiency, barely misses that 28% 'superstar' watermark, using 27.3%. If he clears the 28% usage mark, he'll be leading that list as well, and by a very significant margin. A team of 5 Kevin Loves would outscore the current top 'superstar'-usage player by over 12 points in an average UCLA game.

--One note: the list linked above was updated last Sunday the 20th, and the new one has not come out as of the writing of this post. I'll update this diary with the new listings once it does, but I can't imagine Love's scores doing anything but rising given his dominance this past weekend.

(The formula for this value, ORtg, is quite complex. It's possible to actually derive the full formula for free online with a lot of digging, but since its progenitor, Dean Oliver, released a book on that subject I'll avoid posting it here. Suffice to say that it basically assigns a point value to each assist, 2- or 3-point basket, and offensive rebound, then adjusts it for how many possesions the player uses to get those stats, and multiplies by a hundred... I think. I could be remembering slightly wrong, to be honest. Anyway, if you're really interested, go buy Oliver's Basketball on Paper -- HIGHLY recommended and sadly underrated by the casual basketball saber community. Or get The Wages of Wins -- much more famous book by David Berri. Alternatively, leave me a comment or shoot me a message/email and I'll send you some links - the stuff's actually a really interesting point of discussion if you ask me. Anyway, tangent over, sorry.)

As to the slightly worrisome - UCLA is shooting too many 3s. I know you don't want to hear it, but somebody has to say it. The Bruins are loosing FAR too many outside shots, and they're lucky that the addition of Love means that he's able to go and get plenty of their misses, as one of the best offensive rebounders in the country. UCLA is 2nd to last in 3-point shooting percentage in the Pac-10, only ahead of woeful Oregon State. As a team, the Beavers are shooting under 28% from 3 -- that's like an entire team of Mbah a Moutes launching 18 3s a game (shows how they were hitting rather lucky tonight against UCLA). No offense Luc, but yikes. But, the Bruins are right in the middle of the Pac in 3-point attempts, even throwing them up more often than UofA and UW, teams generally considered much more run-and-gun than the Bruins. And teams that are much more accurate from there than UCLA, as well.

This past game against OSU was a perfect example. The team went 3-15 from the field against the Beavers. And somewhat ironically, the only player who had a good shooting night from outside was Darren at 2-3. I say somewhat ironic, given that he spent much of the evening beating his defender off the dribble and getting to the line (14-14 on free throws is just awesome, btw). The rest of the team was a combined 1-12, despite the fact that the team was 24/39 from the floor on 2-point baskets. The point being, that unless somebody gets hot (see Shipp during the Bay-area road trip), it's generally not worth it for the team to chuck up a bunch of outside shots, given how effective Love, and the team as a whole, can be from inside the arc.

Anyway, time to get ready for "The Standard" next week. Very solid road trip, and here's hoping the Bruins come out fired up to start a new winning streak at Pauley.

Official UCLA press release can be found: here.

Linn was UCLA's strength and conditioning coach from 1999 to 2002, as well as a Bruin offensive lineman in the early 90's. Slightly worrisome is the fact that Linn's tenure spans basically the decline of the Bruin football program from a Rose Bowl to Toledo's firing. There were numerous reasons for the failure of that regime, though, and singling out S&C is generally a mistake when assigning blame or credit (just don't tell that to mgoblog's Brian Cook -- I keed, I keed). More information will hopefully be forthcoming as I dig a little deeper when I get the time. After his firing, Linn worked for several years at St. Louis University for a while, among other things. I'll leave you with the summary quote from the official release:

UCLA announced today the hiring of Mike Linn as the head strength and conditioning coach. Linn, who has both collegiate and corporate experience, previously served as the Bruin head strength and conditioning coach from 1999-2002. The 1993 UCLA graduate was a three-year starter along the offensive line on the Bruin football team and a member of three Bruin bowl teams. On another note, guys, can we please lower the minimum word requirements for diaries? The above didn't meet the 200 word-limit; no offense, but that's not the sort of thing that really belongs anywhere near a random comment in another thread.

Just saying. :)

For those of you who are Lakers fans, you might be familiar with Forum Blue and Gold, an LA Lakers blog - and one of the best NBA blogs online, besides. Its main proprietor, Kurt, is currently taking a break. However, that means that some of the regular commentators are getting a chance at the front page themselves. The current top post is the recollection of one member, Gatinho, as Coach Wooden's aide during a recent charity auction event.

As soon as Coach Wooden was wheeled into the back room, these basketball luminaries were reduced to fans. They all stopped what they were doing to greet The Coach. He may not have ever been their Coach, but you couldn't tell who he knew intimately from those he knew in passing... As the meet and greet portion of the event ended, the guests were sat in chairs as the Legends and Lakers made their way down the red carpet. It became very obvious that a majority of the folks were there to see and hear from one person. They rose to their feet as Coach Wooden walked down the red carpet.

The whole thing is really a must-read, and shows how students of the game - be they stars past and present, or casual fans - understand the greatness of John Wooden. Here's hoping the Bruins continue to do THE Coach proud for the remainder of the season, and in the days ahead. They've got one heck of a lofty ideal to which they can aspire.

Go Bruins!

Don't think this has been mentioned anywhere else here, but according to Dohn over at his Inside UCLA blog, Ryan Mallett is not coming to UCLA due to the fact that the Bruins are not hiring former UM QB coach Scot Loeffler:

"(Attending UCLA) was possible in the early stages, but not anymore,'' Mallet said. "My coach at Michigan [Loeffler] didn't really get looked at much. He was interviewed, but he didn't get the job, and I just feel comfortable with what I've been through with him."

A tad odd to base your choice of school solely on where your former QB coach ends up, but that's his call. It's in some ways more interesting that it appears Loeffler is also totally out of the running for pretty much any position, assuming this information holds for the rest of Neuheisal's hiring process. I know he had kind of dropped off the radar screen a tad, but I was unaware that he had been completely nixed. Obviously, Ryan Mallett is probably not the world's most definitive source on UCLA hiring decisions, but it sounds like he and Loeffler are pretty darn close, so this seems quite legit.

Ah well - as many have said, it's not as if the cupboard is totally bare here at QB (BO/PC as the now, and Forcier/Crissman as the future, have plenty of potential). Though I do think Loeffler could have been pretty good, his record is a tad more spotty than his press might indicate. Borrowing the stats from a previous diary comment I made:

Loeffler worked for Central Michigan as the QB coach for 2000 and 2001. The year before he was hired, in 1999, CMU was 53rd in the country, at 218.2 yards per game. They completed 53.4% of their passes, for about 13.8 yards per completion. In 2000, CMU completed 51.2% of their passes, 11.7 yards per completion. However, a bit more digging shows their passing leader for the season, Derrick Vickers, was a freshman. 2001 shows a different problem - Vickers got hurt about halfway through the year, and his replacement, Derek Gorney was... not so good (74/150 - 49%, for 831 yrds, 5 TDs, 7 INTs). Before he was hurt, Vickers wasn't great, but he was servicable (116/211 - 55%, for 1156 yds, 7 TDs, 6 INTs). He played against a couple of excellent pass defenses: Eastern Kentucky (DII, true, but 3rd in the country that year) and Michigan State (19th). However, he also had a very weak game against an awful, AWFUL Ohio pass defense (109th) - CMU lost 34-3.
[all statistics found through the NCAA's stats website]

Upon review, it seems Loeffler was so/so at working with players that weren't obviously talented. He took a below-average QB and turned him into an almost-but-not-quite average QB. Granted, CMU's lack of talent and potential playcalling differences could factor in between '00 and '01, but for simplicity let's assume their about equal. As such, that's a moderate talent increase. So it may be that UCLA can not only do better than Loeffler, but they may be able to do much better, depending on which coach they end up hiring.

Then again, maybe not. We await your OC decision with baited breath, Coach Neu! :)

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

Let's take a closer look at the two coaches mentioned by N in the football roundup for today.  With a little digging, there's plenty of information available, so let's get started with Eric Bieniemy.

The Daily Bruin article by Bryan Chu discussing his departure to the NFL can be found here:

[In 2005], Bieniemy was approached by the University of Texas for its running backs coach position, but he rejected the offer after UCLA increased his salary to $145,000 annually and gave him chief recruiting responsibilities. Bieniemy contemplated the Texas offer primarily because his son has cerebral palsy and the neurology department in Austin, Texas, is world renowned and could have helped the Bieniemy family's treatment of his child. However Bieniemy's decision to take the Vikings's job is considered primarily professional. [Emphasis mine] I think that, offered the right package and opportunity, he could be lured back. But he's currently the RB coach for the Minnesota Vikings, where he's working with super-stud Adrian Peterson. It might be a difficult sell, though I don't feel like he's one to shy away from a challenge, at least given the personality he displayed in his first tenure with the Bruins.

As for Loeffler, the general concensus that I've seen on the Michigan boards/blogs is that he's a very solid recruiter, and a good-but-not-great coach. UM QBs all fit the same kind of mold, which is rather Cory Pausish - good arms, but total statues in the pocket. See Navarre, John and Henne, Chad. Mallett's in the exact same vein.

It really depends on the offense Neuheisel plans to run, because I can't see Loeffler helping to build an offense that involves much QB movement. Given the mobility of both Rashaan and Forcier (4.44 40-time), he might not be the best fit for those players. However, Olson - and potentially Mallett - would work perfectly. Nick Crissman, too, seems to fit more with that pocket passer style.

Before going to UM, Loeffler was the QB coach at Central Michigan for 2000 and 2001. During those two years, the NCAA Passing Efficiency stats for CMU have them at 86th and 94th nationally. What exactly that means, I can't be sure - clearly the offensive coordinator and head coach would have plenty of impact on those numbers, as well as the talent level. But it at least suggests that Loeffler didn't take poor-to-mediocre talent and transform it into superstardom.

However, Loeffler's recruiting record is really quite good. Over the past 3 years, he's been directly responsible for 6 UM commits, at least as far as Rivals indicates (the link is for 2006 only, but there's a menu for '07 and '08 as well). In 2006, Loeffler brought in 4-star RB Carlos Brown, 3-star QB David Cone (who some are tagging as Henne's potential successor depending on the decisions of Mallett and uber-recruit Terrelle Pryor who is considering transferring), and some random kicker. In 2007, he snagged Mallett and 4-star wideout Toney Clemons. And so far in 2008, he's already gotten UM a commit from 4-star LB Christian Wilson.

For comparison, let's take a look at UCLA's current DC and outgoing OC. In the same span of time ('06 to '08), Norvell has brought in three 4-star players for his two schools, despite recruiting from the OC position instead of QB coach. Walker, to give a benchmark for a high-level recruiter from the coordinator position, has brought in 14 players over the last two seasons, including eleven 4-star players (whether or not you think the guy's a good DC, he's an excellent recruiter).

I'd say a hesitant yes on Loeffler, obviously depending on the position (QB coach vs OC) - Neuheisal is reputedly an excellent QB guy himself, so bringing in a solid recruiter there who needs only to complement his skills is probably not a bad idea. I would like somebody with a more established track record for OC, though - it's not exactly HARD to recruit quarterbacks at Michigan, after all. Bieniemy, though, would be a great hire in my opinion. He's a firey guy, also excellent on the 'campaign trail' so to speak, and has a reputation for finding and developing lots of talent. In Dorrell's early era, Bieniemy was probably the one guy for which KD was given the most plaudits for finding. He was another type of guy who was unafraid to go toe-to-toe with the Trojans, which is the kind of atmosphere it appears Neuheisel is concocting. I think he'd fit right in.

Well, trying to get a bit back into posting diaries here. A few brief notes on the game:

1. Obviously, as N and others have already mentioned, a huge win. This victory sets the tone for UCLA's season, going into Maples and coming out with a solid victory. It also puts pressure on the rest of the Pac-10's upper echelon, who will have to do the same to keep up with the Bruins (and effectively puts the Trees 2 games back to start the year).
2. The player of the game was not, hard as it may be to believe given his stellar shooting, Josh Shipp. That honor, in my opinion, belongs to Russell Westbrook. He had one of the most efficient games I've ever seen, with 15 points on 6-7 shooting (1-2 on 3s, 2-2 at the line). In addition, he had 6 assists and 2 steals, with 0 turnovers. Despite coming off the bench, he played nearly the whole game (35 minutes), valuable given the loss of Roll and Collison's periodic struggles. An excellent all-around effort.
3. That having been said, Shipp was huge. Even assuming he won't always be quite that hot from behind the arc (5-8, with several shots well behind the 3-pt line), if he can simply present that kind of threat in a consistent fashion the interior should open up for Love and Luc.
4. As a team, the defense against Brook Lopez was outstanding, forcing him into a 5-14 night offensively. As an individual, Love showed he can guard players even when they have a significant height advantage on him, which is a major positive.
5. Alfred Aboya's 3-pointer: early contender for shot of the year? I say yes.

So, for those of you up on celebrity gossip, it may come as no news to you that there have been rumours of an engagement between Reggie Bush and 'personality' Kim Kardashian (though apparently nothing has been finalized, "not yet" anyway).

Somehow, the assosciation with USC running backs and the Kardashian family had flown over my head, until I ended up on this thread over at BRO (don't worry, not in pay section). Poster 'wassily' asked, correctly, "Wasn't her dad OJ's lawyer or is that someone else?"

Well, via Wikipedia, "Robert Kardashian (February 22, 1944 - September 30, 2003) was an Armenian-American lawyer who was best known as a friend of O.J. Simpson. In the days following the murders, O.J. Simpson stayed in Kardashian's house. Kardashian was the man seen carrying Simpson's garment bag the day Simpson flew back from Chicago. Prosecutors speculated the bag may have contained Simpson's bloody clothes and/or the murder weapon."

And a bit further down: "He is the father of three daughters, Kim Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian, and Khloe Kardashian and one son, Robert Jr., with former wife Kris Jenner."

The coincidence is a bit too much for me - the daughter of Simpson's old friend ends up romantically linked, quite seriously it would seem, with young Reggie Bush.

I got a chuckle, thought some of you might as well.

Having just returned from the game, thought I'd write up some thoughts.

The good:
UCLA was able to win a game in which almost everything seemed to be going wrong. The players never panicked despite struggling for long portions of the game. Washington State is a much better team than they're being given credit for, due to a gigantic brain fart game against Utah that was the only reason they weren't undefeated coming into Pauley tonight. The Bruins kept a lot of possessions alive due to 10 offensive rebounds, allowing them a significant edge in shots taken (55 to WSU's 44) which was a big key in UCLA's win despite shooting only 33% from the floor to WSU's 43%. The free-throw shooting was much better again tonight, going 11-15. The defense was never spectacular (it never really got into 'shutdown' mode like it sometimes does), but it was routinely solid all game, holding the Cougars to their lowest point total of the season to date, and keeping UCLA close when the shots weren't falling (see below...).

The bad:
The offense never really got into sync - most of UCLA's biggest baskets came off individual decisions that usually resulted in a fairly deep 3-ball (Collison's two big 3-pointers, Mbah a Moute's 3 to stem an 11-2 WSU run early in the game...). In fact, the Bruins made almost as many 3-pointers, 8, as they did 2-point baskets, 10. They shot 8-19 (42%) from behind the arc and 10-36 (28%) inside it. That's a bad sign, as UCLA is not a team that normally does, or should, rely on outside shooting. The Bruins had a lot of trouble with WSU's aggressive defense of the rim in the early going - the Cougars blocked 7(!) shots in the first half, which contributed to UCLA's heavy perimeter shooting for much of the rest of the game.

The ugly:
While WSU's a good, solid team (probably around NIT level), this was a very lackluster performance in the Pac-10 opener. UCLA will need a lot more energy on Sunday against a Washington team fired up to avoid getting swept in L.A. to start conference play. Neither team really did a good job handling the ball - though only 10 turnovers were credited to each team, there were plenty more possessions with missed opportunities by both sides due to sloppy handling or poor decision-making (ex: Collison on a 2-on-3 break, Afflalo wide open at the 3-point line, instead DC drives into all 3 guys and tosses up a floater that barely gets to the basket). Shooting 33% is always ugly, no matter the opponent. What happened to the bench? 6 points (after scoring 20 against UM)? ... And Keefe, 2 fouls in ONE minute of PT?

Comments:
This was exactly the sort of grind-it-out game that I expected it to be considering the two teams involved. UCLA played much worse relative to its total potential than Washington State, and still came away with a win. Always important to start out the Pac-10 season with a W. However, UCLA did allow WSU to dictate the style of play for much of the game - that's not really good or bad, per se, as UCLA has shown it can win games grinding it out or running the floor. But it's usually better to get a team out of its gameplan if possible, and the Bruins were unable to do so early and started settling for running the ball around the perimeter and settling for a lot of outside jumpers and contested looks.

I'd also like to address the sentiment that the refs were the cause for much of UCLA's struggles - quite frankly, that's viewing the game through homer glasses. The bad calls were many and frequent, but pretty evenly distributed on both sides. Now, as I said in the comments on Ty's post-game thread, I do believe that UCLA should be getting the benefit of the doubt more than its opponent as the concensus #1 team in the country playing at home... But going into the game expecting more help from the refs than your opponent is a poor mentality to have (see: Duke). UCLA is a good enough team that sometimes when players don't do as well as we expect them to, I think we look for reasons other than the simplest one - they're just having a bad game. Take this away from the UCLA-WSU game: the Bruins played about average (read - very well) on the defensive end, and extremely poorly on the offensive end, and came away with yet another W. No more, no less. Now they need to go out and beat up on a reeling UW team.

Comments welcome and appreciated.
---UB

Something else to factor in to UCLA's season this year - unlike last year, when the Bruins had a 10-2 record that was inflated at least some by their relatively weak competition, this year the Bruins have played against some of the stiffest competition in the country.

Avoiding ESPN's "strength-of-schedule" rankings, which suck (using only straight win-loss records), I went and took a look at all of the source ratings for the BCS (which also explains how UCLA is actually ranked in the BCS computers)

Anderson-Hester: UCLA is ranked #21, with a SOS of #2 in the country.
Billingsley: UCLA is ranked #24, with a SOS of #1
Colley: #23, SOS of #4
Massey: #17, SOS of #3
Sagarin: #16, SOS of #3
Wolfe: #24, can't find SOS for Wolfe.

So, if the computers are to be trusted at all, UCLA's strength of schedule this season was brutal. This was most likely due to the fact that the Bruins played a very tough non-conf schedule, as not only is Notre Dame still a highly-ranked team, but both Utah and Rice (! ... Rice is actually on a 6-game winning streak, incredibly enough) finished with winning records. Also, the Pac-10 did very well in non-conference play this season, finishing 22-9 with the highest ranking in Anderson-Hester's conference ratings (largely because the SEC, Big 10, and Big East played a bunch of crappy non-conf opponents and had horrible strength-of-schedules as conferences on the whole, while the Pac-10 played fairly good teams across the board).

Also to note, Florida State is, according to the computer rankings, really not very good AT ALL:
A-H: #54
B: #49
C: #54
M: #52
S: #56
W: #56

UCLA -must- win the Emerald Bowl not only because it will allow the Bruins to ride the momentum of 12/2, but also because quite frankly they'll be going up against one of their weaker opponents this season (6 or 7 of the teams UCLA beat are in the top 50 of pretty much every computer ranking).

I haven't been around as much as I'd like, but I've gotten a chance to stop by now and then, and with a bit of free time I figured I'd write up and early-season analysis of the major UCLA rotation, offensively and defensively. Let's get to it.

Arron Afflalo -
Offense: Afflalo's an interesting case. The biggest issue with Afflalo is, quite frankly, the one reason UCLA fans should have to worry AND rejoice. And that is his left hand. Quite frankly, he doesn't have one. As an example, watch the huge basket-and-one he gets late in the game. He crosses over the UK defender right-to-left, but when he finishes, he has to move the ball back to his right hand. It's a flaw I've noticed in his game. Why the rejoicing? It's the biggest reason, I believe, he came back for his junior year - no off hand won't cut it in the pros. This weakens his finishing ability at the rim significantly. However, Afflalo has impeccable balance. But he needs a second go-to move other than his spin. His shot is somewhat streaky (compare Chaminade to Kentucky), but he's still UCLA's most dynamic offensive player. He'll go hot and cold, but even on bad days can put on his own little mini-runs to give UCLA momentum.

Defense: What can you say? Though he's developed a bit of a bad tendency at taking periodic plays off (he gave up on the inbounds play that resulted in a 3 midway through the 2nd half), when he focuses he's one of the 10 best on-ball defenders in the country. I figure Howland will make sure he stays focused, so no worries there.

Darren Collison -
Offense: While he still has the bad habit of trying to do too much every once in a while, Collison has successfully slid into the role of distributor in Howland's offense. He'll struggle periodically against bigger guards (like UK's Jasper), but his speed gives him an aspect few players will be able to match. His vision is greatly improved, and he's picked up a slick head-fake pass on fast breaks that should give UCLA plenty of easy buckets.

Defense: He's very 'handsy.' That can get him into foul trouble, but also will garner several good steal opportunities per game (he's averaging 3/gm right now... that'll go down some, but not by too much). Though he's small, UCLA's interior rotation should prevent bigger guards from posting him too often. Players can shoot over him, though, which is contributing to the perimeter shooting of opposing teams to date. Still, compared with Jordan Farmar, he's about a wash - he takes more chances and will get burned/shot over from time to time, but easy baskets off turnovers will mitigate that.

Josh Shipp -
Offense: Shipp's outside shot doesn't seem to be as consistent as I'd hoped yet, but the sample size is still very small, and I believe it'll show. He retains that slashing ability that put people so high on him before the season last year. He finishes well, and takes contact extremely well (lots of Three-Point-Plays from our boy, methinks). Plus, he rebounds very well from the 2/3 position, especially when opposing defenders forget to box out.

Defense: He looks a step slow at the moment, which probably results from all his time off. He's been beat off the dribble a few times, and needs to fight through screens better. However, he's very tough, and will probably be able to defend bigger players with success. He's good at rotating into and out of double-teams, which should allow him to contribute to turnovers.

Luc Mbah a Moute -
Offense: The Prince has been a revelation early in the season. He's developed quite a bit, and added several moves to his arsenal. Playing mostly the 4 for the year, he should be penciled in for at least one or two dribble-drive buckets a game. It's a new wrinkle, where he gets the ball at the high post and uses either a spin or a jump-stop to get the ball to the rim. He didn't have it for most of last year, and it should give his offensive game more consistency when he is unable to grab offensive rebounds. However, one worry - by spending more time up at the high post, he'll be more out of position for offensive boards. He still runs the cut screens very well for easy baskets down low, though, so he'll still grab a couple each night.

Defense: See Afflalo. I mean, Moute kicks Boute, what do you want from me? He'll probably never be a premiere shot-blocker because he lacks the monster explosion of great athletic leapers like LSU's Ty Thomas from last season, or UCLA's own Ryan Hollins (and Mata, but we'll get to him later). However, he's rarely out of position, and his long arms allow him to contest every shot.

Mike Roll -
Offense: Roll has regressed from last season. He still has the catch-and-shoot mentality, but seems to lack the ability to "get hot" and bang down 2 or 3 deep balls in a row that he showed last year. Again, small sample size, so I figure that should even itself out a bit. He still has zero inside game or mid-range jumper, though, which is worrisome. Probably the Bruins' best pure shooter, I'd just like to see him get to the point where he can make a couple big shots a game, every game - instead of putting up 4 or 5 one game, and then getting a goose egg the next. His ball-handling is not improved, but he probably won't have to handle the point very often because of UCLA's surplus of players who can play the 1 or 2, plus Mbah a Moute seems to often come back and help break full-court presses.

Defense: Roll's defense is actually underrated by some of the site's visitors, I think. He's got a very wide frame, which allows him to body up to much taller players, and in a real pinch could probably handle a bit of rotation duty against opposing 4s. He works very hard on the defensive end, always running around/through screens and fighting to stay in front of his man, which is most likely why he has gotten significant playing time (1st man off the bench) to date despite struggles offensively in 2 of his 3 games. He seems a prototypical Howland defender - not a whole lot of flash or turnovers, but rarely gives up an easy open look at the hoop to his man (or anybody else's in his area).

Lorenzo Mata -
Offense: Good to have you back, Zo! Mata continues to grow as a player in his 3rd season under Howland, and his offensive game shows that growth. He probably will never be particularly graceful, but he's a great leaper and incredibly strong. This allows him to get great position down low. Plus, he runs the low post screens very well, and should have several easy buckets a game. He doesn't finish well, though - he still lofts the ball on layups to get soft bounces off the glass because he doesn't have a lot of touch. Still, he's still recuperating from his injuries, and things can only go up from what is already a very promising beginning (8 ppg in only about 22 minutes/gm of work).

Defense: Again, Mata's improving, but he looks like his improvement has been more on the offensive end than the defensive. He reminds me somewhat of Ryan Hollins, only much tougher. Unlike Hollins, he can't be pushed around on the low block. Like Hollins, though, he gets faked into the air fairly easily, which will cause him troubles with fouls. Again, though, he's probably the team's best 'leaper,' and best shot-blocker. He's completely unafraid of anybody, it seems, and it shows that his best game of the young season by far came against the team with the highest profile.

Alfred Aboya -
Offense: That 'other' Cameroonian (I'm assuming that's the right noun, at least, heh), Aboya has basically been a role player due to Mata's return and the addition of Keefe. He works every minute he's in the game, and it's resulted in offensive rebounds each of the 3 games he's played, despite limited time (5 in his 42 minutes, quite a bit). He probably will never have a refined post game, but his strength should give defenders a change of pace from Mbah a Moute's more hustle- and skill-oriented style.

Defense: Aboya is an amazing athlete and has looked to make the most out of every minute on the floor so far. This is both good and bad. For the good, he's a great player to have when getting the starters a rest, as he's probably more athletically gifted than almost any bench player of any of UCLA's opponents. However, he'll get himself in trouble by being overzealous at times. 6 personal fouls in 42 minutes of work this season, two of those games against inferior competition - he had 3 in only 11 minutes against UK. Still, he's a good shot blocker, and has a very wide frame, allowing him to take up tons of space in the lane against dribble-drives.

James Keefe -
Offense: Most of what can be said for Aboya can be said about Keefe, really. He's not as strong and not as good a rebounder, but he's a better passer, and presents an excellent wide profile on screens. With his limited time, it's not particularly easy to get a bead on him to date, but he's looking like a perfect fit for Howland's system - plenty of hustle, and a willingness at times to get aggressive against more 'polished' offensive players. He didn't get much time against UK (2 minutes) so I don't know how he stacks up against better competition just yet, but in those 2 minutes he had 1 board and had another one taken away from him by Mata, so he's working hard.

Defense: More of the same. See Aboya, fewer boards and blocks, a bit better rotation on double-teams and slightly better ability to stay in front of opposing post men on the low block.

Russell Westbrook -
Offense: Westbrook has been very off-and-on, but I really like what I'm seeing from the freshman so far. He reminds me of a taller Darren Collison from last year, really. He's made a couple of plays that get me very, very excited to see him on the Bruins for the future. He controls the ball well and can finish at the hoop, though he doesn't have the same court vision of UCLA's older players (it'll come with coaching, I'm sure). He plays like a very confident young player, which also reads to me like DC circa last season - I think he could be a difference-maker in the second half of the season.

Defense: He's taller than Collison, and a bit harder to shoot over. But he's not as quick or fast, and players can get around him off the dribble. Still, he has the ability to pick up a couple of steals at times, and plays taller than he is (I had to check to make sure he was only 6'3", as it looked like was more like 6'5"). As a frosh behind DC on the depth chart with several other guards in front of him as well, he probably won't get too much exposure. But for a change of pace and an alternate look, he offers a different defensive profile and can give UCLA the opportunity to play against bigger teams without forcing help defense, which is important as Howland has seemed to prefer straight man unless trapping.

Overall, the team really does seem to be in great shape at this early stage of the year. Their perimeter defense leaves some to be desired, true. That's a combination of a few factors - Collison's not as good on the outside as Farmar was, and without a big man like Hollins controlling the paint the 2 and 3 seem to be sliding down a bit more to help on dribble-drives, leaving open kick-out buckets. Even so, the higher point totals are also a result of UCLA's more open offensive mindset. The Bruins seem much more committed to getting their fast-break going (though it existed last year, it was executed much less often than it has been to date). This increases the pace of the game in general, and also leads to more possessions by each team.

Still, UCLA is forcing somewhere close to 15 turnovers a game by opponents, which suggests their defense is still alive and well. It just follows what many of us believed last season and still do - the offense was there if necessary, but at times the proper strategic decision was to slow down the game and prevent the opponent from getting into a rhythm.

The Bruin offense does have some kinks it needs to work out, it's true. Two words: FREE THROWS. Also, every once in a while they turn into the bizarro L.A. Lakers, standing around and tossing the ball around the 3-point line while hoping somebody makes a move (Afflalo = Kobe) or gets free off a screen - if it doesn't happen, they have to force up a shot. Even so, for the most part the offense has been fairly efficient, and a big difference will be in knocking down open outside shots. UCLA shot 44.6% from the floor against the Wildcats, for example, despite going 2-of-19 for 3s - they shot 58.7% on 2-point attempts. Say they go 6-of-19, still less than 33%: they'd have shot over 50% from the floor for the game.

Hope this is informative. :)

---UB

I'm just trying to remember here, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. Go back to the loss at UW - towards the end of the game when the Huskies are running out the clock, they get a false start penalty. However, when the ball is respotted, the clock continues to run, and another 20-odd seconds are taken off the clock before they run a play. I believe the announcers even mentioned it in passing ("The clock stops... No, it doesn't stop, it keeps running..." or something like that).

Fast-forward to the ND loss. The Bruins get a delay of game penalty, clock clearly doesn't restart (if it had, methinks somebody would have noticed).

So, is it that a false start keeps the clock running but a delay of game doesn't? The UW crew screwed up (most likely)? Or the ND crew screwed up (least likely - if they had I figure somebody would have caught it)?

I'm only asking out of curiosity - not that I believe it made much of a difference one way or another concerning the UW game, it's just that I believe I've seen that sort of thing happen at a couple of games now where the home team has been in the lead late, committed an offensive penalty, and the clock has continued to run even though the down stays the same (which, if that's actually the way the rule is supposed to go, I say get a lead, get the ball into the 4th quarter and then, hey, false starts all the way to the end).

This little bit here is just to get the word-count up over 300 words. No offense, but I think that the above diary is long enough to stand on its own and really doesn't fit into any other comment thread (arguably it could have gone into the ND postgame thread, but I just thought of it recently and it wouldn't be seen by anybody if I posted it down there). Maybe dip the word count requirement just a touch?

Per the Daily News, UCLA has advanced to the NCAA championship in men's golf. The top 30 teams in the country (10 from each of the Central, East and West regionals) take part in the final tournament:

"Kevin Chappell shot 4-under-par 68 Saturday to win the individual competition at the NCAA East Regional men's golf qualifier and lead UCLA into the May 31-June 3 finals in Sunriver, Ore.

The Bruins, who finished sixth at the East Regional in Orlando, Fla., will be joined at the finals by Loyola Marymount and Pepperdine... USC struggled, shooting 15-over 303 and finishing at 895 [good for 15th], 11 strokes worse than 10th-place UNLV."

Good luck to the Bruin golfers in the NCAA Championships!

Oh, this is way too good. In what I consider a great coincidence following HP's rule #1: "An over-use of the word douche..."

Well, I link you to this Deadspin story, concerning a photo of Matt Leinart and Nick Lachey. The good writers over at the rotational-movement-of-the-deceased place themselves in the shoes of a bored SI.com intern in an attempt to explain an odd name choice for a file:

So you come across a photo of Matt Leinart and Nick Lachey that you're supposed to file in the database. God, you just can't ... do ... one ... more. You save the photo ... but you can't help yourself ... so you name it "douche.jpg."

Though the 'net editors over at SI finally woke up and renamed the file, the location of "douche.jpg" still exists (http://i.a.cnn.net./si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0605/gallery.campus/images/douche.jpg), and contains the same image dimensions (though it's now a blank image) as the renamed photo (http://i.a.cnn.net./si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0605/gallery.campus/images/lachey.jpg), leading me to believe that the Texaspig capture of the phenomenon (found here) is indeed the real deal.

Major hat tip, of course, to aforementioned Deadspin. Hunh. Guess they won't make it onto the New York Times pages any time soon, either. Oh well. I guess their bajillion hits a day make up for it.

I have discovered a CBS conspiracy to have the Bruins win the national championship, which can be proven using the following completely unquestionable logic:

http://cbs.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/mayhem/expertpicks/celebs  --  This is CBS's 'celebs' brackets page. Scroll down to the 6th contestant, Rex Linn. Now, which coach does he bear a striking physical similarity to (at least in that picture)? And note which team he has winning it all?

CBS plans on running a made-for-TV movie, to be released fall 2007, on the improbable rebuilding job done by Ben Howland on the 'sleeping giant' that was the UCLA program before his arrival, through his first 3 years on campus. Starring Linn as 'blue-collar' coach Ben Howland, the movie will make you laugh, make you cry, and make you 8-clap! To ensure the 'watchability' factor, the Bruins must win the national championship this season.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY, I TELL YOU!!!

(I really need some sleep. Off to bed.)   =P

From the postgame interviews from the Ill/UW game:

"Coach patted me on the butt, looked me in the eyes and told me that he needed me," [Washington player Mike] Jensen said. "Right there, I didn't care about anything else in the world..."

Obviously there's more to it than that, but talk about hilarity out of context. :)

Full story, in case anybody wants to read the whole bit: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney06/news/story?id=2374770&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos 3

www.ncaasports.com/mmod - CBS-sponsored full video of the games... Including archived video of recent games. It's a pain in the ass to get in, but if you missed the game it's worth it.

If people are interested, I'm considering snagging and setting up an IRC chat room (and maybe sticking up an http link as well for folks not versed in IRC use or watching from work...) so that folks can talk live during the games. Leave your thoughts in the comments section, but if there looks like a reasonable amount of interest I could do it pretty easily.

From their info on the Oakland region:

"Home Cooking: UCLA
During the tournament, any intangible can be the difference between winning and losing. California's most storied college basketball program, UCLA, will hope that playing in its home state gives the Bruins a home-court-like advantage." (Emphasis mine)

Oh. UCLA is 'California's' most storied college program. Really. I guess that puts us ahead of the Cardinal. Whoop.

Try the COUNTRY's most storied program. Recent success issues or not, you can't argue with 11 banners and Coach. Is it the Coach Kryszsdfasdolkjlkjaolsky award, given to the greatest player in college basketball (named after the greatest coach in college basketball)? 'Fraid not.

The wording of that phrase just strikes me as so deliberate, and so very wrong.

Edit: Ehh, looking over it now, I guess I can kind of understand why they'd say 'California' - if they're furthering the "home court advantage" issue. Still merits pointing out, methinks. But: The same page picks Kansas out of the Oakland region. Why? "Also, they're far more athletic than overrated Memphis and they've played a tougher schedule than UCLA and Gonzaga."

Really? Let's take a quick look at the Pomeroy RPI/SOS ratings. Why, there's UCLA, at a solid strength of schedule rating of 29. And look, a bit further down we find Kansas, with their schedule ranking of... 49. Oh, perhaps he meant their *grueling* nonconference schedule, during which they struggled mightily. Let's check - oh, ranked 142nd, which is close but not quite as good as UCLA's 14th, or Gonzaga's 19th. Clearly much tougher.

And hmm, getting rolled by Arizona (the same team UCLA took out 3x this season) and being beaten by Arkansas (a team WITHIN THE OAKLAND REGION) must have also suggested Kansas is the team to beat here. This is journalism at its finest, folks!

Yes, I'll give Kansas some due props. They improved greatly over the 2nd-half of the season, and destructimated Texas, one of the finalists for a #1 seed, in a Big 12 championship game played in Dallas. But if the explanation for their predicted victories in the Oakland region is that they're more athletic than one of the most gifted teams in the country, Memphis, and that they've played a tougher schedule than UCLA (EXCEPT THEY HAVEN'T)...

-sniff-sniff- ... Why, what's that I smell? Is it the lovely aroma of... Bullcrap?

Link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/arash_markazi/03/12/pac.10.tourney/index.html

"When UCLA got back on the practice court less than 48 hours later [following their loss to USC], Howland put his players through the toughest practice they had ever endured during his three years as coach...

'It triggered something deep inside all of us,' said sophomore guard Jordan Farmar, who scored a game-high 19 points and hit five 3-pointers [in the Pac-10 tournament final against California]. 'We have a mentally tough team that likes to compete and that's what it triggered. It sparked something special. That Tuesday practice was the toughest we've ever had.' "

Some good notes and quotes in the piece.

ESPN.com reporting...

TUCSON, Ariz. -- University of Arizona basketball player Hassan Adams was arrested Sunday on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. Adams, 21, was arrested early Sunday morning after he was pulled over for speeding, according to police.

Now we'll get to see exactly how Lute runs his program - with a comparable example in Justin Medlock's suspension for the Sun Bowl by Dorrell. The Pac-10 tourney is coming up, and could do wonders for Arizona's seeding - we'll see if Lute is willing to suspend his star player.

I'm feeling a bit of insomnia tonight, and so I figured I'd do a writeup I've planned for a bit, an analysis of the Bruin 'big men.' Arranged by height, going shortest to tallest.

1. Luc Richard Mbah a Moute - The nicest surprise of the Bruin season to date, LRMaM has proven to be vital to UCLA's success this year. He has an excellent nose for the ball, and plays with an energy that often seems absent from some of the other Bruin forwards/centers. He is much like Dijon Thompson, in that he manages to succeed despite lacking in great athletic ability or size (though Thompson was obviously a more polished player than Mbah a Moute is at the moment). With his lack of experience in the game of basketball, the 'Prince' has a great opportunity to blossom into something special, and has shown periodic flashes of brilliance. A tad undersized for the 4, he nevertheless leads the team in rebounds (3rd in the conference), and is the 3rd leading scorer on the team (not including Josh Shipp, who played in only 4 games this season), and he is very efficient as well (2nd in the conference in field-goal percentage). Clearly a long-term option at either the 3 or the 4, Luc looks to do nothing but improve, and continue to be a significant contributor for UCLA.
2. Alfred Aboya - The other member of the Cameroon 'posse,' one might say, Aboya also shows himself to have great, though untapped, potential. He is more of a prototypical power forward than LRMaM, not only an inch taller, but much more broadly built. He does not, though, have Luc's nose for the ball or basketball instincts. He plays out of control much of the time; witness tonight's Cal game, when he took an ill-advised flailing turnaround layup with UCLA up by 3, 15 seconds remaining on the shot clock, and the game winding down. Still, he has at times played very good defense, and can body up to bigger players. Aboya is the very definition of 'raw,' showing time and again great athletic ability but coupling it with skills that could be described best as uncontrolled. He most likely will not unseat Mata for the starting center spot, or Luc for the 4, but could easily be a valuable backup at both positions. I would like to see him learn to play more on the low block, but he still offers the Bruins quite a bit as a strong interior defensive presence.
3. Lorenzo Mata - I am struck as I watch UCLA this season, by just how much Mata's loss means to the team. Not for his rebounding, which is very good, or his defense, which had begun to edge on 'stellar' before his injury. No, Mata added something else - screens. Watching UCLA now, it seems to me that the team sets very poor screens, and I believe Mata won the starting center position earlier this season in large part because of his willingness to set body-crunching screens. Mata, like Prince Luc, has limited basketball experience, and in year two of his time under Ben Howland he had begun to blossom. It is hoped that his injury problems will be taken care of well, and that he can return to the lineup in perfect health. Mata was the best shot blocker on the team before his injury, and along with Mbah a Moute presented a very dangerous pair on the offensive glass - both players crashed the boards at both ends very effectively. In fact, in seven straight games, from the Michigan game until the Arizona State game (the last one before WSU, when he was injured), he had at least one offensive rebound. He also had 4 of them three different times. Coupled with LRMaM, the duo were usually good for nearly a half-dozen second chance opportunities. If he continues to grow under Coach Howland (no reason not to believe he should), he could develop into a viable post presence, to go along with his solid defense and rebounding.
4. Ryan Wright - The enigma of the season, Ryan Wright seemed as though he had wrested the starting job from the other Bruin big men during the early goings. He played significant minutes in pretty much every game from Nevada, up through the first several Pac-10 contests. After the first USC game, though (in which he took 0 shots, and had 4 rebounds), his playing time dwindled to nearly nothing. He is the most athletic of the freshmen big men, with good foot speed and an explosive jumping ability. But he frequently seems totally lost on defense, a major no-no for a Howland-coached team. And his offensive game does not inspire much (notice a theme, here). He could still end up a vital member of the UCLA roster, but will need to put in some significant work on raising his 'basketball IQ,' as well as trying to work on his inside game against college-level competition.
5. Michael Fey - The first of UCLA's senior 'twin towers,' UCLA's two 7-foot Steve Lavin recruits. Mike Fey is, in my opinion, the most tragic story of UCLA's season in many ways. He is, almost certainly in my opinion, the most offensively-talented UCLA big man. He is the only one that has any semblance of a low-post game, and has shown the ability to score with his back to the basket in a consistent fashion. But his athletic ability is very poor, unfortunate for somebody his size. He lacks great leaping ability and boxes out poorly, and as such is mediocre at best at rebounding despite his height and large frame. Additionally, and most frustrating, are his hands. His damnable hands! Mike Fey has the infamy, justly deserved, of being nearly incapable of handling entry passes. Which, considering that he is a post player, is not only unacceptable but significantly limits his value as a scorer. His defense is nearly as bad as his ability to catch the basketball - he does not rotate well off screens, does not block shots well, and rarely prevents opposing centers from establishing excellent position on the blocks. Fey entered Westwood with great promise, but it has gone mostly unfulfilled. He has neither the athletic ability or the attitude to be a successful player, and as such has ridden the bench most of this season despite being one of only 3 seniors on the team.
5. Ryan Hollins - Here we come to what might be described as a success story. The other 'twin tower,' Hollins is a talented NCAA high jumper, and his explosive vertical leaping ability is often put on display on the basketball court. His height, hops, and long limbs, allow him to be very active defensively - though despite his experience he still does a poor job anticipating player adjustments and so blocks fewer shots than would be expected. This season, Hollins - when healthy - has been the choice as starting center for the Bruins since Zo Mata was injured. Perhaps realizing it to be his last chance to play for UCLA, Hollins has seemed more lively the past couple of months, playing mostly active defense, and his usual high-flying (though often ineffective) brand of offense - mostly tip-dunks, putbacks of offensive rebounds, and alley-oops. He is easily the UCLA player with the most athleticism, and has enough potential based purely on his height, long arms, and athleticism alone that he will get some looks from NBA teams as a possible project. Though that talent has still gone mostly unused, Hollins has shown a marked improvement over the second half of this season, allowing Coach Howland to keep Lorenzo Mata off the court instead of trying to see if the sophmore could hobble his way back on. One hopes he will have the opportunity to go out on a successful note, preferably a deep tournament run.

From the Tennessean:

"NUMBER OF NOTE

* 4.39 -- The 40-yard dash time of UCLA running back Maurice Drew, the best official time posted on Saturday."

Link: http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060226/SPORTS01/602260387/1027/SPORTS01

Update: So MoD is on the front page of NFL.com, where they mention his 4.39 time (fastest amonst the running backs, apparently, though Reggie Bush did not run). Also, here is a link to a report Drew wrote for the page talking about the combine. Also of note, he listed in at only 5'6 3/4"!!! MoDrew makes Tyler Ebell look like a giant. =P Nevertheless, from what I've been reading teams were wowed by his speed, his incredibly strong lower body (one draft site I read noted his was "built like a linebacker"), and the fact that he went all-out on every play. Sounds like the Maurice Drew we know and love.

On the Spencer Havner front, there's plenty of interesting info available over on Rivals, where he has been keeping a running log of his thoughts from the combine. Of note:

They [KC Chiefs and Washington Redskins coaches] were also looking for a reaction from me, good or bad, and asked about why UCLA let go of its defensive coordinator and got a new one (Former Redskins assistant DeWayne Walker replaced Larry Kerr) after such a good season. I said the decision wasn't up to me. Obviously, coach (Karl) Dorrell wasn't happy with the direction of the defense and he hired his partner from the NFL.

Spencer ran in the 4.6s, which is okay for a player of his size, but he was very impressive in the shuttle run, clocking in the 2nd-fastest time of the linebackers, behind only A.J. Hawk of Ohio State.

Marcedes Lewis: ML may have slipped out of the top two draft spots for tight ends - a moderately fast 40 time (in the 4.7s) and a so/so showing on the bench press were unfortunately for him coupled with very impressive performances by his competitors in the top tier of TEs, Vernon Davis and Leonard Pope. Davis especially showed himself a monster, running a 4.38 (YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME) in the 40-yard dash, and basically showing himself to be far and away the best physical specimen in the draft. Though Lewis is still probably the best pass-catcher of the three, he most likely will fall behind Davis and the 6'7 250lb Pope, who despite his size ran just over a 4.6 at the combine.

Good luck to him, and all the Bruins, in the upcoming draft.