I initially wrote this as a comment in response to Class of 66's Shame On You Dan Guerrero post, and per request, have cleaned it up a bit and now posted this as a Fan Post. I've spent a lot of time reflecting on my time at UCLA, and at the challenges the institution is going through. Having read the article in which Dan Guerrero talks about the "culture" at UCLA, it really struck me - this "culture" has a huge impact on the athletics department, and indeed, the school as a whole, and it starts from the top.

This is a bit long winded but here’s my take on UCLA, looking back…

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

In the comment's of bluebland's post on premature departures from the Ben Howland era,  Blue Me made this comment:

One is the recruitment of the "instant impact" type of player, the sure-fire NBA lottery pick. Howland has brought only one of this type of player (Love) during his tenure here, where other elite programs are bringing in this type of player, sometimes 2 or more of them, every year. (Holiday was also supposed to be that type of player, yet turned out to be vastly over-hyped). Guys like Tyreke Evans, John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, Xavier Henry, Harrison Barnes…just to name a few…are barely giving us a look.

The second issue is the retention of what I call the "NBA fringe" type of player…these are not instant impact players, but are players that with experience and a few collegiate seasons under their belt, can develop into collegiate superstars and work their way into a high 1st round draft pick. We have had several of these during Howland’s tenure. The problem is that these players are leaving before we can get their maximum impact, before they are actually good enough to get us over the hump.

While other elite programs are either attracting the "instant impact" player or retaining the "NBA fringe" type of player longer, we are whiffing at both of these type of players.

I believe this is a spot on assessment. We all know that we haven't been pulling in a ton of impact players (outside of Love), but we have had trouble retaining fringe players as well (Farmar, Afflalo, etc.). This prompted me to do a look back.

The top players recruited in the nation each year can be easily divided into two subcategories:

NBA "Impact" Players - These are the cream of the crop players each year. These are the guy's who everyone sees and knows is going to be playing in the NBA. They're naturally talented and will make an instant impact on the team in the time they play in college, which for most of these players right now, is just one year, occasionally two. They come onto the court playing like seasoned veterans. These guys are universally recruited, and since the one-and-done rule, a good chunk of them are mostly going to college only because they have to. In the past few years, these types include the likes of Greg Oden, Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin, etc. Almost universally, these guys are drafted high in the draft.

NBA "Fringe" Players - These are guys who are also acknowledged as talented players and are also highly recruited, but not in the same realm as those listed above. These guys can certainly come to dominate the college game, but it often take's them a few years playing in college to get to that level. That's not to say these guy's don't make an impact on the team immediately - but more often than not, they need seasoning and experience. Often times, these players have knocks against them in terms of NBA potential, or size and athleticism. In the past few years, these types include names like Tyler Hansbrough, Luke Harangody, D.J. Augustin, etc. Almost universally, these guys fall in the bottom half of the first round or fall into the second round, unless they orchestrate a great tourney run or have great workouts.

A few caveats:

1) This list does not mean that ALL recruits fit into these two categories. There are certainly other categories of player's in college basketball: the busts (such as Josh McRoberts), and the surprises (such as the Russell Westbrooks). 

2) This division of players is not clear until the player's step onto the court in college. Recruiting is not an exact science - sure, there are player's such as LeBron James that anyone can see and knows that he is on the fast track to being one of the all-time greats. Then there are the great player's that end up sticking around in college, and do eventually do great there, but take it to a whole other level in the pro's, such as Tim Duncan.

3) It is important to remember that the NBA loves drafting on potential - hence the Impact players often get drafted high. But, having a great season often pushes people up - and this applies often to the Fringe players. Unfortunately, there aren't any reliable archives I have found of pre-season draft ranks of players. Anecdotally at least, the team's that win the national championship often see their players drafted higher than they would otherwise. 

4) Finally, keep in mind that when I say Impact/Fringe, this is not based on what they went on to do in the NBA. Instead, this is based on how much of an impact and how fast this impact was given on the team. Hence younger star players tend to be labeled Impact players.

So how has UCLA done with regards to the two categories we listed above, and how do the Bruins compare to the champions of the past? 

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. A thought provoking post well worth the read. GO BRUINS. -N

Wanted to share some observations in response to muircoach's post on the state of UCLA basketball, in particular on his point on recruitment:

Our recruiting is a joke. I don’t care how many 5-star guys we have. For proof, JK was a McDonalds All-American. For the most part, those teams are a joke. They are popularity contests. You want to see good players, go watch CITY basketball games. Why aren’t we any longer getting guys in the inner city/CITY schools, or the tough SF Valley CITY schools, or the Long Beach schools. No more. UCLA used to own the inner city, whether it was private or public schools. Where are the Tyus Edney’s, the Trevor Wilson’s, the Jordan Farmar’s, the David Greenwoods, the Aaron Afflalo’s. I could go on! We used to own L.A. Don’t tell me the talent isn’t there. It is. We just don’t go after them, or we don’t value them, or they don’t value us because we don’t show the interest. Instead, we are going after the O.C. guys, the pretty boys from the pretty programs. USC is getting the inner city guys. The "tougher than crap" inner city guys who have an edge and won’t back down from anybody. They represent Los Angeles. Instead, all of those guys (Larry Drew for example) are going somewhere else where their style of play is appreciated.

We've definitely had most of our success recruiting from the inner city/city schools, valley schools, long beach, and I'll even say that our San Bernardino/Riverside county schools have treated us well. I'm going to classify City as public Inner City / LA City + Long Beach schools. Valley are again public schools in the San Fernando Valley. All other definitions are public schools unless otherwise stated.

One interesting note is that Ben has copied the same 4-year pattern. 2004 he pulled in 5 players. In 2008, he did the same. 2005 he brought in another 5, and in 2009 he did the same. Three players in 2006, the same so far for 2010. Obviously, the challenges of maintaining a program are very different now, and it will be interesting to see how CBH adapts. Let's take a look back after the jump.

Continue reading this post »