For the Pac-10 and other elite conferences who routinely lose players early, there’s no sense in even trying to make predictions before the NBA Draft.
So now that the dust has cleared, here’s one look ahead at what next season might be like, in a very early predicted order of finish:
1. UCLA
Who’s gone: Guard Aaron Afflalo (early).
Comment: Keeping Darren Collison around ensures the Bruins will be considered the team to beat. Josh Shipp is the injury plagued Jawann McClellan of this team but the inside looks much tougher with freshman Kevin Love.
2. Washington State.
Who’s gone: Wing Ivory Clark.
Comment: Was last season a fluke? I don’t think so. This is a smart, fundamentally sound team that is clearly better than the sum of its parts. Cougars will have to deal with being a major target, however.
3. Stanford.
Who’s gone: Nobody.
Comment: Is Trent Johnson the right man for this job? We’ll find out next season. He has virtually everybody back, including rising stars Lawrence Hill and Anthony Goods, plus the Cardinal kept the Lopez twins around. They should be contenders.
4. Arizona.
Who’s gone: Wing Marcus Williams (early), guard Mustafa Shakur, forward Ivan Radenovic.
Comment: Talent level could justify a higher prediction but Wildcats haven’t played up to their talent level in a while. This should be a better team chemistry-wise but that was the company line last season, too.
5. Oregon.
Who’s gone: Guard Aaron Brooks, backup post Adam Zahn.
Comment: Brooks’ departure drops the Ducks two or three notches. They have everybody else back, though.
6. California.
Who’s gone: Guard Ayinde Ubaka.
Comment: Forward DeVon Hardin’s withdrawal from the NBA Draft was huge. With Hardin and the underrated Ryan Anderson down low, plus some quality wing players, the Bears could compete for the upper division.
7. Washington
Who’s gone: Center Spencer Hawes (early).
Comment: Huskies return most of their key players but most have yet to live up to expectations. Can Quincy Pondexter be a go-to guy? We’ll see.
8. USC
Who’s gone: Forward Nick Young (early), guard Gabe Pruitt (early), guard Lodrick Stewart, center Aboulaye N’diaye.
Comment: Despite all the O.J. Mayo hype, the losses are too big here for the Trojans to equal last season’s success.
9. Arizona State.
Who’s gone: Forward Allen Morill, forward Serge Angounou, forward Bruno Claudino.
Comment: Herb Sendek will start making a move in Year Two with Top 25 guard James Harden plus the core of his young rotation players, who improved as last season progressed.
10. Oregon State
Who’s gone: Forward Sasa Cuic (early), guard Angelo Tsagarakis (transfer), center Liam Hughes (transfer), guard Wesley Washington (academics).
Comment: It’s all in the hands of center C.J. Giles, the troubled transfer from Kansas, and forward Marcel Jones, who withdrew from the NBA Draft. Can they save Jay John’s job? It won’t be easy.
Please add your thoughts. I won’t be able to update this blog as much in July, which is usually pretty quiet, but I know you guys will carry on anyway…
I believe expectations for the most part are low and potential much better than many believe.
You are most likely right but a second place finish is what I believe for the Cats.
— J 07/04/2007 05:19 PM #
— Daniella 07/04/2007 05:37 PM #
UCLA
Stanford who will come on late
AZ
WSU
CAL
USC
Oregon (Aaron Brooks was HUGE for them…his loss hurts)
ASU
Washington
OSU
should be a good year!
— scott 07/04/2007 07:53 PM #
— Jimmy 07/04/2007 08:35 PM #
as an unrelated note, can somebody please tell me why coach olsen does not play onobun. seems like he could really be a presence both on the boards and with toughness. and lets face it, walters is garbage (no touch and no real defensive threat). just some thoughts.
— chris 07/04/2007 09:34 PM #
While I still wouldn’t move Stanford up now, as of midsummer, picking 2, 3 and 4 is very tough…
— Bruce Pascoe 07/04/2007 09:53 PM #
I’d move the Cougars down a couple of spots. WSU isn’t going to surprise anyone in the PAC this year. Nobody took them serious until about 5 games into the conference schedule last year. Maybe I’m still finding their sudden rise to the top of the PAC a little hard to swallow.
On #5’s unrelated note, Fendi seems to play out of control most of the time when he’s on the court. I think we all have had a lot of hope for him simply because he’s such a fine physical specimen. The guy LOOKS like someone who could dominate at the NBA level, but the talent just isn’t there.
— Jeff 07/05/2007 08:46 AM #
My prediction 1. UCLA (hate them), 2-6 Arizona, WSU, Stanford, USC, Oregon, WSU (it is really too close to call between these teams. If I had to guess, I’d put them in that order. But we could be looking at a five way tie for second at 11-7 for each. Protecting homecourt will be a must next season), 7. Washington 8. ASU 9. Cal 10. OSU. Six teams in the NCAA tourney unless Washington gets hot, than 7.
— Mike H (because there is another Mike posting :) 07/05/2007 02:15 PM #
If Bayless can hit clutch 3’s, and Head Coach O’neill can tighten up the D and hold people to about 39% FG percentage, then UCLA and everyone else is done and the UA will win the Pac 10 and go far in the tourney. Everyone wants to get on the UCLA bandwagon, but I saw what Florida did to them – twice. If anything, UCLA is vulnerable to the three ball and once those start going in, their vaunted defense starts to look like swiss cheese. No, no, no. UA will be loaded offensively, so if UCLA wants to compete, they better learn how to score, something which Howland teams have not done so far.
— Robert 07/05/2007 02:45 PM #
I don’t care that UCLA is beefing up on the interior. So long as Howland insists on running a four corners offense and put the shackles on his own talent, I don’t see why UCLA should be a favorite, other than the incompentence of other coaches in the league who refuse to watch the Florida tapes from the last two years. Memo to all Pac 10 coaches out there: If you want to beat UCLA into submission, then run the %#$% ball!!! Tempo, tempo, tempo. UCLA is like a grappling specialist in ultimate fighing. If you play them in a slow tempo – close quarter brawl, you will lose. If, however, you play the game the way it was designed by getting out on the break, passing, and good floor spacing, you will smash UCLA. That’s one of the ways that Shakur killed us last year (one of many, that is). He has this annoying tendency of slowly walking the ball up the court. Contrast this to the way that Florida played UCLA by racing the ball up the court and applying pressure on the Bruins before they could set up their D.
I swear, if I see one more UA point guard walk the ball up the court against UCLA, I am going to go Marco on them and call for public beatings!
— Robert 07/05/2007 02:53 PM #
Meanwhile AZ just lost 3 starters and 3 of its 4 top scorers. Criticize Shakur, Williams and Irad all you want, that is still a ton to lose offensively and from an experience standpoint. AZ will be talented but unfortunately they will be very young. Youth and the harsh OOC schedule will either build or bury the young Wildcats’ psyche next year. I predict the later. Things will get worse than they have been before things start to get better in the 2008-2009 season.
— btheg 07/05/2007 03:58 PM #
I provide facts, i.e. UCLA has 4 returning starters from back to back Final four teams and that AZ lost 3 of its top 4 scorers. You provide speculation about Chase and Bayless; oh and name calling??? Nice. So UCLA will be worse because it lost Afflalo but AZ will be better because Chase is greater than 3 lost starters combined??? Bayless as a true frosh and SG is going to be an immediate improvement over a 4 year starter Shakur at the most critical position (PG) yet Love will not compensate for Afflalo’s points which will now be made in the paint? DC and Shipp for Afflalo’s leadership? Westbrook for Afflalo’s defensive intensity? Sure O.K!
Chase is a good offensive player but he will never be a good defensive player because he lacks the lateral quickness to play man to man.
Bayless I’m sure will eventually be better than Shakur and he may score more points than Shakur but PG requires much more than that just so you know. IMO, Bayless is not going to be able to reach his potential at PG in his first year at the new position.
Stop drinking the cactus Koolaid in Tucson. You think my analysis is flawed? I will come back here to laugh at you when AZ finishes worse than 3rd place next year.
— btheg 07/05/2007 06:35 PM #
It’s not that UCLA got worse, the UA simply has more talent across the board, period.
— Robert 07/06/2007 06:10 AM #
UCLA lost Afflalo, but they still have Collison who ran circles around the Cats last season. Also UCLA proved to be much quicker and more disciplined and took away the Cats’ fast break. And, they only lost Afflalo.
After all the hoopla, Budinger proved to be competent. Last year at this time, team chemistry supposedly had improved because Rodgers and Adams were gone.
The recruiting class and O’Neill seem to be sound fixes, but that’s only on paper.
As I have said several times before, let’s see what happens when they get on the court before annointing them.
— phxcat 07/06/2007 06:58 AM #
I disagree that UCLA slowed down the Cats break. Watch the games, more than anything, Staf slowed down the Cats break. He had a tendency to walk the ball up the court and dribble the air out of the ball in half court sets. He would then overpenetrate and then make a bad pass resulting in a turnover and/or just pass the ball to a player on the wrong spot on the floor. Bottom line, the offense was out of rythm when he ran the point and his overpenetration had a lot to do with it. Plus, he couldn’t hit the 3 ball.
That’s why I am stoked about Bayless. He can pull up and knock it down from long range with a hand in his grill. Whenever you have a player that can hit the 3 ball and is explosive off the dribble, he is impossible to defend. This makes UCLA’s vaunted defense less of a factor. Who do you double? If you try to shut down Bayless, you’ve got Buddinger open on the wing and he is going to kill you with the three or take you inside. Same thing if you try to shut down Chase, now you have Bayless one on one with his defender. If you try to take away the perimeter game, you’ve got Hill inside, etc. For the first time in about three years, we are going to have good floor spacing and good shooters.
Will UCLA be good? Yes. Will UA be better this year? Absolutely. A new coach and a new roster all of a sudden changes things. UA and UCLA will problably split this year, with eaching holding serve on their home court.
USC will be tough as well with the addition of Mayo. It will be a great for the fans as we will be able to watch two lottery picks, Mayo and Bayless, go head to head.
— Robert 07/06/2007 08:03 AM #
All speculation here, however I see validity on both sides of the argument regarding where UofA will end up this year.
They will be a far more exciting team to watch than previous seasons and will likely have more hunger, based upon the look and feel of incoming recruits and the addition of O’Neill.
I, personally, see this team making great strides this year, but not really reaching the ultimate goal just yet…a 3rd-5th place finish in the Pac-10 is likely and a solid run in the tourney will follow. However, I believe the experience is not there to get any further than the Sweet 16.
‘08 – ‘09? Now we’re talking…but this year will be fun and bring back the standards of AZ basketball. Over the past 3 months, this program has really committed to success and it will show.
— Nick 07/06/2007 08:12 AM #
Accept the fact AZ will take its lumps next year due to youth, adjusting to new coaching from O’Neill, and a brutal schedule.
— btheg 07/06/2007 09:19 AM #
Robert—I don’t know if Arizona has enough shooters to do what Florida did to UCLA in the Final Four. Florida had Humphrey and Brewer making everything they took, and Green was dangerous as well. Next year Arizona will have Bayless, Budinger, and ___? Who will step up and be a dangerous shooter? We don’t know. I would assume that if Bayless proves to be the best shooter, Collison will be chasing him around, and Collison is good enough to disrupt many shots. Chase has yet to prove to be a consistent shooter, hopefully he will work on his 3pt range this summer while he is in California. Who is gonna be the other shooter? Horne? LLP? Nic Wise? J-Mac? We don’t know, a couple of those guys are frosh, Nic Wise hasn’t played all that much, and J-Mac has been injured a lot. Who knows what will happen, but the Cats will need more than 1 solid shooter to beat UCLA.
— darren 07/06/2007 09:51 AM #
I am a UCLA fan just so you know. Did my undergrad at UCLA. I went to grad school at UofA and really enjoy watching both programs be successful. I don’t buy into the concept that one school has to be down for the other to be good. Both programs should be great at all times.
You’ve attacked my BB knowledge which I find laughable. I simply call it as I objectively see it. AZ has missed on many of its evaluations of H.S. players the last few years. That and some unfortunate injuries and early departures are the reason they are in this position. Hopefully, Lute & Co. have begun to rectify this with the 2007 class although Jacobson is a complete project and may never be able to make real contributions at the Pac-10 level.
You’ve never seen Love play and you really have no idea how good Love is do you?? You will see soon enough. Stop drinking the cactus Koolaid and wake up from your hallucinations. It will take at least one more year before Lute & Co. start to right things in Tucson.
As for your drivel and threats keep it in check son. I’d probably laugh harder if I saw you in person than I will be at the end of next season.
— btheg 07/06/2007 11:13 AM #
Love will be a good player, but Hill is a nasty player. He has some agression that I have not seen in some time from a UA low post player. I like UA on the inside next year. We have tons of fouls to give so we can afford to be more agressive and gang up on love.
As for that third shooter, probably J-Mac if he can stay healthy. Moreover, I think you will have plenty of leadership and experience with J-Mac and Buddinger.
btheg-
Again, the only guy that I think is good on UCLA from last year is Collison. Too bad Howland puts the handcuffs on him and slows the game down.
Yes, Kansas was humiliated by UCLA …........ because they played rugby with UCLA instead of basketball. Seriously, if you want to beat UCLA, put the foot on the accelerator and run, run, run and then run some more. Howland is offensively challenged and relies on good defense and the refs ignoring the obvious muggings that go on. Of course, the refs didn’t miss is it in the championshipt game because Billy Donavan worked the refs pretty good. That’s one thing that O’neill needs to work on. Before every game against the Bruins, he needs to go Zen Master and start complaining how physical UCLA is and how hard it is to get calls against them, etc. and how they get the benefit of the doubt on handchecking. Billy used it and it worked to perfection. Say what you will, but working the refs through the media before the game works.
— Robert 07/06/2007 11:19 AM #
I’ve seen Love play. I’ll take Hill.
— Robert 07/06/2007 11:21 AM #
— larry b 07/06/2007 12:01 PM #
I’m glad you think Collison is the only “good” player on UCLA’s roster. Howland must be truly amazing to reach back to back Final Fours with a bunch of scrub players. I mean he must be some sort of magician or something! UCLA’s offense will be significantly better with Love. The one thing Howland has been missing since he’s been at UCLA is a post player with a high offensive skill set. Next season, he has that in spades with Love.
Florida beat UCLA and everyone else in the NCAA’s because it had 3 NBA lottery picks in the front court pure and simple. Not because Donovan whined to refs about any claimed handchecking or mugging as you call it.
Marco-
Hill is a nice athletic player defensively but he has no polish to his game offensively. He is nothing more than AZ’s version of Mata or a slightly taller version of Aboya. As for Howland not restoring anything at UCLA, LOL! None of my Friends who are AZ fans anticipated how quickly UCLA would reclaim the Pac before the 2005-2006 season. I’m sure Lute, as well as all AZ fans have been shellshocked by how quickly UCLA has re-asserted itself after the Lavin years. Hence the bitterness that comes across so clearly from posters like you. Now you see Lute scrambling to fix things in firing Roz and hiring Kevin O’Neill. Will these changes work? Only time will tell but like it or not Marco, UCLA is back at the top and is going to be a force from here on out under Howland. BTW did you hear UCLA just landed Jrue Holiday and will likely have the #1 class for 2008? Sure to be forgotten in the wind very soon….BURP!
— btheg 07/06/2007 12:10 PM #
mostly don’t have an argument with you about UCLA…but My boy Jennings is the best in the land for 08…wathched them both on as many video streaming sites as i could find video of them and jennings outclasses holiday…
UCLA is the top program in the PAC-10 hands down, but they will never win a national championship until Howland unshackles the squad on offense. Watching UCLA in the tournament was downright painful…the Kansas game was bad, but the Indiana game was pure torture…UCLA kept them scoreless for over 13 minutes yet was only ahead by 7-8…If UA does that to you they’ll be up 30 and therein lies the difference.
On this topic I unhappily have to agree with Robert…with Shakur running the point we played UCLA’s game and got worked…with Bayless, who i’ve seen in person and is the real deal (would have worked over a Shakur lead team last year), we won’t fall into that trap…the best part about all this speculation: it’s July baby! can’t wait for the season…and just so you know, I’m not a UCLA hater…i root for all PAC teams as long as they ain’t playing UA!
— scott 07/06/2007 12:24 PM #
You say I give Love too much credit. True he has not played one minute of CBB but how many H.S. players rated in the top 3 turn out to be busts seriously? Love won a ton of national awards and was the Naismith National H.S. player of the year! Is Love going to forget how to play the game when he gets to college?
Perhaps you are giving Hill too much credit in claiming he will “dominate” Hill avgd. < 5 points, about 4 rebounds and < 1 block in 14 minutes per game last year. Those stats don’t jump out and say “Dominating” in any way shape or form but don’t let facts get in the way of your arguments. Like I said, Hill is about the equalvalent of Mata. Hill doesn’t come close to a talent like K. Love.
— btheg 07/06/2007 12:24 PM #
Good reasonable response. Kudos to you! Jennings is an amazing talent for sure. I’ve watched both as well and they are different players in terms of style. Jennings is a super quick, extremely athletic PG who is flashy with the passes. Jrue is a SG, not as flashy but more a “power” guard with amazing body control. They will both be very effective during their time in the Pac.
My theory is that Howland will let the offense flow more freely as better offensive players come into the program. He is getting these types of players in 2007 and 2008 and likely beyond.
— btheg 07/06/2007 12:32 PM #
I do like UofA but I’m a UCLA fan first and foremeost. Glad to know Hill has improved offensively. Hope what you see in pick up games transfers over to games that count.
Harrick’s offense was different at NAU than what he’s been running at UCLA. SO why won’t the offense be altered to fit new players’ with different strengths? I think Howland is an excellent coach who will do what he needs to do to improve a team’s chances. Just have to wait and judge this one later.
Curious why you call Jrue a thug? I have not read anything about the kid other than he is a good student-athlete from a good family. If you have any links to something let me know. I would be curious.
As for Love, again I’ll just say we shall see what he does this coming season. I predict he’ll be Pac-10 frosh of the year. UCLA’s 3rd FOY in 4 years BTW. :-)
— btheg 07/06/2007 02:56 PM #
— btheg 07/06/2007 03:13 PM #
I’m glad you used the word “stiff”. That’s kind of what I thought as well when I say Love play. Speed kills and I’m not so sure that Love can handle more athletic players.
btheg:
You gotta be kidding me! Mata? Anyway, Florida crushed them because of floor balance. If you watch the Florida game from this year, UCLA kept the Florida bigs under wraps in the first half. And then …......it was lights freakin’out as Florida began making 3’s like they were layups. The perimeter game then forced UCLA outside and then the big guys started to pick UCLA apart. Funny, the UA did the same thing with Salim and Channing. Sure, those were two NBA players and the Bruins were not there yet, but the style employed by Howland resulted in huge blowouts. He traps alot and doubles down inside. This means that someone is ALWAYS WIDE FREAKIN’ OPEN and if you have guys that can shoot (like Florida), there is no reason why you can’t run UCLA off the court. Fortunately for UCLA, they played against teams that were unathletic and not really deadly from the outside. They had a very favorable bracket and that’s why they cruised right on through to the final four. Scott brought up a good point, that Indiana game was just plain horrible basketball. People talk about good defense, but that was just spin by CBS. In essence, to put it lightly, that was %$#% offense. I mean, the game set basketball back 50 years and if more and more games turn into basketbrawl like that game, the NCAA will have to institute a 24 second shot clock and a defensive three seconds rule just to speed things up because, unless you are a Bruin fan, nobody is going to watch that crap. I swear, I would rather be subjected to the NBA East or the WNBA than be forced to watch reruns of UCLA-Indiana! Dr. Naismith was turning in his grave. The game was that bad.
Moreover, I think that Howland has had the benifit of two bad seasons for the UA. Well, the talent level is back at the UA as well as a new coach, so I don’t think UCLA is the favorite. By the end of the year, the Cats will be the class of the Pac 10 and O’neill will be crowned head coach (officially) at the end of the season.
— Robert 07/06/2007 03:17 PM #
If you guys think Love is a stiff then you guys are going to be sorely disappointed. Yeah the recruiting experts labeled Love the #1 Center of the 2007 class but they were wrong and you are right. You want a stiff? Then you need to look no further than Walters and Jacobson (the next Walters if he’s lucky).
Please tell me why Hill scoring < 5 pts and pulling in 4 rebs a game is somehow awesome? I didn’t look but I think Mata’s numbers are better in the piss poor offense you guys keep harping on.
You were right on this time about the UCLA-Florida game. I was also right in the stating they had 3 lottery picks in the frontcourt.
As for UCLA being lucky in the NCAA’s, you’ve got to be kidding. I guess UCLA is the luckiest team ever having back to back easy roads to the Final Four.(rollseyes). Give credit where credit is due for once! UCLA is 62-13 over the last 2 seasons and 5-0 against UA. You can call it ugly ball. I’ll call it WINNING!
UA may have had 2 bad seasons that MAY have benefited UCLA but what’s your point? UA is going to have another rough season this coming year due the reasons I’ve mentioned above. In 2008, the playing field will level out some b/c UCLA will have 3-4 players going to the NBA. This will alow UA a chance to catch up once again if O’Neill is indeed the answer and the recent recruiting blunders cease under Lute.
— btheg 07/06/2007 03:44 PM #
Were those the same guys that though Staf was the best point guard in the land?
Look, Love will be a good player, but I really didn’t see anything from him that makes me think that he can hang with more athletic big men. He has good hands and a decent shot, but I think defensively he’s going to have issues with quick power forwards and centers. As for Walters and Jacobsen, fouls and rebounds and the occasional rebound and/or blocked shot. Everything else from them is gravy.
— Robert 07/06/2007 04:03 PM #
Haha! Touche on the Shakur reference. Looking back I think Shakur had all the tools to be a great PG but for whatever reason he was missing something upstairs(confidence, killer instinct, etc.) Too bad b/c he seemed like a very good kid.
Love may very well have issues defending more athletic posts but that will be Mata and Aboya’s concern. Love’s #1 concern will be to score and he has all the offensive skills, footwork, touch, etc. to do so at a high clip. Love can also go to the top of the key for a 3 pointer pulling a big man out of the paint to defend him. Think Ryan Anderson from Cal last year except much better.
— btheg 07/06/2007 04:16 PM #
Your comments that Hill is more talented than Love are among the funniest things I have read in months. You two should be writing comedy.
You might want to ask Lute, if given his choice, which one he would rather have on his team.
— Jim Turner 07/06/2007 04:28 PM #
Reality is the Cats were a top five RPI team all season. They played well enough to win all but a couple games. The problem was they played a tough non-con schedule and the Pac-10 was really tough. Next year is not going to be any easier. Losing those three starters is huge. Bayless is rated about where Shakur was when he came in and you know all know how that turned out. Budinger has potential but with less proven offensive players around him it will be easier for teams to keep him from scoring.
And, — Robert
Maybe you should stay out of the sun. You posts have a lot of “If’s” all over the place.
Do you understand why Florida beat UCLA? And everyone else? It’s not that they just shot 3’s. What they had was two lottery picks (Horford and Noah) who dominated the much smaller 6’7 and 6’8 UCLA bigs. You double Horford and the 3 opens up. If you don’t double him he scores at will.
If Arizona just shoots 3’s against UCLA they will lose because the shots will be contested and they will shot a low percentage. Just like last year. Arizona does not have anyone even close to the talent of Noah or Horford, let alone both. I know you have Hill, but come on. Plus UCLA has Kevin Love. I know there are some Arizona fans here who think they know more than the experts, but he won more player of the year awards this season then anyone else. He is the real deal. Love is the missing piece who will help propel UCLA to their 12th title.
— UCLA Joel 07/06/2007 06:06 PM #
The only reason that UCLA did not win championships the past two years is Florida. UCLA’s defense dominates everyone (except Florida), their offense is good enough. They have had a makeshift inside game the past two years and still made the final four both times. It might be ugly but it works. Howland does not need to change a thing. I will take two ugly final fours over two “pretty” first round exits any day. With Love in the middle whether he has a good or great season the team will improve greatly.
— UCLA Joel 07/06/2007 06:17 PM #
If UCLA had been in Georgetown’s bracket, or had had to face OSU, similar results would have been the case…no one is saying that UCLA wasn’t good (Read my post…i cheered for them!) what we’re saying is that the teams that beat UCLA did so by running and hitting three’s- something we chose not to do against them…
I do think UCLA will be better than last years team…but I also think that UA will be significantly better and will end up challenging for a top three spot in the conference-
— scott 07/06/2007 07:58 PM #
The scouting report on Love is that he is a good rebounder, shooter, and passer, but that he will struggle against more athletic big men. No joke, look for yourself. That doesn’t make him a bad player, but I have a feeling that if you get up and down the court on him a few times, his effectiveness will diminish. Bottom line, he is a good big man, but has no speed. That’s not opinion, it’s fact. A player like Hill who can face up on him should be able to abuse him down low with quickness. I realize that you are a Bruins fan, but your love of them isn’t going to make Love one bit faster.
As for your comments about the 3’s, you may recall that Salim abused Howland’s squad on a regular basis. Like I said, because of the way that they trap and double, SOMEONE IS ALWAYS WIDE FREAKIN’ OPEN. That UCLA got as far as they did this year just goes to show just how bad the rest of the NCAA was. That UCLA-Indiana game as an afront to humanity.
— Robert 07/06/2007 10:39 PM #
— vegasallen 07/06/2007 10:56 PM #
Howland is a great coach at understanding the weak parts of his defense and making adjustments. Mata and Aboya will split time at PF with Love at center. If Love is as slow as you think they will provide help defense for him. Hill has some talent, but on the level of Aboya and Mata, with lesser defensive skills.
As far as what the experts say:
Look at Fox Sports Preseason Top 25
They put UCLA No.1 because of Love. Arizona at #23 just ahead of Stanford.
— UCLA Joel 07/07/2007 07:29 AM #
About Salim. Yes, he was a special talent. Is he quitting the pro’s to come back one more season? You bring it up like it has some relevance to next season. 1st, you don’t have anyone who can shoot like that, 2nd Salim did not play against the level of UCLA defense that they have played the past two seasons. If you watched them play you would see they don’t give up many open 3’s.
“That UCLA got as far as they did this year just goes to show just how bad the rest of the NCAA was.”
Wow, where to begin with this comment. The NBA had its most potent draft in years from this “bad” group. I could go on and on, just a dumb comment.
— UCLA Joel 07/07/2007 07:51 AM #
let me make this clear: NO ONE IS SAYING UCLA WON’T BE GOOD…we’re just offering you a warning: Don’t put your hopes into recruits (something that we’re all guilty of by the way) UA fans learned the hard way that if you base your outlook on incoming freshman…your sitting rather precariously. let me tell you how bad we got burned:
2003-4 incoming recruits were
Ndudi Ebi
Mustafa Shakur
Kirk Walters
Ivan Radenovic (who came midseason)
we had on hand:
Hassan Adams
Salim Stoudamire
Channing Frye
Andre Igoudala
Chris Rodgers
our starting five could have been
Channing Frye
Ndudi Ebi
Hassan Adams
Salim Stoudamire
Andre Igoudala
with Shakur coming off the bench with Chris Rodgers-
what happened?
Ebi declared for the draft, went in the first round and I beleive is now offering his services in city and office leagues as a “ringer”
We all know what happened with the rest of the gang…oh yeah, Shakur and Ebi were both first team high school all-americans…
so you see, we’ve been burned…so we’re trying to do you a favor by encouraging you to look at your squad more realistically…Of course if you do the same for us, we’ll tell you how great Bayless, Horne and the rest will be and how we’re going to be so much better becuase of it…
this is a great board…i cannot wait for mid-november
— scott 07/07/2007 08:00 AM #
Just read post 45-
in regards to the deep draft…take another look
of the teams in the final four: 9 picks in the draft of 60 15% of the draft from 4 teams
what about the elite eight teams?
Kansas
Oregon
North Carolina
Memphis
3 more picks so eight teams represent 12 picks in a 60 pick draft…20% from eight teams
there were 13 foreign players taken in the draft so between the elite 8 and foreign players there were 25 of 60 picks in the draft…just over 40% of the draft.
So yes it was a deep draft, mostly because the best of the best had a large amount of talent…the rest had enough talent to hang for a while, but not much more…it was a good year for college hoops because the best 8-16 teams were very evenly matched…
oh yeah…it seems to me that Salim played against Afflalo/Farmar…abused them, and in one instance put up a dagger from almost midcourt to beat the bruins at the buzzer (nice aliteration huh?)
— scott 07/07/2007 08:11 AM #
Florida beat UCLA by 10 and Ohio St by 9. So I am not so sure OSU would have easily beaten UCLA like Florida did. But, we will never know. Georgetown lost to OSU and they play a style similar to UCLA’s so I think UCLA would have won that one.
For what it takes to beat UCLA, its hard to run and shoot 3’s against them. Do you think the Wildcat’s did not try? UCLA’s pressure, swarming defense tends to get teams worried and confused about not turning the ball over. UCLA plays a tight man, especially at the 3 point line, so easy 3’s are not going to happen. They get back fast on the break so no easy fast break points. Teams beat UCLA when UCLA did not come with the proper defensive attitude. Florida was just a better team. No one could have beaten them in the Tournament the past two years. Even their center coming off the bench (would have started at most schools) got picked in the 2nd round.
As far as the Cats. If they have better team chemistry, play much better defense, Bayless steps in right away and is better than Shakur, Hill becomes more consistent and stops fouling all the time, they have no injuries and Budinger plays like the 1st half of last season and not the last half, then I agree they have a shot at 2nd or 3rd in the Pac.
If they play up to the level of the past two years and no better, then the slip to 6th or 7th and once again will have trouble just making the tourney.
— UCLA Joel 07/07/2007 08:14 AM #
oh yeah…it seems to me that Salim played against Afflalo/Farmar…abused them, and in one instance put up a dagger from almost midcourt to beat the bruins at the buzzer (nice aliteration huh?)
Yes, they were both freshmen, Salim was a senior. That was also the last time your wildcats have beaten the Bruins. You are talking about a Bruin team with 3 freshman starters who barely made the tourney. Again, if Salim is coming back then maybe I will worry a bit. The Bruin team that lost that game is not the current team in any way. So what’s the point?
— UCLA Joel 07/07/2007 08:25 AM #
You are correct. No one knows how these recruits are going to work out. Howland seems so far at least to be able to get the most out his talent, and help them improve. Look at Farmar and Collison in their 2nd seasons, he turned Mata into a solid player from almost nothing. Even Hollins had a much improved Senior season.
It seems to me that Arizona this year and next has to rely much more on the hope that these recruits work out as planned then the Bruins. If Bayless underachieves your team is in trouble. If Budinger has a 2nd year like Williams you are in trouble. Look at Adams, Rogers, Shakur, Williams, etc. Players at the UA have not developed over their career like in the past.
UCLA has enough proven talent that even if Love is no better than Mata, they will still have a good shot at the final 4.
— UCLA Joel 07/07/2007 08:35 AM #
Budinger > Shipp
Hill > Love
Walters > Mata
O’Neil > Lute
— Idiot 07/07/2007 12:56 PM #
Nice name.
O’Neil > Lute? Is this one of those tests where you find the item that does not fit the rest?
I would take a 40-something Howland over a 70-something Olson. He has clearly out coached him the past two years and matched or exceeded his recruiting.
I would also take Shipp over Budinger. Budinger has a better offensive game, Shipp’s defense makes him a more complete player.
Hill over Love. LOL
Bayless over Collison LOL
Walters over Mata LOL once again
— UCLA Joel 07/07/2007 01:53 PM #
By the way, I saw the nationally televised game (With a friend who is a UofA alumnus) where UofA shot 20 3 point misses in a row. You’re right- who needs defense. I guess U of A wants to lose pretty all the time. Good luck in the Pac 10.
— UCLA Steve 07/07/2007 02:08 PM #
— Idiot 07/07/2007 02:28 PM #
Thanks for ruining a pretty decent board…
the point about three’s is that Florida beat UCLA because they were able to hit the 3 and when UCLA compensated they had the ability to beat them down-low. that’s the formula to beat UCLA…
if our recruits pay-off this year we’ll be able to do that, and make this season a little more interesting than last.
I wouldn’t take Budinger of Shipp…and i’m sure most people would agree with that…defense can be compensated for if you have the “O” to make a difference, and Chase was a more dominant player as a freshman that Shipp was as a whatever he was last season (jr. right?)
— scott 07/07/2007 02:29 PM #
Actually, I don’t think too many would agree with that. Playing no defense puts a lot of points on the board (assuming that you are hitting that day) Good defense can be played everyday.
As far as recruits, there is no question that UCLA has outrecruited UofA according to all the pundits. You seem to base your sataements on your own observations, as in seeing a player in a pick up game or 2.
UCLA had some rough years under Lavin, but the Bruins are back. Ask anyone who knows. Back to back Final Fours, top recruits, recruits passing up Duke and UNC (and of course UofA) to go to Westwood.
A flashy offense is great when it works, but when its just not clicking or a good defense shuts it down, you have to wish the team had spent a little more time on boring defensive drills.
By the way, do you define a “pretty decent board” as one that agrees with your “observations” based on your “considered opinion”? Sorry I don’t fit in.
— UCLA Steve 07/07/2007 02:48 PM #
Another thing about Florida. That was a team of destiny. It took over 10 years and a lot of luck to put these guys together. Nobody could have beaten them in the playoffs.
They realized that and decided to go for 2 NC’s. It didn’t matter who they would have gone up against- they were not going to lose.
In this climate of one and done players, I don’t know if we will see something like that for a long time. Also you had NBA top picks who came from families with money. This too we don’t see too often.
It was not Donovan’s brilliant play calling that beat UCLA. It was a great team
— UCLA Steve 07/07/2007 02:57 PM #
1. They think Lorenzo Mata has any game. He wouldn’t start on any other Pac-10 team.
2. They think Kevin Love is their savior and are resting all hopes for the upcoming season on him. The kid dominated in OREGON HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL. Guess what?! So did Chris Rodgers and look how THAT turned out. After having watched several Youtube clips of him… he reminds me of a poor man’s Bret Brielmeier. Congrats, UCLA, congrats. Good luck with that.
— azcoachb 07/07/2007 04:11 PM #
Mata played with 100% energy every night, has lots of heart and plays tough D. You would benefit by having just one player like that.
Rogers was the 8th best shooting guard coming out of high school, about the 50th best high school player.
Love is the #1 Center coming out of high school, anywhere from 1st to 4th best overall player.
UCLA is projected first in most preseason projections (1st in the nation , not just the Pac-10). So most experts seem to think Love is more than a poor mans Brielmeier.
Of course, you and your fellow Wildcat fans know more and are unbiased.
— UCLA Joel 07/07/2007 04:41 PM #
Really clever name-calling-nice!
First I’m gonna assume that you are not a student or grad of UofA (I have a good friend who graduated from there, and he’s a very smart guy)
Next, Mata plays beter defense than anyone on UofA. He may not be a lotto pick put hes a hard worker and a good defender and an asset to the team-if you had someone like that starting on your team, you might not need to hit (or sometimes miss 20 in a row) all those 3’s Who knows, you might make it out of the first round. (for some defensively challenged UofA fans “good defender” means someone who knows how to play defense and actually does it)
As far as putting all our hope on Love? He will, IMHO be a great asset from all he has done not so much in high school, but in exhibition games since then.
THAT BEING SAID, if he were to be injured or be a complete wash- out, UCLA is very deep. We only lost 1 player to the draft, and we also brought in Chase Stanback.
So good luck getting to the 32! Work on that defense.
— UCLA Steve 07/07/2007 04:41 PM #
I am not saying don’t play defense. Quite the opposite, good defense leads to good breaking opportunities and layups and I think that’s what Cat fans are going to see next year. Remember UNLV back in the days of Tark? Are you telling me that their system didn’t work? They crushed people. Hey, what about Wooden? When his teams created turnovers, they were off and running. Howland, on the other hand, creates turnovers and then slows the pace of the game down.
— Robert 07/07/2007 04:58 PM #
— Idiot 07/07/2007 05:01 PM #
Yes he didn’t break Salim’s record nearly fast enough. LOL
— UCLA Joel 07/07/2007 05:07 PM #
Tark (although, because of his negativity toward Wooden in his book) is not my favorite coach. You do, however have a good point.
Howland, coming in did not get the top recruits as did Arizona at that time. Thus he worked with the talent he had. By anyone’s standards, 4 years 3 appearances in the NCAA tournament,2 final fours and a championship game appearance are pretty decent credentials.
That being said, I believe he builds on defense. The last 2 years, the 2 best defensive teams are the only 2 teams that made consecutive Final Four appearances. (Florida and UCLA)
Offense is great, and some players are able to execute better than others, but as a coach you must work with the strengths and weaknesses of the players you have.
I believe UCLA played more up tempo last year than the year before, because of the players (Collison, for instance is much faster than Farmar was)
Howland will never sacrifice defense though. A great offensive player who can’t or won’t play defense will not play for Howland. His teams will be consistent and I believe consistently improving.
Lutes statement about defense being boring disturbed me last year and led me to believe his time, though he was a great coach, is over.
Whether the pace is fast or slow the bottom line is w’s. and defense can be played every day, and a good offense can be built upon it.
— UCLA Steve 07/07/2007 05:16 PM #
2. Any 6’9’’ Frankenstein can score 20 a game in high school playing against a bunch of 6’2’’ centers. Congratufreakinlations. Now let’s see him do it against Pac-10 centers, shall we?
3. The same commotion was made last year when Spencer Hawes commited to Washington. Husky fans were on every message board singing his praises, saying “HE’S THE SAVIOR OF OUR TEAM!!!” and “WATCH OUT FOR U-DUB IN ‘06! PAC 10 CHAMPS!” Well guess what, he wasn’t and they weren’t. He was mediocre at best. So, too, will Kevin Love.
— azcoachb 07/08/2007 08:57 PM #
— scott 07/08/2007 10:18 PM #
— Mel 07/09/2007 12:49 AM #
Re-read your post. How are you a UofA fan? How does id “help Arizona to have a healthy succesSful UCLA team?”
Can you clarify that?
— AZCoachB 07/09/2007 08:38 AM #
really easy-
We’re in the same conference and play them twice and play common opponents twice each year. If UCLA is good and wins a majority of their games they have a strong RPI. If we play them and split or sweep it boosts our RPI which we all know plays a huge part in determining seedings in the tournament…its also a reputation thing nationally UCLA has a strong bball reputation, if we beat a strong UCLA team it increases our national reputation which feeds into the polls which plays a part in RPI. so it’s actually quite simple…a strong UCLA bball team is good for the pac-10
— scott 07/09/2007 08:48 AM #
Actually, by comparing Love to Spencer Hawes, you are doing a disservice to Hawes. I am thinking more on the lines of Cherokee Parks.
— Robert 07/09/2007 10:13 AM #
Wrong: Chris Rogers Rivals
8th Best Shooting Guard
Plus Wildcat players over the past few years have not developed during their career at the UA. Williams, Adams, Rogers, Shakur, etc. Bruin players seem to exceed expectations, Farmar, Afflalo, Luc Ricard, Collison. You can’t compare the current state of player development at the UA to UCLA and say Love will be like Rogers.
“3. The same commotion was made last year when Spencer Hawes commited to Washington.”
Hawes was ill during a good amount of the season. Not a good comparison. He ended up a lottery pick.
— UCLA Joel 07/09/2007 10:13 AM #
Very optimistic.
“Howland’s stubborness and insistance on the slow it down play will allow for our young Cats to compete.”
Howland’s coaching style got UCLA to back to back final fours. Something the UA has never done. Nothing he could have tried would have beaten Florida. Look for even more Pac-10 teams to play aggressive defense. USC, WSU and UCLA all proved it works.
— UCLA Joel 07/09/2007 10:20 AM #
I really can’t believe your last post. “Howlands stubborness and insistence on the slow it down play will allow our young Cats to compete”
Think about what you are saying. When the Bruins had less touted players, how did we stop you from competing the last 2 years? Was it a magic spell?
As the Bruins land better and better prospects, they will add new dimensions to their game. As I said before, Howland works with the strengths and weaknesses of the players he has. Everything, however, is built on a solid defense.
As far as Bruins putting all our hopes on Love, I believe he will be a standout player as do all the pundits. If he doesn’t turn out to be great, we still have the same thing that got UCLA to the last 2 final fours and kept a talented UofA out of the final 32- defense or lack thereof.
— UCLA Steve 07/09/2007 10:40 AM #
Yes, defense is key if you want to win titles, but if you want to be immortal, you better find ways to score points. Florida had balance. They could should you down and light it up on the offensive end.
I will give you that UCLA is back and that Howland’s D makes them competitive, but if he wants NCAA titles, he will have to take the cuffs off and let people play offense.
Moreover, I will say it again. I really think that the decline in the quality of player in the NCAA, overall, really helped UCLA in that people were unable to exploit UCLA’s offensive ineptness, the lone exception being Florida. Like I said, when you play UCLA, SOMEBOY IS ALWAYS WIDE FREAKIN’ OPEN. Memo to O’neill and Lute: tell the guys to swing the damn ball as opposed to dribbling out of trouble and someone is going to make a career out of playing the Bruins. Anyway, most young players do not have a perimeter game. Instead, they rely on isolation and taking people off the dribble. Teams like UCLA take that away and instead leave the 3 point line wide open. It’s a good strategy because most players can’t knock down that shot consistently enough to make them pay. When that Cats had Salim, he made them pay. I think that we are going to see history repeat itself here. The Cats are loaded with perimter guys that can knock down the three and it’s really going to open things up down low.
— Robert 07/09/2007 10:50 AM #
— btheg 07/09/2007 10:57 AM #
Wrong: Chris Rogers Rivals
8th Best Shooting Guard”
WRONG:
Scout.com: #21 overall prospect, #4 Best PG.
— AZCoachB 07/09/2007 10:58 AM #
— UCLA Steve 07/09/2007 10:58 AM #
You are a comedian and a dreamer.
Time will tell, why knock the guy? What do you fear? You have good recruits coming in, I am sure Bayless and Co. will be good for your team. It would be stupid for me to say he will be a bust like Shakur, no one knows at this point. Hopefully for your sake history does not repeat itself.
The one knock about Love that you all keep repeating is his speed. The experts are questioning his speed for the NBA. No one doubts is skills at the college level. Check out is game against Mater Dei, 36 points 15 rebounds against the best team in California on the road.
Regarding Cherokee Parks. Won a national championship, lost in the finals game two years later. Averaged 19 points 9 rebounds as a senior. Was an NBA lottery pick. If that is all Love does, the Bruins win back to back titles.
I know Parks sucked as a pro, but we are talking college hoops here so who cares.
— UCLA Joel 07/09/2007 11:01 AM #
You are right not to compare Hawes with Love cuz Love will be a better college center than Hawes. Would it surprise you to know that Love constantly schooled Kevin Durant, the #2 pick in the draft, when they played against eachother? Would it surprise you that Love held his own against Greg Oden, the #1 pick in the draft? Would it surprise you that Romar, the head coach at UDUB,when recruiting Love, stated Love was better than Hawes? I’m sure all this would surprise you given your ignorant comments.
— btheg 07/09/2007 11:04 AM #
I quoted Rivals you quoted Scout. Stop the “wrong” business.
The problem was not whether the scouts had it wrong. He had talent, but Lute and Co. did a poor job with him, like many others lately. Hard to blame him with some many similar examples at the UA.
— UCLA Joel 07/09/2007 11:06 AM #
You are wasting your time on AZ”Coach”B. You cannot convince one blinded bytheir hate of anything. You can only come back at the end of next season to laugh at him and gloat when you are right. Go Bruins!
— btheg 07/09/2007 11:09 AM #
Umm, in fact I AM a basketball coach so I feel I’m a little more qualified to make these assessments than you are. Also, I think it’s a little ridiculous that you’re challenging me to be “a little more intelligent” on an internet blog. You are a freakin’ troll who most likely has a resume that includes his high school JV basketball team at best so let’s not play the “keyboard warrior” game when it’s clear that one of us is more qualified than the other, mmmmmkay? Great.
At no point in this debate have I stated that UCLA is a bad team. I think they’re a pretty darn good team, in fact. The point I’m trying to make is that Kevin Love will not be the All Pac-10 player you shortsighted UCLA fans think he will be in his freshman season. He may develop into a nice player eventually but there’s a huge difference between Oregon high school bball and Pac 10 bball. I don’t care if you think UCLA is going to win the Pac 10 championship, just don’t base it on the presence of an 18 year old kid. The only other point I’ve attempted to make is that I think Mata is overrated. He plays decent defense but he’s a horrible offensive player. He shoots what, like 40% from the free throw line? I like Collison, Mbah Moute, even Shipp. Just don’t go throwing around this Love-Mata duo as something special because it’s not.
— AZCoachB 07/09/2007 11:14 AM #
Good post. You actually demonstrated rational thought for the first time in this thread. After starting out with a “UCLGAY” comment what did you expect?? If you are a coach, I think you would at least appreciate the coaching job Howland has done at UCLA.
— btheg 07/09/2007 11:32 AM #
The problem was not whether the scouts had it wrong. He had talent, but Lute and Co. did a poor job with him, like many others lately. Hard to blame him with some many similar examples at the UA.”
Sure, I’ll stop it but let’s not forget who started it. Also, I think it’s a fairly broad statement to make that “Lute and Co. did a poor job with him.” The kid was a headcase. None of his fellow students liked him and from all reports, none of his teammates did either. I don’t think Lute should take the blame for his lack of development. So many similar examples? Such as…? Hassan? Another character issue. Walters? Injuuries/Mononucleosis. Shakur? He’s probably the only one I’ll grant you although he did play brilliant at times so Lute must’ve gotten through to him on some level. Shakur just couldn’t produce consistently.
Now, about Howland, I went to his basketball camps at NAU as a kid. Great coach, though it’s not possible to put him on the level of Olson until he a.) wins a championship and b.) has the kind of success Lute has had for 20+ years. If those two things happen, then we’ll begin to make comparisons. Until then, there simply isn’t one to make.
— AZCoachB 07/09/2007 12:27 PM #
In basketball, Lute puts more talent on the court, now its time for Kevin O to shape these guys up and make them work.
Looking forward to seeing Marcus Williams in 30 min on NBA TV in the Spurs Summer league game, since I got blasted for my fellow Cats fans for not going along with the idea Marcus will be top 14 NBA pick.
Also: when Marcus walks up to Popavich and tells him his point forward dream that he let us all in on when he announced he was going pro…I can hear the scream and the laugh that will soon follow.
Mel
— Mel 07/09/2007 12:35 PM #
I give Howland absolutely nothing! UCLA has several advantages over alot of other schools no matter the coach. Beautiful campus, great basketball tradition, great media exposure, hot women, etc. Hell, I could sell that program, and I hate UCLA!
So, when I hear crap like, “Oh, Howland is doing such a great job,” I just want to puke because just about any marginal coach would have a competive squad with the amount of talent that UCLA gets by default of….....well, just being UCLA. Don’t get out the annointing oils just yet.
Look, I live in the lions den of UCLA fandome and I had a big laugh on the eve of the Florida-UCLA game. Everyone out here thought that Howland’s D was the answer and that they wouldn’t be phased by Florida. The local radio guys were up in arms because Florida players wouldn’t throw down any love for John Wooden and UCLA tradition. It’s like the people out here were insulted because Florida would not kiss the feet of the Wizard and shake in their boots at the thought of taking on the mighty Bruins. And then….......they proceed to kick the $$%t out of UCLA and back up everything they said.
Bottom line, you are a koolaid drinker, just like the myopic UCLA fans at ground zero. You actally believe the same D will set you free mantra that is brainwashing the masses out here. I’m sorry dude, but you have to unplug yourself from the matrix and look at the reality before you. You gotta score points in this game if you want to be the best and Howland’s system is dead set against letting players play. Collison will probably be better in the pros than he is now just because, for once, he will have the green light to score.
Everyone talks defense, defense, defense, but you know what, even the San Antionio Spurs, the best defensive basketball team in the world, have three guys who on any given night can go off for 30 plus.
— Robert 07/09/2007 12:52 PM #
Keep thinking like that. I just can’t believe you guys are for real after watching you miss 20 three pointers in a row and later in the tournament MISSING OUT on the final 32.
At one time your program was doing well, you picked up ONE title, but as the Stones said “it’s all over now”
Work on your defense
— UCLA Steve 07/09/2007 01:14 PM #
Yes, they missed a ton of threes. They missed, in my opinion, because they were being shot out of rythm. Shakur was lousy at establishing tempo and that’s about to change with his departure. I can’t stress enough how horrible he was.
— Robert 07/09/2007 01:54 PM #
— Idiot 07/09/2007 02:06 PM #
Wasn’t Mike Bibby a freshman when the Cats won in 97’? Just checking. Terry was a 2nd year player, right? And Simon, was he a senior when the won the title?
— Robert 07/09/2007 02:12 PM #
— Idiot 07/09/2007 02:13 PM #
“Shakur? He’s probably the only one I’ll grant you”
So many similar examples? Such as…?
Marcus Williams? Better freshman year. Salim? Didn’t Salim get benched at one point and there were questions if he was done on the team? JP Prince? They had a thin bench last year, why didn’t he play?
So lets say 4 out of the last 5 who left the UA for the NBA or graduated: Adams, Rogers, Mustafa and Williams did not grow much as players during their time with Lute and Co. Ivan would be the exception. You can blame the players if you want.
I would not compare Lute’s success to Ben Howland’s. I would take the current 40 something Howland over the 70 something Olson. I know a lot of Wildcat fans who would too.
— UCLA Joel 07/09/2007 03:31 PM #
That’s why O’neill’s here. We don’t have to take the 70 something Lute anymore.
— Robert 07/09/2007 03:51 PM #
“you actally believe the same D will set you free mantra”
Two straight Final 4’s works for me. Back to back 30 win seasons works too. Two things Lute and co. have never done. I will take it over early first round exits two years in a row.
“You gotta score points in this game if you want to be the best and Howland’s system is dead set against letting players play.”
The Bruin’s run, they did score 72 points a game. They shot 48% from the field, just like the Cat’s did. They won’t push it just to push it and take a bad shot, like your cat’s do. You really have not watched them play much.
Look at the NBA. Ever since the Pistons in the early 90’s won back to back titles, every team that has won has played tough defense. The flashy fast break teams never even make the finals. Look at the current Suns, the Kings a few years back, the Mav’s when they were a fast break team with Nash, Finley and Dirk. 0 finals appearances between all those flashy teams. The Mav’s finally reached the finals last year by slowing down and playing defense.
— UCLA Joel 07/09/2007 03:59 PM #
I live in Tucson so this is my local paper. I guess I missed where it says only Wildcat fans allowed.
— UCLA Joel 07/09/2007 04:07 PM #
Trust me, where I live, I get a plethora of UCLA coverage. Probably alot more than you do.
As for your analysis, it’s way off base. First, offense and defense are not mutually exclusive, unless of course you play for Ben Howland, the Buddy Ryan of the NBA. Yep, that’s right, I’m sure if he could, he would ban offense. He seems to hate it.
Anyway, the Lakers of the NBA and the Runnin’ Rebels were both fast breaking teams. They used defense to create tempo and offense. As for the Suns, they were a few ejections away from the NBA Finals. And by the way, they don’t take bad shots. San Antonio did not stop the break, but instead had to play the uptempo game. Steve Nash imposed his will, which is what good PGs do. Fortunately for San Antonio, they have Parker and Ginobli and both those guys can get out and run.
Also, San Antonio played an uptempo game to pound Cleveland. Bottom line, yes, you have to play defense, but you also have to score. UofA will do both next year. They will split the regular season with UCLA and will finish in the top 2 in the Pac and top 10 nationally by the time the tourney rolls around.
— Robert 07/09/2007 05:14 PM #
Just when I thought you had reached a point of civility, you resort back to nonsense with #95.
If you want to look at overall history Az does not compare to UCLA, not even close.
If you want to look at it from only when AZ joined the Pac-10 and had Lute as its coach, it’s still a lot closer than you think my homerific AZ fan. A tiny advantage maybe to AZ.
If you don’t want to look at the “past” as you claim and only concentrate on the present (the last 2 years) well again UCLA has AZ beat soundly.
— btheg 07/09/2007 06:07 PM #
They did? These were the scores:
Win 85-76
Win 103-92
Win 75-72
Win 83-82
Three of the 4 games neither team broke 85 points. The Spurs play great defense, and are very efficient in the half court. Just like the Lakers and Bulls under Jackson and Detroit before that.
“Anyway, the Lakers of the NBA and the Runnin’ Rebels were both fast breaking teams”
We are talking about teams from 15-20 years ago. The Phil Jackson Lakers were not a fast breaking team.
What your Wildcat’s need if they are going to live up to your lofty expectations is to be able to play in a half court set. Despite all their offensive weapons last year they looked tentative in the half court. You confuse the fast break with offense.
“Ben Howland, the Buddy Ryan of the NBA. Yep, that’s right, I’m sure if he could, he would ban offense. He seems to hate it.”
Very funny. Go to kenpom.com UCLA had the 21st most efficient offense in College Hoops. Shot 48% from the field, 37% three pointers. Not fast enough for you but still very good.
— UCLA Joel 07/09/2007 06:12 PM #
Good points.
Lute Olson’s consistency of 20+ winning seasons and tourny berths over the past 25 years is unmatched on college hoops. Even so, his success measured by sweet sixteens, final fours and championships is the same or only slightly better than UCLA accomplished during the same 25 or so years.
— UCLA Joel 07/09/2007 06:23 PM #
And San Antonio didn’t play great D as much as simply take Lebron out of his game, and make someone else on the team beat them.
Speaking of the Spurs, I saw Marcus Williams play today, no way in hell he makes the team.
— Mel 07/09/2007 08:37 PM #
That stats that you mention are misleading. Efficiency doesn’t translate into more points on the board if you are running out the clock each time down the court.
As for San Antonio, they did push the tempo. In fact, you could see Pops taking Parker to task for not pushing the ball.
As far as being able to run a half court set, I completely agree. The UA could not do it. But again, Shakur had a lot to do with that. He’s gone now and I would expect offensive production in the half court to improve.
— Robert 07/09/2007 10:10 PM #
I would rather listen to a soundtrack of babies crying than watch UCLA play offense. Yeah, Joel, of course they’re efficient, but the Phoenix Suns also have, generally, a very efficient offense. Which would you rather watch? You mention how in the NBA, tough D has won championships. I won’t disagree with that, but at the same time, how can you justify a Florida team that had a dynamic offense to go along with solid D creaming your Bruins in the tourney two years in a row? You gotta have the offense to compliment the D. So far, Ben Howland has squeezed a lot out of guys who play great D but don’t score a whole lot. Contrasting styles are an interesting thing to watch in the NCAA. UCLA’s D got it to 2 straight Final Fours, but it didn’t win it any championships. Who knows how this next season will eventually play out, but I don’t see UCLA getting over the hump by adding Kevin Love and Chase Stanback.
— darren 07/09/2007 10:17 PM #
“I won’t disagree with that, but at the same time, how can you justify a Florida team that had a dynamic offense to go along with solid D creaming your Bruins in the tourney two years in a row?”
Justify? Many experts believe that the Florida teams of the past two years may be one of the best teams assembled ever. That makes Howland a bad coach?
Florida’s big advantage was Horford and Noah. Much bigger, stronger and more talented than Mata and Aboya.
“UCLA’s D got it to 2 straight Final Fours, but it didn’t win it any championships.”
What a horrible two years it has been. LOL
“Who knows how this next season will eventually play out, but I don’t see UCLA getting over the hump by adding Kevin Love and Chase Stanback.”
I look at it this way. Florida was what prevented UCLA from winning back to back championships. That Florida team is long gone now. UCLA’s big weakness was Mata / Aboya. UCLA recruits the best center coming out of high school, rated best overall by some. Fills a huge gap for them, adds a big dimension in offense which they do need. I am not saying he will be the greatest ever, but he’s better than what they had last year. They lose their best wing man, but are deep at that position. They will be better next year and should be one of 5 or 6 who have a legit shot at the title. Injuries, how the freshmen coming in actually perform are the variables. Any way you slice it I like our chances.
— UCLA Joel 07/10/2007 06:48 AM #
“That stats that you mention are misleading. Efficiency doesn’t translate into more points on the board if you are running out the clock each time down the court.”
UCLA scored 72 points a game, shot the ball well and their assist to turnover ratio (collison was one of the best in the country at that) was excellent. They just don’t run the floor like the Suns or the 1991 Runnin’ Rebels so in your opinion they have a horrible offense. The stats prove you wrong, sorry to confuse you with facts.
Again, the problem with your team last year was losing close games to WSU, USC and Oregon. If you had won those it would have been a whole different season. And, at the Pac-10 and NCAA tourneys, your team lacked the desire to put out the effort necessary to make a run. They should have easily beaten Purdue. Maybe Bayless will be an instant improvement. He will have two less scorers to dish to then Shakur did. Who is going to replace Williams and Radenovic?
— UCLA Joel 07/10/2007 07:01 AM #
McClellan is finally healthy, and when he’s on…he’s ON.
Jamelle Horne is a top 25 player coming in who should be pretty decent.
Chase will get more minutes and be asked to carry a bigger load…I wouldn’t be surprised to see him average 20+ a game next season.
Jordan Hill is better in the post than Radenovic was…so we lose some perimiter mis-match offense, but as we very rarely took advanatge of that last year, I think we’ll be ok…
I think what a lot of UA fans are hopeful for is that the out of rythm, more confused ‘Cats are gone…Bayless is the future and I think he’ll do a much better job of running the floor than Shakur ever did
— scott 07/10/2007 07:14 AM #
What was Florida’s points per game average last year?
Florida beat the Bruins by pushing the ball and attacking before UCLA could set up it’s D. Once the game got to about a ten point spread, I knew it was over because UCLA didn’t have the offense to hang.
I just don’t see this changing. Moreover, the book is out on UCLA now. It’s a copycat game, so other teams are going to look at the Florida tapes and adjust accordingly. Howland better find a way to juice up his offense or heads are going to roll.
— Robert 07/10/2007 09:55 AM #
You just crack me up.
“Moreover, the book is out on UCLA now.”
It is? Better get Lute a copy!
“It’s a copycat game, so other teams are going to look at the Florida tapes and adjust accordingly”
So, Florida did the same thing the year before, but then UCLA rolled all last season after that. Maybe all their opponents forgot to look at the tapes? You better remind them all.
LOL
Too funny. Thanks for the chuckle.
— UCLA Joel 07/10/2007 10:45 AM #
Polo
— Marco
Polo
Sorry, just had to do that.
“You are the best team in the nation at losing when it counts….congrats!”
The pot calling the kettle black…
It took Lute until his 3rd Final Four to win a title at the UA, in fact it took 11 years just to reach the final four for the 2nd time. 12 times out of 24 seasons of 20 win teams Lute’s teams lose in the 1st or 2nd round.
Go look at youtube for SNL’s skit on your Wildcats, calling them the “Peyton Manning of College Basketball”. Explains why the cat’s don’t get any respect outside of Tucson.
“Simply put the glory days of Wooden led Championship UCLA teams are long gone.”
Yes, John Wooden is 97 years old. I have to agree he is not going to be leading the team at his age. So yes I do agree that there will be no more Wooden led UCLA championships. There will not be any Knute Rockne led Notre Dame Championships either, those days are also gone. Point?
The future looks very bright for my Bruins, and our illustrious history is 2nd to none.
“The only other Championship in 94’ is tainted”
1995 actually. Your one and only title was over 10 years ago. Show me proof of what YOU think Harrick did, since you, unlike the NCAA think the banner should come down.
— UCLA Joel 07/10/2007 11:18 AM #
— AZCoachB 07/10/2007 11:24 AM #
This is because Lute had to CREATE not build, but CREATE the UA program…the season before he got here we won 1 conference game…1. The next year (Lute’s first) we were a respectable 11-17 finishing with something like 5-6 straight wins. The next season we were 20+ and going to the tournamnet ever since…
A lot of people don’t realize what could have been if Lute had stayed at Iowa…coming off a final four and deep tournament runs…2 conference titles…Iowa was on the way up and could have been to this day one of the prominent programs in the nation…a program that could have had even more success that UA because at least at Iowa there was a modicum of basketball tradition…there was NONE at UA before Lute…he created our tradition…so if he took a little extra time to get to that first ring, oh well, he got it…in an era of college basketball when parity is greater than ever before…think about how big a deal it was that florida won back to back! in UCLA’s hey day back to back was nothing, but now with how even the whole thing is a consistent winner is very rare, and UA has been more consistent than ANY program in the nation since Lute’s arrival in Tucson…you can try and argue that, but you’d fail.
— scott 07/10/2007 11:56 AM #
I agree with mostly everything you said. Lute will be a HOF coach and has had a tremendous career no question.
— btheg 07/10/2007 12:10 PM #
Watch the SNL clip. Then you will get it.
— UCLA Joel 07/10/2007 01:10 PM #
Lute already is in the hall of fame, 2002 alongside Magic Johnson
— scott 07/10/2007 01:13 PM #
I had forgotten that. Yes Lute is a HOF coach. Honest ? for you. How much longer do you think Lute paces the sidelines at UA? My guess is 2 more seasons tops.
— btheg 07/10/2007 01:21 PM #
— Matt 07/10/2007 01:27 PM #
— darren 07/10/2007 01:28 PM #
— Matt 07/10/2007 01:33 PM #
2011…that’s when two simultaneous events happen- this years upcoming freshman will be in their last year (and this is a very stereotypical Lute Olson class- two bluchippers that won’t stick around all 4 (bayless and horne), two mid level roll players that could blossom (Z. Johnson and Laval Lucas-Perry) and a project big man in Jacobsen)) and Lute’s current contract will be up…next years (08) class has more top tier players than in most years with Jennings, Negedu, and Withey coming in with a mid level roll player in Brandon Lavender…the pieces are in place for runs in 08,09, 10, and 11. so if UA wins it all again, I think Lute will be gone the next week. If he gets to 2011 with no more title, he hangs it up anyway…others may find something different to say…we’ll see
— scott 07/10/2007 01:34 PM #
Just so you know, when AZ and ASU joined the conference and it became the Pac-10, all previous records of the other conference members were recognized and there was no wiping the slate clean. In other words, past conf. championships are still counted towards the running Pac-10 tally.
But for the sake of argument we’ll go with your premise for this discussion. I noticed you once again made blanket statements without providing facts. What a shocker! No need, I’ll be happy to provide them for you. :-).
Since the inception of the Pac-10 in 1978, Arizona has finished ahead of UCLA in conference 15 out of 29 years. UCLA has finished ahead of Arizona 13 out of 29 years. They finished with the same record in conference once.
Since the Pac-10, UCLA leads the head to head results with Arizona 32-29. (BTW UCLA leads all time series 43-31).
Since the Pac-10, Arizona has twenty-two 20-win seasons. UCLA has twenty-three 20-win seasons.
Since Pac-10, UCLA has nine Pac-10 championships Arizona has eleven (2 of which are shared). (BTW, UCLA has a leading 28 conf. champioships all time).
Since the Pac-10, Records against conference opp.: UCLA is 360-162 (.690 win%). Arizona is 357-165 (.684 win%).
In the NCAA’s since the Pac-10, UCLA has made it to sweet sixteen 14x, elite 8 6x, FF 4x, title game 3x and has won 1 NCAA championship.
AZ has made the sweet sixteen 11x, elite 8 7x, FF 4x, title game 2x, and has won exactly 1 NCAA championship.
In summary Marco, the facts show that outside of UA finishing with two addl. conf. titles, UA has had no advantage over UCLA since the inception of the Pac-10. If you include all time histories of each respective program, the disparity is resoundingly in UCLA’s favor.
— btheg 07/10/2007 03:55 PM #
— Matt 07/10/2007 04:36 PM #
Actually you were wrong about best record, most wins, having the best current team, etc. But I’m sure you’ve been wrong about a lot of things in life.
So you were cruel to midgets when you were younger? What a nice person you are (rollseyes).
How is the 1995 title a farce? Where are your facts? Oops I forgot you never have any.
I thought this was a blog where some intelligent discussion could take place. I guess I was wrong Marco…:-)
— btheg 07/10/2007 04:52 PM #
— scott 07/10/2007 05:08 PM #
Hey no Bruin said Lute wasn’t a great coach. Lute has been coaching in the Pac-10 for 20+ seasons and has had great success. No other Pac-10 coach can be compared with his accomplishments during this time because no other coach has endured the same tenure as far as I know.
I’ve said it before, I like UA. I respect Lute and what he’s done. It’s the lack of respect for UCLA by a few idiot posters that makes me provide the “education” here.
— btheg 07/10/2007 05:28 PM #
read my posts man…i give props to UCLA i even cheer for them when they don’t play UA…this is what i said in post 66
I hope he (Kevin Love) pays off and plays well and makes it more interesting in the PAC…it only helps Arizona to have a healthy succesful UCLA team.
Look…bottom line here is that any sensible UA fan will admit that UCLA is a great program and will have nothing but repsect for them…and vice-versa with UCLA fans to UA…
can’t wait for this season…just over 100 days till top off!
— scott 07/10/2007 06:24 PM #
I don’t think that you can compare the success of the UA and UCLA over the years because, as you said, Tucson does not have a built in advantage. That Lute has been able to recruit big time players to come out to the Old Pueblo speaks volumes. In fact, I think that I’ve already said this about 100 or so posts ago.
Anyway, I typically don’t root for UCLA as I find many UCLA fans to be a bunch of snots living off the glory days of John Wooden. I like coach Wooden and Walton and some of the other players of that era, but beginning with the Walt Hazard era and peaking with the sleazy Jim Harrick. Just reading the UCLA bloggers on this board makes my skin crawl. In fact, I would rather see ASU succeed in basketball before I would root for UCLA.
— Robert 07/10/2007 09:46 PM #
One of the most interesting things I see about the reemergence of UCLA is how when Ben Howland took over, everyone said that Lute was no longer going to be able to get the top players from southern California that have helped him so much over the years. They said that Lute would lose recruiting battles to Ben Howland and later on, Tim Floyd at USC. Obviously this hasn’t been the case. Howland has recruited well in California, but Lute has been able to as well. Budinger, Horne, Jennings, Withey, etc
— darren 07/10/2007 10:28 PM #
With your logic Pepperdine, USC, LMU, UCSB should all have good basketball teams since its so easy to recruit in Southern California. But only UCLA has been able to do so for close to 50 years. Tucson is not the toughest place to recruit, not a bad place to play in the winter time, and you get the summer off when the weather is at its hottest.
And, you are way off base with all the Wooden era talk. To me it has been a big negative ever since Wooden retired. Quality coaches were reluctant to coach there because no matter how well they did they were going to fall way short of Wooden’s legacy. Thats why we ended up with sub par coaches like Lavin. Same thing for recruits, better to go somewhere where anything less than a champion is not considered failing. Howland seems to have finally erased all that. He has put his own style and stamp on the team, whereas past coaches seemed to just try to be some cheap Wooden copycat.
Robert, why are you so jealous or envious of UCLA? Don’t say its not true, otherwise you would not hate UCLA so much. Except for you a couple others (Marco and the Coach dude), the other Wildcat posters seem to like the competition and don’t act like you. Most Bruin fans I know respect the Cat’s and Olson and enjoy the rivalry like I do. Why not enjoy it instead of being so afraid of UCLA.
You must have a really sad life. You sit at the bus stop waiting for the sun trans and see people driving by in expensive cars and say why can’t that be me?
Perhaps you can learn something from all the intelligent Cat’s fans here. But you seem to have “issues”, issues that go way beyond this board.
— UCLA Joel 07/11/2007 06:01 AM #
Nice, real nice. Good job with the personal attacks.
Actually, UCLA fans may respect Lute, but they usually root against AZ in basketball. Most likely the reason for this is the beatings received over the years and AZ is their only real rival in basketball.
Do I like a competitive game? Yes, except when my team is playing. In that case, I want to see my team blow their opponent out every single time.
As for your comments re: recruiting, what planet do you live on? Certain schools have built in advantages because of their tradition. UCLA has one in basketball. USC has one in football.
Pepperdine and the rest really aren’t sports schools and they don’t get alot of media exposure (one of the factors that I previously discussed). That’s why they don’t get the top recruits. As for USC, Tim Floyd hasn’t really done all that well, has he? I guess OJ Mayo blows. Seriously, given the state of SC basketball before he got there, Tim Floyd’s accomplishments are far greater than Howland’s.
— Robert 07/11/2007 07:59 AM #
You had to get in a Howland jab, LOL.
Both schools programs were in sorry shape. Lets see if the facts back up your statement:
Year before Floyd USC went 13-15
Year before Howland UCLA went 10-19
USC has had some good seasons over the years. Floyd is not the first USC coach to win 20 games. You like to make these wild subjective statements that have no basis in reality. Some of USC’s better seasons:
2006-2007 25-12 (under Floyd)
2001-2002 22-10
2000-2001 24-10
1991-1992 24-6
1990-1991 19-10
1978-1979 20-9
1973-1974 24-5
1970-1971 24-2
Floyd is putting together a great program built on solid defense. Like Arizona they lost 3 starters and have a returning freshman with huge potential (Gibson) and top 10 recruit (Mayo). Like Arizona it will be interesting to see how good they will be this year with all the changes.
“Certain schools have built in advantages because of their tradition”
My point was its a double-edged sword. If you slip just a little, that tradition becomes pressure to live up to unreasonable expectations. Point: If Olson’s replacement fails just once to make the tourney or win 20 games, even 19 wins, the pressure will be on to fire him. Its a different game now, too many one and done players, and without those players its hard to compete. It will be hard for Lutes replacement to run off a long run of 20+ seasons no matter how good they may be. Look at Florida and Ohio St, after great seasons, both teams lost pretty much all their starters, both will be lucky have a shot of even making the tourney this year.
— UCLA Joel 07/11/2007 10:18 AM #
FWIW, I wasn’t referencing you. Most UA fans have good takes here.
— btheg 07/11/2007 12:29 PM #
— Trev in KC 07/11/2007 02:21 PM #
UCLA was clearly a better team than the UofA last year. We had no answer for Darren Collison, neither his quickness nor his 3-pt shooting. Oh, yeah—he also steals the ball. “If” UofA had done x,y,z they would have won? No. They could not ‘do’ x,y,z.
As I’ve said before, being the fan of a “team” is less enjoyable now anyway, since the rosters change so quickly. Already people are speculating about how “long” Bayless will stay. Now “team” is just a name plus hype. The better ones have great athletes who are willing to play defense. But it would be fun to watch a starting five all of seniors who have been together for a few years. Affalo stayed and it made a difference for HIS team.
Budinger ain’t ready for the next level and may never have the physical tools to excel at that level, sacrilegious as that may sound, yo. He seems like a good guy, and is clearly a talented college player—I wish him the best, but I don’t see the lateral quickness or physical strength for pro stardom.
— clydesdale 07/11/2007 03:41 PM #
Wow! That’s quite a statement, “UCLA was clearly a better team than the U of A last year” Really? Did you come up with that one all by yourself, or did you get some coaching? Clearly, you must be some type of sports genius. You must have an IQ of 160! I’m going to call ESPN Radio on your behalf and ask that they have you fill the void created by Dan Patrick’s departure.
As for Mr. Joel:
Your stats, again, are misleading Floyd landed OJ Mayo and appears to be building a program, not a one hit wonder. Yes, SC has had 20 win seasons before, but really couldn’t sustain that, as your own numbers point out. That Floyd can build a program in a football school is quite an accomplishment. Nobody in this town was even talking about SC basketball a few years ago. Now, SC is getting some national exposure and is going to be competitive in the Pac 10 for years to come.
Howland’s accomplishments are less impressive because of UCLA’s built in advantages. Seriously, if Lute had been at UCLA, he would probably have at least three or four more rings.
Moreover, looking back at the UofA UCLA comparison since 1978, the two teams appear even. Howland has been at UCLA for how long? 4 or 5 years? Lute’s been at UofA for how long? Bottom line, Lute’s pretty much the one constant in this equation whereas UCLA has had how many coaches over that same 25 year time span? So, really, it would seem that UCLA IS COMPETITIVE NO MATTER WHO THE COACH IS if one is to believe your numbers. Could it be that, oh, I don’t know, that UCLA has a built in advantage and is able to pull in top talent just because of their tradition?
So, using your own numbers, Howland ain’t that special. Anyone can recite statistics, but not everyone can make the proper deductions from them. Better go back to the drawing board on this one.
— Robert 07/11/2007 05:33 PM #
Kevin Love is national athlete of the year
UCLA’s 6-foot-10 incoming center wins the high school award from Gatorade, following past winners Greg Oden, LeBron James and Dwight Howard.
By Eric Sondheimer, Times Staff Writer
3:46 PM PDT, July 11, 2007
The best
click to enlarge
There was a symbolic passing of the college basketball torch Wednesday in Hollywood when 7-foot center Greg Oden, last month’s No. 1 pick by the Portland Trail Blazers in the NBA draft, presented the Gatorade male high school athlete of the year award to 6-10 Kevin Love, UCLA’s incoming freshman center.
Oden won the same award last year as a high school senior, then helped Ohio State reach the NCAA championship game. Now Love must assume similar expectations of becoming an impact college player, and Oden said from playing against him in camps and competitions, Love is capable of doing just that.
“I know he’s good and he’s going to be ready,” Oden said. “The sky’s the limit. He’s one of the new type of players who want to play my position but is skilled. He’s a great player who can do it all.”
Love, who attended his first summer class at UCLA on Monday, a history class, averaged 33.6 points, 17 rebounds and three blocks last season at Oregon’s Lake Oswego High. It was the fifth year Gatorade has chosen a national athlete of the year, and three of the previous winners — Oden, LeBron James and Dwight Howard — went on to become No. 1 NBA picks.
Love said he’s not ready to play in the NBA — yet.
“I have to get faster, stronger,” he said. “I have a lot to work on.”
The female athlete-of-the-year award went to Maya Moore, a 6-foot basketball player from Georgia’s Collins Hill High. She will play at Connecticut.
Among the finalists for the male award was track standout Bryshon Nellum from Long Beach Poly. Among the finalists for the female award was volleyball standout Alix Klineman from Manhattan Beach Mira Costa.
Love and Moore were to make an appearance Wednesday night during a taping for the ESPY awards at the Kodak Theatre.
— Jim Turner 07/11/2007 05:54 PM #
Robert Robert Robert
Howland did the same thing at Pitt and at NAU. National Coach of the year in 2002. Back to back 29 win seasons before leaving for UCLA. Best record among all coaches his last three years at Pitt.
Yes its easier to recruit at UCLA than Pitt or NAU, that’s why he is here. Plus its a dream job. But Howland is a proven winner now at three different schools.
What don’t you hook up with Marco and taunt some blind midgets.
— UCLA Joel 07/11/2007 06:50 PM #
Nice try, but don’t change the subject. Stick to your numbers re: the comparison between UCLA and UofA. Clearly, based on your own analysis, the numbers that you provided and gloated over, over a 25 year stretch, UCLA has been competitive no matter who is coaching. That’s because they get good recruits because of who they are. Howland’s stay, as a result, looks far less impressive than it would first appear. It also maginifies the significance of a guy like Lute who built the program at the UofA out of nothing. So, at the end of the day, you really can’t compare the two as Howland’s efforts fall way short. I would also add that if a guy like Floyd manages to sustain USC, that too is far more impressive than anything that Howland has done to date as USC basketball was pretty much irrelevant except for a few decent seasons scattered in here and there over the last 20 years.
— Robert 07/11/2007 10:19 PM #
There is a reason even your UA comrades here think you are clueless…
So you are the moderator and I have to follow YOUR subject line?
Your point was Howland does not impress you. Seems to impress everyone else but not you. You have some sort of strange logic where UCLA automatically gets so many wins and recruits and anything Howland does, does not count. My point is Howland wins everywhere he goes. Took a 10 win team and made it into a 30 win team in two years. And is recruiting better at UCLA then anyone since Wooden himself.
“if a guy like Floyd manages”
“if Lute had been at UCLA,”
All you have are these if’s. They are in all your posts.
Floyd is a good coach and recruiter. He has won everywhere he has coached (except in the NBA). He has had one good season so far with players he did not recruit (Young, Pruitt and Stewart) and you think he’s is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Actually, I know you don’t even really believe what you say, but you will say anything to knock UCLA.
Floyd is going to have to rely on OJ Mayo to keep winning next season. OJ has the talent but also brings a lot of baggage and drama. He is a very selfish player, he may score 30 points a game and the team struggles. Google OJ and you will see what I mean. I will take Love over OJ. Love is a team player and you know what you are going to get with him. I would take Bayless over Mayo too. I will use one of your “if’s” and say IF Floyd can repeat last season’s success he should be Pac-10 coach of the year.
But saying Floyd has done a better job than Howland, well thats why you get no respect here. Ignorance my friend, just ignorance. Or perhaps just envy?
— UCLA Joel 07/12/2007 07:13 AM #
Some facts about Howland during his NAU days from NAU Website
Turnaround Numbers
The Lumberjacks are 46-16 in their last 62 games. To illustrate NAU’s turnaround under Ben Howland, NAU’s record over the 62 games prior to that was 19-43.
Defensive Numbers
While NAU’s offensive numbers grab the headlines, NAU has long had a reputation of tough defense under Ben Howland. The Jack opponents are shooting just .373 from the floor and only Florida International has shot better than 50 percent against the Jacks. Since the Golden Panthers shot 52 percent against NAU, no other opponent has managed to shoot even 40 percent against Northern Arizona.
Notebook
·Northern Arizona is looking for its third straight winning season. The university has not accomplished that feat since 1967-68 to 1969-70.
— UCLA Joel 07/12/2007 07:50 AM #
Don’t obfuscate. I’m not talking about Not A University. I am talking about the numbers that you recited comparing UCLA and UofA over a 25 year span. It appears, by way of your own numbers, that Howland ain’t as great as you think he is. UCLA is/was competitive no matter who was coaching them. Look, Joel, I didn’t throw the stats out there, you did, and now that you have been exposed what do you do? You recite numbers for coaching perfomance at the NCAA junior varsity level. So what if he turned the Lumberjacks Program around. Who really freakin’ cares? It’s kind of like coaching Tucson High.
So, seriously folks. I throw this question out for general discussion. That is, which is more impressive: (a) Howland’s success at a program with the best tradition in the game, media, and glamour, or (b) Guy’s like Lute and Tim Floyd who build programs from essentially nothing?
— Robert 07/12/2007 08:24 AM #
Wow, look at the big brain on Robert!
The UA plays NAU just about every year, so why are the Wildcats playing a JV team?
By your opinion its impossible for any UCLA coach to be successful. You think there is some quasi built in amount of success that UCLA will always have. But yet with that, Lavin managed to destroy the UCLA basketball program and Howland brought them back from nowhere back to an elite status in just two years. The best player he inherited was Ryan Hollins, all his players this year were his recruits. NAU and Pitt just reinforce how good he is. Of course you ignore this since it totally destroys your argument.
Floyd had the good fortune to inherit two stars, both of whom were drafted above Marcus Williams in this years draft. Howland had way less talent to start with than Floyd. Anyone except you could see that.
I’m not trying to confuse you. I never said what Howland has done surpasses Lute Olson. So your question is bogus.
I know you have an aversion to facts. You prefer a fuzzy hypothesis that does not hold up in any way.
So here is the open question. Who’s job is more impressive:
Howland – Back to back 30 win final four seasons, back to back Pac-10 Championships, Pac-10 coach of the year.
3rd toughest Non-Conference schedule after the UA and Kentucky. 10-1 in non-con play
Floyd – one 25 win season, sweet-16, 3rd place in the Pac-10. Played the 181st toughest non-con schedule. 10-3 against a very weak non-con schedule.
Ok, I am going to vote first:
Howland
— UCLA Joel 07/12/2007 09:45 AM #
“I write for a living”
Dude, writing down the daily specials on the menu board for your boss at the sub-shop you work at does not make you a writer. And, you were the one who brought up your midget fetish, not I.
Anyways, changing gears here, I just want to salute all of you as real fans. Even Marco and Robert. It’s July, seems like a million miles away from the start of the hoops season, yet here we are debating the merits of our teams. Its all good.
— UCLA Joel 07/12/2007 09:54 AM #
“The UA plays NAU just about every year, so why are the Wildcats playing a JV team?”
And UCLA has NO div. 1-AA teams on its schedule?
— scott 07/12/2007 10:25 AM #
Yes, Lavin destroyed UCLA basketball. Here is a list of his pitiful accomplishments during his brief tenure:
1. UCLA won the 1997 Pac 10 Title
2. Elite 8 -1997
3. Six 20 win seasons
4. Five Sweet 16’s
5. 2001 Pac 10 Coach of the Year
6. 1997 National Rookie Coach of the Year.
Yep, he sucked. Or, perhaps, he was undermined by Alums and an AD who were pissed that he couldn’t land in the final four every single year. Also, you forget that his AD sold him out by approaching Pitino behind his back. Players aren’t stupid, when they hear this stuff, they aren’t going to put out for a coach they know has one foot out the door.
So, yes, Howland may have inherited an underachieving team, but the AD and rich alums had far more to do with that than Lavin. Moreover, being a SoCal resident, I recall that when Howland came in, he basically trashed the Lavin holdovers as unworthy. He was like Parcells in that regard. He wanted “his guys”. He probably would have been more successul had he not try to run people off, but it was his way or the highway.
Bottom line, any UCLA funk before the recent upswing was self inflicted. The underlying advantage has always been there.
As for Marco, you are just a tad paranoid. I look at things this way, Wildcat fans are like any other family. Family will fight amongst themselves for various reasons, but when outsiders attack any other member of the family, it is time to circle the wagons and pull together for the greater good. I just won’t stand for UCLA Fan coming onto this blog and run off at the mouth unconstested!
Plus, Marco, I’ve been completely consistent with respect to Lute. I never once said that he wasn’t a great coach. Rather, I insisted that he was a HOF guy whose time has come. That’s all. I’m now looking forward to the new regime under O’neill.
— Robert 07/12/2007 10:30 AM #
And UCLA has NO div. 1-AA teams on its schedule?
No they don’t.
— UCLA Joel 07/12/2007 11:11 AM #
You write for a living? I would expect a professional writer to proof read. “I highly recommend taking a midget to work for a day, but never, never taught them.” Did you mean never taunt them?
“Bayless will be Freshmen of the Year in the Pac-10, and will have a legit shot as being recognized Nationally.” Did you mean at being recognized nationally.
Robert-
If you think Lavin was a good coach then maybe UA can get him to return to coaching after Lute retires. I’m sure a lot of UA fans would love that!
Lavin fell into the most fortunate of circumstances when Harrick was let go or he never would have be named head coach. His 1st year he was a surrounded by a veteran team with a ton of NBA talent which were all Harrick’s players.
Due to the success of the 95 title and 97 Elite Eight run, he was able to land what was considered the #2 class in 1997 and then follow it up with the #1 class in 1998. If he was a good coach he would have been able to take the talent from those two classes and at least make a run to the Final Four. He DIDN’T. Lavin would never get passed the sweet sixteen because that is the round of play where talent alone is going to do it for you, you also need coaching at that point.
As Harrick’s players graduated it became apparent that Lavin could develop his players or coach. Watching games, no one knew what type of offense he was running, none of the players played any defense. His recruiting began to decline because the word was out that he sucked as a coach.
After the majority of the players from his first two stellar classes left the program, Lavin experienced the first losing season at UCLA in over 40 something years. No Lavin was not a good coach.
— btheg 07/12/2007 11:28 AM #
Lavin took over a program that was one year removed from a national championship and slowly killed it.
His teams always seemed to lose to lesser teams and be uninspired. Somehow come post season the Bruins would make a run to the Sweet 16. That pretty much saved his job each season.
The last couple years his recruiting totally fell apart. His 2002 recruiting class had 4 unranked players (including Marcedes Lewis who was really a football player), his 2003 class had only Ariza, a five star player, who lasted one season.
He took a team and a program that was running smoothly and turned them into a 10 win team.
Why would Howland want any of his loser assistants? Howland’s first recruiting class lands 2 five and 2 four star recruits and the rest is history.
— UCLA Joel 07/12/2007 11:28 AM #
hate to burst your bubble…UCLA played the following teams in 06-07: Chaminade, Oakland, Sam Houston St., CS Fullerton, and Long Beach St. these schools are considered (except for Chaminade) to be Div. 1 when it comes to basketball. But are in conferences who play Div. 1-AA for football (the same as NAU) the distinction comes in what conferences teams field football and whose don’t. Bottom line is, last year we played three softies: NAU, New Mexico St.(Who made the tournament btw), and Samford…UCLA played the aforementioned schools as well as a game against powerhouse UC Riverside…now again, i’m not arguing that UCLA wasn’t a great team last year…but don’t mock NAU being on our schedule when you guys played Oakland and Sam Houston St.
— scott 07/12/2007 11:29 AM #
UCLA didn’t play any Div 1-AA teams because technically that distinction only exists for football…so then neither did UA.
UCLA did play those games against teams found in div. 1-AA for football. so Joel is correct on a technicality.
— scott 07/12/2007 11:32 AM #
Hey, at least I didn’t name the restaurant you work at. I know you need that job. And, “special” people like you deserve a break.
Dude, learn how to spell. As a “writer” you should know how important correct spelling is. Here is a hint: Look for the red underlined words, those are the ones you need to correct! I am sure you wondered why so many words in your posts are underlined in red! LOL!
I hope someone proofreads your sandwich board!
Also, your sentences sort of run on. Try using periods instead of one comma after another. But again you should know all of this since someone somewhere is paying you to write.
Your boasting about how great your UA players are going to be is very childish. No one knows exactly what next season will bring, so partisan outlandish predictions show you for the sandwich board toting fool that you are.
Bring it on, midget lover
— UCLA Joel 07/12/2007 11:42 AM #
— UCLA Joel 07/12/2007 11:45 AM #
Nevertheless, during most of Lavin’s tenure, UCLA was competitive and was still able to lure top talent. You admitted this yourself. 2001 Coach of the year? How many years removed from Harrick was that? Even if I concede your point that Lavin was able to recruit based on the prior success of Harrick, it again futhers my point that UCLA can recruit well because of who they are and where they’ve been regardless of who is coaching. Don’t turn around and tell me that Howland doesn’t sell the glory years and history of UCLA as a recruiting tool. It’s absolutely intellectually dishonest if you think otherwise.
Moreover, you are blasting Lavin for not living up to expectations based on the talent pool available. This again confirms what I said about Lavin. That is, alums and the AD were trying to oust the guy. So, if top recruits avoided UCLA at that time, it’s because people like you were calling for the guy’s head and they knew he was a short- timer. It’s hard to get the support of the players and recruits when it becomes public knowledge that your AD is about to stab you in the back. Props to you, dude. Mission accomplished.
Hey, what top NBA talent are you talking about? Ed O’bannon? Yep, he was an NBA stud. Baron Davis, yes, but I can’t seem to think of any other NBA standouts.
— Robert 07/12/2007 01:26 PM #
I think Lute has had a great career and certainly moved the Wildcat program to places it had never been.
That being said, I have only one question. What is the deal with Marco? He has no knowledge of basketball, no facts, just midget jokes. I have a good friend who is a UofA grad and is much smarter than Marco, as are most University grads,so I have a hard time believing that he is really a UofA grad.
If I were a writer, I would be offended by Marco calling himself one. And to all of you Wildcat fans who don’t think much of Coach Howland all I can say is work on that defense.
— UCLA Steve 07/12/2007 02:09 PM #
In your imaginary world with imaginary midget helpers and an imaginary writing career.
Dude, you are an embarrassment to UA fans everywhere.
Go World Travel? Just looked at the website, unless your name is Fred and living in Florida you are either lying or dreaming. All the other freelance writers are women.
I have groundlings who correct my spelling….
Maybe you should fire them, they are obviously not doing their job.
I’m just glad you are not an UCLA fan.
— UCLA Joel 07/12/2007 03:48 PM #
I never disagreed with you about built in advantages at UCLA. They are all true. What I disagreed with was you insinuating Lavin was a good coach. Lavin was NOT a good game day coach. His teams lacked discipline and motivation and only won when they had the superior players.
As for the NBA talent when he first took over, (I never said top NBA talent those are your words) there was Baron Davis, Early Watson, Jelani McCoy, Jr Henderson, Toby Bailey, and Charles O Bannon.
After that year he had Kapono, Gadzuric, Barnes, & Moiso along with Jaron Rush, Ray Young, etc. These kids were very highly rated (3 MickyD AA’s in the 1998 class)that Lavin did virtually squat with and that is why he was fired not b/c Alumni or the AD wanted him out at that time. The chicken did not come before the egg. Lavin proved he sucked first then we wanted him out. ;-)
— btheg 07/12/2007 03:53 PM #
Until that time marco and Robert, dream on. Your wake-up call will come all too soon.
— Jim Turner 07/13/2007 07:08 AM #
There is intelligent life here after all.
Good post Jim
Actually most of the UA posters here are excellent. Marco and Robert must have somehow missed the past few seasons, they are still living in the 90’s.
— UCLA Joel 07/13/2007 08:20 AM #
we didn’t miss the past few seasons…we lived and died every moment of those two years…the 20 losses hurt…but the collective losses that hurt the worst were those against UNC and UCLA. the two “national powers” that we played both seasons. There were key ingredients to those losses that have been addressed and should make things a touch easier this season-
1. Post presence. The last two years we didn’t have one. Jordan Hill came on late and whatever he was worth, we didn’t have Kirk Walters…I’m not saying that he would have made the difference, but he would have helped tie up a body on our offensive sets, because as has been mentioned…as bad as mata is on offense he’s great on d. This year we have Jordan back and developed, we have Walters back (whatevery its worth) and we have more seasoned Mohammed Tangara and Fendi Onobun…we have a post presence that on paper should match up well with UCLA.
2. PG play…Shakur couldn’t take over a game plain and simple. he lacked mental toughness when he needed most, and when fast defensive minded guards (Collison and Ty Lawson in particular) got in his grill…he fell apart. Now there’s no telling how the PG position will be this year, but Nic Wise showed flashes of brilliance last season and is a decent match-up with Collison because of his quickness. Bayless is the real deal, I’ve seen him play in High school and club games…he makes things happen and dictates tempo, and when it was crunch time he took over…he has an nba jumper and can shoot from all over…sure he may bust big time but at the very least we have more ready players behind him in the likes of the steady if un-remarkable Daniel Dillon, Jawaan McClellan and the incoming Laval Lucas-Perry.
3. Heart- we didn’t play with any last season when the chips were down. against UCLA and UNC we rolled over…Chase deferred to Marcus who laid eggs all over the place and Shakur melted. Bayless is a competitor and is very fiery. Jawaan is in the same mold.
now all this won’t matter if they can’t play solid D and put the ball in the basket…but it should be more balanced/even this season than in the previous two seasons. so to say that without question UCLA will sweep the season is fairly preposterous. A season split is far more likely…is that intaylagent enough for you?
— scott 07/13/2007 08:35 AM #
— darren 07/13/2007 10:22 AM #
Are you kidding me? I saw the last two seasons and was Lute’s most vocal critic. The problems of last year have been addressed, so I really don’t see your point.
I think that Bayless is going to give y’all nightmares. Like Scott says, he dictates tempo, a fast paced tempo, and can drain the 3.
— Robert 07/13/2007 10:41 AM #
I was not referring to you. You have intelligent posts which I respect even if I don’t always agree with you.
1. Post presence. Jordan Hill. I like the guy, plays hard every night. I went back to his game log. He played heavy minutes the last 10 games of the season. Arizona went 4-6. I think your team was at its best early in the season when you had 5 shooters on the floor. Any of them could light it up for 20+ points. I see their problem last year as the starters playing too many minutes in the non-con games and burning out.
PG play. I agree Shakur seemed to lack the killer instinct at the end of games. One thing though, Bayless is really a shooting guard. You will probably see him and Wise in the backcourt. Arizona lost close games against USC, WSU and Oregon. If they had won 5 of 6 instead of losing 5-6 you would have had a 3 or 4 seed and probably a much deeper run in the tourney. UCLA won 5 of 6 against those teams but they were all close games that could have gone either way. Collison, Shipp and Afflalo had the confidence at the end of games that they knew somehow they would win. The UA players seemed to be afraid of losing close games.
I think any predictions about who will beat who is silly. So many things can happen. Look at WSU last season, who would have thought they would be so good. I think the UA has the chance to be better than last season, also the chance to be worse. You are losing 10 years of college exp. and replacing it with talented but unproven high school players. UCLA can be better too, depends on how Love develops and if they can replace Afflalo effectively.
— UCLA Joel 07/13/2007 01:03 PM #
— Williewiskers 07/14/2007 10:19 AM #
And as a matter of fact, it appears that Williams won’t make an NBA roster this season. Because, so far, he’s having a terrible time in the NBA Summer league.
When was the last time former Wildcats “standouts” didn’t make an NBA team regardless of their draft status!? Even both Salim and Gilbert made their respective NBA teams rosters as 2nd Round draft choices. So it’s now evident that last seasons uncharacteristic Wildcat 5 was even less than standard than we all imagined.
Sometimes it takes an “outsider” too clear the murky waters of our Arizona Wildcat hoops mentality. Especially the play the past two seasons.
And I abso-Lutely agree with him about one poignant assertion. If Coach Olson doesn’t come up with solid PG play this season the Wildcats could be looking at another 2007esque type of season albeit Arizona is good enough to make the NCAA tourney, again, as an extremely low seed. For instance, as possible No. 9,10, or 11 seeds. Even Joe Lunardi has Arizona as “projected” No. 11 seed. Yikes! Well, at least the consecutive NCAA tourney “streak” won’t be broken.
However, the silver lining could be the Wildcat’s home schedule. Perhaps Coach Olson will be more willing and trusting to give the bench players quality playing time during crucial stretchs of a typical game. Who cares if Arizona doesn’t win “blowout” games against the likes of NAU, UMKC, and Adams St. It’s imperative that the rotation players between No. 8 and No. 10 get quality PT.
— voice of lunacy 07/15/2007 12:16 PM #
— Matt 07/16/2007 12:04 PM #
— Matt 07/16/2007 12:08 PM #
Thanks for the props.
I believe the era that we are in of the “one and done” player is going to make the consistency of what Lute has done even tougher to attain.
Your Wildcats will most likely lose both Budinger and Bayless after this season and Jennings the year after that. The Bruins will be lucky to get two years with Love and Holiday is a likely one and done next year. Hard to build a consistent winner when you have to start over every two years.
As for the Wildcats. You still have a strong elite program. Lute is still getting top recruits. I also believe that the team should have performed much better than they did three of the last four seasons with teams loaded with talent.
As Robert stated: “The problems of last year have been addressed.” That might be true, but time will tell if they actually solve those problems.
— UCLA Joel 07/16/2007 01:20 PM #
Possibly the dumbest stuff I’ve read on this board…and that’s saying something…this part was the real gem:
“Lute would go first round loss, first round loss, second round loss, then BOOM Final Four to stave off the malcontents. Then he got the ultimate job saver in ‘97 with the title. The ulitmate you-can’t-ever-fire-me card”
so now you’re complaining that UA has the most consistent basketball program since the mid-80’s? wow. Lute didn’t need a title to save his job…what AD is going to hire one of the 15 best basketball coaches of all time? did Gene Keady need a title? What about Dean Smith before he finally got the big one? the only thing a title did for Lute was move him from the gallery of really good coaches to the gallery of great coaches…
what you’re doing is fairly stupid…you’re taking two seasons in a mans career and trying to apply what happened over those two years to an entire career…it just doesn’t work…especially when you consider that the 05 Elite Eight loss pales in comparison with the 88 final four loss to Oklahoma…that year Lute had his best ever team and lost a close game…People wondered if we’d be able to come back from that loss…lo and behold we did…
Now I’m not above second guessing, and if this season and next are not remarkably better…Lute will have to answer…
— scott 07/16/2007 02:07 PM #
Matt is absolutely correct. The Illinois loss was the beginning of the end for Lute. He never recovered. Alas, however, a new era is upon us. The O’neill era is now upon us!
— Robert 07/16/2007 05:09 PM #
— scott 07/16/2007 05:35 PM #
— scott 07/16/2007 07:13 PM #
— scott 07/16/2007 07:15 PM #
Anyone care to come up with another example of a basketball program that had a single devastating loss that ruined the program like many are suggesting has happened for the Cats?
— darren 07/16/2007 10:11 PM #
Well, how ‘bout a franchise? Try the Portland Trail Gansta meltdown against the Lakers a few years back. I think the year is either 99 or 2000. It’s Game 7, the Gangsta’s up by 15 in the fourth, and then…............choke. Not until now, with the drafting of Oden, does it appear that things may be changing for the better. It was a seminal moment indeed.
Scott:
What are you talking about? I don’t even know who Hegel is for crying out loud!!!! Look, you don’t need to read German philosophy to know when it’s over. I seriously doubt that good ol’ General Custer had read Hegel , but he probably figured things out when a few thousand Indians came running over the hill fixed on his position. I am also sure that, without having read Hegel, that the Captain of the Titanic rightly concluded that the turning point of their voyage was hitting that pesky iceberg in the middle of the night.
Seriously, what is it that people don’t understand here? O’neill was not hired merely to be an assistant coach while Livengood sits and decides what the hell he is going to do with the program.
— Robert 07/17/2007 12:14 AM #
What truly was the turning point for the Titanic? when they struck the ice berg or when the captain ignored the warning of iceberg activity in the area and increased speed? Or was it when they could not find the binoculars for the look outs? The events that lead to the end are just as critical as the event itself…the Titanic was doomed by a series of events that lead to a conclusive moment…
what about Custer? was Custer doomed when he split his forces to flank the Souix camp? or was he doomed when he ignored the orders to wait for reinforcements?
The point is that you can’t pinpoint causes and effects while the effects and causes are still going on…you can only view things with certainty after the event has transpired (Hegel is good reading by the way…a little dull but, most German philosphy is). Now you’re saying the event that lead to the downfall of AZ basketball was the Illinois game…fair enough…but you can only say that with certainty when Lute is no longer coaching, and depending on the manner of his leaving…what if Lute leaves with another ring and two deep runs in the tournament? then we must view the Illinois game as an aberation not causation…the aberation being the necessity of a revitalized coaching staff (enter O’Niell…I do agree that O’Niell is more than “associate head coach”)
— scott 07/17/2007 05:54 AM #
This year early polls put them in the 20-25 ranking and lower expectations. This year they have two young players that will have to lead the team and some role players that will have to perform.
The Wildcats used to really defend the home court. Very intimidating place to play. Plus, forget about sweeping the Cats in the Pac-10. If you one the first game, they would blow you out in the rematch. The last two years, last year especially that was shattered. When USC and WSU went to Tucson, you didn’t sense that fear of years past.
Its not the talent, tell me anyone on WSU that could have started for the Wildcats. Used to be the sum was greater than the parts, now the parts are greater than the sum.
I remember when UCLA had that, even after Wooden retired. Teams were really afraid of them, especially at Pauley. Slowly that went away. Hard to get that back once you lose your “mojo”.
— UCLA Joel 07/17/2007 07:14 AM #
You bring up a good point about McHale. It’s not an intimidating place to play. There are a couple reasons for this. First, the crowd blows! Perhaps it’s because the age of your average ticket holder keeps increasing? Perhaps it’s because expectations are so high that it takes a lot more to get the place ramped up? Who knows exactly, but you are spot on. It’s no longer an impossible place to play for the road team.
Second, there was a lack of pride on the part of the “star” players. I don’t think that losing hurt some players as much as it should have. I still blame Lute for this. If a player isn’t selling out every game, he shouldn’t be out there and I think Shakur and Williams weren’t selling out, at least not consistently.
— Robert 07/17/2007 09:08 AM #
One could argue that the problems in Portland had to do more with Damon Stoudamire’s smoking habits, Rasheed Wallace’s mouth, Qyntel Woods’ love of dog fighting, Ruben Patterson having to register as a sex offender for rape, or Zach Randolph’s (insert any of these here: underage drinking, Punching Patterson in the face, or being charged with sexual assault by a stripper). Yeah the game against the Lakers was bad, but the events after that were worse. I would argue that the off court actions of those guys contributed to their demise moreso than one game against the Lakers.
Another example?
— darren 07/17/2007 09:45 AM #
I gotta disagree with you about Shakur. Williams, maybe he didn’t have the heart, but I would never say that about Mustafa. From all the interviews I’ve read and seen with him, I would say he had as much heart as any guy in a Cats uniform in a long time. Why else would he stay for four years while armchair coaches like us criticize his every move? That would be something for someone like Bruce (who spent lots of time interviewing Shalkur) to tell us.
About McKale-
At first glance, I think it seems appealing to redo the seating arrangements inside the arena with more student seating along side the court. However, I don’t know if I want McKale to turn into a Cameron clone like so many places have with students jumping up and down and yelling constantly. Thats old, everybody does it, and Arizona students would probably do it. Keep McKale as it is, unless the Zona Zoo can come up with something creative to do.
— darren 07/17/2007 09:54 AM #
I think Robert is right about Portland. I was living up in Portland at the time. it actually started during the regular season. There was a showdown game, both teams were tied with the best record in the NBA. They played up in Portland. All the fans were wearing red. L.A. won the game and then the Pacific Division thereby setting up Game 7 at home. There is an attitude in Portland that the Lakers always find a way to beat them. Maybe with Oden that will change.
Same can be said for the Suns. Most Suns fans and even the players blame the refs for losing the series. Great teams find a way to win, even if the refs or whoever seem to be against them. The Suns seem to lose their cool at the worst possible time, like the Blazers did during the Rasheed Wallace years.
— UCLA Joel 07/17/2007 10:57 AM #
— Matt 07/17/2007 11:36 AM #
if you carefully read my posts you would see that i do not have my head in the sand but rather choose to believe that we can rebound from two sup-par seasons i even said the following statement:
“now, let’s say that Lute retires with two+ more NCAA tournament flame-outs…then i might be more inclined to agree with you”
yep…pure headinthesandary by me on that one…
also your assertion that coach K would have won more rings with Lute’s talent is patently absurd…Lute has actually done for more with less talent than given credit for. In Coach K’s years at Duke he’s brought in over 40 McDonalds all americans…compared to Lute’s 9. In those same years Lute has over 30 draft picks which, last I checked leads all coaches over that time frame…the difference is that Lute better prepares his players for the NBA game…If any one is going to get taken to task about not winning with talent it should be coach K who has had 25+ years of top ten recruiting classes and 3 rings to show for it. (I’m not saying K is a bad coach, but a lot of writers/media give him a pass on this one)
— scott 07/17/2007 12:30 PM #
I Wanna Be an Internet Tough Guy
Nice hat Marco, you “Internet Tough Guy” you.
— UCLA Joel 07/17/2007 01:58 PM #
Here I am supporting your argument, and you turn around and blast me! WTF?!
Scott:
The problem with this German dude is that you really never could have a true “turning point” as the causation chain, or series of events leading up to that one shining moment, could be traced all the way back to the big bang. I am not sold on this guy. Take Gettysburg, for instance, Matt says that it was the turning point of the war. However, if you look at the battle in depth, if the Union doesn’t hold Little Roundtop, the Union probably loses the battle and Lee succeeds in fighting to a stalemate and forcing Lincoln to sue for peace. But if you take your agrument to its logical conclusion, the very existence of those men who fought bravely for that little piece of earth was key. But wait, if there parents did not schtoop, these men would never have been born….....and if there parent’s had never met…........and if the parent of their parents never schtooped one another….....
See? That’s why I hated philosophy in college. It’s basically a bunch of crap! Not that it’s too hard to ace the course if you pay attention. When it comes to taking the exams, just pretend you are some 60’s radical following the Dead around the country looking for the hippy lettuce and snacks. Profs eat that Sh$% up everytime. Hell, they were probably smoking the weed while they were grading!
— Robert 07/17/2007 02:01 PM #
— Matt 07/17/2007 02:08 PM #
— Matt 07/17/2007 02:12 PM #
— Matt 07/17/2007 02:16 PM #
But…
That’s sort of Hegel’s point…and mine, at least until after the event has come and gone. and with UA bball we’re looking at one game as the turning point, but the event hasn’t come and gone…look, all i’m saying is that until Lute retires, and the manner in which he retires, we can’t pinpoint one moment that blew it all apart…because what happens if we make two deep tourney runs and challenge for a national title in the next two years?
— scott 07/17/2007 04:53 PM #
— Matt
Let’s stop the internet tough guy crap, nothing more pathetic than calling someone out on the internet.
— Marco
“I can get anywhere in about 2 days notice”.
You must have a real busy and important life to have time to fly out for street fights with complete strangers.
Dude, drop it and go back to your Hunter S. Thompson books. I’m not a big fan of his liberal rants and the way he “offed” himself, but to each his own.
— UCLA Joel 07/17/2007 05:06 PM #
— darren 07/17/2007 08:35 PM #
You are wrong about the Lakers/Blazers game.
1st the roster:
Pippen, Wallace, Sabonis, Steve Smith, Stoudamire, B Grant, Oneal, Wells, Schremp.
Not any thugs there. Wallace had his T’s and Stoudamire his pot but that’s about it. Pretty much the same roster the next year.
Performance:
1998-99 Lost in WC Finals to the Spurs
1999-00 Lost in WC Finals to the Lakers*
*Game 7 Collapse
2000-01 Lost in the 1st round
2001-02 Lost in the 1st round
2002-03 Lost in the 1st round
They have not been in the playoffs since.
Besides the Lakers game, what did in the Blazers were the overpaid players that were difficult to trade. Since when is being a thug a negative in the NBA?
Another example, the Lakers game 7 backbreaking win over the Sac Kings in the 2002 WCF.
The Kings never made it back to the WCF, within 2 years were a lottery team.
— UCLA Joel 07/18/2007 06:08 AM #
Hurry back! I think you stated before you left that you trusted us to keep things going at an intelligent level until your return. Since then we have been invaded by UCLA, Matt and Marco are going to have some kind of WWMF smackdown thing and Robert is of course arguing with everyone, even himself. Your trust in us might have been misplaced. Guess I’ll check back Aug 1. If August is the dog days of summer then these truly are the Bruin days of summer.
— RJ Rants 07/18/2007 06:37 AM #
as for the Suns…the real back-breakers were the game 6’s against the celtics and bulls…san antonio is just a new version of the same problem. again…ebb and flow of front office acumen and $$.
College is more replete with back breaking losses for programs, but the great teams bounce back…Tom Osborne lost a painful game to Miami in the early 80’s yet was able to bounce back and win a few titles. so the question here is: Can UA bounce back this season? that seems to be the big deal. If we don’t bounce back within the next two seasons it’s time to make a change…but I feel that we’ve made the necessary change with O’Neill on the bench. If this doesn’t pay off, then we look at addressing further change…I feel like Lute has done enough to get two more years if he wants them.
— scott 07/18/2007 08:01 AM #
Already O’Neil has had a major impact on future recruits and will continue to do so at the helm of the U.S.S. Arizona. That’s if he’s the successor of Coach Olson. And Olson will have a mighty say in who takes over his program.
By the way. Does any loyal Wilcat fandom have an opinion on Chase’s possible stay in Tucson of one more year after the 2007-08 season. For instance, let’s have our imagination run wild-cats, and say Arizona reachs the Sweet-16 and or Elite 8 this upcoming season. Would Budinger return for the “realistic” opportunity to play in the Final Four in 2009, and perhaps the National Championship game. With the best PG, Jennings, coming on board ship in 2008-09, Coach Olson’s squad would ABSO-LUTELY be a legitimate contender in 09.’
Any thoughts on this best case scenario Wildcat fandom!?
— voice of lunacy 07/18/2007 08:02 AM #
Chase is pretty grounded and if there’s a hole in his game the people around him are likely to advise him to work it out in college and then go pro…his family ain’t hurtin’ for cash so he can stay a year to improve those areas…BUT- he won’t, even with him being a defensive liability, every mock draft i’ve seen has him going as a top 7 pick in 08. that’s just too good to pass up…especially when you consider that guys like Leinart, Quinn, Noah, etc. didn’t help their draft stock by staying in school…
but for fun, lets say he stays- and Bayless decides to stick around
Hill
Horne
Chase
Bayless
Jennings
with Withey, Jacobsen, Fendi, Wise, LLP, Negedu, Z. Johnson, Lavender and i’m sure someone else…coming off the pine…that my friends is a nice looking squad!
— scott 07/18/2007 08:09 AM #
For one thing, I agree with Scott in #205. NBA franchises and college programs are different in the fact that the turnover of players is much faster, so that college programs can erase the dissapointing loss from a previous season with a class of freshman. Most of the players from the 05 team that lost to Illinois are gone now, there are a lot of new guys in town, we’ll see how it goes.
Second, I still can’t say you’ve convinced me that that one loss was what caused the Blazers to have their downturn as a franchise. Yeah, they lost in the first round in 01 and 02, but both years it was to the Lakers. If my memory serves me correctly, that was during the height of Shaq and Kobe’s dominance, and the Lakers went on to win three titles in those three years that they beat the Blazers. No one was beating the Lakers those years, they had some great teams. So are you saying that one loss didn’t affect the team when they went 50-32, 49-33, and 50-32 those next three years, but it affected them solely in the playoffs? Also, look at the coaches for those years, Dunleavy and Mo Cheeks. Those are two guys who aren’t exactly the most accomplished playoff coaches in the NBA. After those years, things went bad, the Blazers had some bad character guys on the team, they started making changes with the whole youth movement, Sheed and Stoudamire were gone, etc etc.
My point is, how can you point to that one loss to the Lakers as the sole reason that the Blazers were a doormat franchise for a few years? You can’t. There is no way you can do it without being refuted.
— darren 07/18/2007 10:30 AM #
Absolutely sick lineup. It would be amazing, but I couldn’t see it ever happening. I would say that Bayless is more likely to be around in 08-09 than Budinger.
Anyone know anything about Chase and volleyball? I know that back when he was coming in, there was talk of him wanting to stay as an amatuer through at least 2008 so he could possibly try and qualify for USA’s Olympic volleyball team for the 2008 Olympics. I haven’t heard anything about that since then, anyone know if he is still really interested in volleyball like he was?
— darren 07/18/2007 10:34 AM #
A also said this in the same post:
“Besides the Lakers game, what did in the Blazers were the overpaid players that were difficult to trade”.
The Blazers traded away their future by locking everyone in with high salaries, banking on hopes of a title. If they had beaten the Lakers history may have been very different. They probably would have won the title over Indiana. Kobe and Shaq might have imploded earlier. The Lakers won 67 games that year, one of the best records ever and not making the title would have been huge.
— UCLA Joel 07/18/2007 01:52 PM #
You have enough trouble speaking for yourself, don’t try to speak for others.
You remind me of someone who used to work for me in Tucson. Didn’t know anything in sports outside of the Wildcats. A total simpleton.
— UCLA Joel 07/18/2007 04:30 PM #
With 4 recruits in the 2008 class for UA, someone is leaving early. Only Walters, Dillon, JMac are seniors along with walk on Bremleier who is not on scholarship. Taking 4 in 2008 means the staff knows Chase is gone or someone else is. If you guys take 5 in 2008 that just means another player on roster is leaving.
— btheg 07/18/2007 07:05 PM #
You are the only one I have a problem with here, everyone else is cool. I’m sure thats not the first time you’ve heard that in your life or the last.
What is with all the…..between words in your paragraphs? Something you learned in “writin” school?
“If being a runner up is your solution and future, have fun being proud of that. 2nd is for ball suckers”.
You know the old saying about glass houses, throwing rocks, etc. But since you brought it up, being 2nd is better that being unranked two years in a row. Nothing beats being a champion and being a lifelong Bruin, Laker, Dodger and Dallas Cowboy fan I have known that feeling as a fan at least 25 times. Thats also why only championship banners are hung at Pauley. And, nothing less than a championship within the next couple of seasons will make me 100% satisfied with Howland. Not finishing 2nd and god forbid, not finishing unranked.
And, a simpleton is:
simple person lacking common sense.
I think I struck a nerve with you Señor Marco, way too close to home.
— UCLA Joel 07/18/2007 08:07 PM #
I thought JMac got a medical redshirt making him a Jr. this year.
— UCLA Joel 07/18/2007 08:12 PM #
I realize that Chase is gone after next year (even said so)...the proposed line-up was pure fantasy…i actually think it’ll be something like this:
Withey
Hill
Horne
Negedu/Z. Johnson
Jennings or there abouts, we’ll see
Joel-
Jmac was denied a medical redshirt but it’s my understanding that if he doesn’t have a good season this year that they’ll apply for a hardship redshirt for him…he’s still a senior this year
— scott 07/18/2007 09:38 PM #
It’s so easy to get your panties in a knot. LOL
You are kind of funny, in a strange sort of way. One can only imagine what goes on in that twisted head of yours. It is fun to push your buttons.
At least we found your one area of knowledge, prison. I was not aware they have internet access in prison. But you know far more about this than I do, so I will take your word.
“How are your Cowboys and Lakers doing presently”
Presently? Well, its the off season. Maybe you don’t know this since you only follow the Wildcats and you seem to have spend quite a bit of time in jail. I am sure being in there is why you lose track of time, seasons, etc. And has something to do with you wanting to be an internet tough guy. But you would know more than me. Let me re-phrase it for you. “How did your Cowboys and Lakers do last season? Nothing special, barely made the post season like your Wildcats.
Grew in on So Cal, been a Laker, Bruin, Dodger fan since about 1970 or so. Became a Cowboy fan when Aikman (HOF) joined the team (No LA football teams). Have the Wildcats ever had a quarterback even start one game in the NFL?
Lets see you post just one mature intelligent post, I dare you.
Or, even better send me your posts before you post them, I will correct the spelling and grammar errors and then post them for you. I can make you seem a lot more intelligent than you really are.
— UCLA Joel 07/19/2007 09:36 AM #
— voice of lunacy 07/19/2007 10:55 AM #
I think you might mean cabeza. That means head. Cerveza means beer.
I wish Bruce would write another blog.
— darren 07/19/2007 11:15 AM #
Internet Wiz Kids?
You can’t actually be this ignorant. You had to look that up? And then you come up with a bazaar definition, its as they say in the Mastercard commercial, “priceless.”
“this internet language that you have used ”
You are serious here? You had never heard of the term LOL? I remember it from the late 80’s or early 90’s on computer bulletin boards, long before the internet.
Is this dude a bafoon or what?
— UCLA Joel 07/19/2007 01:14 PM #
— tom 07/19/2007 01:53 PM #
From the University of Calgary:
The origin of LOL
LOL was first coined on a BBS called Viewline in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, in the early-to-mid-80s. A friend of mine who went by Sprout (and I believe he still does) had said something so funny in the teleconference room that I found myself truly laughing out loud, echoing off the walls of my kitchen. That’s when “LOL” was first used.
The fact that you are on the internet and a self professed writer AND never heard of LOL says everything that needs to be said. Your link says nothing about LOL being created in 2003 only quotes someone in 2003.
Enough of this off topic crap, dude you are wrong and you know it. Adios.
— UCLA Joel 07/19/2007 02:44 PM #
Michael Vick’s playing days need to be over.
— UCLA Joel 07/19/2007 03:27 PM #
— Trev in KC 07/19/2007 04:15 PM #
Because the guy was at the very least complicit with dog fighting an illegal immoral and disgusting venture…and if the feds are going after him you better believe they have more than complicity. if i’m arthur blank i say…thanks for a few mediocre years…and only the raiders would pick him up…or the toronto argonauts.
I’m all for innocent until proven guilty, but this is getting out of hand…if you’re an elite level athlete you ought to have enough brains to be able to say “gee, this horrible activity that i’m allowing on my property might get me in trouble some day in the future…I ought to distance myself from it” but apparently mike vick isn’t that smart…that should be reason #1 why his playing career should be over.
— scott 07/19/2007 04:35 PM #
You fluffer obsessed little critter. You have a fluffer fetish. I held out an olive branch and it went right over your head like everything else in your little midget fluffer obsessed life. What an odd thing to be obsessed with. Is that how your got your internet writing job? You twisted funny little person. You like to be called little people, right? I finally realized everything you call everyone else is what you really are. Midget, ex-con fluffer. Keep saying fluffer, the more you say it the more I know thats you. It’s like a cry for help.
I found your homepage:
http://www.friendster.com/1499265
check out the occupation
— Trev in KC
I think being a pro athlete is a huge privilege. They should treat it with the utmost of respect and held to a higher standard. I think any athlete in any sport doing something like this should be banned for life. Its like America’s Most Wanted when you read the sports section. No respect for what they have. Time to clean things up.
Plenty of hungry players waiting for the chance to play who deserve it more than Vick. The NFL will do fine without him.
— UCLA Joel 07/19/2007 05:20 PM #
Or the two-bit nasty put-downs (“Marco the Midget”) of a UCLA idjit?
Both seem to lack any residual effort of intelligence.
— RayBay 07/20/2007 05:41 AM #
— Trev in KC 07/20/2007 06:53 AM #
If there are people in this country that don’t view murder as a violent thing, does that make it any more right? The fact is, it’s illegal, and Michael Vick isn’t going to be on a football field for a long time if he eventually gets convicted. What did Clinton Portis say, its his dogs, he can do what he wants with them? Idiot.
— darren 07/20/2007 08:07 AM #
— Trev in KC 07/20/2007 08:45 AM #
A few thoughts on the subject of Vick and what you said-
First of all about Pit Bulls…this is a hot button issue for me…Pit Bulls are wonderful dogs, thats right…wonderful…they are loving, caring, and very gentle. Here’s the catch: Pit Bulls were bred for fighting (true story that’s why they’re called “Pit” Bulls). Pit Bulls should NEVER be put into a situation where there are other dogs they don’t know…their instincts tell them to assert dominance and fight back. If you’re thinking about getting a pit bull and you have other dogs at home DON’T DO IT unless you have all day to spend with them training and disciplining.
Point 2: Pit Bulls are amazing family dogs. BUT if you have a pit bull and you don’t have kids, you are probably going to have to get rid or the Pit if you want kids. Pit Bulls crave human attention more than any other breed, that’s why most pit bulls attack, their owners abuse or neglect them so they seak out attention in a way that has become acceptible to them. So if you’re planning a family you either have to spend a lot of time introducing your pit bull to the new environment and monitoring it while it interacts with you new born on a consistent basis till you’re confident it has adjusted. Once the Pit has adjusted it will incorporate the newborn into “the family” in its mindseye and will be just as loving and caring of it as he/she is of its owner.
Pit Bulls are wonderful dogs its just that their breeding has caused them to behave in a very specific way and you have to be aware of that if you’re going to get one…seriously if you’re thinking about getting a pit bull and you’re not willing to do the above…don’t get one, you’re only setting yourself and your dog up for something bad to happen…And in case you’re wondering i don’t own a pit, it just breaks my heart that there are people out there who can do that to dogs and not see anything wrong with it…i do have two dogs at home and if mike vick came over he’d get the attack order to see how it feels…and my boston terrier would do enough damage to him that what my boxer would do could be considered gratuitous…
ok…off my soap box…
— scott 07/20/2007 09:05 AM #
CBS SPORTS Preseason Top 25
Fox Sports Preseason Top 25
The Cats cracked into both polls. CBS has 7 Pac-10 teams in the top 25.
— UCLA Joel 07/20/2007 09:47 AM #
Wow! 7 teams? This is going to be a very interesting season! Can’t wait!
— Robert 07/20/2007 10:00 AM #
Since this is the anniversary year of our 1st national title in basketball. I wanted peoples input for Arizona’s Top Ten All Time Players. Pg, Sg,Sf,Pf,C,.......
— Trev in KC 07/20/2007 10:15 AM #
— UCLA Joel 07/20/2007 10:18 AM #
SO Agree with you about Brooks…he single handedly killed us here last season (well mostly because Staf forgot that he only drove right for that bank shot of his that was lethal…’Staf gave that to him…moving on)...I think USC could be mercurial I’m not impressed by OJ Mayo and they lost a lot…I think you’ll see WSU, Stanford, Cal (Devon Hardin and Ryan Anderson will be huge for them), UCLA and UA in the top 25 to end the season…(not in that order though!)
Trev:
Don’t disagree with Marco but I don’t know if you can leave off Jason Terry, Luke Walton, Steve Kerr, and Salim Stoudamire (Lute said he’s the best 2 guard he ever had!)
— scott 07/20/2007 11:14 AM #
P.G. Bibby,Damon,
S.G Slim, and Reeves
S.F. Elliot, Walton,Dickerson. i wanted to add jefferson but he was up and down.
P.F. Brian williams(R.I.P),Wright, Ivan, and Ben davis close 3rd
C.Frye, Cook
— Trev in KC 07/20/2007 11:51 AM #
I agree about USC and Cal.
OJ Mayo is capable of making USC a top 10 team or a .500 team. More likely the latter. Cal will be much improved. The bay area will not be an easy road trip.
You have 8 teams at this point that have a chance to make the tournament. Even ASU is capable of beating just about anyone at home with their WSU lite.
— UCLA Joel 07/20/2007 12:02 PM #
Even if Vick is found not guilty, the problem is that he associates himself with these creatures. QB is the most cerebral position on the field. It’s also the most important. He is the team leader and the face of the organization If your QB cannot make good decisions off the field, he probably isn’t going to make good decisions on the field. Bottom line, he’s gotta go, guilty or not. So, yeah, I am passing judgment on him. He is a moron.
By the way, I like how the league is backing away from the take no prisoners approach to problem children. If it’s a guy like Pacman Jones, or Tank Johnson, screw ‘em. If it’s a franchise QB, well…....... Funny, the league does everything to protect the QB on the field as well as off it.
— Robert 07/20/2007 03:12 PM #
Would your criteria for a top-10 list require the players to be more successful as Wildcats or as pro players? Arenas didn’t really hit his stride until after he left Arizona early, was a second round pick, and was in the league for a couple of years. He good player at Arizona, but I don’t think any of us would’ve predicted how much of a star he would become in the NBA. If the criteria for such a list includes post-Wildcat career, Arenas has to be on it. If not, I’m not so sure he makes the list. Same thing with Richard Jefferson, although you don’t include him on your list.
— darren 07/20/2007 09:45 PM #
— Trev in KC 07/21/2007 08:11 AM #
You are absolutely correct. Mike Vick is a big time money maker and that’s why the Falcon’s owner and the League are completely screwed. Even if he is not convicted, this hurts Vick, the Falcons, and most of all the NFL which has had alot of bad press lately with players getting in trouble off the field. The hip-hop culture that for which everyone seems to berate the NBA is more prevelant in the NFL. This is not good.
— Robert 07/22/2007 10:31 PM #
At least A-Rod will break Bonds eventual record and put that to rest.
— UCLA Joel 07/23/2007 06:05 AM #
— scott 07/23/2007 06:11 AM #
— AZCoachB 07/23/2007 03:09 PM #
Trev: I will break it up and NOT go by position but based on what I saw over the many years. It will be gaurd heavy the way LUTE LIKES IT!
1) Elliot
2) Mike Bibby
3) Damon Stoudimre
4) Miles Simon
5) Michael Dickerson
6) Gilbert Arenas
7) Jason Gardner
8) Anthony Cook
9) Channing Frye
10) Chris Mills
A ton of guys I hated to leave off this list starting with Kerr, Walton, B. Davis, Loren Woods, Terry, Wright, Salim…. I mean you should ask for your top 15 instead since that is I think the limit you can carry on a team. I am sure I could replace someone up top, but these were my favorites to watch play.
— WildcatIKE 07/26/2007 08:24 AM #
— Trev in KC 07/26/2007 10:07 AM #
Sean Elliot
Mike Bibby
Damon Stoudimire
Anthony Cook,
Channing Frye,
Chris Mills
Sean Rooks
Micheal Dickerson
Jason Terry
Steve Kerr
Luke Walton
Jason Gardner
Gilbert Arenas
Brian Williams
Jud Buchler
— Trev in KC 07/26/2007 10:36 AM #
Sean Elliot
Mike Bibby
Damon Stoudamire
Steve Kerr
Jason Terry
Chris Mills
Anthony Cook
Channing Frye
Luke Walton
Jason Gardner
Gilbert Arenas
Michael Wright
Reggie Geary
Richard Jefferson
Micheal Dickerson
Omitted on purpose: Miles Simon
— AZCoachB 07/26/2007 12:19 PM #
— Matt 07/26/2007 04:04 PM #
— Aarnoo 07/27/2007 12:39 AM #
http://www.lvrj.com/sports/8757577.html
— Button Salmon 07/27/2007 10:12 AM #
Pg Bibby/Terry/Stoudemire
Sg Reeves/Arenas/Kerr
SF Elliot/Simon
PF B. Williams (Dele)/Walton
C Frye/Woods
Bibby, Elliot, Simon, and Terry are no brainers in my opinion. People forget that Terry won some Player of the Year awards his senior year, so he has to make the team.
I always thought Reeves was a better UA player than Stoudemire. Fearless, clutch, big time scorer. Stoudemire also has to make it.
6 spots left. You need a couple players from the 01 team that might have been the best in UA history. Arenas was the best scorer and most consistent, so he makes the team. That team also played great defense and Woods was the main reason for that, he makes the team.
B. Williams/Dele may have been the most talented UA big man, while Frye was definitely the best offensive big man we’ve had.
2 spots left. I firmly believe that if Walton had been in the post in 01 instead of Wright, we would have won a championship. We needed Walton’s passing on the floor. If he would have been in the post in 03, instead of Anderson, allowing Iggy and Adams to play more minutes, perhaps we would have a final four birth than as well.
Last guy picked – Kerr. Greatest shooter in UA history, perhaps in NCAA history.
Toughest omissions Ben Davis. Some people felt he should have won pac 10 player of the year in 95 (i wasn’t one of them). Came along at a time when there wasn’t much talent on UA roster.
Gardner. 4 year starter at point, but UA has too much talent over the years to pick him. Stoudemire – except for his final year, he was always more trouble than he was worth. Everyone else has a body of work, Salim had one really great season.
Players I hated – Sean “I disappear every big game” Rooks, Ed Stokes (nuff said), and Chris Mills. Mills and Rooks were both pretty good players, but I don’t think either had much heart.
— Mike H 08/02/2007 10:54 AM #
— Mike 08/28/2007 10:42 PM #
But I don’t think we’ll really be able to tell how strong he is until they go through full workouts in mid-October…
— Bruce Pascoe 08/29/2007 04:52 PM #
— Mike 08/29/2007 06:53 PM #