UCLA in 2006?

[Casanova]

How would you guys assess the rival Bruins for 2006? can you see them being a top 20 team and do you think Howland has them going in the right direction?

[Casanova]

30+ views no post yet, must not think highly of the Bruins. LOL

[aaa]

unproven, not quite tested by elite competition. talented point guard, talented wings, weak in the post. Bench is the Xfactor. Good coaching.

should be top 15 or top 20 by the end of the year, with sweet 16 hopes

[LegallyKenny]

Anyone can be a top-20 team. Not quite sure that is what UCLA fans regard as "the right direction." I would say UCLA's recruiting isn't exactly blowing me away since the initial excitement of getting Afflalo (who I'm not yet enamored with, but he's got a few years), and Farmar (Arizona's castoff?).

[CactusPants]

Aren't they like pre-preseason #18?

I think they'll be ok, lose of Dijon is big but it's just another year for their top soph/jr. to mesh.

[Ben Hansen]

possible Sweet 16 team if healthy and frosh bigs step up for Fey/Hollins. Coaching is a big question mark. He can recruit but has proven nothing on the court or in player development thus far at UCLA.

Bozeman being back is the biggest plus.

[11Banners]

possible Sweet 16 team if healthy and frosh bigs step up for Fey/Hollins. Coaching is a big question mark. He can recruit but has proven nothing on the court or in player development thus far at UCLA.

Bozeman being back is the biggest plus.


ROFLMAO.

Hello, Dijon Thompson anyone? Hello!

[ByJoveByJingle]

Yes . . . . ?

[Ben Hansen]

Dijon came into UCLA very highly regarded nationally...he should have been much better much sooner than he finally was last season.

[11Banners]

Dijon came into UCLA very highly regarded nationally...he should have been much better much sooner than he finally was last season.

So it's Howland's fault that Dijon was an underachiever his first two years under LAVIN? Uh, what a terrible coach that Howland is. I mean, we haven't seen huge player growth in all two years he's been here! And in recruiting, sheesh, this guy is a putz. Just look at the team he will probably field in 2006-07

PG Farmar, Collison
SG Afflalo, Roll
SF Shipp, Luc
PF Aboya, Keefe
C Deon Thompson, Mata, Wright

While it is amusing when Arizona fans try to perpetuate false myths about Howland and UCLA, it just oozes that some are getting nervous about Howland bring back the conference's top power back to the upper echelon in college hoops.

[ByJoveByJingle]

When Howland proves something, we will be happy to give him credit. Until then, it's just more hot, bilious air belching from Westwood.

[barringer97]

So it's Howland's fault that Dijon was an underachiever his first two years under LAVIN? Uh, what a terrible coach that Howland is. I mean, we haven't seen huge player growth in all two years he's been here! And in recruiting, sheesh, this guy is a putz. Just look at the team he will probably field in 2006-07

PG Farmar, Collison
SG Afflalo, Roll
SF Shipp, Luc
PF Aboya, Keefe
C Deon Thompson, Mata, Wright

While it is amusing when Arizona fans try to perpetuate false myths about Howland and UCLA, it just oozes that some are getting nervous about Howland bring back the conference's top power back to the upper echelon in college hoops.

Are you drunk Banana's? He said that he can recruit, just that he hasn't proved anything on the court yet.

What's so shocking about that? It's true.

[Ben Hansen]

EDIT: You know what, I'm stopping my involvement in this argument before it turns into a circus again.

Go Pac-10, yes, including UCLA

-Ben

[mrmilano]

Coming from a Bruin fan I think Ben's analysis is fair. Howland understands what it takes to run a program and he knows how to get the personnel to fit his style. I somewhat agree with the comment on the floor, as I just haven't been THAT impressed with Howland's floor decisions, and what not. Don't get me wrong I think he's a good coach and I'm thrilled to have him but he's no Bobby Knight. That being said, I think it's unfair to comment on player development after he has only been at UCLA for 2 seasons. And maybe guys like Fey and Hollins are just incorrigable (sp).

Howland will make UCLA a contender in the Pac-10 and what should be a perenially top 25 team. The only question is whether or not he can take us to the next level with the rest of the nation's elite.

[JMarkJohns]

I assume this means 2006 as in this coming Tournament, not 2006 as in the beginning of next year, right? The Bruins will only be as good as Farmar can take them. He's a stud and should be in the NBA, this time next year.

[Jason Scheer]

All these threads should be in the AR forum..as for UCLA..my feeling is that Howland has to prove he can win on the court..not saying he won't because I think he will but he has to prove it. I hope they do..

[Flipper]

possible Sweet 16 team if healthy and frosh bigs step up for Fey/Hollins. Coaching is a big question mark. He can recruit but has proven nothing on the court or in player development thus far at UCLA.

Bozeman being back is the biggest plus.

I totally agree with the pssible Sweet 16 comment for the coming year. :wink2:

I disagree with the coaching being a question mark. The guy took a Pitt program to the top of the Big East for the last couple of years while he was there, with no Top 100 recruits. His successor then had that team stay at/near the top the following year. Maybe it was East Coast bias that got him the National COY, who knows, but he did get it.

Prior to that, he took a team from NAU dancing!!!! That alone should be enough to validate his coaching abilities.

BTW, how many years for Coach Olson before he took the 'Cats to the FF?

[Mustache Man]

I totally agree with the pssible Sweet 16 comment for the coming year. :wink2:

I disagree with the coaching being a question mark. The guy took a Pitt program to the top of the Big East for the last couple of years while he was there, with no Top 100 recruits. His successor then had that team stay at/near the top the following year. Maybe it was East Coast bias that got him the National COY, who knows, but he did get it.

Prior to that, he took a team from NAU dancing!!!! That alone should be enough to validate his coaching abilities.

BTW, how many years for Coach Olson before he took the 'Cats to the FF?

I think you should worry about a) getting back in the NCAA tourney; and b) winning a tournament game before any Final Four talk. :rolleyes:

[Ben Hansen]

BTW, how many years for Coach Olson before he took the 'Cats to the FF?

Arrived in 84, won Pac-10 in 86, F4 in 88.In fact, won Pac-10 in 3 of first 5 years, unseating UCLA as the best West Coast program at that point and nothing's changed since.

[WayneNewton]

Arrived in 84, won Pac-10 in 86, F4 in 88.In fact, won Pac-10 in 3 of first 5 years, unseating UCLA as the best West Coast program at that point and nothing's changed since.

Oh... but wait, Ben.

Ucla will unseat Stanford as California's top college basketball program as soon as the Bruin's first practice. The Bruins will then unseat Arizona as the West's best program at the first team dinner at Howland's house. The team and coaching staff will then make their way out to Howland's backyard, relax, gaze at the methane infested night sky and win the Big 12 conference.

The very next morning, while Ryan Hollins is braiding her hair, Ucla will take the throne from Kentucky as the best program in the south and SEC. A short while later, while Mike Roll is fighting off his rabid Bruin fan club that consists of 98% dudes, led by 11banners, Mr. Bug, and Ucla818, Ucla will have already conquered Champaign and East Lansing and the entire Midwest to boot.

In about 3 more hours, while B-Mo is still trying to convince the Ucla co-eds that he is NBA material and that his hair is not receding faster than a twinkie in the grips of Micheal Moore, Ucla will now have dethroned Duke as the nations top basketball program... All without playing a single game.

Congrats, Bruins!

[AZCat Man]

How would you guys assess the rival Bruins for 2006? can you see them being a top 20 team and do you think Howland has them going in the right direction?

Yes. But it's not important how the Arizona fans feel about UCLA's program. The important question is how does UCLA feel about it?

[11Banners]

Yes. But it's not important how the Arizona fans feel about UCLA's program. The important question is how does UCLA feel about it?

Exactly. And the fans feel extremely confident in Howland and have sights for a Pac-10 championship in one more season. Then the expectations of a top 10 program come back to UCLA, but this year the fans expect between a 4-6 seed in the tourney, and a few wins would suffice. Arizona fans who continue to lambast Howland for not turning around a program sunk by Lavin should look at their football program and see that a turn around takes time and patience.

[11Banners]

Oh... but wait, Ben.

Ucla will unseat Stanford as California's top college basketball program as soon as the Bruin's first practice. The Bruins will then unseat Arizona as the West's best program at the first team dinner at Howland's house. The team and coaching staff will then make their way out to Howland's backyard, relax, gaze at the methane infested night sky and win the Big 12 conference.

The very next morning, while Ryan Hollins is braiding her hair, Ucla will take the thrown from Kentucky as the best program in the south and SEC. A short while later, while Mike Roll is fighting off his rabid Bruin fan club that consists of 98% dudes, led by 11banners, Mr. Bug, and Ucla818, Ucla will have already conquered Champaign and East Lansing and the entire Midwest to boot.

In about 3 more hours, while B-Mo is still trying to convince the Ucla co-eds that he is NBA material and that his hair is not receding faster than a twinkie in the grips of Micheal Moore, Ucla will now have dethroned Duke as the nations top basketball program... All without playing a single game.

Congrats, Bruins!

Someone has a little too much time on their hands.

[AZCat Man]

Exactly. And the fans feel extremely confident in Howland and have sights for a Pac-10 championship in one more season. Then the expectations of a top 10 program come back to UCLA, but this year the fans expect between a 4-6 seed in the tourney, and a few wins would suffice. Arizona fans who continue to lambast Howland for not turning around a program sunk by Lavin should look at their football program and see that a turn around takes time and patience.

I think Howland is a very good coach and was a perfect fit for UCLA. Howland brought back the two of most important ingredients to any successful program, discipline and defense.

[Mustache Man]

Exactly. And the fans feel extremely confident in Howland and have sights for a Pac-10 championship in one more season. Then the expectations of a top 10 program come back to UCLA, but this year the fans expect between a 4-6 seed in the tourney, and a few wins would suffice. Arizona fans who continue to lambast Howland for not turning around a program sunk by Lavin should look at their football program and see that a turn around takes time and patience.

Are you kidding me?

First, UCLA basketball was much better/higher than Arizona football has even been in the past. Second, it's much easier to "turn around" a basketball program than a football program, simply because of the vast disparity in number of contributing players.

You can set your sights on whatever you want, but a Pac-10 championship isn't coming to Westwood in 2005-06 or 2006-07, unless you're talking about the pac-10 tourney championship.

[11Banners]

Are you kidding me?

First, UCLA basketball was much better/higher than Arizona football has even been in the past. Second, it's much easier to "turn around" a basketball program than a football program, simply because of the vast disparity in number of contributing players.

You can set your sights on whatever you want, but a Pac-10 championship isn't coming to Westwood in 2005-06 or 2006-07, unless you're talking about the pac-10 tourney championship.

Tedford was able to turn around a football program in a single season. Some basketball programs can be turned around right away if things go right, some cannot. The same can be said of football. Carroll came into USC with a lot of talent being wasted away by Hackett, and he turned guys like Polumalu and Palmer into stars.

In terms of UCLA basketball having no chance at a conference championship in 06-07, I'm actually shocked you believe this. If we land Deon Thompson, a 5* center who most believe will end up in Westwood, our team will be extremely talented in 06-07.

Jrs: Farmar, Afflalo, Shipp, Mata
Sophs: Luc, Collison, Roll, Wright Aboya
Frosh: Keefe, Thompson

That team on paper should be a top 10 team nationally fighting for a conference and national crown. Unless you believe all our players will get worse from their freshmen to junior years, and Keefe who is rated the #1 PF in the West and Thompson a 5* center is a major bust, I think your hatred for UCLA is blinding your view on the team.

[biz cat]

I think Howland is a very good coach and was a perfect fit for UCLA. Howland brought back the two of most important ingredients to any successful program, discipline and defense.

And they continue to lose to Arizona, so I too feel that he is a good fit.

[Ben Hansen]

With Thompson, UCLA will be right there with AZ, Stanford(Twins arrive) and Washington(Hawes?) in 06-07, but definitely NOT the favorite.You may be top 10, sure, but AZ could be top 5, Stanford top 6-8, and WA also top 10(if Perry Jr.. is running the point instead of [Cr]appleby).

[beardownbaby]

I totally agree with the pssible Sweet 16 comment for the coming year. :wink2:

I disagree with the coaching being a question mark. The guy took a Pitt program to the top of the Big East for the last couple of years while he was there, with no Top 100 recruits. His successor then had that team stay at/near the top the following year. Maybe it was East Coast bias that got him the National COY, who knows, but he did get it.

Prior to that, he took a team from NAU dancing!!!! That alone should be enough to validate his coaching abilities.

BTW, how many years for Coach Olson before he took the 'Cats to the FF?
I think it's fair to say that Howland's coaching abilities cannot be called average, but he has yet to earn the right to be called a great coach.

Taking NAU to the Dance? Hey, every conference has to get at least one team in. I wouldn't bask in that glory. And he did some very nice things at Pitt, getting to two Sweet 16s, but even Steve Lavin could get to the Sweet 16.

Had UCLA's young perimeter been able to play any kind of defense against Ronald Ross & Co. in the first round last year, Howland would have a tournament win under his belt in Westwood, and then his abilities would be questioned far less than they are.

Given the chance to mature and learn a little more, I can see the Bruins getting to the Sweet 16 this year. Just have to hope their game doesn't become as one-dimensional as Oregon's (solid backcourt, no post game whatsoever).

I think the growth of Farmar, Afflalo and Shipp will make the loss of Dijon a far less painful than some suggest.

[WayneNewton]

Someone has a little too much time on their hands.

This coming from the guy with a hand full of hot air responses in the 1st two pages of this thread. :roll:

[Mustache Man]

Tedford was able to turn around a football program in a single season. Some basketball programs can be turned around right away if things go right, some cannot. The same can be said of football. Carroll came into USC with a lot of talent being wasted away by Hackett, and he turned guys like Polumalu and Palmer into stars.

In terms of UCLA basketball having no chance at a conference championship in 06-07, I'm actually shocked you believe this. If we land Deon Thompson, a 5* center who most believe will end up in Westwood, our team will be extremely talented in 06-07.

Jrs: Farmar, Afflalo, Shipp, Mata
Sophs: Luc, Collison, Roll, Wright Aboya
Frosh: Keefe, Thompson

That team on paper should be a top 10 team nationally fighting for a conference and national crown. Unless you believe all our players will get worse from their freshmen to junior years, and Keefe who is rated the #1 PF in the West and Thompson a 5* center is a major bust, I think your hatred for UCLA is blinding your view on the team.

First, the talent at USC when Carroll took over vs. when Stoops took over Arizona was night and day. It's one thing to turn a program around when you have decent talent...it's another when half of your players shouldn't be playing major conference D-I football.

For all the talent that Howland apparenlty inherited, where are the results?

As for your team in 06-07, see what Ben said. UCLA fans are also WAY overrating Farmar, who is treated like the next Mike Bibby instead of as a decent frosh PG who could become pretty good in a couple years. Arizona and other teams most certainly will be better, and UCLA has little to no chance at a Pac-10 championship as long as Lute is on the sidelines here.

[Wild about the]

While it is amusing when Arizona fans try to perpetuate false myths about Howland and UCLA, it just oozes that some are getting nervous about Howland bring back the conference's top power back to the upper echelon in college hoops.[/QUOTE]

Top power?? That was a long time ago. When Wooden retired, and Olsen came to the Pac (unfortunate for college basketbal the two never met as head coaches of a major team) A new era had begun, and it's gonna take a long time before anyone thinks of UCLA as the conference's "top power" ever again. I don't care who their coach is (saving John Woden's miraculous return).

[Flipper]

While it is amusing when Arizona fans try to perpetuate false myths about Howland and UCLA, it just oozes that some are getting nervous about Howland bring back the conference's top power back to the upper echelon in college hoops.

Top power?? That was a long time ago. When Wooden retired, and Olsen came to the Pac (unfortunate for college basketbal the two never met as head coaches of a major team) A new era had begun, and it's gonna take a long time before anyone thinks of UCLA as the conference's "top power" ever again. I don't care who their coach is (saving John Woden's miraculous return).[/QUOTE]

Agree, to most of us Bruin fans, '06-07 season is too far away for being the "top power" in the Pac again. I guess we just have to be patient and hope that things fall in place, and just maybe get there this year. :)

[Batpig]

Anyone can be a top-20 team. Not quite sure that is what UCLA fans regard as "the right direction." I would say UCLA's recruiting isn't exactly blowing me away since the initial excitement of getting Afflalo (who I'm not yet enamored with, but he's got a few years), and Farmar (Arizona's castoff?).

You're kidding yourself. Farmar was Zona's number one PG target and Lute would have been ecstatic to have landed him. Farmar is not an Arizona castoff, he was a McD's AA and Pac-10 frosh of the year, there isn't a school in the country with an available scholarship slotted for a PG that wouldn't have pissed themselves if Farmar commited to their school. Farmer dissed Zona, not the other way around. That is some nice revisionist history though.

[Mustache Man]

You're kidding yourself. Farmar was Zona's number one PG target and Lute would have been ecstatic to have landed him. Farmar is not an Arizona castoff, he was a McD's AA and Pac-10 frosh of the year, there isn't a school in the country with an available scholarship slotted for a PG that wouldn't have pissed themselves if Farmar commited to their school. Farmer dissed Zona, not the other way around. That is some nice revisionist history though.

You are 100% wrong. Ever heard of Shaun Livingston?

[Batpig]

You are 100% wrong. Ever heard of Shaun Livingston?

What part is wrong? You guys didn't get livingston, in fact no one got livingston. Lute wanted Farmar bad. Any other assertion is simply revisionist history.

[Mustache Man]

What part is wrong? You guys didn't get livingston, in fact no one got livingston. Lute wanted Farmar bad. Any other assertion is simply revisionist history.

How about this part:
"Farmar was Zona's number one PG target"

That is 100% wrong.

Or this part:

"Farmer dissed Zona, not the other way around."

That is also wrong.

But other than that, you are doing a great job.

[Batpig]

As for your team in 06-07, see what Ben said... Arizona and other teams most certainly will be better, and UCLA has little to no chance at a Pac-10 championship as long as Lute is on the sidelines here.

Credibility waning rapidly. This is a patently ridiculous statement. You are thinking with your heart, not your head. Farmar is not leaving this year thus UCLA will have the BEST backcourt in the Pac-10 in 2006 and possibly 2005 with Farmar, Afflalo and Shipp.

I also have to comment on Ben Hansen. Ben, why are you always getting in the fray with respect to these posts. Your opinions are consistently colored by your Red tinted glasses. You are supposed to be running a professional site over here, yet you often come off as no more than fan. You may have a lot of info at your disposal but you ALWAYS take the pro-zona stance. Your fear of a UCLA resurgence is so transparent. You could take a few tips from Tracy Pierson on how to run an unbiased website.

[Batpig]

Or this part:

"Farmer dissed Zona, not the other way around."

That is also wrong.

But other than that, you are doing a great job.


DUDE, even Hansen admits that Zona whiffed on Farmar. You're just deluding yourself.

[Mustache Man]

DUDE, even Hansen admits that Zona whiffed on Farmar. You're just deluding yourself.

I like how you left the part about Livingston being our #1 target out.

Actually, what happened is that we went after Livingston first. After he committed to Duke (and later went NBA), we went after Farmar, but considering we just signed the #1 PG in Mustafa Shakur the year before, Farmar wasn't a huge priority. Believe me, if Farmar was really the #1 priority for Arizona as you say, he wouldn't be wearing baby blue and yellow right now.

[Mustache Man]

Credibility waning rapidly. This is a patently ridiculous statement. You are thinking with your heart, not your head. Farmar is not leaving this year thus UCLA will have the BEST backcourt in the Pac-10 in 2006 and possibly 2005 with Farmar, Afflalo and Shipp.

I also have to comment on Ben Hansen. Ben, why are you always getting in the fray with respect to these posts. Your opinions are consistently colored by your Red tinted glasses. You are supposed to be running a professional site over here, yet you often come off as no more than fan. You may have a lot of info at your disposal but you ALWAYS take the pro-zona stance. Your fear of a UCLA resurgence is so transparent. You could take a few tips from Tracy Pierson on how to run an unbiased website.

I forgot that Farmar is a god...lucky for you, he didn't go pro and get drafted in the middle of the 2nd round this year. :rolleyes:

Shakur, McClellan, Rodgers, Hassan, Prince, Verdejo, and Dillon are better than UCLA's guards this year. Same will be true in 2006.

[Batpig]

I forgot that Farmar is a god...lucky for you, he didn't go pro and get drafted in the middle of the 2nd round this year. :rolleyes:

Shakur, McClellan, Rodgers, Hassan, Prince, Verdejo, and Dillon are better than UCLA's guards this year. Same will be true in 2006.

I've said it once, I'll say it 1000 times. Opinions are like a$$holes, you are free to be wrong in yours.

BTW, I left out the part about Livingston, because I am willing to concede that point. The fact remains that Farmar wanted to be a Bruin. He spurned florida after almost committing there. Zona lost that battle and there is no shame in that.

UCLA wins Pac-10 title in '06

[Mustache Man]

I've said it once, I'll say it 1000 times. Opinions are like a$$holes, you are free to be wrong in yours.

BTW, I left out the part about Livingston, because I am willing to concede that point. The fact remains that Farmar wanted to be a Bruin. He spurned florida after almost committing there. Zona lost that battle and there is no shame in that.

UCLA wins Pac-10 title in '06

Wrong again, Farmar wanted to play for Arizona. The Bruins were his second choice after it became obvious that we weren't seriously recruiting him.

[Batpig]

Wrong again, Farmar wanted to play for Arizona. The Bruins were his second choice after it became obvious that we weren't seriously recruiting him.

NO.

[Flipper]

Wrong again, Farmar wanted to play for Arizona. The Bruins were his second choice after it became obvious that we weren't seriously recruiting him.

I seem to remember 'Zona being Farmar's favorite team growing up. With Shakur in the fold, and Livingston as another target, JF's recruitment was put on the slow track, opening the door for Ben Howland to make him a priority, along with Afflalo.

At the end of the day, JF's was 'Zona's to lose, and they did to UCLA, with Florida as the other candidate. Many, many thanks. JF's not a god, but definitely THE ONE player to lead UCLA's resurgence.

Also, many 'Cats followers were enamored with JF, Auti/Ben being the most prominent.

[Mustache Man]

I seem to remember 'Zona being Farmar's favorite team growing up. With Shakur in the fold, and Livingston as another target, JF's recruitment was put on the slow track, opening the door for Ben Howland to make him a priority, along with Afflalo.

At the end of the day, JF's was 'Zona's to lose, and they did to UCLA, with Florida as the other candidate. Many, many thanks. JF's not a god, but definitely THE ONE player to lead UCLA's resurgence.

Also, many 'Cats followers were enamored with JF, Auti/Ben being the most prominent.

Exactly right, thanks for being one of the few rational UCLA fans.

[11Banners]

Exactly right, thanks for being one of the few rational UCLA fans.

It would be nice if you entered the pool of "rational" Arizona fans. You act as if UCLA has never won the Pac-10 with Lute at the helm of Arizona, let alone any other Pac-10 team. I would expect to see 5 or 6 championship banners in McKale with the dominance you've explained to us. If you don't think the Bruin roster will be stockpiled with talent in another year, then you're hopeless.

Edit: Forgot to add, as I've already said, on paper the Bruins will be one of the best in the country if everything plays out with everyone returning and Thompsom committing. Arizona will be right up there as well, UW will be very talented, and Stanford should be if they can find some guards to play with the young Lopez twins. The Pac-10 in 06-07 will probably resemble the ACC from this past season with 3 or 4 teams in the top 15.

[Auercat]

I seem to remember 'Zona being Farmar's favorite team growing up. With Shakur in the fold, and Livingston as another target, JF's recruitment was put on the slow track, opening the door for Ben Howland to make him a priority, along with Afflalo.

At the end of the day, JF's was 'Zona's to lose, and they did to UCLA, with Florida as the other candidate. Many, many thanks. JF's not a god, but definitely THE ONE player to lead UCLA's resurgence.

Also, many 'Cats followers were enamored with JF, Auti/Ben being the most prominent.

One correction Flipper. Farmar was NEVER Arizona's to lose. JF might have grown up loving the Cats, but he was never going to play for the UA. No matter what anybody who writes for this site might tell you, JF's parents were never on board with him coming to Arizona. It was always going to be Stanford or UCLA for JF. Those are the only 2 schools that could possibly get JF's parent (notice that is singular) to sign on the dotted line.

That being said, Howland did a great job getting Farmar. Props to him.

Bearing Down on Arizona NOT Losing What It Could Never Have (Sorry Ben)

Auercat

[Auercat]

11Banners,

When did Thompson commit? I've yet to hear that one.

Bearing Down on Thompson Being A Good Get For UCLA If They Get Him

Auercat

[NonCorleone]

I also have to comment on Ben Hansen. Ben, why are you always getting in the fray with respect to these posts. Your opinions are consistently colored by your Red tinted glasses. You are supposed to be running a professional site over here, yet you often come off as no more than fan. You may have a lot of info at your disposal but you ALWAYS take the pro-zona stance. Your fear of a UCLA resurgence is so transparent. You could take a few tips from Tracy Pierson on how to run an unbiased website.
Puzzling, really. I wonder how one could deduce that Hansen is "getting into the fray" with his posts in this thread or any recent thread. To be quite sure, lad, Hansen has not involved himself in any "fray" whatsoever.

"You know what, I'm stopping my involvement in this argument before it turns into a circus again.

Go Pac-10, yes, including UCLA

-Ben"

That leaves little to question. I wonder what your analysis is based on, friend. It seems quite apparent to me, one who scours these message boards and observes rather than give much input, that you are operating under the notion that Hansen was once involved in a trite rift with UCLA fans quite some time ago. While Hansen tries to separate himself and operate from an objective stance -- as anyone who dwells here regularly would agree -- you are digging up the past with no real benefit in mind.

Lastly, no Arizona fan fears a UCLA resurgence as you suggest, pig. The Arizona program is not on the decline, thus the Bruins have an immeasurable amount of work to do to reach the Wildcats' level.

Cheers...

[Mustache Man]

It would be nice if you entered the pool of "rational" Arizona fans. You act as if UCLA has never won the Pac-10 with Lute at the helm of Arizona, let alone any other Pac-10 team. I would expect to see 5 or 6 championship banners in McKale with the dominance you've explained to us. If you don't think the Bruin roster will be stockpiled with talent in another year, then you're hopeless.

Edit: Forgot to add, as I've already said, on paper the Bruins will be one of the best in the country if everything plays out with everyone returning and Thompsom committing. Arizona will be right up there as well, UW will be very talented, and Stanford should be if they can find some guards to play with the young Lopez twins. The Pac-10 in 06-07 will probably resemble the ACC from this past season with 3 or 4 teams in the top 15.

Conference championships since Lute took over at Arizona:
Arizona - 9
UCLA - 5

Number of seasons finishing ahead of the other team in conference:
Arizona - 16
UCLA - 6

Head-to-head conference finishes, by decade:
80s (83-89): 5-2, Arizona
90s (90-99): 6-4, Arizona
00s (00-04): 5-0, Arizona

So yes, UCLA is better than Arizona about 25% of the time. I stick with my comments that UCLA has little to no chance of finishing ahead of Arizona in-conference while Lute is still at the helm. Do you really think that UCLA is now "stockpiled with talent" while Arizona sits by the wayside and collects fringe prospects?

[Mustache Man]

More food for thought:

End of season finish, by rank (85-04)
First - Arizona 9, UCLA 5
Second - Arizona 7, UCLA 2
Third - Arizona 3, UCLA 7
Fourth - Arizona 0, UCLA 3
Fifth - Arizona 1, UCLA 0
Sixth - Arizona 0, UCLA 1
Eighth - Arizona 0, UCLA 2

Arizona has finished in the top-2 in the Pac-10 16 times in the last 20 years, and in the top-3 19 of the last 20 years (the lone exception being a 5th-place finish in the '97 championship season).

UCLA has finished in the top-2 7 times in the last 20 years.

Arizona is the dominant program in the Pac-10 until Lute retires.

[Batpig]

Puzzling, really. I wonder how one could deduce that Hansen is "getting into the fray" with his posts in this thread or any recent thread. To be quite sure, lad, Hansen has not involved himself in any "fray" whatsoever.

"You know what, I'm stopping my involvement in this argument before it turns into a circus again.

Go Pac-10, yes, including UCLA

-Ben"

That leaves little to question. I wonder what your analysis is based on, friend. It seems quite apparent to me, one who scours these message boards and observes rather than give much input, that you are operating under the notion that Hansen was once involved in a trite rift with UCLA fans quite some time ago. While Hansen tries to separate himself and operate from an objective stance -- as anyone who dwells here regularly would agree -- you are digging up the past with no real benefit in mind.

Lastly, no Arizona fan fears a UCLA resurgence as you suggest, pig. The Arizona program is not on the decline, thus the Bruins have an immeasurable amount of work to do to reach the Wildcats' level.

Cheers...



He posted that only after openly questioning Howland's coaching ability among other things eariler in the thread. I am also basing my opinion on hundreds of other posts of his I have read.

possible Sweet 16 team if healthy and frosh bigs step up for Fey/Hollins. Coaching is a big question mark. He can recruit but has proven nothing on the court or in player development thus far at UCLA.

The statement that he has proven nothing on the court or in player development is completely ridiculous. He has been at UCLA for 2 years and took over a moribund program that was at its lowest point in 50 years thanks to the worst coach in school history. He improved by one win his first year and another 7 his second year. Dijon went from being a perenial underacheiver under Lavin to being an allconference player while leading the team in scoring and rebounding, ultimately propelling himself to an NBA draft pick. This is DIRECTLY due to the coaching he received under Howland. Furthermore, Howland was the National Coach of the year at Pitt and was competitive with CUse and UCONN while there, actually beating them out for a Big East title one year. He managed that feat within 3 years of starting his tenure there and with virtually no player ranked in the top 100 as a recruit (Brandin KNight as a notable exception). Howland certainly has more to prove, but to say he has proven nothing in terms of on the floor coaching and player development is absolutely and unequivocally retarded.

[Batpig]

More food for thought:

End of season finish, by rank (85-04)
First - Arizona 9, UCLA 5
Second - Arizona 7, UCLA 2
Third - Arizona 3, UCLA 7
Fourth - Arizona 0, UCLA 3
Fifth - Arizona 1, UCLA 0
Sixth - Arizona 0, UCLA 1
Eighth - Arizona 0, UCLA 2

Arizona has finished in the top-2 in the Pac-10 16 times in the last 20 years, and in the top-3 19 of the last 20 years (the lone exception being a 5th-place finish in the '97 championship season).

UCLA has finished in the top-2 7 times in the last 20 years.

Arizona is the dominant program in the Pac-10 until Lute retires.


That's all well and good, but in what way does that show that UCLA has "little or no chance to win a Pac-10 title" while Lute is around? One of the more assinine assertions I have ever read on this site BTW. You seriously undermine your credibility and label yourself as an unrepentant homer by making such assertions. You are now free to retract and revise that statement if you like.

Furthermore, no one is disputing that Zona has been the best program in the conference for the past 20 years, which you have so deftly shown. Prove to me why UCLA will not win the Pac-10 while Lute is still around.

[Intermezzo]

Banners and Flipper... I would just ignore Hansen. People that are quick to criticize and mock are usually like that because they feel highly threatened.

You should have seen how easy it was to bait him while exchanging private messages. LoL

[Batpig]

Lastly, no Arizona fan fears a UCLA resurgence as you suggest, pig. The Arizona program is not on the decline, thus the Bruins have an immeasurable amount of work to do to reach the Wildcats' level.

Cheers...


Immeasurable? I would say that based on Zona's record last year, about 3 more wins and a massive flameout in the elite 8 should put the Bruins squarely on par with Zona. It is hilarious to me that for all Zona's talk about dominance (I do not deny they have been better than UCLA during Lute's tenure) in the one metric that matter the MOST over that period you have the exact same record as UCLA: National titles - 1 each. Even during our lean years we match you head to head in terms of titles. The greatest years in the history of your school are not THAT much better than the leanest in UCLA's history (post wooden).

[BruinMike]

possible Sweet 16 team if healthy and frosh bigs step up for Fey/Hollins. Coaching is a big question mark. He can recruit but has proven nothing on the court or in player development thus far at UCLA.

Bozeman being back is the biggest plus.
"Coaching is a big question mark."

hmmmm, I would think that someone that has won the national coach of the year award could coach......silly me.

[Mustache Man]

Immeasurable? I would say that based on Zona's record last year, about 3 more wins and a massive flameout in the elite 8 should put the Bruins squarely on par with Zona. It is hilarious to me that for all Zona's talk about dominance (I do not deny they have been better than UCLA during Lute's tenure) in the one metric that matter the MOST over that period you have the exact same record as UCLA: National titles - 1 each. Even during our lean years we match you head to head in terms of titles. The greatest years in the history of your school are not THAT much better than the leanest in UCLA's history (post wooden).

Pop quiz: are there any differences in tournament format between the Wooden years and the past 20 years?

[Mustache Man]

That's all well and good, but in what way does that show that UCLA has "little or no chance to win a Pac-10 title" while Lute is around? One of the more assinine assertions I have ever read on this site BTW. You seriously undermine your credibility and label yourself as an unrepentant homer by making such assertions. You are now free to retract and revise that statement if you like.

Furthermore, no one is disputing that Zona has been the best program in the conference for the past 20 years, which you have so deftly shown. Prove to me why UCLA will not win the Pac-10 while Lute is still around.

5 titles out of 22 seasons = 22.7% chance of winning Pac-10
6 times finishing ahead of Arizona in 22 seasons = 27.3% chance of beating Arizona

[Flipper]

So yes, UCLA is better than Arizona about 25% of the time. I stick with my comments that UCLA has little to no chance of finishing ahead of Arizona in-conference while Lute is still at the helm. Do you really think that UCLA is now "stockpiled with talent" while Arizona sits by the wayside and collects fringe prospects?


Last 2 recruiting classes, kids that are already on the team:

'Zona - Jmac, Motang, Verdejo, Dillon, JP Prince, Fendi, TWill, who am I missing

UCLA - JF, Afflalo, Shipp, Mata, Wright, Aboya, Roll, Collison, Luc Whatshisname.

Commits - Wise, Hill, Budinger + 1 more
UCLA - Keefe, + 1-2 more

I would say that the Bruins have stockpiled as much talent as 'Zona.

[Batpig]

5 titles out of 22 seasons = 22.7% chance of winning Pac-10
6 times finishing ahead of Arizona in 22 seasons = 27.3% chance of beating Arizona


Still irrelevant. New coach, new players. BTW assuming 22.7% is a valid measurement for this exercise (it's not) it is still signifiacntly more likely than "little to no chance". Keep trying Mustache.

[Mustache Man]

Last 2 recruiting classes, kids that are already on the team:

'Zona - Jmac, Motang, Verdejo, Dillon, JP Prince, Fendi, TWill, who am I missing

UCLA - JF, Afflalo, Shipp, Mata, Wright, Aboya, Roll, Collison, Luc Whatshisname.

Commits - Wise, Hill, Budinger + 1 more
UCLA - Keefe, + 1-2 more

I would say that the Bruins have stockpiled as much talent as 'Zona.

That wasn't my point...it's that even though (if?) UCLA is stockpiling talent, Arizona is doing the same. Lute is a better coach and developer of talent than all but maybe 4-5 coaches in the country, so you will need Howland to significantly outrecruit Lute and stockpile more talent to have a shot at dethroning the Pac-10 power that is Arizona.

[Batpig]

Pop quiz: are there any differences in tournament format between the Wooden years and the past 20 years?

Not only do you need lesson in the meaning of the word "relevant", you need a reading comprehension class. I said "Post wooden" it's right there in your quote.

But to answer your wholly irellevant question, the difference is that there was no 1st or 2nd round warmup game in which the top teams beat up on a patsy. Furthermore, you had to win your conference to even get into the tournament, so some might argue that it was MORE difficult to win the tourney back then, given the constrints preventing many teams from even reaching the tournament (See USC)

[Batpig]

That wasn't my point...it's that even though (if?) UCLA is stockpiling talent, Arizona is doing the same. Lute is a better coach and developer of talent than all but maybe 4-5 coaches in the country, so you will need Howland to significantly outrecruit Lute and stockpile more talent to have a shot at dethroning the Pac-10 power that is Arizona.

IF, UCLA is stockpiling talent? You are totally off the charts. Not even the worst UA homer would question whether or not UCLA is recruiting top tier talent. Yet somehow you manage to do just that. UCLA is unequivocally assembling talent on par with the top teams in the PAC-10. You are just in complete and utter denial my friend. That is all there is too it. I find it funny actually how vehemently you are trying to defend your point that UCLA will never compete with Zona under Howland or anyone as long as Lute is there. It smacks of fear. All the UCLA fans in this thread are trying to assert is that UCLA is talented and the gap is closing. Which it is.

[beardownbaby]

Is GOAZCATS.com the No. 2 bookmarked page of all UCLA fans? It sure seems like it. Nothing wrong with that.

For as certain as you all seem that UCLA will be the power of West Coast hoops either this year or next, you are all extreeeemely quick to defend the Bruins, as if one person saying UCLA will be anything but the Pac's best threatens your notion that it will come true.

If you're all so sure of it, what's the need to start an account here and defend the honor against us "simple-minded" UA folk? (Long-standing UCLA members, like Flipper and 11B, do not fit this category. They've proved their worth.)

[Batpig]

Is GOAZCATS.com the No. 2 bookmarked page of all UCLA fans? It sure seems like it. Nothing wrong with that.

For as certain as you all seem that UCLA will be the power of West Coast hoops either this year or next, you are all extreeeemely quick to defend the Bruins, as if one person saying UCLA will be anything but the Pac's best threatens your notion that it will come true.

If you're all so sure of it, what's the need to start an account here and defend the honor against us "simple-minded" UA folk?
See my post above. Nobody is saying that UCLA wil be THE power of west coast either this year or next. UCLA fans are saying that to deny the momentum and talent UCLA has right now is homerism at its unadulterated finest. In fact I would say the vehemnce with which the Zona fans on this board are trying to deny UCLA's momentum speaks to exactly to point you are trying to make regarding the UCLA fans. It is the Zona fans that are in denial, not the other way around.

that said, I stand by my prediction. UCLA = Pac-10 champs in '06

[Jason Scheer]

Im guessing Bat you mean in two seasons, not this upcoming one?

[Mustache Man]

IF, UCLA is stockpiling talent? You are totally off the charts. Not even the worst UA homer would question whether or not UCLA is recruiting top tier talent. Yet somehow you manage to do just that. UCLA is unequivocally assembling talent on par with the top teams in the PAC-10. You are just in complete and utter denial my friend. That is all there is too it. I find it funny actually how vehemently you are trying to defend your point that UCLA will never compete with Zona under Howland or anyone as long as Lute is there. It smacks of fear. All the UCLA fans in this thread are trying to assert is that UCLA is talented and the gap is closing. Which it is.

:roll:
Where have we heard this before?

[beardownbaby]

See my post above. Nobody is saying that UCLA wil be THE power of west coast either this year or next. UCLA fans are saying that to deny the momentum and talent UCLA has right now is homerism at its unadulterated finest. In fact I would say the vehemnce with which the Zona fans on this board are trying to deny UCLA's momentum speaks to exactly to point you are trying to make regarding the UCLA fans. It is the Zona fans that are in denial, not the other way around.

that said, I stand by my prediction. UCLA = Pac-10 champs in '06
Fair enough prediciton. It could happen. It could not. Like Ben said, any of those four teams (Stan., UA, UW, UCLA) could be top 10 teams in 06-07, and any one of them could win the Pac-10. There is a case to be made for any of them to be the conference's best team that year. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Arizona fans aren't in denial of anything. UCLA is getting better, and anyone sane should recognize that. The problem with some UCLA fans' arguments is that UCLA's rise coincides with the UA's demise. That is homerism at "its unadulterated finest."

[Batpig]

Fair enough prediciton. It could happen. It could not. Like Ben said, any of those four teams (Stan., UA, UW, UCLA) could be top 10 teams in 06-07, and any one of them could win the Pac-10. There is a case to be made for any of them to be the conference's best team that year. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Arizona fans aren't in denial of anything. UCLA is getting better, and anyone sane should recognize that. The problem with some UCLA fans' arguments is that UCLA's rise coincides with the UA's demise. That is homerism at "its unadulterated finest."

I never said anything with respect to a Zona demise. All I said is that UCLA is closing the gap. I think Zona will be fine as long as Lute is there, and probably after he is gone. Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about either, but if you read any of Mustache Man's homerific posts, you will why this thread has gotten so intense.

Btw, my earlier prediction was in fact supposed to say UCLA in '06-'07

[Mustache Man]

UCLA improving and Arizona improving are not mutually exclusive events. Why can't both happen at the same time? What makes any UCLA fan think that UCLA is improving faster than Arizona?

[Jason Scheer]

I do agree that it is anybody's race and for a UCLA fan to predict that his team will win is not a big deal to me. Also as BDB said, many UCLA fans see it coming with the demise of Arizona. I, on the other hand, see it coming with the Pac-10 being the best conference in the country in a matter of years.

[Batpig]

UCLA improving and Arizona improving are not mutually exclusive events. Why can't both happen at the same time? What makes any UCLA fan think that UCLA is improving faster than Arizona?

Congrats Mustache, that is the first rational, cogent point you have made in this entire thread. I agree 100%

Furthermore, I hope Arizona DOESN'T go down after Lute leaves. Howland is building something special in westwood, I firmly believe that. The Zona vs. UCLA rivalry has the potential to be something very special. No other 2 teams in the pac-10 or west of the Mississippi for that matter have the potential to develop a rivalry that rivals Duke UNC. It looked like it was happening in the early-mid 90's, but then Lavin happened. I sincerely think that there is room for two monster programs on the west coast, and I hope Arizona is one of them for a long time. West coast hoops and particualrly the Pac-10 will never get the respect it deserves until UCLA is a consistent top 10 team once again. It is those classic UCLA-Arizona battles that will bring this conference back to its rightful place as the "Conference of Champions" in college basketball.

[Ben Hansen]

Someone should inform that "myopian" Immel of the above post because he is convinced Arizona isn't/ never was UCLA's rival in any way. Only USC.
To me, the biggest value to UCLA's re-emergence is getting the rivalry going again with Arizona.Stanford wasn't as much fun from around 99-04 because you can't really hate Stanford--everyone is too nice and smart.And Washington will never have UCLA's national appeal.

It's got to be UA-UCLA as the West's premier rivalry or it's hopeless.It's good to see it coming back around.

[TopCat]

Howland's the 4th or 5th best coach in the Pac-10. UCLA still plays like a collection of individuals and they're only able to go as far as their individual talent can get them. And they seem to put little priority into playing defense.

I think UCLA better get it done this year, because it sounds like Howland wins little love from his players.

I agree that Howland is doing a good job with recruiting, and playing on the UCLA pedigree he'll be able to put top flight recruits on the floor. I just don't see his style of basketball ultimately succeeding at the elite level fast enough for the UCLA faithful. UCLA fans are currently ascribing a level of coaching ability to Howland he doesn't posess yet. He's going to take a while to mature as a coach at the elite level.


As far as the UCLA 06/07 team, let's see who bails off the team after this season.

[11Banners]

I think UCLA better get it done this year, because it sounds like Howland wins little love from his players.

.


Man some of you Cat fans really are ignorant about our program.

Since Howland's players somehow give him "little love," why were the Pittsburgh players in tears when they found out he was leaving to UCLA?

[GlobalCat]

Since Howland's players somehow give him "little love," why were the Pittsburgh players in tears when they found out he was leaving to UCLA?


Because the city of Pittsburgh sucks and they were jealous that he got to leave. :rolleyes:

[Batpig]

Howland's the 4th or 5th best coach in the Pac-10. UCLA still plays like a collection of individuals and they're only able to go as far as their individual talent can get them. And they seem to put little priority into playing defense.

I think UCLA better get it done this year, because it sounds like Howland wins little love from his players.

I agree that Howland is doing a good job with recruiting, and playing on the UCLA pedigree he'll be able to put top flight recruits on the floor. I just don't see his style of basketball ultimately succeeding at the elite level fast enough for the UCLA faithful. UCLA fans are currently ascribing a level of coaching ability to Howland he doesn't posess yet. He's going to take a while to mature as a coach at the elite level.


As far as the UCLA 06/07 team, let's see who bails off the team after this season.

This is standard Zona company line. Pure condescending rhetoric. The tenor of this post is ridiculous (i.e. "We at Arizona know what a truely great coach is, UCLA fans possibly be right in their estimation of Howland because Zona fans have not deigned to give him their blessing as a great coach." You focus solely on what he has not done, and particularly what he has not done at UCLA in his short 2 years. Give the man some time. Years 1 and 2 were spent cleaning up Lavin's mess. What more do you want from the guy in his first 9 years on the job. He has succeeded at every stop and contrary to popular belief has won with multiple different types of teams. His teams have improved by leaps and bounds at every step of the way. How can you deny that he is a good coach. He won national coach of the year in his 6th year as a Division 1 head coach. How long did it take ole Lute? 15 years? See one of my previous posts for more reaons why your assertions re: Howland are ridiculous.


Also, where the hell do you get this from: "I think UCLA better get it done this year, because it sounds like Howland wins little love from his players. " Did you just make that up? It sounded good in your head so you decided to put it in your posts? What is this based on? Trevor Ariza? He was gone the day he stepped on campus. He is a strict coach, but by no means does he have problems with his players. Ask Dijon Thompson, he loves Howland and look where it got him. Perenial underacheiver under Lavin and Howland turned him into all conference performer that led the team in scoring and rebounds.

How about this gem: "And they seem to put little priority into playing defense." Actually Howland is a defense first type of coach. I was under the impression that was common knowledge. HOw do you think his Pitt teams succeeded? UCLA had defensive problems last year because of a thin bench and three freshmen playing from 28-35 minutes per game. Farmar was third in the conference in miutes played as a freshman. Afflalo is a great defender, and Bozeman is one of the best on the ball defenders in the conference. Howland will have this team playing tough defense this year and every year.

As for your statement "As far as the UCLA 06/07 team, let's see who bails off the team after this season," there is only one potential early entry form this year's Bruin team, but he is likely to return, unless his defense improves to significantly, he wouldn't be better than a late first rounder yet. UCLA will return is big 3 in the backcourt in 06-07

[Jason Scheer]

Jordan Farmar is not a good defensive player. Im sure it was because he learned from Henry Bibby and was tired but I saw my fair share of games and I really don't think Farmar is a good defensive player. The point we are trying to make is where has Howland's success led them? Ucla fans have as condescending tone as anyone as they try to convince everyone that UCLA will rise to prominence. Arizona fans are used to being at the top so you surely are not going to convince anybody on this website that Arizona is not going to be first.

On the outside, UCLA lost to Texas Tech in the first round. This is not terribly impressive considering that Lavin was actually pretty successful come tourney time. Now I know that things are turning around, etc etc but frankly what Howland has done is no more glorious or successful than what Lavin did. And before you mention the changing of teams and recruits and such, many are saying that Howland is bringing in monster recruits but nothing has been seen of them yet. In the eyes of a UA fan, we say the same thing: prove it. Because until you do and your coach and team does, nobody here wants to hear it.

[Batpig]

Jordan Farmar is not a good defensive player. Im sure it was because he learned from Henry Bibby and was tired but I saw my fair share of games and I really don't think Farmar is a good defensive player. The point we are trying to make is where has Howland's success led them? Ucla fans have as condescending tone as anyone as they try to convince everyone that UCLA will rise to prominence. Arizona fans are used to being at the top so you surely are not going to convince anybody on this website that Arizona is not going to be first.

On the outside, UCLA lost to Texas Tech in the first round. This is not terribly impressive considering that Lavin was actually pretty successful come tourney time. Now I know that things are turning around, etc etc but frankly what Howland has done is no more glorious or successful than what Lavin did. And before you mention the changing of teams and recruits and such, many are saying that Howland is bringing in monster recruits but nothing has been seen of them yet. In the eyes of a UA fan, we say the same thing: prove it. Because until you do and your coach and team does, nobody here wants to hear it.


Dude you just don't get it. Lavin took over a program one year removed from a national title. His teams had more talent than Arizona during his tenure (at least until the last couple years, when recruits figured out that he sucks). I could have coached those teams to the sweet sixteen. That argument is so tired. It couldn't be more obivour that Lavin caused UCLA's demise. I supposed all of sudden UCLA was hexed by a voodoo curse that just caused them to underachieve despite monstrous levels of talent throughout the roster. I suppose all the players who came into UCLA as top 25 national players and didn't improve at all under Lavin(Gadz, Moiso, Young, Rush, hell even Baron left ucla as essentially the same player he was when he started), were just overrated? Howland is taking over the program at its lowest point in 50 years, wholly due to Lavin's incompetence. As I said before you can't judge what Howland has done thus far because his first year was all house cleaning, recruiting and establishing a new system. Second year was developing the young talent. That team was 7 players deep with NO front court and started 3 freshmen all in the backcourt. Gimme a break. Your attempt to judge Howland based on those two seasons is laughable.

What's more, if you actually read any of my earlier posts, you would realize that Farmar needs to work on his defense. He is however, the best floor leader in the conference outside of Chris Hernandez.

[Mustache Man]

Jordan Farmar is not a good defensive player. Im sure it was because he learned from Henry Bibby and was tired but I saw my fair share of games and I really don't think Farmar is a good defensive player. The point we are trying to make is where has Howland's success led them? Ucla fans have as condescending tone as anyone as they try to convince everyone that UCLA will rise to prominence. Arizona fans are used to being at the top so you surely are not going to convince anybody on this website that Arizona is not going to be first.

On the outside, UCLA lost to Texas Tech in the first round. This is not terribly impressive considering that Lavin was actually pretty successful come tourney time. Now I know that things are turning around, etc etc but frankly what Howland has done is no more glorious or successful than what Lavin did. And before you mention the changing of teams and recruits and such, many are saying that Howland is bringing in monster recruits but nothing has been seen of them yet. In the eyes of a UA fan, we say the same thing: prove it. Because until you do and your coach and team does, nobody here wants to hear it.

I agree, glad to see another person on the "Jordan Farmar is overrated" train.

[Flipper]

I agree, glad to see another person on the "Jordan Farmar is overrated" train.

Simple question for you, MM.

Would you take JF's frosh season over Shakur's soph season, even though he is overrated (in your eyes)?

Said another way, how do you think 'Zona would have fared against Illinois with Farmar at the controls instead of Mustafa?

13ppg/5+apg as a frosh, leading a Bruin team to the tourney after a 2-year hiatus. Overrated? Pac10 Frosh of the Year, plus National Frosh of the Year for some websites/magazines.

We'll take 4 years of the overrated Farmar.

BTW, I agree that Farmar wasn't a very good defender last season. Part of that could be the lack of depth. With adequate back-ups in Bozeman and Collison, expect a bigger/stronger Farmar to be much more agressive on d, not having to worry about fouls, etc.

[Jason Scheer]

Flipper I don't think anybody here is denying that Farmar is a pretty good point guard but it is where you guys have put him that is annoying people. You have acted like he is a savior and some have said they can't think of a better point guard to lead the resurgence of UCLA. He is a solid point guard but I do not think he is spectacular by any means.

[beardownbaby]

This might play into the argument that UCLA had no depth, but it's still too early to assume that Farmar would have fared better than Shakur in the waning moments against Illinois because Farmar's production fell off significantly in late-game situations (best example: at McKale).

He could turn out to be reliable in late-game situations, but he could also turn out to be as unsteady as Mustafa was last year. We'll see.

[TucsonDon]

I have abstained from entering into this thread, but I have to say that Farmar is and has been since I can remember watching him, very good at the end of games. He is a money player, and has shown it in the past three seasons time and again. He struggled down the stretch in the Arizona game, but I honestly believe that had more to do with playing 116 minutes in his previous three games, including spearheading a 21 point comeback against UW.

In terms of the comparison with Shakur, I firmly believe Farmar is a better player all around (big shocker, right?). I like Shakur, even more than many of the people on this board, but Farmar is a terrific player, and I would take him any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

As far as how UCLA does this season, I believe the Bruins will have problems scoring points at certain times. I think many UCLA fans are underplaying the loss of Dijon Thompson, and how consistent he was last season. All three sophomores will have to step up the scoring production, but need to do so efficiently, not by taking bad shots. To me, Thompson's greatest value was his experience and ability to know what a good shot was...The other members of the team now need to learn what a good shot is.

I am also concerned about the post play. I have no faith that Michael Fey can be a consistent threat down low, and Ryan Hollins only plays hard about 1/3 of the time. The freshman bigs will end up being good players but they will not make huge impacts this season. Mike Roll will help this team out immensely I believe, by providing much needed scoring off the bench, but even with that, I believe UCLA is a tournament team, with the potential of beating some good teams, but not maintaining the consistency neccessary to win the Pac-10. This is, at best, a Sweet 16 team, which will certainly finish behind Stanford in the league.

If Howland can convince Farmar and Afflalo to come back for their junior years, UCLA should be the class of the Pac-10, and have a legit shot at the final four in '06-'07. I believe, however, that is a bigger 'if' then most UCLA fans want to recognize.

[Flipper]

Flipper I don't think anybody here is denying that Farmar is a pretty good point guard but it is where you guys have put him that is annoying people. You have acted like he is a savior and some have said they can't think of a better point guard to lead the resurgence of UCLA. He is a solid point guard but I do not think he is spectacular by any means.

I basically agree with the premise that JF's not a spectacular player. Although blessed with great hops, he does not have the jet-like speed of an Aaron Brooks, or a Tyus Edney. But he has enough quickness/moxie to take it to the hole with authority. He's more like an Earl Watson with a better jump shot and passing abilities, even though at this point, he's not as strong as Earl.

As far as a savior, he was the second leading scorer/led in assists for a team that went back to the Dance after 2 years. You guys have got to give us some leeway with our argument, but some of our brethren have gone overboard with that "savior" mantra. The "can't think of a better PG to lead the resurgence" argument is more due to the fact that he's a local kid, who blossomed in HS at just the right time, the timing of Howland's hiring, and his eventual signing with the Bruins even though he wouldn't even look at UCLA when Lavin was still here.

For out-of-staters, there was a sort of a "cult" following when JF was in HS. Not only did he lead a Valley team (Taft High) to the City Title (when you talk LA City hoops, think of Westchester and Fairfax - inner city), he also led his AAU team to several high profile championships against the Atlanta Celtics, a stacked team that included Dwight Howard, Josh Smith, and Randolph Morris to name a few.

So, with the local ties, and a ballyhoed HS/AAU career, most Bruin fans have adopted the "savior" and "can't think of a better PG" mantra.

[Flipper]

I have abstained from entering into this thread, but I have to say that Farmar is and has been since I can remember watching him, very good at the end of games. He is a money player, and has shown it in the past three seasons time and again. He struggled down the stretch in the Arizona game, but I honestly believe that had more to do with playing 116 minutes in his previous three games, including spearheading a 21 point comeback against UW.

In terms of the comparison with Shakur, I firmly believe Farmar is a better player all around (big shocker, right?). I like Shakur, even more than many of the people on this board, but Farmar is a terrific player, and I would take him any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

As far as how UCLA does this season, I believe the Bruins will have problems scoring points at certain times. I think many UCLA fans are underplaying the loss of Dijon Thompson, and how consistent he was last season. All three sophomores will have to step up the scoring production, but need to do so efficiently, not by taking bad shots. To me, Thompson's greatest value was his experience and ability to know what a good shot was...The other members of the team now need to learn what a good shot is.

I am also concerned about the post play. I have no faith that Michael Fey can be a consistent threat down low, and Ryan Hollins only plays hard about 1/3 of the time. The freshman bigs will end up being good players but they will not make huge impacts this season. Mike Roll will help this team out immensely I believe, by providing much needed scoring off the bench, but even with that, I believe UCLA is a tournament team, with the potential of beating some good teams, but not maintaining the consistency neccessary to win the Pac-10. This is, at best, a Sweet 16 team, which will certainly finish behind Stanford in the league.

If Howland can convince Farmar and Afflalo to come back for their junior years, UCLA should be the class of the Pac-10, and have a legit shot at the final four in '06-'07. I believe, however, that is a bigger 'if' then most UCLA fans want to recognize.

Great post. And not because I agree with almost ALL of what you wrote. :wink2:

[Batpig]

I have abstained from entering into this thread, but I have to say that Farmar is and has been since I can remember watching him, very good at the end of games. He is a money player, and has shown it in the past three seasons time and again. He struggled down the stretch in the Arizona game, but I honestly believe that had more to do with playing 116 minutes in his previous three games, including spearheading a 21 point comeback against UW.

In terms of the comparison with Shakur, I firmly believe Farmar is a better player all around (big shocker, right?). I like Shakur, even more than many of the people on this board, but Farmar is a terrific player, and I would take him any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

As far as how UCLA does this season, I believe the Bruins will have problems scoring points at certain times. I think many UCLA fans are underplaying the loss of Dijon Thompson, and how consistent he was last season. All three sophomores will have to step up the scoring production, but need to do so efficiently, not by taking bad shots. To me, Thompson's greatest value was his experience and ability to know what a good shot was...The other members of the team now need to learn what a good shot is.

I am also concerned about the post play. I have no faith that Michael Fey can be a consistent threat down low, and Ryan Hollins only plays hard about 1/3 of the time. The freshman bigs will end up being good players but they will not make huge impacts this season. Mike Roll will help this team out immensely I believe, by providing much needed scoring off the bench, but even with that, I believe UCLA is a tournament team, with the potential of beating some good teams, but not maintaining the consistency neccessary to win the Pac-10. This is, at best, a Sweet 16 team, which will certainly finish behind Stanford in the league.

If Howland can convince Farmar and Afflalo to come back for their junior years, UCLA should be the class of the Pac-10, and have a legit shot at the final four in '06-'07. I believe, however, that is a bigger 'if' then most UCLA fans want to recognize.


Yes this is a great post. It is right on the money. Although, I don't know how Afflalo is gonna bolt early, he is simply not ready yet. Barring an absolute monster year, he is staying. Farmar is more likely but he too has some holes in his game. I'll say this, if Farmar AND Afflalo bolt for the league, than means they both had monster years and played well in all facets of the game. Furthermore, it means that UCLA will probably end the 05-06 year as Pac-10 champs or 2nd place at worst including a sweet sixteen or elite eight run at minimim.

[Jason Scheer]

I agree with your last part. That is why, unless they are a complete stud, I hope guys leave early because that usually means they have had a fantastic season. I have said it before but I think there could be three teams in the Pac that have a chance at the final four in 06-07

[Batpig]

I have said it before but I think there could be three teams in the Pac that have a chance at the final four in 06-07

I completely agree. I think this is a great time Pac-10 basketball. If Oregon finds a decent coach who can recruit (Kent is a really crappy coach who can recruit) they could be good again. But more to the point, I think Zona, Furd, Washington, and UCLA could potentially form a powerful top tier of teams similar to Duke, UNC, Wake Forest, and Maryland (Maryland is a little down, but they have been pretty damn good lately). Oregon can be our Georgia Tech (Up and down, but pretty darn good some years) Although as far as perenial final four contenders, I think only UCLA and Zona (clearly Zona is already there) can attain that. I think Washington and Furd will have to settle for being final fourc contenders cyclically. Only UCLA and Zona have the name and recruiting power to consistently reload.

[TopCat]

Batpig,

Like I said, let's see who returns after this year...

UCLA doesn't play defense yet. I don't even need to be a smart basketball fan to watch the Bruins and know that Howland has not instituted a tough defense. You seem to believe that's a given. I'm in a prove it mode.

Here's what I've seen after two years. UCLA is mediocre. The miopic UCLA fan is banking on UCLA getting it done this year. I don't see it. Howland could be good if he's allowed to mature as the head coach of an elite level program. But if John Wooden was under the current short leash mindset in Westwood right now, he'd have ended his career as a freaking footnote to Lavin. It took him a decade to get it sorted out...


Romar impresses me, because he came in and took a flawed program to the top of the Pac-10. Don't have a post game... we'll then craft your team around your strengths. Inspire your players...

I don't see UCLA players ralying around Howland yet.

From what I've seen UCLA has the makings to be mediocre again this season.

[Flipper]

:wink2: Batpig,

Like I said, let's see who returns after this year...

UCLA doesn't play defense yet. I don't even need to be a smart basketball fan to watch the Bruins and know that Howland has not instituted a tough defense. You seem to believe that's a given. I'm in a prove it mode.

Here's what I've seen after two years. UCLA is mediocre. The miopic UCLA fan is banking on UCLA getting it done this year. I don't see it. Howland could be good if he's allowed to mature as the head coach of an elite level program. But if John Wooden was under the current short leash mindset in Westwood right now, he'd have ended his career as a freaking footnote to Lavin. It took him a decade to get it sorted out...


Romar impresses me, because he came in and took a flawed program to the top of the Pac-10. Don't have a post game... we'll then craft your team around your strengths. Inspire your players...

I don't see UCLA players ralying around Howland yet.

From what I've seen UCLA has the makings to be mediocre again this season.

The current mindset in Westwood is actually very pleasant. Howland has been given a very LONG leash in resurrecting the program. There were hardly any negative comments during his first year, even while going thru the second year in a row of sub-500 and missing the Dance.

Maybe because most fans were in an uproar over the travails/turmoil of the Lavin regime, on top of the Harrick years, which were generally tumultuos despite the NC.

Basically, Howland would have been crucified with the numbers he's produced if he coached in the late 70's/80's/90's.

Maybe its a reflection of how bare the cupboard was in Lavin's last year, and that the fans had finally lowered their expectations, giving Howland all this rope.

Of course Romar is a decent coach. He did spent most of his formative coaching years as a top Bruin assistant. :wink2:

But make no mistake, we have the right coach in place. Solid, unspectacular, grounded in fundamentals and work ethic.

[11Banners]

UCLA doesn't play defense yet.

Romar impresses me

.

Talk about a contradiction if I've ever seen one.

[Mustache Man]

:wink2:

The current mindset in Westwood is actually very pleasant. Howland has been given a very LONG leash in resurrecting the program. There were hardly any negative comments during his first year, even while going thru the second year in a row of sub-500 and missing the Dance.

Maybe because most fans were in an uproar over the travails/turmoil of the Lavin regime, on top of the Harrick years, which were generally tumultuos despite the NC.

Basically, Howland would have been crucified with the numbers he's produced if he coached in the late 70's/80's/90's.

Maybe its a reflection of how bare the cupboard was in Lavin's last year, and that the fans had finally lowered their expectations, giving Howland all this rope.

Of course Romar is a decent coach. He did spent most of his formative coaching years as a top Bruin assistant. :wink2:

But make no mistake, we have the right coach in place. Solid, unspectacular, grounded in fundamentals and work ethic.

Will you still be happy with Howland if you haven't won a Pac-10 title in the next 3 years?

[TucsonDon]

I'll take this one...NO.

He'll be fired if he doesn't win a Pac-10 title in the next three years, or at least he should be.

[Mustache Man]

What are the percentage chances UCLA wins a Pac-10 title in the next 3 years? I'll give it a shot:

2005-06: 25%
2006-07: 35% (and that number can go down, depending on who leaves)
2007-08: 30% (this is obviously the hardest number to project)

I think I'm being generous with those numbers, and I also think you'd be hard-pressed to say any team has more than a 1/3 chance of winning a Pac-10 title in any of the next 3 years. That is, unless you're Arizona, since the chances of Arizona not winning a Pac-10 title in the next 3 years while Lute is still here are slim. He has a 40.9% title rate in 22 seasons.

[TucsonDon]

Not a math major, I just know this is UCLA, and if he doesn't win a Pac-10 title in his first five years, he's gone.

[barringer97]

Yes this is a great post. It is right on the money. Although, I don't know how Afflalo is gonna bolt early, he is simply not ready yet. Barring an absolute monster year, he is staying. Farmar is more likely but he too has some holes in his game.

I belive Afflalo has told a couple people that this is probably his last year for the Bruins.

I like Farmar A LOT! Me thinks he's running the Lakers next year at point.

[11Banners]

Howland isn't getting fired anytime soon. He is only 48 and will be retiring in Westwood.

[Mustache Man]

Are those realistic expectations? This isn't the Pac-10 of the 70s or even the 80s. Arizona, Washington, Stanford, and 1-2 wild card teams will be equally as strong (if not stronger) as contenders as UCLA for the next 3 years.

Then you start over again with another coach that will "bring UCLA back to prominence"?

[11Banners]

I belive Afflalo has told a couple people that this is probably his last year for the Bruins.

I like Farmar A LOT! Me thinks he's running the Lakers next year at point.

Afflalo is going nowhere. Shipp is the player who will explode on the NCAA scene this season. I worry about him much more than Afflalo who isn't close yet for the NBA.

Farmar running the point for the Lakers? Reading posts on here, he can barely dribble a ball and play PG for UCLA!

[barringer97]

Farmar running the point for the Lakers? Reading posts on here, he can barely dribble a ball and play PG for UCLA!


I wouldn't be shocked to see him drafted in the 10-15 range (where the Lakers should be drafting).

[11Banners]

Not a math major, I just know this is UCLA, and if he doesn't win a Pac-10 title in his first five years, he's gone.

So if he gets to a final four, or wins a national title without winning the Pac-10 in his first five years, are you saying UCLA will still fire him? Sorry, the issue is not as black and white as you are portraying it to be.

[Jason Scheer]

If Ben Howland doesn't win a conference title and doesn't make it past the elite 8, it is not far fetched to think he will be fired within the next three years

[TucsonDon]

So if he gets to a final four, or wins a national title without winning the Pac-10 in his first five years, are you saying UCLA will still fire him? Sorry, the issue is not as black and white as you are portraying it to be.
All right.

Assuming that the overall landscape of the team is indicative of performing at below Pac-10 champion level for the next three years, he should be fired. Sure, if UCLA finishes third in the league and makes the final four, that isn't going to happen, but I'm saying that if UCLA performs as a third place team in the league for the next three years, including fading in the tournament the way a third place team more often than not does, then Howland is going to have some problems.

[Mustache Man]

If Ben Howland doesn't win a conference title and doesn't make it past the elite 8, it is not far fetched to think he will be fired within the next three years

The odds are strongly against either of those happening.

[Jason Scheer]

I think the odds are against most teams for those things. That's the fun of college basketball: Who knows?

[TucsonDon]

Odds will go down if Josh Shipp misses more than three months after hip surgery this week. Very bad news for UCLA. Shipp is primed for a breakout year, and he appears to be the Bruins most complete player.

[Batpig]

Romar impresses me, because he came in and took a flawed program to the top of the Pac-10.

So did Kent. We all know what kind of coach he is.

You didn't really directly address many of my contentions. You made a few claims, but you didn't really back any of them up. You basically reiterated your opinion in a different way. That's not really debating. Read my posts and respond to them substantively.

[Mustache Man]

I think the odds are against most teams for those things. That's the fun of college basketball: Who knows?

Well, that's holding Howland to awful high standards then, don't you think?

There are only a few programs in the country that can realistically be underperforming if they don't win a conference title or make the Final Four in the next 3 years: Arizona, Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, UConn, Syracuse, Michigan State, and maybe Louisville. That's probably it.

Is Howland really that good of a coach to expect such lofty things from him by year 5?

[TucsonDon]

You aren't grasping the mindset of UCLA fans...That's where this confusion comes from. It is completely unacceptable to take a backseat to any program in America, and having had a horrific five years which marked clearly the worst time in the program's history, Howland now has everything he needs to return UCLA where they should be. If he cannot do that, people absolutely will not stand for it.

[11Banners]

Odds will go down if Josh Shipp misses more than three months after hip surgery this week. Very bad news for UCLA. Shipp is primed for a breakout year, and he appears to be the Bruins most complete player.

Ouch!!!!!!!

He's out 8-12 weeks, and even when he comes back, who knows how long it will take him to get back into game shape. Bozeman, Luc, and Roll better be ready to perform.

This is definitely bad news for the Bruins.

[Jason Scheer]

Well, that's holding Howland to awful high standards then, don't you think?

There are only a few programs in the country that can realistically be underperforming if they don't win a conference title or make the Final Four in the next 3 years: Arizona, Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, UConn, Syracuse, Michigan State, and maybe Louisville. That's probably it.

Is Howland really that good of a coach to expect such lofty things from him by year 5?

Growing up in Socal, no I don't think they are too high or at least to the fans it isn't. UCLA fans expect perfection and championships, almost to a fault.

[Ben Hansen]

Is Howland really that good of a coach to expect such lofty things from him by year 5?

The talent will be there to justify the high expectations by then.Keefe is going to make a huge difference when he arrives to go along with studs Ryan Wright and Alfred Aboya in the frontcourt.

[11Banners]

Growing up in Socal, no I don't think they are too high or at least to the fans it isn't. UCLA fans expect perfection and championships, almost to a fault.

With that talent that should be assembled by Howland's fourth and five season's, fans from any school would expect a conference championship and or final four run.

[Jason Scheer]

With that talent that should be assembled by Howland's fourth and five season's, fans from any school would expect a conference championship and or final four run.

No disagreement here..but once that talent is assembled, is he on a short leash

[TucsonDon]

He's already on a short leash. They give that piece of leather to you when you sign the contract at UCLA.

[11Banners]

He's already on a short leash. They give that piece of leather to you when you sign the contract at UCLA.

I disagree once again. Howland received no grief for his first season because of the roster problems. Last year, they increased their wins by 7, made the tourney, and even with losses to Oregon St. and Texas Tech to end the season, most saw last season as a positive in the road to rebuilding. If this year's team is somewhere in the top 25 and he gets to the round of 32 at least, he will still be in good shape. It's the year after, when his first class turn into juniors, his newest class are experienced sophomores, and a new freshmen class with potentially Deon Thompson (5* center) and James Keefe (#1 PF in the West), then this team must be in the top 10 and make a run at a national title. The fans are giving him three years to build his program, which is what you would expect at any other program around the nation.

[Flipper]

No disagreement here..but once that talent is assembled, is he on a short leash

Quick answer, yes. After this season, the expectations will be turned up a notch.

Don't forget, with many holes in the roster, his second Bruin team tied Stanford for 3rd in the Pac. This year, everybody's expectation is somewhere around 3rd, anything north of that is gravy.

Next season, his fourth, is when the fans are expecting to have a legitimate shot at the conference championship. Of course, all that is predicated on the juniors-to-be trio of Farmar/Afflalo/Shipp still being around.

[TopCat]

This is standard Zona company line. Pure condescending rhetoric. The tenor of this post is ridiculous (i.e. "We at Arizona know what a truely great coach is, UCLA fans possibly be right in their estimation of Howland because Zona fans have not deigned to give him their blessing as a great coach." You focus solely on what he has not done, and particularly what he has not done at UCLA in his short 2 years. Give the man some time. Years 1 and 2 were spent cleaning up Lavin's mess. What more do you want from the guy in his first 9 years on the job. He has succeeded at every stop and contrary to popular belief has won with multiple different types of teams. His teams have improved by leaps and bounds at every step of the way. How can you deny that he is a good coach. He won national coach of the year in his 6th year as a Division 1 head coach. How long did it take ole Lute? 15 years? See one of my previous posts for more reaons why your assertions re: Howland are ridiculous.
Let's try this a different way. What has Howland done that should earn my respect? He had a good season at Pitt, which ended abruptly in March. Minus the Coach of the Year award, Ernie Kent did the same thing for a season at Oregon. In the same time as Howland at UCLA, Romar took a doormat Washington program and turned them into a Pac-10 contender, while Howland is still a couple of years away.

So far, UCLA is wildly inconsistent. They manage to beat Washington at home, and then rack up a string of bad losses. They lose in the Pac-10 tourney to an inferior Oregon St team, and then get completely waxed in the NCAA tourney. They went 18-11 last year against a schedule that was not loaded with elite competition. They had one good win, against Washington at home.

What am I missing that should earn my respect to believe that Howland is poised to take a team to the top of the Pac-10?

He has to first get by Arizona, Washington and Stanford, who all seem to be doing a comparable job of recruiting. Then you have Cal, who if they can stay away from injuries, should have a squad that can do some damage in the Pac-10. What are my tip offs that Howland is ready to best the conference powers?

I haven't seen it on the court yet, so I guess I'm to rely on your gut feeling.

In looking up the Pac-10 points allowed stats, UCLA is a respectable 72 pts/game. Perhaps the UCLA games I saw where teams were scoring at will was an aberation based on the overall season performance. I'll tone down the defense comments and give UCLA the benefit of the doubt.

However, I keep hearing that Howland isn't that popular as a player's coach in Westwood. Maybe I'm hearing that from Arizona sources. I figure it will play out with early NBA defections and some key recruiting misses if it's true, so I'm inclined to wait and see on that topic.


The sum total is that I'm just not seeing the signs yet in Westwood that would encourage me to believe what the ardent UCLA fan is committed to believing. The only transcendent game has been the win against Washington, and they did that against a 2nd year coach who appears to have done a much better job so far.


Sorry to hear about Shipp. That's a major drag. Hope it isn't as serious as initially projected.

[Batpig]

Howland's the 4th or 5th best coach in the Pac-10. UCLA still plays like a collection of individuals and they're only able to go as far as their individual talent can get them. And they seem to put little priority into playing defense.

I think UCLA better get it done this year, because it sounds like Howland wins little love from his players.

I agree that Howland is doing a good job with recruiting, and playing on the UCLA pedigree he'll be able to put top flight recruits on the floor. I just don't see his style of basketball ultimately succeeding at the elite level fast enough for the UCLA faithful. UCLA fans are currently ascribing a level of coaching ability to Howland he doesn't posess yet. He's going to take a while to mature as a coach at the elite level.


As far as the UCLA 06/07 team, let's see who bails off the team after this season.


Some of these quotes are great, I am gonna have to quote a bunch of em. I hope I don't get banned for this, but this thread is rife with predictions.

[Batpig]

You can set your sights on whatever you want, but a Pac-10 championship isn't coming to Westwood in 2005-06 or 2006-07, unless you're talking about the pac-10 tourney championship.

another

[Batpig]

Arizona and other teams most certainly will be better, and UCLA has little to no chance at a Pac-10 championship as long as Lute is on the sidelines here.

and another

[Batpig]

Will you still be happy with Howland if you haven't won a Pac-10 title in the next 3 years?


I guess this is moot

[Batpig]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodybetter
If Ben Howland doesn't win a conference title and doesn't make it past the elite 8, it is not far fetched to think he will be fired within the next three years

The odds are strongly against either of those
happening.


here's another good one

[Batpig]

ok, ok I'm done now. This is just too good. Well I never found the old post I was looking for, but I did find two great threads from the beginning of the year.

Sorry to be so smug guys, but this thread was just too good.

[Zero]

why apologize for something you know your trying to do?

[Batpig]

It wasn't a real apology. I meant it tongue in cheek.

[Auercat]

Congrats to Batpig on being a poor winner. Cheers! :cheers: :devil:

Bearing Down on Never Understanding The Mentality of A Visitor From Another School Digging Up Old Threads To Make Himself Feel Good And Prove That Others Were Off Base. You Must Be So Terribly Proud of Your Inferiority Complex Batpig. Bottoms Up! :beer: :angry:

Auercat

[MrBug708]

Congrats to Batpig on being a poor winner. Cheers! :cheers: :devil:

Bearing Down on Never Understanding The Mentality of A Visitor From Another School Digging Up Old Threads To Make Himself Feel Good And Prove That Others Were Off Base. You Must Be So Terribly Proud of Your Inferiority Complex Batpig. Bottoms Up! :beer: :angry:

Auercat

Perhaps...

Bearing down on fans making assinine perdictions based on dislike of a team rather then actual logic and reason

[Auercat]

Perhaps...

Bearing down on fans making assinine perdictions based on dislike of a team rather then actual logic and reason

Well said from a poster who was here right after the championship game being too worried what a rival's schools fans were saying about his team. The doctor is now in. :hyper:

Bearing Down on Making Predictions Based on The Way UCLA Was Playing At The Time, Not on Anything Else :wink2:

Auercat

[ByJoveByJingle]

Perhaps...

Bearing down on fans making assinine perdictions based on dislike of a team rather then actual logic and reason
Don't you think to make any other prediction at that point in the season would require the suspension of logic and reason?

[MrBug708]

Don't you think to make any other prediction at that point in the season would require the suspension of logic and reason?

Did you honestly think that Ben Howland was the 4th or 5th best coach in the PAC-10 before the season started?

[MrBug708]

Well said from a poster who was here right after the championship game being too worried what a rival's schools fans were saying about his team. The doctor is now in. :hyper:

Bearing Down on Making Predictions Based on The Way UCLA Was Playing At The Time, Not on Anything Else :wink2:

Auercat

Get it right, it was after beating Cal for the regular season title. :)

[ZONACAT]

Did you honestly think that Ben Howland was the 4th or 5th best coach in the PAC-10 before the season started?

Congrats, he's now third. :)

[ByJoveByJingle]

Did you honestly think that Ben Howland was the 4th or 5th best coach in the PAC-10 before the season started?
I don't think in those terms. I was talking about the part where you were criticizing his prediction. Evaluating a coach isn't really a prediction, is it?

[MrBug708]

Certainly no different then predicting how players will fare

[ByJoveByJingle]

I think I'm confusing two threads. I thought I was still in that other one . . .

[11Banners]

MustacheMan rocks

[Batpig]

Oh come Auercat, don't be so melodramatic. It's not as if I said anything off color, I am just giving you guys a little friendly ribbing. I didn't use any profanity, I didn't callanyone names, all I did was quote and bump the thread. Isn't that what these boards are for? Especially the arch-rivals forum? Correct me if I am mistaken though.

Seriously, you're seriously upset about me bumping this thread? Shouldn't people be forced to be accountable for their statements? I guess you would prefer for people to say whatever they want with impunity. I mean Mustache Man seemed pretty confident in his lack of respect for the up and coming Bruin program, I think a little bit of ribbing is really not a big deal. I guess reminding someone of something they said = poor sport in your mind. Honestly I was just having a little fun, what's wrong with that?

Seriously, what gives? You guys must really dislike the taste of crow. Gimme a break. Don't take this stuff so seriously.

[ASUHATER!]

batpig= douuuuuuuuchhhheeeeebaaaaaaaagggggg

[Batpig]

batpig= douuuuuuuuchhhheeeeebaaaaaaaagggggg
lol. See, this is lame. Why am I a douchebag? Because I reminded some people of some crap they said? Thanks for resorting to name calling, which if you notice, I never did. But if it makes you feel better, go right ahead, act like a child. And furthermore, if I am being a sore winner you're being a sore loser. Way to not have fun with it though. Good work.

[Jason Scheer]

This is the Arch Rivals forum, which is why I don't care. If you did this in Proud Tradition it would suck. But please make some predictions so when you're wrong I can bring them up next season :)

[TucsonDon]

For the amount of crap the UCLA fans get here, and because of the rather large bias against the Bruin program, I think its well within their right, even fair and probably proper for UCLA fans to dig up these threads if they so choose. Calling them poor winners is the sound of a poor loser, to be honest.

[catgrad97]

For the amount of crap the UCLA fans get here, and because of the rather large bias against the Bruin program, I think its well within their right, even fair and probably proper for UCLA fans to dig up these threads if they so choose. Calling them poor winners is the sound of a poor loser, to be honest.

:roll: To be honest, you don't know what you're talking about in this post.

Now THIS is what I call a rivalry!

[Auercat]

For the amount of crap the UCLA fans get here, and because of the rather large bias against the Bruin program, I think its well within their right, even fair and probably proper for UCLA fans to dig up these threads if they so choose. Calling them poor winners is the sound of a poor loser, to be honest.

There's bias against UCLA on an Arizona Website??? How shocking and disturbing! Next thing you'll tell me is that Arizona gets no respect and Lute is crucified on UCLA websites. :eek:

In any case, coming over to the Arizona website to rub salt in wounds is pretty low and inappropriate. UCLA fans should enjoy their run, be grateful and not look to be validated by digging up old dirt at a place where they are guests. That's called winning with class. ;)

Bearing Down on This Being An Arizona, Not A UCLA Site. If You Want Rosey UCLA Talk And Badmouthing of The UA, Then Try Either Bruinzone or BRO. Otherwise, As Visitors Here, Bruins' Fans Should Act Accordingly

Auercat

[ZONACAT]

It's funny seeing UCLA fans coming over here to nit-pick pre-season or early season predictions after they just got ran in the National Championship game.

Congrats on the year, but not many thought your run could happen, even your own fans. Go circle jerk on your own board, this one has been more than fair to UCLA. Yes, there is a bias against UCLA, but this website doesn't resort to trashing UCLA just for the hell of it like I've seen UCLA boards do to Arizona.

[TucsonDon]

There's bias against UCLA on an Arizona Website??? How shocking and disturbing! Next thing you'll tell me is that Arizona gets no respect and Lute is crucified on UCLA websites. :eek:

In any case, coming over to the Arizona website to rub salt in wounds is pretty low and inappropriate. UCLA fans should enjoy their run, be grateful and not look to be validated by digging up old dirt at a place where they are guests. That's called winning with class. ;)

Bearing Down on This Being An Arizona, Not A UCLA Site. If You Want Rosey UCLA Talk And Badmouthing of The UA, Then Try Either Bruinzone or BRO. Otherwise, As Visitors Here, Bruins' Fans Should Act Accordingly

Auercat
I agree with this, Harris. I mean, at this point I wouldn't dig up old threads about this in particular because I think the season speaks for itself, and there doesn't really seem to be a point; I'm sure the people who talked **** and put down UCLA before the season and during the year probably recognize all of this without it being shoved back in their collective faces.

Having said that, I always stand by my predictions (and I've made a lot) whether right or wrong and I own up to them if I must without seeing it as a problem. That's kind of the point to having an archived message board, and also part of the fun of having a rivals forum, isn't it? You think if UCLA fans were so negative about Arizona and they went out and had a season like UCLA just had that people wouldn't be looking back and digging up the threads? I think they would, and whether that's right or wrong isn't the issue; its kind of part of the fun. To say that that's the guy being a 'sore winner' seems like you're just trying to find an insult for him without understanding the levity of the situation.

[TucsonDon]

but this website doesn't resort to trashing UCLA just for the hell of it like I've seen UCLA boards do to Arizona.
That's some high quality sarcasm.

[ZONACAT]

On an Arizona board? Sure we might dig it up and have a laugh at it. But I don't anyone from this board will go to a UCLA board and do the same. If you can't see the difference than I can't help you.

[scumdevils86]

please, this is an arizona board...how many dozens of old ucla threads can we bring up for you smug little girls? please just stop, i'm trying to get into our summer recruiting buzz and the draft but all i can come here to read is thread after thread after thread about how sucla is so amazing.
i don't disagree that you're better, but its tiresome.

[ZONACAT]

That's some high quality sarcasm.

Sure there are always going to be dickheads that take shots at UCLA and Washington for that matter. But this board has been more than fair to UCLA lately, especially late in the season and during the tournament. I don't see why you can't admit that. You are acting like this board just loves to slag UCLA all the time, it's not true. Were we happy that they lost in the NC game? Sure, a lot of us were. But it wasn't because we hate UCLA or have something against UCLA, it's because it was good for our program.

Also, a lot of the venom on this board that is directed at UCLA is mainly directed at you because you are an Arizona student.

[Batpig]

Having said that, I always stand by my predictions (and I've made a lot) whether right or wrong and I own up to them if I must without seeing it as a problem. That's kind of the point to having an archived message board, and also part of the fun of having a rivals forum, isn't it? You think if UCLA fans were so negative about Arizona and they went out and had a season like UCLA just had that people wouldn't be looking back and digging up the threads? I think they would, and whether that's right or wrong isn't the issue; its kind of part of the fun. To say that that's the guy being a 'sore winner' seems like you're just trying to find an insult for him without understanding the levity of the situation.

Exactly! It's not as if this stuff is even a big deal. Just having some fun. Feel free to correct me and TucsonDon if this type of thing is not one of the reason's for having an archived message board. I was under the impression that is.

Sorry to pee in your Cheerios, I just have alwasy thought of this board having generally easy going, funloving and knowledgable fans, I didn't think this would piss you guys off so much. I thought y'all would have more fun with it. Guess I was wrong.

[Flipper]

Personally, I don't dig up old threads.

But I kinda like the stuff that I wrote on this very thread. Especially the ones that came to fruition.:tup:

Onwards to next season. The Pac will have the right 2 teams at the top.

[Batpig]

please, this is an arizona board...how many dozens of old ucla threads can we bring up for you smug little girls? please just stop, i'm trying to get into our summer recruiting buzz and the draft but all i can come here to read is thread after thread after thread about how sucla is so amazing.
i don't disagree that you're better, but its tiresome.

Arch Rivals Forum...nuff said

[TucsonDon]

Sure there are always going to be dickheads that take shots at UCLA and Washington for that matter. But this board has been more than fair to UCLA lately, especially late in the season and during the tournament. I don't see why you can't admit that. You are acting like this board just loves to slag UCLA all the time, it's not true. Were we happy that they lost in the NC game? Sure, a lot of us were. But it wasn't because we hate UCLA or have something against UCLA, it's because it was good for our program.

Also, a lot of the venom on this board that is directed at UCLA is mainly directed at you because you are an Arizona student.
I agree with some of what you're saying. Late in the season, what are you guys going to really say, though? There really isn't much to talk **** about. This board does love to slag UCLA all the time...it is true. Unbelievably there are even some who are still talking **** because we lost in the championship game, so I have a hard time believing you when you say this.

There are some (DCCAT, AzChuck, Killervibe...a few others) who don't do that kind of thing, don't try and take shots at UCLA and come off as objective Arizona fans instead of avid UCLA-haters, but those posters are very few and far between. Let me be clear though...there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. I assume that you guys do hate UCLA and were rooting against them all season, as you probably should. This is an Arizona message board and beyond that, you guys are of course entitled to say whatever you want and hate whomever you want. But don't tell me that the website doesn't resort to trashing UCLA at any opportunity; I'm not buying that one.

[haji81872]

I think it would be poor form if this ws drug up on the main board, but it is the arch-rivals section and why it was created was for this kind of stuff.

Besides I found it fascinating to read some of the old stuff. I found myself nodding my head in agreement with much of what was said. I think it shows just how amazing of a season UCLA did have. Not just the run in the tournament, but sweeping Arizona, winning the Pac-10 title and tournament just all seems so improbable. Even this biggest homer wouldn't have dared predict this finish.

In retrospect it is funny to look back at some of the talk in light of what we know now. The post that said Hassan, JP, Mustafa, Jmac, Marcus, Rodgers, were better then anyone in our back court is just hilarious. In September though, I am sure I didn't feel it was too far from the truth.

[Jason Scheer]

Arch Rivals Forum...nuff said

I do find it somewhat interesting considering what you say on other boards. We know why you brought it up, but I think you would be hard pressed to find Arizona fans go to the other site you frequent and do the same.

[ByJoveByJingle]

But don't tell me that the website doesn't resort to trashing UCLA at any opportunity; I'm not buying that one.
Not even close in tone or in content to what I have read about Lute Olson and Arizona on UCLA message boards. UCLA fans should be ashamed of their fellow fans for some the **** they say.

[11Banners]

This is an Arizona board so there definitely is going to be hatred towards UCLA. Some people are myopic, others are rational. The same can be seen on BRO in regards to Arizona. I actually think most of the posters here do a good job of being objective, except for a certain few which is expected.

[argaen]

For the amount of crap the UCLA fans get here, and because of the rather large bias against the Bruin program, I think its well within their right, even fair and probably proper for UCLA fans to dig up these threads if they so choose. Calling them poor winners is the sound of a poor loser, to be honest.Sure its fair. Just like when an arizona fan brings up ridiculous **** you say, too. Its not much fun when someone is necromancing the forums and bringing back stuff you say though is it? (http://forum.goazcats.com/showthread.php?t=47452)

[ASUHATER!]

batpig. sure you can talk what you want on the arch rivals forum but after one post...we F*CKING GET IT ALREADY. we know we had some off predictions. WE KNOW WE KNOW WE KNOWWWWWWWWWWWW. but the fact that you get all defensive and post 390482092 quotes about how right you were makes you a complete and utter douchebag, asswipe, d*ckface whatever you want to call it.

[Batpig]

batpig. sure you can talk what you want on the arch rivals forum but after one post...we F*CKING GET IT ALREADY. we know we had some off predictions. WE KNOW WE KNOW WE KNOWWWWWWWWWWWW. but the fact that you get all defensive and post 390482092 quotes about how right you were makes you a complete and utter douchebag, asswipe, d*ckface whatever you want to call it.
LOL!! You're hilarious. That was some good swearin"! Crap Boobs Crap! I feel much better now.

By the way, FUN...you should look it up. Learn to take a joke.

[Batpig]

This is the Arch Rivals forum, which is why I don't care. If you did this in Proud Tradition it would suck. But please make some predictions so when you're wrong I can bring them up next season :)

OK, here's a prediction just for you for you...
Next year UCLA wins the Pac-10 title again finishing 16-2 in conference and loses no more than 4 games total during the regular season. The Bruins take advantage of the fact that during the off season Luc Richard Mbah a Moute develops a consisent jumper and Josh Shipp comes back at full strength becoming UCLA's best all purpose scorer by midseason. UCLA's starting lineup now features players who, 1 through 4 can all handle the rock, shoot it and pass. Utilizing this new found versatility, UCLA begins to run more and Howland loosens the reigns, allowing the players to freelance a little bit more, but still runs a lot of set plays that are his staple. These added dimensions increase UCLA's offensive flexibility and overall scoring ability. Farmar, Shipp Afflalo and Moute ALL average double digits in scoring and the team raises their scoring average to 74.0 or so per game and continue to play the same stifling defense. UCLA returns to the final four.

Sound good? Feel free to talk trash to me if this prediction proves to be false. This is my honest belief. If I am wrong I'll bump this thread my self.

[CaptainObvious]

For the amount of crap the UCLA fans get here, and because of the rather large bias against the Bruin program, I think its well within their right, even fair and probably proper for UCLA fans to dig up these threads if they so choose. Calling them poor winners is the sound of a poor loser, to be honest.


WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH HHHHH! :(

Need "crying smilie"

:crying:
:whining: