Arizona vs. UCLA: 2005-08

[Mustache Man]

In 2005:

Coaching: Arizona > UCLA
Talent: Arizona > UCLA

With an incoming recruiting class this year of Price, MWill, and Fendi, and with a likely 2006 class of Wise, Hill, Chase, and Thomas, what's changing in 2006 and 2007? How is the "gap closing" in either coaching or talent?

[11Banners]

Okay let's compare the talent with lets say Lance Thomas at AZ and Deon Thompson at UCLA.

PG: UCLA 5* Jordan Farmar, 4* Darren Collison
SG: 5* Arron Afflalo, 4* Mike Roll
SF: 4* Josh Shipp, 3* Luc Mbah Moute
PF: 4/5* James Keefe, Ryan Wright 4*
C: 5* Deon Thompson, 4* Lorenzo Mata, 3/4* Alfred Aboya

'Zona

PG: 5* Shakur 5* JP Prince, 3/4* Nic Wise
SG: 4/5* Marcus Williams, 3* Daniel Dillon/Verdejo
SF: 5* Jawaan Mcllelan, 5* Budinger, 5* Thomas
PF: 4* Ivan Radenovic, 4* Fendi Onubun
C: 3* Kirk Walters, 4* Mohammad Tangara, 4* Hill

Just looking at the rosters even without the stars, each team has advantages at different positions.

Edit: I forgot about Mustafa Shakur. That's 14 scholarship players on the roster, so I expect one AZ player to go pro (Mclellan?) or some transfers, possibly Verdejo or Dillon.

The point is there is a major difference in UCLA's talent from Howland's first season to what it should be in the very near future. Guys such as Keefe, Wright, Thompson, Mata, Aboya, and Luc are considerably better than the front court Howland inherited. Moreover, Farmar, Afflalo, Shipp, Collison, Roll, and Luc are extremely better than Bozeman, Thompson, Crispin, Walcott, and Morrison.

[Mustache Man]

I'm not arguing that UCLA doesn't have talent, and especially not that UCLA doesn't have more talent on the horizon than it has on its current roster. That's definitely true, and the Bruins' talent level will improve significantly in coming seasons.

But I think every UCLA fan will (or should) concede that Howland is not Lute Olsen's equal as a coach. Thus, the "gap" must be bridged on talent alone, and I just don't see the influx of talent to Westwood as significantly greater than the talent coming to Tucson.

[Gronk4Heisman]

The point is there is a major difference in UCLA's talent from Howland's first season to what it should be in the very near future. Guys such as Keefe, Wright, Thompson, Mata, Aboya, and Luc are considerably better than the front court Howland inherited. Moreover, Farmar, Afflalo, Shipp, Collison, Roll, and Luc are extremely better than Bozeman, Thompson, Crispin, Walcott, and Morrison.

Last I checked half these guys have never played a game of college basketball. A couple haven't even played a game as a Senior in High School. Furthermore, Bozeman was a five star McD's AA, Thompson was the best SG in the wast as well as a 4 star recruit, Walcott was a 3/4 star player, and B Mo was good enough to get a scholi at UNC as well as have a cult following only matched by Skip to my Lou. Also, Crispin was named the third best transfer in america the year he moved to UCLA. So before you claim this incoming guys are better wait till they play a college game. Its not like you guys haven't had top 25 classes year in and year out.

[barringer97]

Last I checked half these guys have never played a game of college basketball. A couple haven't even played a game as a Senior in High School. Furthermore, Bozeman was a five star McD's AA, Thompson was the best SG in the wast as well as a 4 star recruit, Walcott was a 3/4 star player, and B Mo was good enough to get a scholi at UNC as well as have a cult following only matched by Skip to my Lou. Also, Crispin was named the third best transfer in america the year he moved to UCLA. So before you claim this incoming guys are better wait till they play a college game. Its not like you guys haven't had top 25 classes year in and year out.


But this year is different!!!

C'mon Stoops, we are dealing with UCLA fans here...

[11Banners]

Last I checked half these guys have never played a game of college basketball. A couple haven't even played a game as a Senior in High School. Furthermore, Bozeman was a five star McD's AA, Thompson was the best SG in the wast as well as a 4 star recruit, Walcott was a 3/4 star player, and B Mo was good enough to get a scholi at UNC as well as have a cult following only matched by Skip to my Lou. Also, Crispin was named the third best transfer in america the year he moved to UCLA. So before you claim this incoming guys are better wait till they play a college game. Its not like you guys haven't had top 25 classes year in and year out.

"'Zona

PG: 5* Shakur 5* JP Prince, 3/4* Nic Wise
SG: 4/5* Marcus Williams, 3* Daniel Dillon/Verdejo
SF: 5* Jawaan Mcllelan, 5* Budinger, 5* Thomas
PF: 4* Ivan Radenovic, 4* Fendi Onubun
C: 3* Kirk Walters, 4* Mohammad Tangara, 4* Hill"

Considering Mcllelan is very close to heading pro, the only players on the roster with college experience would be Shakur, Radenovic, Walters, Dillon/Verdejo (both barely even played).

[11Banners]

I'm not arguing that UCLA doesn't have talent, and especially not that UCLA doesn't have more talent on the horizon than it has on its current roster. That's definitely true, and the Bruins' talent level will improve significantly in coming seasons.

But I think every UCLA fan will (or should) concede that Howland is not Lute Olsen's equal as a coach. Thus, the "gap" must be bridged on talent alone, and I just don't see the influx of talent to Westwood as significantly greater than the talent coming to Tucson.

Sorry bud, as much as you guys think Lute Olson is the greatest coach in the history of basketball, at UCLA we look at national championships. One national title in 21 years isn't that impressive. We don't have to concede anything. Lute Olson is a very good head coach and he recruits with the best of them, however with all the first round flameouts and only one national title to show for all his talent, I hope Howland will be a better coach than Olson. So far, Howland has been magnificent at every other job he has coached at, and the rebuilding of UCLA is right on track for us to be a power year in and year out. This is the way Olson is perceived around the rest of the country, but another title in Mckale would really boost his legacy and negate all the first round losses. However, as I said, he is one of the best in the nation, but we are looking forward to better things from Howland at UCLA in the near future.

[Batpig]

In 2005:

Coaching: Arizona > UCLA
Talent: Arizona > UCLA

With an incoming recruiting class this year of Price, MWill, and Fendi, and with a likely 2006 class of Wise, Hill, Chase, and Thomas, what's changing in 2006 and 2007? How is the "gap closing" in either coaching or talent?

Mustache, you are the master if inventing metrics that supposedly measure something substantive. But "Coaching: Arizona > UCLA; Talent: Arizona > UCLA" isn't exactly scientific. It does show that YOU think that both of those statements are true, but not much more. Don't worry though you don't have to prove that you believe those things, we believe you. You are an unrepentent homer.

The talent gap is closing because Zona is remaining static (elite, but definitely not any better than years past, and arguably not quite as good - I would be shocked is Buddinger turned out to be as good as Iggy, RJ or Hassan) , whereas UCLA's talent is drastically improving. Basic idea, Zona isn't getting worse, UCLA is getting much better.

p.s. Walcott was NOT a 3 or 4 star recruit.

[Ben Hansen]

- I would be shocked is[sic] Buddinger[sic] turned out to be as good as Iggy, RJ or Hassan , whereas UCLA's talent is drastically improving. Basic idea, Zona isn't getting worse, UCLA is getting much better.

Couldn't an obvious comeback to that assertion about Chase be that it would be shocking if Mbaha Moute turned out to be as good as Dijon Thompson?

You make a good point about Chase but I would say that the level of talent at Arizona may still be similar to years past, but the depth is much greater now. UA's bench players are outstanding. Jawann, Jesus, Tangara, Prince, Fendi and Marcus Williams would start just about anywhere else nationally.

[barringer97]

"whereas UCLA's talent is drastically improving"


Is it really? Are they not getting the same type of rated recruits?

[catgrad97]

I really don't see that UCLA is making that drastic of an improvement in recruits at the guard positions. The Bruins have definitely beefed-up inside this year, but at least at the 2 and 3 positions have stood pretty well pat.

[barringer97]

I really don't see that UCLA is making that drastic of an improvement in recruits at the guard positions. The Bruins have definitely beefed-up inside this year, but at least at the 2 and 3 positions have stood pretty well pat.


That's what I don't get. This years class has a couple of guys in the 80's and a couple of guys in the 100's. Next year is just Keefe (so far) who's ranking is falling like a rock.

You guys can go on and on about how good Roll and Collison are, but the truth is that they are not highly rated.

[beardownbaby]

Is it really? Are (the Bruins) not getting the same type of rated recruits?
That's a good question. I don't pay anywhere near as much attention to recruiting/ratings as I do to the actual college games, so I'm curious to know how much higher-rated the new UCLA recruits are.

11B, Flipper, TucsonDon, and other UCLA fans: How do the 2004, 2005 and 2006 classes stack up to the previous four/five classes that the Bruins brought in? Is the incoming talent level that superior?

It's a question entirely devoid of any sarcasm/smack. I am simply interested.

[wsugolfer]

i recall arizona having some damn good teams with recruits ranked around 80-90..Howland is recruiting his type of player for his system..UCLA will be damn tough the next few years.thank god..the conference needs it desperately...not every player has to be a high school superstar..see gilbert arenas...those lower ranked players have a chip on their shoulders, and alot of times turn out to be oustanding 4 YEAR COLLEGE PLAYERS...with that all said, Howland is not in Lute's caliber..and dont knock one national championship..i think 20+ 20-win seasons and 20+ consecutive tourney appearances are a tremendous indication of great coaching..call me when howland hits 10 in a row with either

[Flipper]

That's a good question. I don't pay anywhere near as much attention to recruiting/ratings as I do to the actual college games, so I'm curious to know how much higher-rated the new UCLA recruits are.

11B, Flipper, TucsonDon, and other UCLA fans: How do the 2004, 2005 and 2006 classes stack up to the previous four/five classes that the Bruins brought in? Is the incoming talent level that superior?

It's a question entirely devoid of any sarcasm/smack. I am simply interested.

The last monster class for UCLA was the Gadzuric class, which was what 6-7 years ago. The other decent class was the Thompson, Bozeman, Andre Patterson (flunked out of UCLA), which turned out to be not so great, with Dijon (and hopefully Ced) being major contributors. Its been a struggle ever since, with the Evan Burns fiasco, and UCLA not really able to pick up anybody of note for about 3 years.

These are the kids that ended up at UCLA between the Thompson class and the Farmar class: Ryan Hollins, Jon Crispin, BMo, Trevor Ariza (1 yr) and a couple of walk-ons like Janou Rubin. The first 3 were transfers from other programs. The talent level really dropped off.

The big difference with the '04 class is that the college game is predicated on guard play. UofA fans should understand this concept quite well. With the 3 guards from that class, coupled with serviceable bigs in the next class (we shall see with Wright/Aboya), and adding elite bigs later on, Keefe/Thompson (hopefully), the foundation is being set properly.

To answer your question, this influx of talent is far superior to the talent haul at UCLA over the previous 5 years. Remember, UCLA missed the Dance for a couple of years, primarily to to Lavin's inabilty to continue the recruiting level of past UCLA teams. The only other time I can recall when UCLA messed up on the recruiting front was in the early to mid 80's, under Larry Farmer and Walt Hazzard, when UCLA missed the Dance a couple times.

That time period really opened the door for a silver haired gent from IOWA to move to the desert, and get a certain program going. Some of those kids should have ended up at UCLA. Steve Kerr was a UCLA ballboy growing up. Jud Beuchler was a volleyball player that should have gone to UCLA, but with coaches listed above, we missed out on them.

[ajzlakers1]

Lute Olson is a very good head coach and he recruits with the best of them, however with all the first round flameouts and only one national title to show for all his talent, I hope Howland will be a better coach than Olson.


HAHAHAHAH!

As if you would be disappointed if Howland only does as well as Olson has.

You should pray to God that Howland will be as good for UCLA as Olson has for AZ. Somethin tells me you'd be pretty damn happy with that.

[Mustache Man]

Sorry bud, as much as you guys think Lute Olson is the greatest coach in the history of basketball, at UCLA we look at national championships. One national title in 21 years isn't that impressive. We don't have to concede anything. Lute Olson is a very good head coach and he recruits with the best of them, however with all the first round flameouts and only one national title to show for all his talent, I hope Howland will be a better coach than Olson. So far, Howland has been magnificent at every other job he has coached at, and the rebuilding of UCLA is right on track for us to be a power year in and year out. This is the way Olson is perceived around the rest of the country, but another title in Mckale would really boost his legacy and negate all the first round losses. However, as I said, he is one of the best in the nation, but we are looking forward to better things from Howland at UCLA in the near future.

Name the active coaches with more than one national title. I'll give you a hint: there are only 3. You really think Howland is/will be in that class?

In fact, there are only 11 coaches in NCAA history with more than one national title, and only 5 of those have coached in the last 30 years. So yeah, it's tough to do and I'd bet whatever I could that Howland won't be doing it anytime soon.

Also, UCLA has 1 title in the last 30 years...you might want to alter those expectations for an era with many more quality teams and a much tougher road to a championship.

Sorry, but I'll take a coach with a career winning percentage of .740, over 700 career victories, 5 Final Four appearances, 26 20-win seasons, and 20 years in a row of making the tournament over Howland. If you don't think Lute has a coaching edge over Howland, you are kidding yourself.

[Flipper]

Name the active coaches with more than one national title. I'll give you a hint: there are only 3. You really think Howland is/will be in that class?

In fact, there are only 11 coaches in NCAA history with more than one national title, and only 5 of those have coached in the last 30 years. So yeah, it's tough to do and I'd bet whatever I could that Howland won't be doing it anytime soon.

Also, UCLA has 1 title in the last 30 years...you might want to alter those expectations for an era with many more quality teams and a much tougher road to a championship.

Sorry, but I'll take a coach with a career winning percentage of .740, over 700 career victories, 5 Final Four appearances, 26 20-win seasons, and 20 years in a row of making the tournament over Howland. If you don't think Lute has a coaching edge over Howland, you are kidding yourself.


Olson's a fantastic coach. who's accomplished a lot for the 'Cats program, and have had a knack for developing kids, and getting them ready for the NBA.

Bottom line, he's had 1 title. At the end of the day, the expectations at UCLA will always be higher than that. Case in point, we got rid of a coach 1 year removed from an NC title. Seven years later, we got rid of a coach that had a pretty good tourney resume. At most programs, they'd have a bust in front of the arena for those accomplishments.

We've had a rough few years, but lets compare the programs FROM HERE ON OUT.

Both rosters probably have the same level of talent, with 'Zona having better older talent, while UCLA's core is in the sophs. Next year, talent should still be even, but UCLA will have the better veterans, depending on who stays on.

Recruiting should be even for the next few years, which is a plus for UCLA from RECENT history. The key then is blending those talents into cohesive teams that will put both programs into position to contend for PAC and national titles.

Yes, 'Zona's ahead of UCLA with Lute at the moment. But, we Bruin fans believe that Howland's the guy to get us to 'Zona's level, and for most of us, beyond what Lute has accomplished. But the operative word is HOPE.

I'd love for 'Zona to get another title or two for Lute. That would be great for West Coast hoops, and for UCLA to try to match and surpass.

To us, Howland's the coach. To you guys, he's accomplished jack. We feel he's laid the foundation with 2 years of solid recruits on the roster. The same level of recruiting that 'Zona's had over the same span.

No sense in arguing either way. This season and next will prove whether the Bruins have the makings of a perennial contender or not.

From a longtime Bruin fan, I like the current status of the program. Stability, which has not been a hallmark of the Bruins since Coach JRW retired, is finally here. You have to know UCLA's history to understand the constant turmoil we've been under since '75. Trust me, that turmoil is GONE.

[Mustache Man]

Olson's a fantastic coach. who's accomplished a lot for the 'Cats program, and have had a knack for developing kids, and getting them ready for the NBA.

Bottom line, he's had 1 title. At the end of the day, the expectations at UCLA will always be higher than that. Case in point, we got rid of a coach 1 year removed from an NC title. Seven years later, we got rid of a coach that had a pretty good tourney resume. At most programs, they'd have a bust in front of the arena for those accomplishments.

We've had a rough few years, but lets compare the programs FROM HERE ON OUT.

Both rosters probably have the same level of talent, with 'Zona having better older talent, while UCLA's core is in the sophs. Next year, talent should still be even, but UCLA will have the better veterans, depending on who stays on.

Recruiting should be even for the next few years, which is a plus for UCLA from RECENT history. The key then is blending those talents into cohesive teams that will put both programs into position to contend for PAC and national titles.

Yes, 'Zona's ahead of UCLA with Lute at the moment. But, we Bruin fans believe that Howland's the guy to get us to 'Zona's level, and for most of us, beyond what Lute has accomplished. But the operative word is HOPE.

I'd love for 'Zona to get another title or two for Lute. That would be great for West Coast hoops, and for UCLA to try to match and surpass.

To us, Howland's the coach. To you guys, he's accomplished jack. We feel he's laid the foundation with 2 years of solid recruits on the roster. The same level of recruiting that 'Zona's had over the same span.

No sense in arguing either way. This season and next will prove whether the Bruins have the makings of a perennial contender or not.

From a longtime Bruin fan, I like the current status of the program. Stability, which has not been a hallmark of the Bruins since Coach JRW retired, is finally here. You have to know UCLA's history to understand the constant turmoil we've been under since '75. Trust me, that turmoil is GONE.

I think you're mistaking liking Lute with being down on Howland. I don't necessarily think Howland's a bad coach, but is he in Lute's class AT THIS POINT? No, but considering Lute is one of the top-5 active coaches in college basketball, that's pretty elite company. To not acknowledge that there's a disparity there is pretty unbelievable in my eyes.

I would love for UCLA to become a prominent program again, which would be great for Arizona and the Pac-10 and West Coast basketball in general. I just don't think, however, that ANY school will ever see the level of success that UCLA enjoyed in the 60s and 70s. The landscape of college basketball has changed, which is evidenced by just how difficult it is to win a title in the current tourney format. It's not about simply having the best team, it's about a perfect confluence of talent, luck, coaching, matchups, and a myriad of other factors.

[MrBug708]

Also, UCLA has 1 title in the last 30 years...you might want to alter those expectations for an era with many more quality teams and a much tougher road to a championship.

Did I miss where Arizona won its second in the last 30 years?

[Jason Scheer]

The point is, you think Howland will lead you to something better than Lute. Basically what MM and I are getting from your writing is that Howland at UCLA will be in the class of Calhoun, K, Boheim...

[Flipper]

The point is, you think Howland will lead you to something better than Lute. Basically what MM and I are getting from your writing is that Howland at UCLA will be in the class of Calhoun, K, Boheim...

I did say that 'Zona's ahead in coaching, until such time as Howland is able to meet Lute's numbers, and hopefully surpass them.

We HOPE that Howland will surpass Olson's record, and join the elite multiple title guys like Calhoun, K, Bobby Knight (don't think Boeheim has more than 1, right?).

If Olson ends up with more than 1 title, we will then HOPE that Howland someday APPROACH Olson's.

[11Banners]

HAHAHAHAH!

As if you would be disappointed if Howland only does as well as Olson has.

You should pray to God that Howland will be as good for UCLA as Olson has for AZ. Somethin tells me you'd be pretty damn happy with that.

Harrick won a title in 95 and subsequently lost in the first round to Princeton which angered every UCLA on the planet. I would not be too happy with only one title in 21 years.

[11Banners]

Name the active coaches with more than one national title. I'll give you a hint: there are only 3. You really think Howland is/will be in that class?

In fact, there are only 11 coaches in NCAA history with more than one national title, and only 5 of those have coached in the last 30 years. So yeah, it's tough to do and I'd bet whatever I could that Howland won't be doing it anytime soon.

Also, UCLA has 1 title in the last 30 years...you might want to alter those expectations for an era with many more quality teams and a much tougher road to a championship.

Sorry, but I'll take a coach with a career winning percentage of .740, over 700 career victories, 5 Final Four appearances, 26 20-win seasons, and 20 years in a row of making the tournament over Howland. If you don't think Lute has a coaching edge over Howland, you are kidding yourself.

Lute definitely has an experience advantage over Howland at this point. Howland is only 48 years old, while Lute is 71 and has coached in final fours as you've pointed out. However, as I've said above, UCLA fans want titles, not final fours. I've already stated Lute is one of the best coaches in the nation. But, I expect more from Howland in the next 20 years. Two national titles would be good, but one would be a disappointment from our perspective.

[Mustache Man]

General question then for all the UCLA fans: do you think your expectations of multiple national titles from your current (and future) coach(es) are a bit unrealistic, given the drastic change in the college basketball landscape from the Wooden era to the present day?

[11Banners]

General question then for all the UCLA fans: do you think your expectations of multiple national titles from your current (and future) coach(es) are a bit unrealistic, given the drastic change in the college basketball landscape from the Wooden era to the present day?

It's clearly unrealistic to expect a dominant stretch that brings about 10 titles in 12 years. However, I don't think it's unrealistic to expect more than one title in twenty years. Calhoun, K, Smith, (Roy williams will get there soon at UNC), and Pitino would have definitely won another one if he stayed on at Kentucky with the dominant program he built. At UCLA, Howland has one of the most fertile recruiting areas in the country. It's one of the few programs, such as UNC, Kentucky, KU that will always be able to lure the top talent. Even a coach like Harrick who consistently lost in the first round to inferior opponents hit the jackpot with the talent amassed during 95. Lute Olson came very close to winning his second title in 2001 when the referees clearly had the Dukie V sunglasses on. So, no, I don't think winning multiple titles, especially at a school like UCLA is unrealistic.

[barringer97]

Harrick won a title in 95 and subsequently lost in the first round to Princeton which angered every UCLA on the planet. I would not be too happy with only one title in 21 years.


But you guys (Ucla AD) were upset about other things also...

[11Banners]

But you guys (Ucla AD) were upset about other things also...

Peter Dalis is a moron. He and Harrick had it out for each other from the very beginning. I believe Harrick was his 3rd or 4th choice after both Jimmy V and Larry Brown snubbed us at the last moment. We can all thank Dick Vitale for calling Jimmy V and convincing him at the last moment not to come to UCLA. It was similar to Dukie V's pleas to Howland on ESPN not to come to UCLA, but thankfully Howland doesn't carry a friendship with a bitter loser like Dukie V.

[barringer97]

It's clearly unrealistic to expect a dominant stretch that brings about 10 titles in 12 years. However, I don't think it's unrealistic to expect more than one title in twenty years. Calhoun, K, Smith, (Roy williams will get there soon at UNC), and Pitino would have definitely won another one if he stayed on at Kentucky with the dominant program he built. At UCLA, Howland has one of the most fertile recruiting areas in the country. It's one of the few programs, such as UNC, Kentucky, KU that will always be able to lure the top talent. Even a coach like Harrick who consistently lost in the first round to inferior opponents hit the jackpot with the talent amassed during 95. Lute Olson came very close to winning his second title in 2001 when the referees clearly had the Dukie V sunglasses on. So, no, I don't think winning multiple titles, especially at a school like UCLA is unrealistic.


Of the 5 guys you mention, 2 haven't done it. Yet it's realistic? Humm. :rolleyes:

Then you mention that Ucla is in one of the most 'fertile' recruiting areas in the country and then you compare Ucla to 3 other programs that aren't in 'fertile' recruiting areas. There is no similarity between Ucla and UNC, Kentucky, and KU.

[ByJoveByJingle]

Sorry bud, as much as you guys think Lute Olson is the greatest coach in the history of basketball, at UCLA we look at national championships. One national title in 21 years isn't that impressive. We don't have to concede anything. Lute Olson is a very good head coach and he recruits with the best of them, however with all the first round flameouts and only one national title to show for all his talent, I hope Howland will be a better coach than Olson

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[ByJoveByJingle]

Harrick won a title in 95 and subsequently lost in the first round to Princeton which angered every UCLA on the planet. I would not be too happy with only one title in 21 years.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :p

[GlobalCat]

UCLA fans and the French have a lot in common.

http://www.thelaughingstock.co.uk/acatalog/french-beret.jpg http://www.sillyjokes.co.uk/images/dress-up/acc/hats/berret.jpg http://www.villagehatshop.com/media/dog-beret.jpg

We are good, oui! Sacre Bleu! Our team is le superior porquoi our militarie is bien!


See my sig :smokin:

[Mustache Man]

What we've established so far in this thread and many others with UCLA fans:

1) UCLA's talent level will magically become better than Arizona's by next year, just because they're UCLA. Recruits apparently don't care that Lute and Arizona have put more players in the NBA than UCLA's last 4 coaches combined.
2) UCLA fans will not be satisfied if Ben Howland has a Lute Olson-type coaching career. In fact, Howland will be better than Lute and will win multiple national championships at UCLA.
3) Any coach who does not win more than one national championship is a failure and should be fired. Thus, all but 11 coaches in the history of men's college basketball are failures and should be/should have been fired.
4) UCLA will win the Pac-10 by 2006-07, led by future National Player of the Year and NBA lottery pick Jordan Farmar, who was unbelievable last year when he shot 41% from the field and turned the ball over 113 times, with an assist to turnover ratio that was top-15...in the Pac-10.

[barringer97]

Ben Howland=Ben Braun

[beardownbaby]

What we've established so far in this thread and many others with UCLA fans:

1) UCLA's talent level will magically become better than Arizona's by next year, just because they're UCLA. Recruits apparently don't care that Lute and Arizona have put more players in the NBA than UCLA's last 4 coaches combined.
2) UCLA fans will not be satisfied if Ben Howland has a Lute Olsen-type coaching career. In fact, Howland will be better than Lute and will win multiple national championships at UCLA.
3) Any coach who does not win more than one national championship is a failure and should be fired. Thus, all but 11 coaches in the history of men's college basketball are failures and should be/should have been fired.
4) UCLA will win the Pac-10 by 2006-07, led by future National Player of the Year and NBA lottery pick Jordan Farmar, who was unbelievable last year when he shot 41% from the field and turned the ball over 113 times, with an assist to turnover ratio that was top-15...in the Pac-10.
This is AR Forum brilliance.

Whether or not it's an accurate depiction of what UCLA folks are saying here (I've not followed this -- the 100,000th version of this discussion -- entirely), but this is some good smack, 'Stache.

Bear Down.

EDIT: But boo to you for misspelling Lute Olson!

[Flipper]

What we've established so far in this thread and many others with UCLA fans:

1) UCLA's talent level will magically become better than Arizona's by next year, just because they're UCLA. Recruits apparently don't care that Lute and Arizona have put more players in the NBA than UCLA's last 4 coaches combined.
2) UCLA fans will not be satisfied if Ben Howland has a Lute Olson-type coaching career. In fact, Howland will be better than Lute and will win multiple national championships at UCLA.
3) Any coach who does not win more than one national championship is a failure and should be fired. Thus, all but 11 coaches in the history of men's college basketball are failures and should be/should have been fired.
4) UCLA will win the Pac-10 by 2006-07, led by future National Player of the Year and NBA lottery pick Jordan Farmar, who was unbelievable last year when he shot 41% from the field and turned the ball over 113 times, with an assist to turnover ratio that was top-15...in the Pac-10.

Funny smack, alright. Don't let the fact that this is a total misrepresentation of what Bruin fans said all along on this thread get in the way of this fine nugget. :)

Bottom line, the exchanges were pretty cool, yet MM brought back the old party line re: UCLA fans.

Since we're on this issue somewhat, let me ask you 'Cat fans a question or two?

WHERE DO YOU GUYS THINK OLSON'S AT IN THE ALL-TIME GREATEST COACHES CATEGORY? 1 NC, 4 FF's, 20+ straight NCAA tourneys, but with 1 big negative - the 8 FIRST ROUND LOSSES in those 20+ appearances.

Do you think he even makes the Top 20, Top 10, what?

[Ben Hansen]

Of course Olson isn't in the Wooden-Smith-Iba-Knight-Allen-Bee group but he's not tremendously far behind, either.

Behind K but ahead of Tarkanian, John Chaney, Roy Williams, Ralph Miller and Billy Donovan.

[Iningo_Montoya]

Of course Olson isn't in the Wooden-Smith-Iba-Knight-Allen-Bee group but he's not tremendously far behind, either.

Behind K but ahead of Tarkanian, John Chaney, Roy Williams, Ralph Miller and Billy Donovan.


Billy Donovan! :roll: :roll:

[haji81872]

Billy Donavan!!!!

One of these things is not like the other.
One of these things just isn't the same.

[Flipper]

Billy Donavan!!!!

One of these things is not like the other.
One of these things just isn't the same.

Ben,

Might as well add Quinn Snyder.

I would put Roy on par with Lute. He's had 1 NC, at least 3 FF's, and I don't believe his Kansas teams ever lost in the first round.

[ByJoveByJingle]

Ben,

Might as well add Quinn Snyder.

I would put Roy on par with Lute. He's had 1 NC, at least 3 FF's, and I don't believe his Kansas teams ever lost in the first round.

He also turned two absolute doormat programs into juggernauts, baaaaby!!!!!!!

[barringer97]

Okay let's compare the talent with lets say Lance Thomas at AZ and Deon Thompson at UCLA.

PG: UCLA 5* Jordan Farmar, 4* Darren Collison
SG: 5* Arron Afflalo, 4* Mike Roll
SF: 4* Josh Shipp, 3* Luc Mbah Moute
PF: 4/5* James Keefe, Ryan Wright 4*
C: 5* Deon Thompson, 4* Lorenzo Mata, 3/4* Alfred Aboya

The point is there is a major difference in UCLA's talent from Howland's first season to what it should be in the very near future. Guys such as Keefe, Wright, Thompson, Mata, Aboya, and Luc are considerably better than the front court Howland inherited. Moreover, Farmar, Afflalo, Shipp, Collison, Roll, and Luc are extremely better than Bozeman, Thompson, Crispin, Walcott, and Morrison.



Revision maybe?