UCLA Basketball...Underrated?

[Chief Rum]

Okay, I'm a big time UCLA homer. You guys knwo it.

In honor of the season-opening game against Vermont tonight, I thought I would share an observation with you guys.

As is well known among college hoop fans, UCLA had a horrible season last year. The players essentially gave up on Steve Lavin, except for one suprising victory over Arizona in the Pac-10 toruney. They went 10-19, breaking a 15-year NCAA streak and a 50-year .500-plus record streak. One of the pinnacles of college basketball had truly fallen on hard times.

Since then, we have lost three players who saw major time, including NBA draft pick Jason Kaponoi, and we have added a new coach, the well-regarded (outside of Pennsylvania) Ben Howland, one good recruit (Trevor Ariza, who won't be playing tonight, thanks to some sort of lung infection/sickness), and one decent transfer (Brian Morrison from UNC).

Taking all this, it is easy to see the doom-and-gloom that has been forecast for these Bruins this year.

But I just can't help but think they are being underrated. No one has them in their Top 25s (understandable). But some don't even have them in their Top 65s (more of a stretch). And some magazines/people/prognosticators have picked them as low as 8th in the Pac-10.

And I just think people are getting carried away with the demise of this team. Here are things to chew on:

We still have a McDonald's All-American (Cedric Bozeman) on this team. There are several Top 50 player in this class on this team (Bozeman, Dijon Thompson, Morrison, Ariza, Ryan Hollins, Michael Fey, T.J. CUmmings). Howland has brought ina r enewed emphasis on defense and fundamentals that was sorely lacking under Lavin. This isn't a guy these players will quit under. They will be learning under him, and judging by the exhbiitions, have already been learning under him quite well.

What I see is a talented driving point guard (Bozeman), a couple of top notch shooters (Morrison and Jon Crispin) at SG, one of the Pac-10's best players at SF (Thompson), a nice offensive option (Cummings) and our top recruit (Ariza) at PF, and a quick (Hollins) and strong (Fey) combo at C. This isn't the deepest teama roudn, which is why it shouldn't be predicted in the Top 25 or winning Pac-10 titles. But should this team be completely blackballed from predictions, as I have witnessed?

I don't think so. I think UCLA is going to surprise a lot of people this year and finish with 20+ wins, a trip to the NCAAs as a 5th or 6th seed, and anywhere from 2nd to 4th in a competitive Pac-10.

Like I said, I am a homer. But I see real talent on this team. Talent wasn't ever the issue. Coaching was. The coaching has been replaced by quality teaching. But people are forgetting about the talent.

What do the rest of you college hoop fans think?

CR

P.S. Cummings will also not be playing because he is academically ineligible until the fourth game of the season in a couple weeks. So tonight might not be the best time to judge these Bruins, although I still think they will win.

[The_herd]

I don't think talent is why people are underestimating them. It has more to do with what everone has seen from this team the past few seasons. This is a team that was known to quit, or at the very least, tune Lavin out on occasion.

I watched Bozeman play a game when he was healthy as a freshman and thought he was the best point guard I saw that season. The kid can get to the basket easlily, has a decent shot, and is flat out taller than most PGs without giving away any quickness.

I think everyone is waiting to see how the new coach handles this team before placing them as high as they have been in recent years under Lavin, just to see them crash and burn.

[MrBug708]

Woot Woot

Some side notes, TJ Cummings is out for the first 3 games due to not going to class last semester, Matt McKinney is out 6-8 weeks with a broken foot and the latest development is Trevor Ariza is out for at least 2 weeks due to a collapsed lung.

I'm as big of a homer as Chief, but I dont see us getting 20 wins this year. I do see us making the tournament and I will go out on a limb and predict a Final 4 with 4 years.

And Chief, UCLA deserves to be blackballed for sucking it up last year. The last thing UCLA needed was to have high expectations this year because the media scrutiny on this team if they lost games would be as bad as it was under Lavin and those are distractions this UCLA team does not need

[Alan T]

I should post some comment ragging on Mrbug for making fun of my team.. but UCLA is solid :) I dont watch a ton of college bball outside of the ACC so I might not be the best judge though :)

[Chief Rum]

Bug, I'm not talking about whether this team should be blackballed for its lacksadaisacle play nor whether it would be a benefit or a bad thing for expectations to ne higher. I am only saying that I think this team is being vastly underrated by the media pundits out there. I'm not saying that this team should be predicted for championships--it is, of course, far, far away from that possibility. But this team is getting absolutely no love at all, and I think it has way too much talent, and Howland is too good a coach to just ignore it as it is being dine right now.

I noted the Ariza and Cummings problems in my initial post. They will be back for when it really matters (conference season/postseason). McKinney is just another among a plethora of subpar talented hacks at the end of the bench.

CR

[MrBug708]

Me? Rag? Half this board is GT fans

[Alan T]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Me? Rag? Half this board is GT fans

As it should be :) :)

[Neuqua]

Originally posted by MrBug708

I'm as big of a homer as Chief

You? Homer? You're kidding.

[vtbub]

Go UVM!

[The_herd]

UCLA is playing some pretty uninspired basketball right now.

[kcchief19]

Homer. :)

I have to admit I'm surprised to see so many people down on UCLA's prospects this year. ESPN's Fact or Fiction even features as one of its questions whether UCLA will make the tournament this year.

I think the main reason so many people don't think UCLA has much of a chance is that while there is talent on paper, most of the leftovers from the Lavin Era are seen as lacking any brains and/or heart. This team didn't go into the tank last season because of a lack of talent -- they went in the tank because they quit pretty early in the season.

Howland is a great coach and will get this thing turned around, but probably not this year. I think 20 wins is a stretch. I think a winning record and an NIT bid would be a very good season. If Howland gets most of the team to buy into his system, an NCAA bid is not out of the question.

There's a similar comparison to be made with North Carolina, which has much greater preseason optimisim and hype that UCLA. However, the Carolina cupboard isn't as bare, that team really hated Doherty and that bastard Roy Williams is a genius. Howland's not there yet.

[IMetTrentGreen]

i, personally, think texas will win 50 this year

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
But this team is getting absolutely no love at all, and I think it has way too much talent, and Howland is too good a coach to just ignore it as it is being dine right now.

Well, you are right about one count and wrong on another. Howland is a great coach (Pitt was the best coached team in the country last year). But, it is you who are overrating their talent, not the other way around. Besides, for a coach to get guys to subjugate their own games for the good of the team, you need a certain type of player (note: not Kobe). I don't know if Howland has those kinds of guys, like he did at Pitt.

UCLA will take a huge leap forward, to competitive in the Pac-10. Will they be top-25 caliber? Not even close.

[vtbub]

Vermont is a good club, but shouldn't be in the same ballpark as a pac-10 team talent wise.

Gonna be a good year here in town.

[The_herd]

Ok Chief, I watched my first full UCLA basketball game since they beat Cincy in the tourney a couple years ago. Damn good game, UCLA didn't play well in the 1st half at all, but came out motivated in the 2nd half and got the win. Not as athletic of a team as UCLA has had in the past few years, but they still have a good deal of talent.

Bozeman is a stud, possibly the best PG in the PAC10 this season. Not much more to add to what I said about him above.

Thompson is a hell of an offensive player, but really doesn't know how to play defense, he needs to learn to play D with his feet and not his hands. Too much reaching and steal attempts that leave him out of position. He also didn't box anyone out the entire game. But he has NBA level talent on offense, no question about that.

Fey played damn good basketball in the 2nd half. Not an athletic big man by any means, but he plays smart around the basket, looks like he has decent touch around the basket, and isn't afraid of contact.

Noone else really impressed enough tonight to comment about. It will be interesting to see how much better they play with Cummings and Ariza back.

In all I don't think an Tourney bid is out of the question, but I wouldn't be disappointed with a trip to the NIT this season. I think the most important things to watch with the new coach is whether or not he'll be able to recruit as well as Lavin did and if the players will still respond to his coaching after their 1st losing streak of any kind this season.

Take all this with a grain of salt though, as I said above, its the 1st full UCLA game I've watched in a while.

[daedalus]

I did not know Mr Morrison landed in Westwood after he left Chapel Hill. Not having to be a point should help him and, since he came to college with a reputation of being able to shoot, he should be able to provide some scoring punch. If Howland needs him as a point guard, though, I think UCLA will be in trouble with upper-tier schools.

I think having Howland at the helm is certainly a point for the school. He's shown before that he can be competetive at a high level, even without the "big" recruits. That should be helpful while the program is being reconstructed.

I only saw Bozeman a couple of time last year [I have a really tough time watching a Lavin-coached team]. Skill-wise, he's extremely impressive. I just think he'd be better off as a 2. Not for a lack of skill, but just the mindset and comfort level [as an example, I think both Marbury and Iverson should be playing 2]. I hope he stays an extra couple years. Him and the kid that Howland signed should make an interesting tandem.

I'm not familiar with Howland's system enough to know but I've read a few places where they don't think Cummings matches up with him well. He has good offensive skills but doesn't seem to be very physical or rebound very well, which is apparently what Howland requires. [Kinda ironic for Terry's kid!]

Another reason, I think that writers are so down on UCLA is the lack of depth like you said and the lack of size. Ariza is going to be starting at the 4 spot and he's 6'7, I think? Apparently, he's definitely a player, though, so he should be doing well.

Thompson did well last year, according to his numbers. But didn't he have some off-the-court problems? Classes or something? Hopefully, he stays good and stays on the court. The kind of production he can bring would make it very interesting.

I think UCLA will have a middle of the road year but I think they'll surprise some people [or teams]. Like you mentioned, the coaching was the problem last year and not the talent. Once Howland gets some of HIS talent on the court, though, and once they understand and get used to his system, UCLA should be ready to make some noise in the Pac-10 again. [Yay!]

[MrBug708]

Thompson didn't have problems, that was Andre Patterson who is sitting out a Tennessee. He didn't really like going to class at UCLA and flunked out twice, but that didn't seem to bother the Vols all that much.

Daedulus, I think Howland will have ever more sucess then he had at Pitt, mostly because he knows how to recruit to fit his needs. By coming to UCLA, he just inherited one of the richest recruiting regions and with any success, most of the talent will stay instate and go to UCLA. Look at his class for next year? All within 40 miles of UCLA. We'll need to go out of state to find his "4" player but I'm just stoked with the win and progress this team has made. More set plays this game then nearly all of Lavin's tenure

[Chief Rum]

Well, Samdari, if I am overrating the talent on this team, I am not alone, because I didn't put together the Top 50 lists those players were on, and I didn't name the McDonald's All-American team Bozeman was on, and I didn't put Dijon Thompson on All-Pac-10 last year. So at least I have company. :)

Tonight's game was interesting to watch because there was enough fuel for whichever side you are on in this mini-debate here. Vermont gave UCLA a heck of a game, and the Bruins had to put it together in the second half to win this one.

For any who didn't see this, I assume anyone outside of SoCal and (maybe) Vermont, the Catamounts charged to a 13-point halftime lead. The two teams traded baskets for the first fifteen minutes or so, and then the Cats started breaking down the zone with outside shots from unexpected sources (some guy named Sullivan, their star player Coppenrath took this horrible three that banked in, lucky bastard ;) ). UCLA meanwhile seemed mired in a halfcourt game they couldn't create any shots out of. SO UVM built up a big lead.

In the second half, UCLA started playing the way they should have all along. They were clearly the better team in the second half, as the Catamounts had no answers for Michael Fey underneath, couldn't keep a man on Ced Bozeman or Dijon Thompson and the only guy who could really do much was Coppenrath (that boy can play, BTW).

If you're on one end of the spectrum, you note that Vermont, an American East team came into Pauley Pavillion and almost came away with a victory. And that's pretty damning, considering there are probably two players on that team that could have made UCLA's roster (Coppenrath and Sorrentine).

On the other end, you could note that this is a UCLA team used to losing playing its first game since a disappointing 2002-03 season. The first half jitters would be expected. The second half might be more indicative of what this team can do--and note that we didn't have two key players in Trevor Ariza or T.J. Cummings either.

The fact is, Fey did things he never did last year. Bozeman looked like a vet and played almost the entire second half with a bad limp. UNC import Morrison played great in-your-face defense and hit key threes. And the whole team just played with heart and made mostly smart decisions. These things were absolutely absent last year.

It should also be noted that, American East squad or not, Vermont might not be that bad a team, considering they have the last two conference players of the year on their team and last year went to the NCAAs. I'm not saying they are great or on level with a major conference team, but they're not pushovers either. That guy Coppenrath can play for any team in the NCAA, I'll bet.

All things considered, I remain poisitive about this UCLA team and I think we're really going to expand on a lot of the things that the team showed tonight.

CR

[MrBug708]

Coppenrath and TJ would be starters at UCLA me thinks. Coppenrath for sure, TJ would alternate with B-Mo

I'll say it again, Lavin at the helm and this team loses this game by double digits

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Coppenrath and TJ would be starters at UCLA me thinks. Coppenrath for sure, TJ would alternate with B-Mo

I'll say it again, Lavin at the helm and this team loses this game by double digits

Agree completely on Lavin and Coppenrath. I think Sorrentine might be more suited to backup, though, unless he could handle the point. He would eb an upgrade there, I am sure, and Bozeman would move to the #2 spot.

Best benefit from tonight's game? We won a close one. These guys needed to win one of those, to remind them that they can do it, to build that confidence. This team is so used to having their coach blow the game by making dumb decisions, or failing to make smart plays themselves on the few teams Lavin actually didn't meddle enough to keep them out of the game, that they really needed a win like this.

CR

[MrBug708]

Howland is the 8th coach at UCLA to win his first game as a Bruin. Lavin, Farmer, and 2 others lost their UCLA coaching debut

[rexallllsc]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Howland is the 8th coach at UCLA to win his first game as a Bruin. Lavin, Farmer, and 2 others lost their UCLA coaching debut

It's nice to have a real coach again...

[MrBug708]

UCLA threads will always get a lot of hits. Between myself, Rex, and Chief (can't remember if HeyBrad is a Bruins fan) we tend to attract all sorts of posters

I think we are going to get killed by Kentucky

[Pumpy Tudors]

Where's the love for New Orleans? We beat Samford 62-60, and people think we won't even win the Sun Belt.

Errr, never mind.

[MrBug708]

Thread killer!

[rexallllsc]

Originally posted by MrBug708
UCLA threads will always get a lot of hits. Between myself, Rex, and Chief (can't remember if HeyBrad is a Bruins fan) we tend to attract all sorts of posters

I think we are going to get killed by Kentucky

Nah. Howlands teams wont get blown out. We might lose, but the drubbings will be few and far between, I think.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Thread killer!

Just thought I'd bring up Felton Spencer in this thread discussion basketball.

[daedalus]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Daedulus, I think Howland will have ever more sucess then he had at Pitt, mostly because he knows how to recruit to fit his needs. By coming to UCLA, he just inherited one of the richest recruiting regions and with any success, most of the talent will stay instate and go to UCLA. Look at his class for next year? All within 40 miles of UCLA. We'll need to go out of state to find his "4" player but I'm just stoked with the win and progress this team has made. More set plays this game then nearly all of Lavin's tenureI have no doubt of that. UCLA has the name and the location over Pitt [it's not a knock against Pitt, UCLA just does]. I've always felt that if southern California coaches could and would just keep the local recruits at home, they'd be very successful. Roy Williams and others have been poaching the state for forever and a half.

[vtbub]

The game was on digitial cable here.

Nice non-call at the end, not.

[MrBug708]

Ya, I think there should have been a push off call too

[TroyF]

Push off call? Ummm. . . exactly what hand or arm did he push off with? (considering both his hands were on the ball the entire time) The UCLA player was leaning into him as he took the shot. Obvious call, but Vermont can't complain. I'm not sure that call is made in any basketball game in the country with that little time left on the clock. (well, maybe if Shaq were the one taking the shot. . .)

UCLA looked good and bad. I thought the defense was horrible. Even throughout the second half, there was no interior defense to speak of and Vermont was able to get a lot of easy shots. That happens against a team like Arizona and you'll lose by 50. That said, defense is one of the things that improves over the year for a well coached basketball team. UCLA is well coached and they should get better.

How much better? I'd need to see em a few more times. Off of first glance, I'd say they should make the NIT at the very least. If the suspended/injured players come back in and mesh well, they'll be a bubble team.

TroyF

[rexallllsc]

The defense was 10x improved over any effort Lavin's teams *ever* produced.

Dijon had 18 and 9, Ced had 12 points, 9 assists, and 1 t/o, and Fey woke up.

Compared to the product we've seen from Steve Lavin, this was refreshing. As far as losing to AZ by 50, Ucla has never lost to AZ by 50...not even under Laugh-in.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by rexallllsc
The defense was 10x improved over any effort Lavin's teams *ever* produced.

Dijon had 18 and 9, Ced had 12 points, 9 assists, and 1 t/o, and Fey woke up.

Compared to the product we've seen from Steve Lavin, this was refreshing. As far as losing to AZ by 50, Ucla has never lost to AZ by 50...not even under Laugh-in.

Sorry if you can't detect sarcasm. I should have said that you'd lose by the 35 point romps you did last year to them. (tournament not withstanding)

I don't care if the defense was 10X better than Lavin. All I'm reporting is what I saw last night. I lost count of the lay ups Vermont was getting, even in the second half. The lack of execution was amusing at times. On one play a Vermont player drove and shot the ball while THREE UCLA interior defenders went to him and didn't bother with the rebound.

I said the defense would probably improve, but it's going to have to do so. They will not beat a lot PAC-10 teams playing that way.

Vermont missed a lot of open 15 foot looks. It seemed like the only two shots they could hit were layups or threes. (I suppose a symbol of what basketball is all over now) There was one guy UCLA needed to stop and they simply couldn't control him. What happens when they play an Arizona with 3 or 4 good to great offensive players?

Again, I think they will improve more and I did like some of the things I saw. I didn't expect them to become a dominant defensive team in Game 1. They have a lot of work to do. If they do it, they'll be in the tourney at the end of the year.

TroyF

[rexallllsc]

Originally posted by TroyF

I said the defense would probably improve, but it's going to have to do so. They will not beat a lot PAC-10 teams playing that way.


Ucla will more than likely finish in the top 4 of the Pac-10...it's *way* down this year.

[MrBug708]

Poor Josiah Johnson. He will be taken off scholarship after this year to make for more talented players. Lavin loves his legacies, but father Marques can surely afford it. Ouyr defense was indeed suspect, but when you are down to 3 post players for the game, what can you do?

[Chief Rum]

I agree the defense wasn't great, but unlike you, Troy, I did see a big difference from the first half to the second. There were a couple defensive breakdowns early in the second half that led to easy baskets, and Coppenrath was unstoppable wherever he was on the floor (I give him as much or more credit for that than I do discredit to UCLA--you don't put up those numbers without being halfway decent).

Vermont was very good at finding the open man (the toss down the box to Coppenrath underneath that Fey had to come from behind and block, the Sorrentine dish to a driving Scotty Jones from between two defenders, etc. are examples of that).

But for the most part, the close shots were limited. It was either Coppenrath or from three. Bozeman did a very good job on Sorrentine despite having to chase around after him on a sprained ankle that was just plain obvious (and looked painful). Morrison was also very active in man--I stayed in front of his man well and remained effortless in defense (what I didn't like about Morrison's game was that he couldn't always switch over fast enough, and that allowed Sullivan to can some threes, otherwise he was solid). Coppenrath was the golden boy last night, but even he had some struggles int he second half. He went off at the end, but he only had three points some 13-14 minutes into the second half. It was when he committed to playing face up on UCLA (taking threes and jump shots and working himself inside for Vermont's surprising passing ability) that he started to score again.

What I didn't like is that I hardly ever saw Thompson doing something good on defense. He had a couple poke checks at a ball, but he didn't show as much as he should. I also fretted whenever a pick came around. It semeed obvious that a bunch of UCLA players hadn't mastered the ole pick and switch. Too many times two men followed the ball, while the picker moved off, left alone. Ryan Hollins did this a lot, and so did Morrison, but I am not sure anyone outside of Bzeman wasn't guilty of it. That will need to be worked on.

The Bruins were much stronger on the defensive glass in the second half, which I think of as a part of defense as well. Hollins and Fey did very well clearing them out, and all five Bruins were showing a nose for the ball, as I can't tell you how many times I saw a "shorter" Bruin end up with a long rebound (or even one up close).

I agree, Troy, that UCLA is going to be better in the future. And I agree they were aweful in the first half. But I disagree that they did that bad of a job in the second half. I thought they were fairly strong.

CR

[Chief Rum]

Dola,

UVM last night...41.4 FG%. I'll take that. If you can believe it, they were a little worse form inside the arc (40%). They were outrebounded 35-29. Even Coppenrath was just 13-27 (which is great, but it's not quite as dominating as it would seem, at least not on percentage).

And these numbers are including the horrible first half. I think that defense was a little better than it looked. And it will only get better.

CR

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Well, Samdari, if I am overrating the talent on this team, I am not alone, because I didn't put together the Top 50 lists those players were on, and I didn't name the McDonald's All-American team Bozeman was on, and I didn't put Dijon Thompson on All-Pac-10 last year. So at least I have company. :
CR

Yes, UCLA has one McDonald's all-American. Bozeman IS a talent. Your initial post had you gushing like they had 12 :) I am not sure that the Pac-10 team was selected fairly last year, since Arizona had the 8 or 10 best players in the league Thompson is a good basketball player, but the kind of guy you can find on any college basketball team. As for the top 50 lists, if you find any with a ton of recent UCLA recruits on them, they were likley put together by a UCLA alum.

The rest are just college basketball players - the kinds of guys that everyone has.

Brian Morrison left Chapel Hill because he was not going to get playing time on a team that stunk. He's not someone who raises the talent level anywhere. He's barely talented enough to rate a D-I scholarship.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Dola,

UVM last night...41.4 FG%. I'll take that. If you can believe it, they were a little worse form inside the arc (40%). They were outrebounded 35-29. Even Coppenrath was just 13-27 (which is great, but it's not quite as dominating as it would seem, at least not on percentage).

And these numbers are including the horrible first half. I think that defense was a little better than it looked. And it will only get better.

CR

If you look at the raw numbers, they were great. 41% against, outrebounded them, even the final score was well within what should be expected.

I'm not basing it off of raw numbers though. I can believe that Vermont shot better from 3 point range than inside the arc. If they could learn to hit open 15 foot jump shots they'd have shot at least 50% from the floor.

Vermont is now 0-3. They lost to Nevada 69-49 (they shot 37.5%) They lost to Iona at home 56-53 (they shot 31%) Then they lost to UCLA on the road (where they shot 41%)

Their 33 point second half would have been their highest scoring half of the season. . . if they hadn't scored 34 in the first half against UCLA.

I don't think UCLA played especially well on defense in either half. Just my opinion, feel free to disagree. :)

On a side note, T. J. Torrenstine from Vermont should just stop shooting the basketball. He's horrible. One of the ugliest shots I've ever seen. I thought maybe he had a bad night (he went 1-8 against the Bruins) I looked at his overall numbers this year:

7/32 from the floor. 22%
2/16 from 3point land. 12.5%
6 assists, 9 turnovers.

The scary part is the guy plays 32 minutes a night. Yikes. Can you say "weakest link?"

TroyF

[Chief Rum]

Thought you guys might find this to be a good take on the game.

http://ucla.theinsiders.com/2/207177.html

CR

[vtbub]

Originally posted by TroyF
If you look at the raw numbers, they were great. 41% against, outrebounded them, even the final score was well within what should be expected.

I'm not basing it off of raw numbers though. I can believe that Vermont shot better from 3 point range than inside the arc. If they could learn to hit open 15 foot jump shots they'd have shot at least 50% from the floor.

Vermont is now 0-3. They lost to Nevada 69-49 (they shot 37.5%) They lost to Iona at home 56-53 (they shot 31%) Then they lost to UCLA on the road (where they shot 41%)

Their 33 point second half would have been their highest scoring half of the season. . . if they hadn't scored 34 in the first half against UCLA.

I don't think UCLA played especially well on defense in either half. Just my opinion, feel free to disagree. :)

On a side note, T. J. Torrenstine from Vermont should just stop shooting the basketball. He's horrible. One of the ugliest shots I've ever seen. I thought maybe he had a bad night (he went 1-8 against the Bruins) I looked at his overall numbers this year:

7/32 from the floor. 22%
2/16 from 3point land. 12.5%
6 assists, 9 turnovers.

The scary part is the guy plays 32 minutes a night. Yikes. Can you say "weakest link?"

TroyF

Missed all last season from injury. No way UVM has the depth of any major D-1 program. They just can't recruit.

[MrBug708]

Brian Morrison left because he hated Matt Doherty as a coach. Lord knows what attracted him to Steve Lavin, but that would have been an accomplishment. Playing for two of the most incompetent head coaches ever

[TroyF]

Originally posted by vtbub
Missed all last season from injury. No way UVM has the depth of any major D-1 program. They just can't recruit.

I understand that. The guy is just playing horrible basketball right now. . . unless,

Chief,

I liked the review of the game. Only two gripes:

1) It called Storenstine a star. He may be a star, but the guy isn't right at the moment. That's a REAL stretch to praise the guy gaurding him and say he "controlled" him. The same guy was 6 for 24 heading into the game. Not a lot to control there.

2) It said Vermont was a veteran team that didn't turn the ball over. I don't see any evidence to support this. They were averaging 15 turnovers a game in their first two. UCLA forced 8 turnovers.

I don't want to start Vermont bashing here. I loved the stories of their head coach and I liked the gritty way the guys played the game. I even remember cheering for them against Arizona last year (even though they got drilled) I just don't think they are that good of a basketball team.

Hold Kentucky to 50% shooting and I'll be very impressed. :) :)

TroyF

[Chief Rum]

Troy, I think you make some good points, and they may even end up true. But your entire case is based on a very small sample of games for Vermont. Over the long haul, they may prove you right. Or maybe they will show that this is just a bad start.

At this point, it is more statistically relevant to note that that Vermont squad was fairly successful last year, even without Sorrentine.

And say what you will about Sorrentine's first two games, but the guy had an even worse game against UCLA than he did before.

And you watched the game. You saw that he was a quick little guy. You also no doubt saw Bozeman limping for almost the entire second half. Despite that disadvantage, the guy did very little on him. Personally, I think Bozeman should be appluaded for how he handled Sorrentine. He played him smart, headed him off of drives and forced him to pass to the wings, and when he had the ball, he took it to the hoop with authority and displayed an intelligent head for running the team (other than that dumb alley-oop attempt, which that article notes).

I don't know how good this Vermont team will end up, but I do now three games at the beginning of a season should not be the only evidence allowed to be considered for how good a team is. This team has a track record of success, and whatever his poor start now, Sorrentine is going to have to play this badly for much, much longer to invalidate his American East CPOY two years ago.

And all this doesn't even touch the psychological effect of playing again after a year of rehab, and also playing in Pauley Pavillion.

Not saying you're wrong about this. You may be right. But right now, you don't have much of a statistical leg to stand on. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out.

I have no idea if we can keep Kentucky under 50%. :)

CR

[TroyF]

Chief,

That's just it, you don't have a statistical leg either. You were the one who gushed about the 41% you held Vermont to. I said I didn't care about that, I cared about the open looks that were missed.

I'm not saying I'm right or your right. I can only base my opinion off what I saw. You do likewise. I went looking for stats on Vermont not knowing what I'd find. Them getting their asses handed to them by Nevada and Iona don't make for a compelling arguement that they are a good basketball team. Maybe, like UCLA, they'll be better at the end of the year than they are now. As of now, they aren't that good.

Good luck to you guys. :)

I'd rather be in your shoes than where my Buffs are. They are supposedly a good basketball team. They'll be lucky to win 3 Big12 road games. I'd rather feel like my team is underrated than overrated. Consider yourself lucky. :)

TroyF

[Neuqua]

*cough*

[MrBug708]

Hey, who knew UCLA had the talent of a BAD Long Beach St team? Lavin certainly talks better then he coaches or evaluates talent.

[Marmel]

Embarrasing, chief. Stick to football and baseball my friend. :)

[Marmel]

Upon further review, considering how bad the PAC really is this year, this UCLA team is even worst than their record shows. Howland hit lightning in a bottle at Pitt. He will be gone in 3 or 4 years. :)

[MrBug708]

Hell, he just needs to win an NC sooner then 25 years at UCLA and he's equaled the success that Syracuse has seen

[Marmel]

and 600 more wins of course.

[MrBug708]

You take your 600 wins and do whatever you'd like. Hell, even Harrick has a National Title