Ping: TroyF/Samdari

[Chief Rum]

They can play.

I'm still standing by it. 20+ games, a #4-#6 seed.

CR

[The Afoci]

The bird is in the nest. Over.

[Samdari]

I never said they could not play, just that they did not have talent as stupendous as you thought. They have two guys who are separated talent-wise from the "average major conference scholarship player" and the squarely in that range. That said, I am a huge Howland fan, if he can get those players to buy into what he is doing, they will make the tournament.

I still think you should lower your expectations a bit. Given how they have been the past few years, an NCAA bid would be a major accomplishment, but one that I honestly expect them to achieve. A 4-6 seed is simply out of the question this year, but if they get in with, say, a 10 seed, would you not be happy?

I am curious as to why you would post this after they got beat by a tremendously overrated team (superior talent is not there either) who shot 27% from the floor. What about that makes you encouraged?

[The_herd]

Can anyone name the last Kentucky team that didn't have a McDonald's All-American?

[The_herd]

Dola

Sorry to threadjack, I was just stunned when I read that this year's team didn't have one.

[TroyF]

Chief,

They played MUCH better defense yesterday than they did in the second half against Vermont. I don't care what you guys say, they were horrible in the Vermont game.

I give them a world of credit. That said, Kentucky looked horrible. Almost disinterested most of the day.

UCLA will probably make the tourney. (I had said they would probably make it before this game, I just didn't like their D vs. Vermont) I don't think they'll be a 4-6 seed when they do.

[Chief Rum]

Samdari: Actually, the stupendous talent I supposedly said UCLA had was simply noting that it was about on-par with a solid Top 25-30 Divisoon I team. I never said they had ten McDonald's All-Americans. Also, everything I said was true, not that you would give me any credit for pointing it out.

But then, I don't really care what you think because in your post, you proved you don't have a clue about Pac-10 basketball. You said Arizona had the best 8-10 players int he conference last year. That means you must not have heard of Oregon, or Stanford, or Cal, or Arizona State and all their top players. You think Ike Diogu, Josh Childress, Luke Ridnour, or Joe Shipp didn't fit somewhere into the top ten players in the Pac-10? Nothing I hate more than smoeone who tries to argue pigheadedly argue something when they don't have a clue about what they're talking about.

I said Ced was a McDonald's All-American. Only point you would give. I said several UCLA players made Top 50 lists, which you said must have been composed by UCLA guys. Yeah...try looking at real recruiting lists sometime, will you? All of those players I mentiuoned did indeed make those lists, by national college basketball observers, and not the graduating class of UCLA '03. And, yeah, you're dead on about BMo and UNC--the kid just can't play. I'm sure everyone here was thinking about that on that block-steal-layup he did. The discounting of Dijon Thomspon on the All-Pac-10 comes with the argument above, so that shows you what kind of value I can put in that argument.

I am biased, of course. No doubt about that. Part of my prediction is hope, maybe even foolish hope. But at least I am laying out facts. You're not even doing that. You're just coming up with BS reasons to discount what I say, and using hyperbole to make a lot more out of what I say than I really am.

Why don't you go do some actual Pac-10 research and get back to me when you find a clue.

TroyF: Now here's a guy I can respect.

Thanks for admitting they played some tough defense yesterday.

My only gripe with your post here is that you continue to discount the opponents, as if every single time a team doesn't beat UCLA the way it should, or doesn't shoot as well, it's because that team is overrated or had a bad shooting day.

At some point, you have to begin to realize that perhaps UCLA has something to do with those things happening. I hope they will continue to show that to you. Opponents' fied goal percentages from their first three games--.414, .419, .271. They must be doing something right.

The best part? This team is playing good, hard basketball like Howland likes and they don't even have two potential starters right now (missing Ariza and Cummings).

CR

[Buzzbee]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
They can play.

I'm still standing by it. 20+ games, a #4-#6 seed.

CR

I think this is officially CR's shortest post. Ever.

[The_herd]

I didn't get to see the game (christmas shopping), but I did read a couple recaps of the game and checked out the box score. If UCLA plays this way when conference play starts then they will have no problem getting a decent Tourney seed. I'm gonna check out a couple more UCLA games this season, mostly because Dijon Thompson and Bozeman are intriguing players. If Thompson can play good, solid defense with his feet and not the reaching, lunging crap I saw in the Vermont game, then he's one of the top 3 players in the PAC-10. If Bozeman plays the way I think he can (and I am by no means a UCLA fan), then I'm pretty certain he'll be the best PG in the conference.

I'm not going to agree on 20+ wins or a 4 or 6 seed yet, however, this looks like it could be an awfully dangerous team when the NCAA's start.

As a fan of the Big East, one thing I remember about the Pittsburg teams was how much everyone seemed to hate playing them. Their style of play would cause headaches. It looks like he's on the way to bringing UCLA to that level, and if he does that would be a big change to the way people in southern cal are used to seeing basketball played.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Samdari: Actually, the stupendous talent I supposedly said UCLA had was simply noting that it was about on-par with a solid Top 25-30 Divisoon I team. I never said they had ten McDonald's All-Americans. Also, everything I said was true, not that you would give me any credit for pointing it out.

But then, I don't really care what you think because in your post, you proved you don't have a clue about Pac-10 basketball. You said Arizona had the best 8-10 players int he conference last year. That means you must not have heard of Oregon, or Stanford, or Cal, or Arizona State and all their top players. You think Ike Diogu, Josh Childress, Luke Ridnour, or Joe Shipp didn't fit somewhere into the top ten players in the Pac-10? Nothing I hate more than smoeone who tries to argue pigheadedly argue something when they don't have a clue about what they're talking about.

I said Ced was a McDonald's All-American. Only point you would give. I said several UCLA players made Top 50 lists, which you said must have been composed by UCLA guys. Yeah...try looking at real recruiting lists sometime, will you? All of those players I mentiuoned did indeed make those lists, by national college basketball observers, and not the graduating class of UCLA '03. And, yeah, you're dead on about BMo and UNC--the kid just can't play. I'm sure everyone here was thinking about that on that block-steal-layup he did. The discounting of Dijon Thomspon on the All-Pac-10 comes with the argument above, so that shows you what kind of value I can put in that argument.

I am biased, of course. No doubt about that. Part of my prediction is hope, maybe even foolish hope. But at least I am laying out facts. You're not even doing that. You're just coming up with BS reasons to discount what I say, and using hyperbole to make a lot more out of what I say than I really am.

Why don't you go do some actual Pac-10 research and get back to me when you find a clue.

TroyF: Now here's a guy I can respect.

Thanks for admitting they played some tough defense yesterday.

My only gripe with your post here is that you continue to discount the opponents, as if every single time a team doesn't beat UCLA the way it should, or doesn't shoot as well, it's because that team is overrated or had a bad shooting day.

At some point, you have to begin to realize that perhaps UCLA has something to do with those things happening. I hope they will continue to show that to you. Opponents' fied goal percentages from their first three games--.414, .419, .271. They must be doing something right.

The best part? This team is playing good, hard basketball like Howland likes and they don't even have two potential starters right now (missing Ariza and Cummings).

CR

I actually the DID research you are talking about. The only players currently on UCLA's roster that were consensus top 50 recruits were Bozeman and Thompson. Get pissy if you want, think I am a jackass if you want, but I looked through a couple different lists, and those were the only top 50 guys.

I realize what you said, but the fact is this team does NOT have talent on par with a top 25 team.

As for watching more college basketball, I have ESPN full court and a passion for college basketball. I probably watch more college basketball than anyone you have ever met, including Pac-10. I probably watched more Pac-10 games that did not invlolve UCLA than you did last year. I have watched all the guys you speak of. Ridnour is a fraud, Childress and Diogu are indeed as talented as you say, but despite his all Pac-10 selection, Thompson would not have made Arizona's top 9 last year. They were just that good. They had players better than Thompson leave because of not getting playing time.

Its odd that you would single me out for an attack. I actually agree with you that UCLA is going to do much better than most people pick (I have them making the tourney, most pundits do not) because of the defense Howland will have them playing. But, your talent evaluation remains that of an unabashed fan - overrating your own guys.

Where are the BS reasons in my post? Pointing out that they could not beat a team that shot 27% is BS? Oh, I see, since its the truth, you want to make it go away by calling it BS. Very clever.

You also never answered the question about why you would come crowing about yesterday's performance. I am seriously baffled by that. Somehow, losing to Kentucky was supposed to proved to us that UCLA was top 25?

[Chief Rum]

Samdari, I think the problem I have is that you keep defining my description of these players with terms like "gushing about the talent", "stupendous talent", and "crowing about the victory". I realize tone is very hard to read across the Internet, but I feel you are very improperly misreading my tone, and that's what is pissing me off.

I don't think this team is about to win a national championship or nothing. But you keep characterizing my responses as falling over themselves about this team, and when I read back on my posts, I see some hopeful observations, but negatives as well. I don't say I am completely objective, of course, but I think I have afirly solid handle on what kind of talent this team has and what it can do if it plays to its capabilities.

But from your responses to me here and in the thread last week, you would think I said these guys were going to be #1 seeds and title contenders. And I take exception to that, because I never said nor thought any such thing.

Now, as for your research, how far did you go back? You do realize that Fey was Class of 2000, not 2001, right? And that Cummings goes back even further? And did you forget about Ariza?

The only players I mentioned I couldn't find corroboration for the Top 50 players lists was Hollins and Morrison, and I apologize for misrepresenting them. Apparently I was told this or read this somewhere, and I could not find anything to confirm it now. But were highly regarded coming out of high school, with Hollins rated as the No. 3 center by Prep West in 2001, and BMo was all-state (Washington). I have further reason to consider them not without talent, but I will get to that later, and those reasons are not related to recruiting lists.

Ariza was a consensus Top 30 recuit last year, from the accounts I have been able to find, including such recruiting analysts as Telep and Gibbons.

Cummings was a Top 50 player with a long list of honors out of Illinois. He is, of course, the son of NBA player Terry Cummings (not that that means anything here). He was also recruited by Duke.

Fey was a finalist for the McDonald's All-American Game in 2000, and regarded as one of the best post prospects coming out of the west in 2000.

And this is above and beyond Bozeman & Thompson, both, as you have found, Top 50 players.

Now, I may have not found support for Hollins and BMo as Top 50 players, but they have both already displayed they aren't without talent. Hollins made the USA Junior team last summer and saw significant time, where he played with a bunch of the best young talent in college basketball. You may regard Morrison as a no-talent hack who couldn't make it on a bad UNC team, but when I see how he did there, I see a guy who did pretty well for the minutes he played, and he was clearly at war with Doherty while there. And given the team practically rebelled against Doherty last year, obviously Morrison wasn't alone in this. And now given how he's started out here at UCLA, it's clear he's not without talent either.

If you stated you believed UCLA was much better than people were giving them credit for, I apologize, and must have missed it in that other thread. My memory of that was that you were overwhelmingly negative, and I don't recall you saying UCLA would be better at all. But I may have a faulty memory there, so sorry if I glazed over it.

I still think you don't know Pac-10 basketball from a hole in a wall, and I watched plenty of league basketball where UCLA wasn't involved.

When I mentioned last week that Thompson was all-Pac-10 last year, you said that that has no value because the 8-10 best players in the Pac-10 were on Arizona. I don't deny the tremendous talent that team had and has (and yes I am plenty aware of the transfers as well). But to say that if you were to put together a list of all the players in the Pac-10, and the top 8-10 would all be Arizona players, then I will simply have to disagree and call you ludicrous besides. Basically, what you said was, that at the point of development these players were at last year, that the 8th to 10th best player on the Wildcats was better than every single other player in the Pac-10. That's just bullshit, and if you're truly of that opinion, then you need to pay a little more attention to all that college basketball you claim to watch, or you need to stop making ridiculous hyperbolic arguments you can't possibly have any support for. It is your willingness to make such an unfounded argument that makes me question just what value I should put into your responses.

I don't know if Thompson would have seen a significant role for Arizona (and neither do you), but I have a feeling a coach like Olsen would find room in his rotation for a guy with his kind of athleticism and offensive smoothness. At the very least, Thompson would have bumped Adams further down the bench, and at least competed with Stoudemire for the #2 spot. Walton, of course, was a lock at SF and one of the very best in the league. Thompson can't really play any other position, but I think he stands up well to who they had there last year at that point in their development.

He made the most of his opportunity at UCLA, played very well for a poor team, and got on the all-conference team for one of the best conferences in college basketball. Forgive me for assuming that actually means something. I guess it doesn't if the player isn't from Arizona, eh?

You may think Ridnour was a hack. But plenty of other people weren't and aren't of that opinion. There were a ton of Pac-10 players who were better than at least some of the top 8-10 at Arizona, including (on top of players I already mentioned), Farmer at USC, Moore at Washington State, Jackson at Oregon, Kapono at UCLA, Ricci with OSU, Millage, Wethers, Barnes. Yup, all these guys--every single one and all their teammates, too--were worse than Isaiah Fox, Will Bynum and Chris Rodgers. Riiiiigggghhhhht....

You see why I would find your post ridiculous?

Discounting Thompson's talent for that and just dismissing my comments of Top 50 lists as being composed by UCLA fans or whatever, that's the BS reasons I was referring to. This was from that other thread, not this one. I probably should have responded there. Sorry for the confusion, but it was to that that I was referring.

As for what it was about the Kentucky game that led me to post, I thought it was a good game to point out in support of the concept that UCLA was much better than people were giving them credit for. They had a horrible offensive game and were missing two of their best players, and they still almost pulled out a huge victory against a Top 10 team. I am sorry if you can't figure out the significance of that. But every media outlet I have read on it, and the reaction of the UCLA nation itself (which, if you truly know college basketball, you know that community is moe critical of UCLA basketball in the post-Wooden era than any objective media) seems to believe it was a big deal for UCLA to do that.

I also brought it up, because TroyF said he would be impressed if UCLA kept Kentucky to under 50% shooting. This wasn't just addressed to you, of course.

These aren't my expectations for this team. This is my hope for this team. I see the talent to make my predicition come true. You are free to differ on that, of course, and had you not choose to ridicule my arguments by using hyperbolic statements that tipped me off, we probably wouldn't have gotten to this point. I apologize for being reactionary, but did you ever think to choose your words better so that you don't make the guy you're responding to look like a complete moron? You might get a more sensible response and better discussion if you were to consider doing so.

CR

[Neuqua]

Dear Lord Chief. I'm not even going to try to read that.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by Neuqua
Dear Lord Chief. I'm not even going to try to read that.

Don't worry, it's not addressed to you.

CR

[MrBug708]

Fey was the 100th rated player in the nation out of High School
Dijon Thompson wasn't picked to a McDonalds AA game because that year had a ton of talent in the West Coast as opposed to last year which didn't. Cummings was the 7th best post player in the Nation out of High School. Hollins was more of a sleeper, but is very gifted athletically. B-Money is self explanatory. Cedric Bozeman was considered a 5 star stud. He was picked by Vitale as one of 5 freshmen who were going to make a difference for their team. Ariza barely missed out on the McDonalds All-America game, but the guy was a two time CIF Champion, CIF MVP, he was on two CIF title teams. Wait, it gets better. He was 2 time state champion, and two time California POTY

A side note, no Tubby coached team has ever shot under 30% in a game

[TroyF]

Chief,

I don't mean to put down UCLA by saying Kentucky seemed disinterested, but I have to give my opinion on what I saw both ways. I can't truthfully say that Kentucky looked like it was ready to play ball and UCLA took them out of their game.

I have a hard time expressing myself sometimes because of this. When I said I was impressed by the Chiefs beating Denver, but that clearly Denver was the better football team I was called out by a lot of people. I've been saying for over a month Denver would lay it on the Chiefs. People think I said that because I'm a Bronco fan and some sort of Chiefs hater.

In this case, it may seem like I'm trying to slight UCLA. Neither is true. I just call them like I see them. UCLA played great team defense and Kentucky didn't look like they brought their best intensity to the table. It's just like I won't budge on the Vermont game. I thought the UCLA D in the second half was below average. I can only give my opinion.

When I start trying to be nice to every team and trying to overlook points on a game because it might lood bad, my opinion becomes worthless. Someday people are going to realize I don't have vendettas against any team, I judge what I think I saw and go from there.

[Chief Rum]

Don't worry, Troy. I never said that you weren't being objective in your views of UCLA, and you are free to express your opinion in that manner, as is your right.

I am just pointing out that that has been a running theme so far it seems--that the teams UCLA played didn't play well. And I am just countering that with the possibility that at some point you will have to stop thinking the teams aren't playign well, and begin to attach some credit to UCLA for said bad play of its opponents.

I know you didn't say I was and were just using it as an example, but if it matters any, I wasn't one of the ones questioning your beliefs on Denver. Of course, Denver has since proven very inconsistent in other games (Chicago? ugh), and it is my belief for you to be a top team you need to cut out that nonsense. I don't know if the Chiefs have enough to get as far in the postseason as they have done in the regular season, but I think it's possible. With the Broncos, though, I don't feel so strong that it's possible. I feel they would stumble if they get into the playoffs.

I will say this, I think you make a good effort to be objective, but sometiems it's a good thing to admit your biases and accept them. I don't recall if you have ever said you like the Broncos, but my belief is that you do, and where you live and grew up is probably a good indication of that as well. Try and be objective, but allow that your view might be biased.

I have likely erred too far on the far side for UCLA basketball this year, but I have said from the beginning I am a fan, and might be hoping more than predicting. My arguments to this point have been about the respresentation (or misrepresentation) of facts, on the part of all parties involved.

CR

[TroyF]

Of course I like the Broncos.

I'm not even saying the Broncos would win the Super Bowl this year either. My point was always that the Chiefs were/are a house of cards waiting to tumble. When teams realize you don't have to do anything fancy on offense to beat the Chiefs, they'll start losing more often. They have an extremely weak defense and people are just now seeing it.

I don't have a problem admitting my bias. I don't have a hard time controlling it either. I haven't picked the Broncos to go to the Bowl sinse they went in '98. If I felt the Chiefs were better than Denver, I'd say it. I don't think Denver can beat Indy or Tennessee on the road in the playoffs. I do think they could beat KC and New England. I do not think they could beat KC and New England "back to back" if New England were the second game.

I think there is a VERY high likelihood Denver will not make the playoffs at all. They'll beat Cleveland next week. They'll have a tough game against the Colts in a game I think they'll just fall short in. I think they beat the Packers in Lambeau to close it out. Is 10-6 enough? Maybe. If I'm wrong on the GB game, they are out for sure.

As for your Bruins. . . yes, if they make a majority of the teams look the way they did against Kentucky, I'll have no choice but to admit UCLA is the main cause. Hell, they may have been the main cause the other night. I just didn't get the feeling from the opening tip that the Wildcats were "into" the game. That was even when they jumped in front to the early lead. Maybe I'm off base and others saw it differently.

I've never claimed to be right 100% of the time.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Samdari, I think the problem I have is that you keep defining my description of these players with terms like "gushing about the talent", "stupendous talent", and "crowing about the victory". I realize tone is very hard to read across the Internet, but I feel you are very improperly misreading my tone, and that's what is pissing me off.

I don't think this team is about to win a national championship or nothing. But you keep characterizing my responses as falling over themselves about this team, and when I read back on my posts, I see some hopeful observations, but negatives as well. I don't say I am completely objective, of course, but I think I have afirly solid handle on what kind of talent this team has and what it can do if it plays to its capabilities.

But from your responses to me here and in the thread last week, you would think I said these guys were going to be #1 seeds and title contenders. And I take exception to that, because I never said nor thought any such thing.

Now, as for your research, how far did you go back? You do realize that Fey was Class of 2000, not 2001, right? And that Cummings goes back even further? And did you forget about Ariza?

The only players I mentioned I couldn't find corroboration for the Top 50 players lists was Hollins and Morrison, and I apologize for misrepresenting them. Apparently I was told this or read this somewhere, and I could not find anything to confirm it now. But were highly regarded coming out of high school, with Hollins rated as the No. 3 center by Prep West in 2001, and BMo was all-state (Washington). I have further reason to consider them not without talent, but I will get to that later, and those reasons are not related to recruiting lists.

Ariza was a consensus Top 30 recuit last year, from the accounts I have been able to find, including such recruiting analysts as Telep and Gibbons.

Cummings was a Top 50 player with a long list of honors out of Illinois. He is, of course, the son of NBA player Terry Cummings (not that that means anything here). He was also recruited by Duke.

Fey was a finalist for the McDonald's All-American Game in 2000, and regarded as one of the best post prospects coming out of the west in 2000.

And this is above and beyond Bozeman & Thompson, both, as you have found, Top 50 players.

Now, I may have not found support for Hollins and BMo as Top 50 players, but they have both already displayed they aren't without talent. Hollins made the USA Junior team last summer and saw significant time, where he played with a bunch of the best young talent in college basketball. You may regard Morrison as a no-talent hack who couldn't make it on a bad UNC team, but when I see how he did there, I see a guy who did pretty well for the minutes he played, and he was clearly at war with Doherty while there. And given the team practically rebelled against Doherty last year, obviously Morrison wasn't alone in this. And now given how he's started out here at UCLA, it's clear he's not without talent either.

If you stated you believed UCLA was much better than people were giving them credit for, I apologize, and must have missed it in that other thread. My memory of that was that you were overwhelmingly negative, and I don't recall you saying UCLA would be better at all. But I may have a faulty memory there, so sorry if I glazed over it.

I still think you don't know Pac-10 basketball from a hole in a wall, and I watched plenty of league basketball where UCLA wasn't involved.

When I mentioned last week that Thompson was all-Pac-10 last year, you said that that has no value because the 8-10 best players in the Pac-10 were on Arizona. I don't deny the tremendous talent that team had and has (and yes I am plenty aware of the transfers as well). But to say that if you were to put together a list of all the players in the Pac-10, and the top 8-10 would all be Arizona players, then I will simply have to disagree and call you ludicrous besides. Basically, what you said was, that at the point of development these players were at last year, that the 8th to 10th best player on the Wildcats was better than every single other player in the Pac-10. That's just bullshit, and if you're truly of that opinion, then you need to pay a little more attention to all that college basketball you claim to watch, or you need to stop making ridiculous hyperbolic arguments you can't possibly have any support for. It is your willingness to make such an unfounded argument that makes me question just what value I should put into your responses.

I don't know if Thompson would have seen a significant role for Arizona (and neither do you), but I have a feeling a coach like Olsen would find room in his rotation for a guy with his kind of athleticism and offensive smoothness. At the very least, Thompson would have bumped Adams further down the bench, and at least competed with Stoudemire for the #2 spot. Walton, of course, was a lock at SF and one of the very best in the league. Thompson can't really play any other position, but I think he stands up well to who they had there last year at that point in their development.

He made the most of his opportunity at UCLA, played very well for a poor team, and got on the all-conference team for one of the best conferences in college basketball. Forgive me for assuming that actually means something. I guess it doesn't if the player isn't from Arizona, eh?

You may think Ridnour was a hack. But plenty of other people weren't and aren't of that opinion. There were a ton of Pac-10 players who were better than at least some of the top 8-10 at Arizona, including (on top of players I already mentioned), Farmer at USC, Moore at Washington State, Jackson at Oregon, Kapono at UCLA, Ricci with OSU, Millage, Wethers, Barnes. Yup, all these guys--every single one and all their teammates, too--were worse than Isaiah Fox, Will Bynum and Chris Rodgers. Riiiiigggghhhhht....

You see why I would find your post ridiculous?

Discounting Thompson's talent for that and just dismissing my comments of Top 50 lists as being composed by UCLA fans or whatever, that's the BS reasons I was referring to. This was from that other thread, not this one. I probably should have responded there. Sorry for the confusion, but it was to that that I was referring.

As for what it was about the Kentucky game that led me to post, I thought it was a good game to point out in support of the concept that UCLA was much better than people were giving them credit for. They had a horrible offensive game and were missing two of their best players, and they still almost pulled out a huge victory against a Top 10 team. I am sorry if you can't figure out the significance of that. But every media outlet I have read on it, and the reaction of the UCLA nation itself (which, if you truly know college basketball, you know that community is moe critical of UCLA basketball in the post-Wooden era than any objective media) seems to believe it was a big deal for UCLA to do that.

I also brought it up, because TroyF said he would be impressed if UCLA kept Kentucky to under 50% shooting. This wasn't just addressed to you, of course.

These aren't my expectations for this team. This is my hope for this team. I see the talent to make my predicition come true. You are free to differ on that, of course, and had you not choose to ridicule my arguments by using hyperbolic statements that tipped me off, we probably wouldn't have gotten to this point. I apologize for being reactionary, but did you ever think to choose your words better so that you don't make the guy you're responding to look like a complete moron? You might get a more sensible response and better discussion if you were to consider doing so.

CR

OK, if you thought I was trying to make you look like a moron, I apologize. I was actually trying to participate in a civil discussion about my favorite topic. I obviously disagree with you on the talent level at UCLA, including certain individuals, but was not at any point trying to ridicule anyone (except possibly Ridnour - he's a complete fraud).

The ironic part is that I actually want UCLA to do well, hating most of the other teams, and being so impressed with what Howland accomplished at Pitt. I just think that the talent is not there right now for them to rise quite as high as you thought.

[Chief Rum]

I guess we'll have to wait and see. It's likely you're right, as you can view this without bias, but I really do think I see the talent for 20+ wins and a #4-#6 seed.

BTW, that would still likely put it behind Arizona, Stanford and maybe one other team in the Pac-10. I think UCLA will end up in 4th in conference this season.

Thank you for apologizing, and if you missed it in that long bit (easy to do so, it's a long post), I will reiterate that I apologize for not having as accurate information on some of the players as I thought I had.

I really think Howland is on to something here, and I can't wait to see what he does with it. He already has four top recruits coming in next year (ranked #10 in class rankings by CNNSI after the November signing period), and he remains active in seeking a big man for that fifth spot, although he is likely to just hold onto it and give it out next year.

But that's next year. This year looks to be a very interesting one.

CR

[Samdari]

You are right in that I should have worded my response more carefully, as it is only your projected seed that I don't think is possible. Twenty wins is not out of the question, nor is 3rd/4th in the Pac-10. Last year's 3rd/4th Pac10 teams (Oregon/Cal) both had 20 wins but were both 8 seeds. Second place Stanford got a 4. Actually, now that I look closely, I see Oregon was 5th, and ASU 4th (a 10 seed), despite the Pac10 press release announcing Ridnour as POY leading them to a 4th place finish. I see UCLA as having a season much like ASU last year, 19-11 - worth a 10 seed. For them to get that 4/5 seed, I think they would have to finish 2nd in the Pac-10. Now look at the teams they have to finish ahead of to do so. Now do you still think they will get a 4/5 seed?

Don't fret the discrepancy in talent ratings. I am sure that Fey and Cummings and Ariza were on numerous top 50 lists (although Fey is a reach for that) - just not the ones I looked at when making my original post. If you wanted to look hard enough, you might even find Morrison on a top 50 list, although I doubt from a guy who sells many subscriptions.

[Chief Rum]

I thought Troy & Samdari might find this Kentucky-UCLA game review interesting. Pierson runs the UCLA site and wrote the article I posted in the other thread on the Vermont game.

He has some good insights into this one, too, and it is told from an optimistic UCLA perspective, which was a delight for me to read, although you guys might read it as just UCLA homerism (Pierson is a very good reporter of college basketball and recrutiing, IMO, but the fact he runs a UCLA site does of course say he isn't completely impartial ).

Here's the link:

UCLA-Kentucky Review

Chief Rum

[Chief Rum]

dola,

Not trying to start up anything again, BTW. I just really thought you guys might enjoy the read. Samdari, Pierson says some nice things about Howland in there I think you'll enjoy.

CR

[Samdari]

That is a great article, very insightful.

The Points I found most interesting:

-Kentucky is not the 3rd best team in the country.

-UCLA is going to play defense ferociously under Howland, regardless of the talent level.

-One thing I had not thought of is - how will the tough-nosed, half court, low scoring style play in Westwood? Its winning basketball, but not always the most exciting. It seems tough sometimes for casual and lower fans to appreciate the beauty in that kind of playstyle.

[Chief Rum]

Yeah, the local pundits and fans have been talking about what a sharp difference that will be for some time (since Howland's hiring). Actually seeing it on the court, of course, brings it home even further.

Personally, winning is what matters, short of playing unfair or unsportsmanlike, of course. Also, while I think it's a guarantee that defense will be a staple of Howland's program, he ran high-flying offensive teams at Northern Arizona. I realize that's more tailored to that conference in talent level, but I think if Howland needs to, he will be able to turn it up a notch.

It could also be argued Howland simply tailors his teams to play in the conference they play in. At Northern Arizona, scoring was the game. In the rugged Big East, you need tough defense and a strong presence. The Pac-10 tends to be more about smooth athleticism and "pretty" play. Early indications are that Howland will bring Big East play to the Pac-10, but is this simply an early reliance on what he knows, and as the years go by, his teams will do like his others, and begin to model the play of the conference he moved to? Something to watch anyway...

Another theme Howland's arrival has presented to the entire Pac-10: will the officials allow it? Pac-10 officials are notorious for their ticky tack calls. I think it was Pac-10 officials at the Wooden Classic for instance, and you could see ticky tacky being called left and right (fortunately it was called even at least). Now, both Howland and Bennett are in the Pac-10, bringing with them a harder, East-Coast game. Will the officials adjust to them, or will they force them to adjust to Pac-10 play? Another thing to keep an eye on...

Anyone who thought Kentucky was the third best team in the natioin is a moron, and I would have said that before last Saturday.

CR

[MrBug708]

Winning > Talent is what matters in UCLA

I think Howland is able to adapt a winning mantra with whatever talent level he has. East Coast Basketball isn't very finesse oriented and he recruited accordingly in a physical conference. At Northern Arizona, the talent isn't so bunched up, but there are a lot of kids who can shoot, just not do much else. At UCLA, the ability to recruit whatever kind of player just availed itself, not only in talented-ladened California, but the national prestige UCLA has