chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Feb 28, 2012 23:11:37 GMT -5
Would be a tough sell after this season too, but I'd bet Dixon would try his best and get it. That way he'd avoid the potential for disaster in the move to the ACC, in addition to going back home to a flagship program. But UCLA could get nearly anyone they wanted, and I'm not sure how high Dixon would be on that list.
|
|
superan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by superan on Feb 29, 2012 0:40:14 GMT -5
If Dixon left Pitt and then Pitt suddenly became the worst team in the ACC for eternity, I wouldn't need Kyle Anderson to open up his recruitment to be happy.
|
|
|
Post by hoyaatheart55 on Feb 29, 2012 0:46:01 GMT -5
Im still down about this Kyle fit best at Georgetown
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Feb 29, 2012 8:23:13 GMT -5
If Dixon left Pitt and then Pitt suddenly became the worst team in the ACC for eternity, I wouldn't need Kyle Anderson to open up his recruitment to be happy. It would be an added bonus if Dixon's new team crashed to the bottom of its conference for a decade or more.
|
|
|
Post by pr20 on Feb 29, 2012 9:50:06 GMT -5
Jeez. who would be on that short list of coaches that could be tabbed for that job if this article had any real damaging merit.
I have never known Howland to be a bad guy. I actually felt like his hard nosed approach would be good at UCLA to shake off some of the Hollywood softness that was with the previous regime. And when players like Russell Westbrook started to arrive I felt that he was doing a fine job of puttting his stamp on the program. 3 final fours in a row is a great accomplishment. But UCLA people are so spoiled by prior success that they don't even brag about that.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Feb 29, 2012 10:04:01 GMT -5
|
|
hoyasexy
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Actively engaged in extramarital saxa
Posts: 794
|
Post by hoyasexy on Feb 29, 2012 10:07:37 GMT -5
|
|
mit0313
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 216
|
Post by mit0313 on Feb 29, 2012 10:29:25 GMT -5
There is something strange about painting Howland as a control freak but then having a group of players that seem to run afoul of any discipline.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Feb 29, 2012 10:40:48 GMT -5
Potentially devastating.
|
|
hoyasexy
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Actively engaged in extramarital saxa
Posts: 794
|
Post by hoyasexy on Feb 29, 2012 11:34:14 GMT -5
I'm not sure it's really all that bad. Given the lead-up to the story, I was expecting to see a story that exposes a dirty program, or something like that. What I read was a story about bad behavior by the kids in the program, the failure of the coach to do anything about it, and how that affected play on the court.
Do I think this could be the end of Howland at UCLA? Maybe. The fact that the team has underperformed is not news. This article only provides the context and a potential theory about why it has. Clearly, since the Final Four years (just a few years ago), a good argument could be made that Howland has failed to do what he was hired to do, but it's also hard to overlook the fact that he has some goodwill to burn by going to 3 straight Final Fours (which may be worth less at UCLA than at most schools).
Do I think that this could have a lasting impact on the program if they choose to terminate Howland? Not really. This isn't a scandal of SMU, Ohio State, USC or Penn State proportions. To me, it's just a story about a coach who let his players go too far.
If they fire Howland, I have no doubt that they could go get their choice of coaches. It's still a great job.
|
|
alleninxis
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,216
|
Post by alleninxis on Feb 29, 2012 11:37:50 GMT -5
Yeah, I mean..Howland is a jerk, Nelson is a wackjob and they had some other clowns..think we all could have pieced that together.
Whatever Pete Thamel is trying to cook up for an article regarding Shabazz Muhammad likely could end up being more damaging.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Feb 29, 2012 11:56:09 GMT -5
|
|
KennaHoya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 181
|
Post by KennaHoya on Feb 29, 2012 12:24:59 GMT -5
I suspect their fans are screaming because they are not coming anywhere near their expectations for success on the court. UCLA should win, period.
Now if they were winning, and (1) their coaches were alleged to be doing bad things, including looking past the behavior or attacking those who claimed it was occurring; (2) their players were committing bad acts that got them in the news; and (3) their players were not meeting expectations in the classroom, well, then they would be . . . . . . . .
Syracuse.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 29, 2012 12:31:22 GMT -5
BREAKING NEWS: Howland Announces Leave of Absence to Deal with Back Pain
|
|
|
Post by gtowndynasty on Feb 29, 2012 12:40:47 GMT -5
Living in LA I can tell you the fan base became pretty anti-Howland in about 2009 when UCLA missed out on ALL of their prized recruits instate-Jordan Hamilton, Hollis, Wear twins (altho they came back), Renardo Sidney. He began to develop a reputation of a coach that players dont want to play for and one who does not get the best out of his guys. Since then, the LA area, which is such a fertile ground for talent, has seen many of their players go elsewhere to play.
Howland also doesnt develop the talent he has had. See Westbrook, Jrue Holiday, Malcom Lee, Drew Gordon, Chase Stanback, who all went there and became better players elsewhere-either in the L or after transferring. Plus, the top local guys are now not going. He stays if he can secure a good class but Kyle A alone is not enough and he will not turn UCLA around. He needs Shabazz to sign up and Tony P wouldnt hurt. Then the outlook would look much better.
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Feb 29, 2012 12:46:03 GMT -5
To me, the relevance of the story is that top recruits should be very careful when selecting schools. If a recruit's primary selection criteria is that he has a great time on his visit and that other top players are attending, he may be overlooking underlying weaknesses to a program.
A coach's discipline and control over a program and his ability to promote and foster an environment of compliance with NCAA and team trainging rules should be a pretty relevant factor in making a decision. That is where parental input becomes critical. If those factors are ignored, the recruit could find himself committed to a school that all of a sudden is facing coaching/player turnover, sanctions, etc.
Historically, we tend to do well recruiting players and parents of players who value tight controls and family/tough love atmosphere.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Feb 29, 2012 13:07:24 GMT -5
After reading that article, I do not know why anyone would want to go play for that program if you care about actually playing basketball.
Playing favorites, no discipline, no control -- if you are someone who wants to be good and win why would you go play for Howland? And I would not want to play for a coach who treated people that way -- whether his assistants, managers or the lesser players on the team.
Disgusting, really.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by hoyarooter on Feb 29, 2012 13:25:41 GMT -5
As a UCLA fan, I think I'm qualified to comment on this.
1. I thought the players felt Howland was too tough, not too soft. That's obviously wrong. Howland should have dealt more severely with Whacko Nelson from day one. That's on him. He also shouldn't have let Smith get away with anything. Perhaps if he had been harder on Smith, Smith wouldn't have spent last summer just eating and getting fat (again).
2. The Carlino story here was a revelation to me. He actually left about three games into his freshman year, after having missed the first two as a result of the concussion that is mentioned in the story. The word around LA was that Carlino left because Howland refused to play him in the first game for which he had been cleared. That seemed preposterous. It's now clear that Nelson drove him away. Again, it's on Howland for letting Nelson get away with so much crap.
3. I'm just a single Bruin fan, but I think that Howland should be given an opportunity to right this ship. Those three Final Fours still go a long way with me.
4. Dynasty, I don't know if you were speaking for the community or for yourself, but to say that Howland doesn't develop players is insane. Who had ever heard of Russell Westbrook when he arrived in Westwood? He left after his sophomore year as the fourth pick in the draft. Afflalo was a solid recruit, but by the time he left, he was the best defensive guard in the Pac 10. Ditto Malcolm Lee. Holiday left after one somewhat disappointing season, but it was still only one season, and he was still a first round pick. I have no doubt that if he had stayed at UCLA for a couple more years, he would have had a great career. Players almost never got better under Lavin. That is in no way true for Howland.
As for Kyle, well, if he wants to reopen his recruiting, I'd love to have him. If not, I'm happy UCLA has him.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by hoyarooter on Feb 29, 2012 13:31:51 GMT -5
To me, the relevance of the story is that top recruits should be very careful when selecting schools. If a recruit's primary selection criteria is that he has a great time on his visit and that other top players are attending, he may be overlooking underlying weaknesses to a program. A coach's discipline and control over a program and his ability to promote and foster an environment of compliance with NCAA and team trainging rules should be a pretty relevant factor in making a decision. That is where parental input becomes critical. If those factors are ignored, the recruit could find himself committed to a school that all of a sudden is facing coaching/player turnover, sanctions, etc. Historically, we tend to do well recruiting players and parents of players who value tight controls and family/tough love atmosphere. And this I agree with. If I were a parent with a son who was an outstanding basketball player, besides stressing academics, I would never want him playing at a school where the players were permitted to run amok, or weren't treated equally regardless of status. That's absolutely unacceptable.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Feb 29, 2012 13:41:54 GMT -5
As a UCLA fan, I think I'm qualified to comment on this. 1. I thought the players felt Howland was too tough, not too soft. That's obviously wrong. Howland should have dealt more severely with Whacko Nelson from day one. That's on him. He also shouldn't have let Smith get away with anything. Perhaps if he had been harder on Smith, Smith wouldn't have spent last summer just eating and getting fat (again). with so much crap. It seems like its more of a matter of playing favorites. He's hard on the players who don't have NBA potential and charmin soft on the superstars. The story of Howland underhandedly trying to get a ref to be the "bad guy" to Westbrook by pointing out his NBA socks is just mind boggling.
|
|