Let's Email: UCLA(?) Edition
When enough reader emails come in on topics worth exploring publicly, I'll put a post together for the site. This is one such time. As always, you can email me any time with questions or comments. I'll never use someone's full name in a post unless they explicitly okay it.

Before returning to Texas and Stanford, a bizarre edition of 'Let's Email'...
In what I have to consider one of the oddest occurrences in four years of blogging Texas sports, I actually received more emails this week about UCLA than I did the Longhorns. Why? Well... perhaps it's not so odd, considering the Bruins have been something of a national story in college basketball over the past month. It started, coincidentally enough, with UCLA's game against Stanford at Pauley Pavilion, which I attended and wrote about. Less than a week later, UCLA won a thriller over Cal in a game that featured another controversial ending and one of the most amazing end-of-game shots I've ever seen.
On top of that, the Bruins necessarily are a story in this year's NCAA Tournament, being a #1 seed and one of just a handful of teams that most of us can imagine winning it all. And, they just won a nail biter of a second round game that featured another controversial call at the end. Add in my announced distaste for Howland-style basketball, and UCLA's been a hot topic in these parts. (Certainly in my inbox, anyway.)
Let's dive in:
--RS--
Whatever you think of the officiating (more on that later), I don't quite agree that UCLA's path to the Final Four is the easiest. For starters, they joined Memphis as having a legitimately tough second round game. The Aggies were inconsistent this year, but at their best, a team that matches up well with the Bruins. And as we saw, they took UCLA down to the wire. Contrast that with Kansas, for example, which wasn't at all tested in its second round game.
Looking forward, here are the remaining four teams in each region, with Pomeroy rank in parentheses:
| WEST | MIDWEST | EAST | SOUTH |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2) UCLA | (1) KANSAS | (5) NORTH CAROLINA | (6) MEMPHIS |
| (61) W. KENTUCKY | (46) VILLANOVA | (6) WASHINGTON ST | (13) MICHIGAN ST |
| (18) XAVIER | (3) WISCONSIN | (7) LOUISVILLE | (11) STANFORD |
| (19) WEST VIRGINIA | (29) DAVIDSON | (14) TENNESSEE | (10) TEXAS |
If Kansas gets by Villanova, it will have reached the Elite Eight without defeating a single Top 40 team. They'd certainly have to earn it with a win over Wisconsin, but as well as I think they match up with the Badgers, I think the Jayhawks are the team that got the best draw. UCLA's hardly got the terrifying road to San Antonio that teams in the South and East must take, but for my money, Kansas is the team most fortuitously positioned.
Click here for the rest of this article.

--LD--
To be honest? I completely, totally defer to Bill Simmons on anything related to the NBA. If Simmons says Collison's a better pro prospect, then as far as I'm concerned, he is. And hell, if we're talking pro prospects here, I'd take Derrick Rose over Collison and Augustin.
While we're on the topic, who said anything about hating Collison? I've emphasized here and elsewhere that I think he's a fantastic point guard and one of the two reasons (along with Love) that I take UCLA seriously to win it all this year. He has great size, outstanding defense, a lovely jump shot, and solid penetrating ability. The most tiresome comments I've received the past two weeks have been from UCLA fans inventing hatred that doesn't exist. As though they can't imagine a sports fan could be sophisticated enough to both (a) prefer Augustin for his team and (b) think highly of Collison.
My preference for DJ as Texas' point guard has absolutely nothing to do with disliking Darren Collison. Among a bunch of players I don't enjoy watching play, he and Love stand out as the ones who play beautifully. I admire them both.
--RR--
I think UCLA wins that game whether that foul is called or not, so I don't think it's worth getting too upset about. I didn't think the officials did a good job with that game from start to finish, either, so getting hung up on one call doesn't seem particularly fruitful in this instance.
I thought Sloan was clearly fouled on the play, but A&M lost that game throughout the second half as its offense disappeared. I will say this, though: you're right that the A&M bloggers handled that whole thing with class. And so did many UCLA fans. But any Bruin fan who tries to tell you that there wasn't a foul on that play is just spinning. That was a hack, and has to be called.
On the whole, though, I'd emphasize that the officials didn't call that game well at all, including a terrible call on Darren Collison not long before. Both teams were hurt by poor officiating.
--EH--
Several points here:
- When you're wrong, you're wrong, and the line about naming a quality NBA guard that's played under Howland was quickly dispatched of by the Bruin faithful.
- I wish I hadn't bothered with the line at all, because it's totally unnecessary to the point I was making, which remains valid: Ben Howland offenses are painfully difficult to watch for many fans. His teams remind me a lot of Kelvin Sampson's Oklahoma teams. (Minus any sketchy violations; Howland appears totally on the up and up.) Sampson's Sooners were big, they were physical, they played tremendous defense, and they rebounded the hell out of the ball. They also dragged Big 12 basketball into the mud with one ugly slugfest after another. They were good, but they were hard to watch if you weren't a Sooner fan.
- The one point I'm glad you get that not everyone seemed to understand was that there are a lot of ways to be an effective offense. One such way is the Howland way, which is to make a lot of points in the paint, while limiting turnovers and doing a first-rate job with offensive rebounding. Another way is the Bob Knight way, with lots of motion, solid passing, and high percentage shooting. I don't dispute that both ways are effective ways to help your team win basketball games. I only submit that the Howland way - like the Sampson way - is ugly to watch.
- Along the same lines, not enjoying a Howland-style offense says nothing about my opinion of his team's strength. Last year's Texas team was a true joy to watch on offense, but we defended like a junior varsity high school team. Which is one of the biggest reasons why UCLA played in the Final Four and Texas lost in the second round.
--SM--
Amen to that. I'd love another game against the Bruins this season. If you're one of those fans who believes that it's either "your year" or not, this one's really felt like "UCLA's year" of late, hasn't it? Dramatic comebacks, buzzer beaters, and a healthy number of breaks going their way have UCLA playing as a team that believes it can win any game at this point. That kind of confidence is damn important in a single-elimination tournament, and no matter what you think about what's happened prior to this point, UCLA is a dangerous, confident team.
But before I'll indulge in rematch dreams, I gotta return my focus to Houston. Stanford, Michigan State, and Memphis all scare me to death.
Long live March Madness.
--PB--
0 recs |
11 comments
Comments
the problem in the UCLA game wasn't just the last
play
I'm tired of seeing people say, "Well, if A&M hadn't had a scoring drought, that last play doesn't matter..."
If the refs actually call Kevin Love for hacking on those 'blocks', A&M doesn't have a 10 minute scoring drought.
Hell, until I watched the replay, I wondered if there was a foul on the last play or if he jus fumnbled the ball away. I was already furious with the refs before the Sloan foul.
Re: UCLA/texas II:
It would be an interesting matchup. I'd like to see if Love would improve on his play at all. I'd still take texas in the rematch, simply b/c I don't think UCLA is all that good.
by Beergut on
Mar 26, 2008 5:36 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
You're right, the problem wasn't the last play
it was the whole game.
Like PB said, it was a terribly officiated game, both ways.
The Aggies didn't do themselves any favors by missing 8 of their 10 3's either. They were in a slump whether or not Love gets all those blocks near the end. They couldn't make a jump shot to save their lives.
by afaeguy on
Mar 26, 2008 5:55 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
UCLA
While i agree that the officiating was bad in this game, I do agree with beergut. Bottom line is in the last few minutes Kevin Love could do no wrong despite all his "blocks" being hacks. A&M did themselves no favors at the end of the game, but they still should have won with fair officiating.
by bduran on
Mar 27, 2008 3:31 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
come on
It would be a fun rematch. Collison at full speed v. Augustin would be great. You may not recall that Collison was playing in only his 2nd game after missing all the prior games with a knee injury, and was wearing a knee brace that really restricted him. I know Texas has the ability to beat UCLA, but I think we'd win a close one in the rematch with Love being so much better than he was at that point in the season and Collison being back to AA form, which he was not when Augustin abused him in Pauley.
Btw, UCLA is that good-you don't get to 33-3 and a 7-1 record against Sweet 16 teams by being OK.
Regarding your other take on the TAMU scoring drought, maybe some of those blocks should have been called, but the refs were letting a lot of fouls go and its not like the non-calls were the aberration. Nobody fouled out of that game and there is no way that was remotely possible considering the hacking, smacking and ridiculously physical play by both teams unless the refs were deliberately allowing both teams leeway to play physical defense. While I do believe that Sloan was fouled on the drive to the hoop, the refs were there to call it, nobody had their views screened, and they chose not to blow the whistle. The decision to call the foul is a judgment of the refs, and they chose not to call it. Doesn't make it right, but it certainly is the right of the refs to blow the whistle or not.
Officiating is hard and usually there are any number of bad calls over the course of a game and ultimately the season. UCLA has benefited from some of the calls/non-calls; UCLA has suffered from some of the calls/non-calls. What one hopes for is that over the course of a game and ultimately the course of a season, the fouls even out, and that the refs are not in a position to play a role in the final outcome or final seconds. Unfortunately, that happened in our wins against Stanford, Cal and TAMU. While unfortunate, it's not like UCLA can give up the wins or do anything to alter the outcome, so stop trashing the Bruins when you should be knocking the officiating.
by ucladj89 on
Mar 27, 2008 11:03 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Curious...
Like the intensity. I'm going to call you UCLA Jihad from now on.
I don't remember hearing UCLA griping about losing a game due to the officials during the season, but I don't follow UCLA very... at all. Could you tell me which of your losses you're talking about when you say UCLA has suffered from some of the calls/non-calls?
by Horn Brain on
Mar 27, 2008 12:03 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
this is easy
we didn't "lose" a game this year because of the officiating. However, I would also say that UCLA didn't win any games because of the officiating. As an example, in the Stanford game that everyone gets bent out of shape about because of the called foul that put Collison on the line at the end...that call came four seconds after Stanford's Goods a) traveled and then b) charged into Kevin Love as he was scoring the go-ahead basket. The foul that put Collison on the line was called for the body contact, not the block, which was obviously clean. I didn't think the whistle was the right call, but there was contact. Even so, if Collison doesn't hit those FT, UCLA loses the game. Stanford then had their chances to win in OT but got flattened. So this call didn't win UCLA anything. It put UCLA in position to tie, which is not the same thing.
As for the Cal game, the slo-mo replays from several different angles did not show an obvious foul on the strip and then on the Shipp game winner, while it is obvious from the replays that part of the ball passed over the corner of the backboard, the ref who had a clear view of the play as it happened deemed it too close to call, the head of officiating for the Pac-10 backed that judgment (even though he was on record criticizing the call in the Stanford game just two days earler), and Hank Nichols from the NCAA was quoted as saying that the rule about the ball passing over the backboard was put in place to stop lobs on inbounds plays, not circus shots. In fact, UCLA got burned by a shot like this in 1984 by Oregon, which was a game-tying basket for the Ducks and they eventually won in OT. That basket was not waved off. You can find that one on youtube-an incredible shot that clearly goes over the backboard.
I do not deny that UCLA has benefited from some of these non-calls/called fouls. And any UCLA fan, just like any college basketball fan, would far prefer that the refs call a good enough game where their actions, or lack thereof, are not an issue the next day. And as I said, UCLA has played in a lot of games where a lot of stuff was not called (just watch any game where the opposing teams had a big front line-Love was getting hammered nearly every time he tocuhed the ball.) One rather egregious no-call that comes to mind came against Washington at Washington. UCLA was down toward the end of the game but still with a chance when Washington tried to inbound a ball from the sideline. The inbounds was guarded closely and as the time was expiring to get the ball in, the Husky reared back as if pitching in a baseball game and fired the ball off Alfred Aboya's face. Take a look on youtube, this was not a case where the Husky was just trying to make a smart play-he aimed right at Aboya's face. No call there even though could very easily been called unsportmanlike. But that call didn't "lose" UCLA the game any more than the non-call on Sloan's drive "lost" TAMU the game. In the last ten minutes of that game TAMU got blocked in the paint, missed jumpers and had no answer to Love and Collison...and that lost them the game.
Bottom line is that there's no conspiracy to get the Bruins into the FF (not saying you're saying that, but some of the posters out there sound like they're marching with tinfoil hats.) Some questionable officiating has helped UCLA this year, but one could argue that it hurt UCLA in the FF against Florida last year when Afflalo picked up two quick questionable fouls in the first two minutes and rode the pine. Those calls didn't lose UCLA the game (Florida was the better team), but they stand as an example of how UCLA has been hurt by questionable calls as well, albeit not this year.
by ucladj89 on
Mar 27, 2008 3:15 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I wouldn't lose any sleep over Memphis
That said, again: Please, please smack them in the mouth so hard their mommas feel it. The Other UT is counting on y'all.
by Holly on
Mar 26, 2008 6:10 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
We hope we get the chance to
Like Barnes said, "throw the seeds out of the window". The remaining 16 teams are all very good. It will be interesting to see how everything works out this weekend.
I just hope Texas continues to win so I can enjoy ALL of the games.
by UTAth on
Mar 26, 2008 6:42 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
just tweaking
Dramatic comebacks, buzzer beaters, and a healthy number of breaks going their way have UCLA playing as a team that believes it can win any game at this point.
Don't they already have the headlines made up for this year's title game? "Refs win national championship"
by tenuki on
Mar 26, 2008 6:56 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Video regarding - Are we really that classless?
As much as I dislike the Aggies, I think one of our own took it a little too far (I must admit...I did chuckle a bit)
by texmexhookedup on
Mar 27, 2008 12:45 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I enjoyed it
by UTAth on
Mar 27, 2008 1:31 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs












