UCLA beats Stanford

I did not see the UCLA win over Stanford last night, so I eagerly checked some sites this morning after watching the highlights lights last night. The headlines and articles suggest UCLA made a ferocious comeback. Trent Johnson's post-game comments hinted at his displeasure with one call. Then, I read Doug Gottlieb's article.

I generally like Gottlieb. However, most UCLA fans claim he is anti-UCLA. After this article, it would be hard to prove otherwise.

First, there is the call. Lawrence Hill blocked Darren Collison's shot, but was called for a foul. Was it a bad call? Probably. Was it the only bad call? I doubt it. Furthermore, I recall Stanford winning at Arizona a couple weeks ago when Stanford benefitted from a terrible call on a Chase Budinger block attempt with sent Brook Lopez, I believe, to the line for the go ahead free throws. So, over the course of a season, things tend to balance out. If UCLA did not deserve the win last night because of the one call, as Gottlieb suggests ("The game only went to overtime on a terrible foul call on Lawrence Hill as he blocked Darren Collison's drive with 2.5 seconds remaining. In addition to the ludicrous call,"), then Stanford did not serve its win against Arizona.

Of course, in this case, the game went to overtime, so Stanford still had a shot. From the highlights, it looked like UCLA made some great plays down the stretch. According to Gottlieb, however, "UCLA looked OK, but got nothing from Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Alfred Aboya, Lorenzo Mata-Real and Josh Shipp."

Gottlieb did give Collison credit for taking over the game and making shots. But, then he took a swipe at probable Pac-10 Player of the Year Kevin Love saying that NBA folks are not as high on level as college fans. His reasoning was his inability to explode over Brook Lopez, a seven-footer destined for the top of the lottery.

However, he saved his last swipe for Head Coach Ben Howland, when he said "And while Love can play more of a perimeter game at the next level, he may not have the green light to do so at UCLA." Love shoots threes in almost every game. UCLA runs plays to get him perimeter shots. To suggest he does not have the green light at UCLA is to ignore the entire season.

People want to criticize UCLA's offense. Last time I looked, UCLA was 4th in offensive efficiency in the nation. While everyone labels the Bruins as a defensive team, its offense ranks much higher in efficiency than its defense. People criticize Howland because the team wins ugly. However, they do not put up 100ppg because they do not run down court and jack the first open three-point shot. They use the shot clock and get good shots. With Collison at the point, they know they can create a good shot with seconds left on the shot clock, so they never panic. If their original set does not create the desired shot, they run a high on-ball screen and take what the defense leaves open, either a lane for Collison, Love popping, Mbah a Moute stepping in the lane, Westbrook cutting or Shipp spotting up for three.

People, and those recruiting against UCLA, try to sell recruits on this idea that playing for Howland will stunt your offensive growth. However, Phil Jackson said that Jordan Farmar entered the NBA prepared to play. This idea that UCLA cannot play offense, develop players or prepare players for the next level is probably the biggest misconception in college basketball right now. The draft sites currently have three Bruins projected in the first round of the 2008 NBA Draft. Two of them, Westbrook and Collison, were lightly recruited until the middle of their senior years of high school. Nobody projected them as future NBA players as everyone has with Love. So, not only has playing for UCLA not hurt Love's NBA chances, but it has enhanced Westbrook's and Collison's by leaps and bounds.

I'm just amazed at the critical response Howland receives from fans, the media and others considering he has won three straight Pac-10 Conference championships and been to two Final Fours and the first two players from his original recruiting class are playing in the NBA. Honestly, besides Billy Donovan, is anybody even close right now to his recent accomplishments?

Last year, he wasn't supposed to be able to win without Farmar. Instead, Collison developed into a Pre-Season All-American this year. This year, losing Arron Afflalo, the heart of the team, was supposed to slow the Bruins, but Westbrook has stepped in and elevated himself to the lottery, according to some draft sites. Beyond winning the NCAA Championship, what more does Howland have to do to earn his respect among the media and fans?

Gottlieb isn't the only one. Billy Packer proves the game has passed him by every time he does a UCLA game. Dick Vitale has proven he does not understand either. Both, on occasions, criticize players for plays, saying they are out of position. However, they are playing Howland's defense. In the Arizona game. Budinger came off a curl cut; UCLA trails cutters and forces curls. Love was defending the screener. Love stepped up to hedge on the curl, as he is supposed to do, and they made a lob pass to Love's man. Packer went on and on about Love being out of position. But, that's how UCLA plays defense. It is the weakside help defender's responsibility to be there on the pass to Love's man. However, neither Packer nor Vitale have ever picked this up. They criticize the wrong player because they are either too lazy to watch tape and see how UCLA plays or just don't understand the game of basketball anymore.