Quote:
Originally Posted by south bender
The man was coach when UCLA went to 3 consecutive Final Fours, when his teams were loaded with future NBA talent. The best of that impressive array was even all-NBA caliber, such as Westbrook and Love.
How does success with such talent lead to the notion that UCLA is too high a profile program for him?
Looking at the current UCLA team, I would say that they are simply not talented enough to contend in the conference.
I am aware that many talented players have left UCLA in the years since the Final Four guys. I am no rabid follower of or expert on UCLA, so why this loss of talent occurred, I do not know. Still, from having seen his success at UCLA with really talented players, more talented certainly than the recent defectors, I really don't get this argument.
|
It was just a matter of time.
Howland is not fun to play for and his system is not fun to play in.
Initially, kids looking at UCLA did not know that. He had holdovers from Lavin. He brought in a few under the radar guys. He got to the Final Four, repeatedly. Winning covers anything. It was UCLA and they were winning. Top players wanted to go there.
But eventually the word got out:
Howland is not fun to play for and his system is not fun to play in.
Now they don't even have the winning.
When Howland gets frustrated, he yells. A lot.
Future NBA talent is heading elsewhere.
People say he should just recruit the lunch pail kids, the hard workers, that will buy into his defense first system. The kind of kids that you can find near Pittsburgh or Eastern Michigan.
But not L.A. L.A. kids dream of playing for the Lakers, being the next Kobe Bryant. Top players from around the country will gladly go to L.A. to play for a few years. UCLA has the tradition of Carolina with the glamour of Hollywood.
Howland and his disciplined approach just doesn't fit.