Bear Down Wildcats

Bosy Billups wrote:That should be 6 nights of no sleep? Maybe that's why his shot is off.

Probably for the best. He has recurrent nightmares of the two shots he passed up.

On the menu today: a loss to Utah and more "sleepless nights."

SCCat wrote:On the menu today: a loss to Utah and more "sleepless nights."

When was the last time Arizona, Duke, Kansas, UK, UConn, UNC, Florida, or Michigan State lost five in a row?

Heh.

Yikes

This is just beyond sad. I feel sorry for UCLA fans. I truly do.

No one is going to be sleeping in the Alford house this week.

When will UCLA win again - maybe March 31st in Pauley against WSU?

15 games in the team has quit on Alford

Well, I'll keep saying what I've said forever: the Pac does not need UCLA doing well in order to be a strong, relevant conference, just like the Big 10 doesn't need Indiana to be strong. We just need three or four strong programs, as in nationally ranked every year. It doesn't matter if it's Utah, Oregon, UW, Cal, etc. This year, Utah is looking like a legit Final Four threat, UW is better than expected and looking tourney-bound, and Oregon, Cal, and Stanford will be in the mix for bids as well. AZ, of course, will be in the tourney, and is the current flagship program in the Pac. We'll continue to occupy this position with Sean Miller as coach. And as long as two or three other schools are part of the national conversation every year, it really doesn't matter what's going on in Westwood.

I think "UCLA" needs to say something about the basketball program this week. After what occurred in the non conference and then seeing how these first two conference games went, I don't think Guerrero can just say "We're not satisfied with the results on the court" and walk away.

We'll see if anything gets said/done this week. If "they" care about their program something will be said/done as this is past dumpster fire; the fire has burnt itself out and destroyed the dumpster and now there's just a pile of ash.

Oh well. One more year of this

MrBug708 wrote:Oh well. One more year of this

And then they can hire Pastner.

Heh.

Beachcat97 wrote:Well, I'll keep saying what I've said forever: the Pac does not need UCLA doing well in order to be a strong, relevant conference, just like the Big 10 doesn't need Indiana to be strong. We just need three or four strong programs, as in nationally ranked every year. It doesn't matter if it's Utah, Oregon, UW, Cal, etc. This year, Utah is looking like a legit Final Four threat, UW is better than expected and looking tourney-bound, and Oregon, Cal, and Stanford will be in the mix for bids as well. AZ, of course, will be in the tourney, and is the current flagship program in the Pac. We'll continue to occupy this position with Sean Miller as coach. And as long as two or three other schools are part of the national conversation every year, it really doesn't matter what's going on in Westwood.

for a program you think so little of, you can't help but talk about it. You're chris cooper's character in American Beauty. No matter how homophobic you are, it doesn't mean you still don't want to kiss another dude

MrBug708 wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:Well, I'll keep saying what I've said forever: the Pac does not need UCLA doing well in order to be a strong, relevant conference, just like the Big 10 doesn't need Indiana to be strong. We just need three or four strong programs, as in nationally ranked every year. It doesn't matter if it's Utah, Oregon, UW, Cal, etc. This year, Utah is looking like a legit Final Four threat, UW is better than expected and looking tourney-bound, and Oregon, Cal, and Stanford will be in the mix for bids as well. AZ, of course, will be in the tourney, and is the current flagship program in the Pac. We'll continue to occupy this position with Sean Miller as coach. And as long as two or three other schools are part of the national conversation every year, it really doesn't matter what's going on in Westwood.

for a program you think so little of, you can't help but talk about it. You're chris cooper's character in American Beauty. No matter how homophobic you are, it doesn't mean you still don't want to kiss another dude

Oh, Bugvomit, I just like reminding you how irrelevant UCLA hoops is, and has been. It gets under your skin, obviously, and then you resort to strange homophobic slurs. Some things never change.

But cheer up: football season starts in a little over seven months.

Heh.

ASUHATER! wrote:15 games in the team has quit on Alford

They lost too much talent and leadership from last year.

Clearly UCLA fans don't give a shit, to see the program in the dumpster like this.

What a loser fan-base.

UCLA really does stink. Their program is falling and looks like Utah has passed them in the Pac-12. Will continue to fall or will Alford be let go at the end of the season? It will probably get worse before it gets better at UCLA. Meantime, Miller will increase the gap.

CalStateTempe wrote:Clearly UCLA fans don't give a shit, to see the program in the dumpster like this.

What a loser fan-base.

Someone is fishing for riverside cat

So now where onto diagnosing what's wrong with UCLA. I thought they could've probably just used the picture they did and not even write an article...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the ... 44321.html

"Sunday's loss leaves UCLA (8-7) still in search of its first victory over a top 100 KenPom opponent this season." Yikes.

"UCLA doesn't have a true point guard capable of orchestrating the offense and getting guys the ball in positions to score the way Kyle Anderson did last season. Anderson's replacement, Bryce Alford, is ill-suited for the role because he has a volume shooter's mentality and lacks the court vision, shot selection and ability to create off the dribble the point guard position demands." It almost feels like he's saying Bryce isn't a point guard [S][/S]

Wow, those comments in that Yahoo article are brutal......I never liked the Alford hire and I thought it reeked of desperation by their AD after whiffing on big names. I think 'Alfraud' (apropos nickname) will be a failure and gone in the next 3 years.

I also don't believe we need UCLA to be strong, or 'the flagship' for the P12 as some espouse.....sorry Bug and other cool UCLA fans BUT, by and large ,they are a pathetic fanbase reeking of entitlement and living off past glories. Just look at how empty Pauley is unless we are there! Look at how they ran off Howland after 3 Final Fours.

Alford is a disaster, with serious character flaws, and it's amusing to watch him at work.....He is a significant downgrade from Howland IMO.

Bangkok Wildcat wrote:Wow, those comments in that Yahoo article are brutal......I never liked the Alford hire and I thought it reeked of desperation by their AD after whiffing on big names. I think 'Alfraud' (apropos nickname) will be a failure and gone in the next 3 years.

I also don't believe we need UCLA to be strong, or 'the flagship' for the P12 as some espouse.....sorry Bug and other cool UCLA fans BUT, by and large ,they are a pathetic fanbase reeking of entitlement and living off past glories. Just look at how empty Pauley is unless we are there! Look at how they ran off Howland after 3 Final Fours.

Alford is a disaster, with serious character flaws, and it's amusing to watch him at work.....He is a significant downgrade from Howland IMO.

But he plays fast. We want to play fast. We play fast. We want to play fast. We play fast. We want to play fast.

UCLA has only eight scholarship players and three scholarship guards this season because Colorado State transfer Jon Octeus and incoming freshman Jonah Bolden did not qualify academically and Alford didn't pursue any contingency plans.

Biggest evidence Guerrero picked the wrong guy right there. I don't care if you go JUCO or downgrade to three-star kids--you find depth that wants to be in Westwood, for the sake of your own leverage as a coach if for no other reason.

Golden Boys think they can always be Golden Boys, and the rest will take care of itself. It just astounds that so many millions can be thrown away on such poor judgment in stewardship of such a legendary program.

It would be like Kentucky hiring, to succeed Calipari, the guy who finished just behind Billy Gillespie in the previous search. That AD would be run out of Lexington on a rail, and it's the disengaged fanbase's fault that that didn't happen to Guerrero after the Alford hire.

For any UCLA detractors that are still awake, the replay of the Utah game will be on the PAC-12 Network in a few minutes.

Beachcat97 wrote:Well, I'll keep saying what I've said forever: the Pac does not need UCLA doing well in order to be a strong, relevant conference, just like the Big 10 doesn't need Indiana to be strong. We just need three or four strong programs, as in nationally ranked every year. It doesn't matter if it's Utah, Oregon, UW, Cal, etc. This year, Utah is looking like a legit Final Four threat, UW is better than expected and looking tourney-bound, and Oregon, Cal, and Stanford will be in the mix for bids as well. AZ, of course, will be in the tourney, and is the current flagship program in the Pac. We'll continue to occupy this position with Sean Miller as coach. And as long as two or three other schools are part of the national conversation every year, it really doesn't matter what's going on in Westwood.

I can't say this enough (and without yet reading the responses to your post) I 100% agree, have stated it less elaborately than you, and have faced contention for it. A ranked UCLA program is preferable though not required as long as a few other programs are picking up the slack.

It's hard to imagine someone saying something about UCLA less eloquently than BC97, so I assume you really meant 'elaborately'.

The problem with your premise is that it relies on other programs picking up UCLA's slack, but they're simply not doing it. We've seen a collection of teams be reasonably successful over the past ten years or so: Oregon, UW, Stanford, Colorado, but none of them have done anything in the tournament. If you look at the last ten years, how many programs not named UCLA or Arizona have made the Elite Eight? One, and one time only (2007 Oregon). Arizona and UCLA have each played in the Elite Eight three times over that span, and UCLA progressed to the Final Four twice.

So please, please don't tell me that the PAC doesn't need UCLA. A decent basketball conference should have at least a couple of good teams, and then several others which are at least a threat to win a few tourney games. Without UCLA, the PAC-12 is a laughingstock, and that is NOT good for Arizona basketball.

catgrad97 wrote:

UCLA has only eight scholarship players and three scholarship guards this season because Colorado State transfer Jon Octeus and incoming freshman Jonah Bolden did not qualify academically and Alford didn't pursue any contingency plans.

Biggest evidence Guerrero picked the wrong guy right there. I don't care if you go JUCO or downgrade to three-star kids--you find depth that wants to be in Westwood, for the sake of your own leverage as a coach if for no other reason.

Golden Boys think they can always be Golden Boys, and the rest will take care of itself. It just astounds that so many millions can be thrown away on such poor judgment in stewardship of such a legendary program. d

It would be like Kentucky hiring, to succeed Calipari, the guy who finished just behind Billy Gillespie in the previous search. That AD would be run out of Lexington on a rail, and it's the disengaged fanbase's fault that that didn't happen to Guerrero after the Alford hire.

Guerrero is such a fixture in the UC system that we are stuck with him. He's owed about 1.5 million each year. bureaucracy and nepotism runs rampant within all administration in this system. I'd be stunned if they don't name a building after DG when he retires

Keep wish and hoping and dreaming and wishing for days gone by bug.

You'll always have wooden.

Puerco wrote:It's hard to imagine someone saying something about UCLA less eloquently than BC97, so I assume you really meant 'elaborately'.

The problem with your premise is that it relies on other programs picking up UCLA's slack, but they're simply not doing it. We've seen a collection of teams be reasonably successful over the past ten years or so: Oregon, UW, Stanford, Colorado, but none of them have done anything in the tournament. If you look at the last ten years, how many programs not named UCLA or Arizona have made the Elite Eight? One, and one time only (2007 Oregon). Arizona and UCLA have each played in the Elite Eight three times over that span, and UCLA progressed to the Final Four twice.

So please, please don't tell me that the PAC doesn't need UCLA. A decent basketball conference should have at least a couple of good teams, and then several others which are at least a threat to win a few tourney games. Without UCLA, the PAC-12 is a laughingstock, and that is NOT good for Arizona basketball.

A) I agree that other programs have not picked up the slack for UCLA this year.

B) I agree that it's preferable to have UCLA as a top representative PAC 12 program, alongside Arizona.

C) The beef is twofold - 1) I've never been a fan of rooting for rivals because it helps the conference or whatever. That's something the SEC has gone way overboard with starting in 2006 and everybody else decided to likewise follow them off the conference banter cliff. 2) Whether it's for the conference or not why oh why should I ever be compelled to root for UCLA??? Please don't tell us to root for UCLA just to get the indirect effect it has on AZ. I'll take rooting against UCLA at the expense of the conference most any day.

MrBug708 wrote:Oh well. One more year of this

So send a message to any potential hires that you have 3 years to turn this around, or else AXE, even if we give you a 5 year huge contract and say we have 100% faith in you. Oh, don't forget this is after firing a coach who went to 3 final fours and has a ton of friends in the coaching fraternity.

The team will be decimated at that point, who in their right mind would take that?

Two Words: Brad Stevens

You guys NEED Alford to at least tread water until that 5 year period is up, then make the move.

Olsondogg wrote:This is beachcat's glory season. uCla starts off on the road in the mountains, and I expect Rado will have some sort of resurgence...and Tah is good.


8-7 in a week, with 5 straight losses?

Bing again.

BRO Article
http://ucla.scout.com/story/1498965-uta ... -play?s=12

Honest Question:
Has UCLA reached the depths of the dark Arizona transition years? These were the type of articles Gershon used to write.

Bosy Billups wrote:BRO Article
http://ucla.scout.com/story/1498965-uta ... -play?s=12

Honest Question:
Has UCLA reached the depths of the dark Arizona transition years? These were the type of articles Gershon used to write.

From the article...

Looking ahead, Bryce will come out of his slump at some point to some degree. He is clearly a better shooter than these stats indicate, even if many of his shots are still bad ones. That might give UCLA a little relief and help them win some games down the stretch of the Pac-12 season. Hamilton will keep jacking it up without conscience, as will a desperate Norman Powell, whose game is breaking down and his NBA stock is plummeting while he tries to get his in this mess.

This is why I posted a week ago that you might just see Powell walk off the team. He isn't learning anything this year and from this coach and every game he plays in you wonder if his draft stock has gone down just from that game's performance. Literally he might do better for his draft stock 1) not appearing in any of these games and 2) just starting to do private workouts for teams.

SCCat wrote:

Bosy Billups wrote:BRO Article
http://ucla.scout.com/story/1498965-uta ... -play?s=12

Honest Question:
Has UCLA reached the depths of the dark Arizona transition years? These were the type of articles Gershon used to write.

From the article...

Looking ahead, Bryce will come out of his slump at some point to some degree. He is clearly a better shooter than these stats indicate, even if many of his shots are still bad ones. That might give UCLA a little relief and help them win some games down the stretch of the Pac-12 season. Hamilton will keep jacking it up without conscience, as will a desperate Norman Powell, whose game is breaking down and his NBA stock is plummeting while he tries to get his in this mess.

This is why I posted a week ago that you might just see Powell walk off the team. He isn't learning anything this year and from this coach and every game he plays in you wonder if his draft stock has gone down just from that game's performance. Literally he might do better for his draft stock 1) not appearing in any of these games and 2) just starting to do private workouts for teams.

I sincerely doubt he'll walk off the team. I'm not discounting the points you made, but quitting says alot.

Olsondogg wrote:I sincerely doubt he'll walk off the team. I'm not discounting the points you made, but quitting says alot.

I hear ya. It's a big deal to just walk away.

That said, this situation might just qualify.

azcat49 wrote:Feel bad for Powell playing on this trainwreck of a team. Alford goes 3-13 yet it seemed he was 3-23. Hamilton almost gets a triple double with 15-5 and 7. Problem is the 7 was turnovers. 2 points from the bench which is down to what, 3 guys?

It really is a sad state of affairs in bruin land and for the conference. Just don't understand how the AD keeps his job (although Howland and Mora produced)

After the screw job at the PAC Tourney the last two years by our "conference" could give a rats. This conference hasn't done much for Arizona from where I sit in the last 10 years. Just don't think the conference success is going to have anything to do with the mighty and powerful ucla basketball program NOT! As a conference we have to do better getting to Final Fours. That is all that matter$ anymore. The 70's and 90's are over and ucla is an embarrassment to no one but itself. Can't believe the President/Chancellor just sits by.

Miss Me Yet?

Quitting Twitter is good for at least 4 extra wins.

Chicat wrote:Quitting Twitter is good for at least 4 extra wins.

Just following the Mora playbook.

So wait, Alford quit twitter after that October 2013 tweet, but managed to log on to update the photo on the page?

Steve Alford: the coach you hire when your "nationwide" search comes up empty and there's urgency to fill the position

Steve Alford's contract: the deal you make with your current coach -- whoever it may be -- to create a sense of continuity for recruiting purposes, even when the current coach is entirely undeserving of the deal

Heh.

Olsondogg wrote:So wait, Alford quit twitter after that October 2013 tweet, but managed to log on to update the photo on the page?

Yea, but they hire people for social media etc. Which makes it worse, whoever is running that department should just erase his account.

Besides, Steve is too good for Twitter.

Katzenfreund wrote:

CBCat wrote:After the screw job at the PAC Tourney the last two years by our "conference" could give a rats. This conference hasn't done much for Arizona from where I sit in the last 10 years. Just don't think the conference success is going to have anything to do with the mighty and powerful ucla basketball program NOT!

This. I couldn't care less about the state of Larry's "flagship" program. Sam Gilbert is dead and so is the Westwood dynasty.

UCLA hoops: Hector Salamanca (the senescent, decrepit old boss, reduced to a drooling, incontinent invalid)
Steve Alford: Gus Fring (the fraudulent salesman, his palace built on a weak foundation)
John Calipari: Walter White (the architect of an empire, the mastermind living on borrowed time)
Sean Miller: Jesse Pinkman (the protege; he could inherit the empire if he can stay off the product...er, I mean, teach his guys to hit free throws)

UAEebs86 wrote:

Chicat wrote:Quitting Twitter is good for at least 4 extra wins.

Just following the Mora playbook.

Mora or less.

BTW, I think penicillin cures the 8 clap.

Beachcat97 wrote:

Katzenfreund wrote:

CBCat wrote:After the screw job at the PAC Tourney the last two years by our "conference" could give a rats. This conference hasn't done much for Arizona from where I sit in the last 10 years. Just don't think the conference success is going to have anything to do with the mighty and powerful ucla basketball program NOT!

This. I couldn't care less about the state of Larry's "flagship" program. Sam Gilbert is dead and so is the Westwood dynasty.

UCLA hoops: Hector Salamanca (the senescent, decrepit old boss, reduced to a drooling, incontinent invalid)
Steve Alford: Gus Fring (the fraudulent salesman, his palace built on a weak foundation)
John Calipari: Walter White (the architect of an empire, the mastermind living on borrowed time)
Sean Miller: Jesse Pinkman (the protege; he could inherit the empire if he can stay off the product...er, I mean, teach his guys to hit free throws)

Dan Guerrero: Saul Goodman. Yeah, it's all good, man.

Bosy Billups wrote:

MrBug708 wrote:Oh well. One more year of this

So send a message to any potential hires that you have 3 years to turn this around, or else AXE, even if we give you a 5 year huge contract and say we have 100% faith in you. Oh, don't forget this is after firing a coach who went to 3 final fours and has a ton of friends in the coaching fraternity.

The team will be decimated at that point, who in their right mind would take that?

Two Words: Brad Stevens

You guys NEED Alford to at least tread water until that 5 year period is up, then make the move.

The team was decimated when Howland took over and he was in the final four in year 3. It's never a long fix. Finding the right coach and having him sustain what made him good is what UCLA needs to find. Not sure DG is the guy to get us there.

the big problem is that ucla only has one cornerstone piece on the roster and that's Welsh

MrBug708 wrote:

Bosy Billups wrote:

MrBug708 wrote:Oh well. One more year of this

So send a message to any potential hires that you have 3 years to turn this around, or else AXE, even if we give you a 5 year huge contract and say we have 100% faith in you. Oh, don't forget this is after firing a coach who went to 3 final fours and has a ton of friends in the coaching fraternity.

The team will be decimated at that point, who in their right mind would take that?

Two Words: Brad Stevens

You guys NEED Alford to at least tread water until that 5 year period is up, then make the move.

The team was decimated when Howland took over and he was in the final four in year 3. It's never a long fix. Finding the right coach and having him sustain what made him good is what UCLA needs to find. Not sure DG is the guy to get us there.

the big problem is that ucla only has one cornerstone piece on the roster and that's Welsh

You guys put WAY too much emphasis on DG.

We had Jim F'n Livengood.

Let me repeat, Jim F'n Lvengood.

He screwed it up big time. Had Calipari on a handshake deal, and relaxed the rest of the season, preparing his victory speech. Then Kentucky, then Oh Shit.

I think others outside of the program (Calipari himself), maybe Pastner, boosters, etc. had to make sure Miller knew it was a good move.

Anyway, more than the AD, it has to be a good situation, low risk, high reward.

A good (elite) coach will do their due diligence. For Arizona, it was four years of disfunction, which means that any kind of stability will be welcomed. UCLA is big time in the spotlight, and seeing the fans, boosters, turn on Alford in year 2 means he doesn't have support. It's like Rich Rod at Michigan. Well, they got Brady Hoke after. And then Jim Harbaugh.

I think the blue print for UCLA is 3 years and then Brady Hoke is hired.
OR, 5 years, and an up and coming coach is hired.

Any established top coach is a pipe dream. Why would they take that risk? Why would you want to compete for recruits against Sean Miller? Be expected for a Final Four in a couple years. That's not a good job profile.

However, if everyone's expectations come down to reality (which only happens after everyone has given up), then it's appealing to be "the guy" who put UCLA back in the conversation.