Weekly Answers, Pt. 5

Here’s the latest batch of weekly answers…

1) Is there any reason to think Jerime Anderson is going to improve next year? Do you think his play is a reflection of the injuries he suffered early in the season (and over the summer, if I recall correctly) or his lack of work over the summer? – la-ukla
I think it’s a combination of a lot of things. Point guards feed off talent, and UCLA lacks talent. Point guards need to be healthy, and he wasn’t healthy. Point guards need to be confident, and he’s not confident. I’ve seen glimpses out of him that make me believe he has the natural ability to be a player. But high-level D-1 basketball is not just about ability. Maybe 1 percent of players can get by just on being athletically better – Kevin Love, for example. He was just…better. But for the rest, you have to out-work the next guy, especially in basketball, where less players means less of a broad spectrum of talent.

2) What do you feel is a bigger recruiting factor – Howland’s reputation of a slowdown offense or Howland’s success in getting players to the NBA? – John
Given the success of his players in the NBA, I’d say B.

3) There is no doubt in my mind that UCLA would have won another title if there was no such thing as “one and done”. How can college basketball get rid of this rule? Expand it to three years like college football (is that true?), get rid of it all together? Let kids who don’t get drafted come back? I hate this rule and believe it is ruining college basketball, which is such a better sport than the professional game (which is more entertainment than sport). What is your opinion on how to fix this problem? – BruininSeattle
There is no way to fix the problem. The NBA looks at college basketball as its minor leagues, and getting its marquee players at least one year in the college game is crucial to the league. Is it a sham? Yes. Making players stay for one year is a total joke. At least make it two, and force players to at least attempt to get an AA. Three years is a bit much, but I understand that the NFL does it because of concern for player safety and preparation. But in basketball, they should make it either zero or two.

4) Can you please include a couple of questions/answers on your Weekly Answers before the “After the jump”? That is, when I look at the blog’s main index, sometimes I lose track of which Weekly Answers I’ve already read, because I’ll come back several times throughout the day, and seeing a couple of questions would be helpful. – CrouchingBruin
Good suggestion, and I’ll try to remember to do that from now on.

5) I asked this question about 3 or 4 weeks ago, but dont remember ever getting an response and if you did i apologize for asking again but here it goes….in regards to our ‘pipeline’ Do you think the Crenshaw kids feel that going to UCLA in Westwood is a way out of the hood or do they really grow up liking UCLA and feel that its a football power? – 909Bruin
I stay away from any racial component, because it’s too easy a scapegoat. It’s too easy to say, “Oh, he went to UCLA because he wanted to escape.” No, there’s more to it than that. I don’t think Brian Price picked UCLA because “he wanted a way out of the hood.” That totally undermines the credibility of the school, the staff, the players, everything. Regarding part two of the question, I don’t think anybody feels that UCLA is a football power. I think it could be. But it’s not right now.

Share this post:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on TumblrShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page
  • Shy Girl

    I like it when Bruins use the nickname “University of South Central” and speak negatively about it’s neighborhood.

    Inner city recruits find it endearing.

  • Rob

    “Maybe 1 percent of players can get by just on being athletically better – Kevin Love, for example. He was just…better.”

    Okay…are you saying that Kevin Love’s success is based on athletic ability? Really? The guy is not what I would call *athletic*. You make it sound like he’s Dwight Howard.

    Sure, he’s more athletic than the average human, but compared to others in college (and certainly the NBA) he is probably less athletic. The reason he was so good in college and is doing well in the NBA is because he is almost always in the right position. His ability to post-up, rebound, defend, shoot, etc – all due to proper fundamentals and positioning.

  • Coach Thom

    If Coach Ben emphasizes defense so much, is there some way he can vet potential recruits to automatically dismiss those who want to be offensive stars? I’m sure we would love to sit in the stands and watch guys toss the ball back and forth to each other until the clock runs out and then break into an awesome defensive set-up to stop the other team from scoring as well.

  • Paul from Tustin

    Charles O’Bannon was very athletic.

  • bibs

    It takes good assistants to have a successful team.Coach Wooden had Arnold,Crum and others to help him succeed.Coach Howland had Jamie Dixon and some others who are now head coaches. Do we have the assistants to be successful now?