Well, that was close

Hey Jon,

As always, thank you for the insight! In my four years as a Bruin, I do not think I've ever been so "angry" about an end of a game....absolutely inexcusable and shameful end to a great game and incredible effort by the Bruins. So proud of this team. And yes, Honeycutt was downright unbelievable.

As for the timeout usage, you know, it was Coach Howland's normal timeout strategy to stop Kansas' runs and regroup the Bruins. In my opinion, it worked perfectly. The second half, at least, whenever we went up by four points or so, Kansas would run back and the crowd would rise on its feet and you could feel the momentum shifting. CBH would call a timeout time and time again and it stymied--in my opinion--Kansas' momentum. I think he managed a brilliant game. For example, with about 9 minutes left, he takes Honeycutt out (who had been in a while) to rest him for a minute before the TV timeout. He missed about a minute and half of gametime but rested for 5 minutes to be fresh down the stretch. I don't see where the timeouts being called differently would have impacted the game.

Look, we took the game to overtime against the #4 team in the country at their place--where they won 64 games now in a row. Great effort. Definitely could have won and it will eat at me all night.

Hey Jon,

As always, thank you for the insight! In my four years as a Bruin, I do not think I've ever been so "angry" about an end of a game....absolutely inexcusable and shameful end to a great game and incredible effort by the Bruins. So proud of this team. And yes, Honeycutt was downright unbelievable.

As for the timeout usage, you know, it was Coach Howland's normal timeout strategy to stop Kansas' runs and regroup the Bruins. In my opinion, it worked perfectly. The second half, at least, whenever we went up by four points or so, Kansas would run back and the crowd would rise on its feet and you could feel the momentum shifting. CBH would call a timeout time and time again and it stymied--in my opinion--Kansas' momentum. I think he managed a brilliant game. For example, with about 9 minutes left, he takes Honeycutt out (who had been in a while) to rest him for a minute before the TV timeout. He missed about a minute and half of gametime but rested for 5 minutes to be fresh down the stretch. I don't see where the timeouts being called differently would have impacted the game.

Look, we took the game to overtime against the #4 team in the country at their place--where they won 64 games now in a row. Great effort. Definitely could have won and it will eat at me all night.

well-coached game by howland. timeouts didn't come into play but the refs definitely did

Fantastic showing by the Bruins on the road.

I've never been one of those people who criticizes Howland's timeout strategies, and I'm not going to start now. The idea is, if Howland DIDN'T use his timeouts earlier in the game to refocus the team and stop some Kansas runs, UCLA wouldn't even BE that close at the end of the game.

Hard to argue, especially against a team like Kansas that can score a lot of points in a hurry and go on huge runs.

Sure it would have been nice if Howland had an extra timeout at the end of the game. But, it would have also been nice if the players committed to improving their free throwing. It would also have been nice for Reeves Nelson and Malcolm Lee to produce some points. Maybe if either of those had happened, Howland wouldn't have needed that timeout at the end of the game. You can't just pick out one thing to harp on and act like it the key to the kingdom.

UCLA fans just need something to complain about.

Honeycutt and Josh Smith were fantastic. The Bruins looked great except for the turnovers and some lapses on defense. Pt guard play is better but still spotty.

The effort and play was marred by a horrible call at the end of the game. As a ref you just can't decide the game that way.

We got screwed on the foul. Screwed.

I didn't realize the name of this blog was really "Inside Ucla ... one sport at a time." Kindof thought playing against a top 5 team would be important for the beat to cover. Just sayin...

You should watch the replay (I'm sure there is one, on espn3) Jon, very curious to hear your opinion on the "officiating" in this game. Hard to even call it that with a straight face.

Officiating was not good, but I thought our guard play killed us tonight. Too many crucial turnovers and bad decisions, especially at the end of the game. Honeycutt and smith carried the team.

Broke my heart to see these fine young Bruins gut it out only to be jobbed at the last second. Utterly inexplicable call. The guards could have won it for us had they played better. I hate to beat a dead horse and I know it is hard on the kid, but Anderson continues to disappoint. I guess the fact that the fans have been calling for his head for the last 2+ seasons is really getting into him. He continued to play out of his ability and tried too hard to prove the critics wrong. The pass to no-one with the game on the line. Then came the split second when he lost his man that lead to an uncontested layup... Nice to see Josh putting the hurt on the Kansas bigs.

A tough tough loss considering it truly was a winnable game decided by the dubious call. Bravo to the whole team.

lee and anderson, what a joke. i bet josh smith could play pg better

I think Howland managed a great game, probably one of his best in a long time. He substituted well and even got Stover in some to give the rotation some flexibility. Also, having Smith come off the bench obviously worked wonders (Although Lane was the sacrificial lamb).

I think the obvious problem goes back to the 2008 class, which essentially set UCLA back 3 years. I don't doubt Lee and Anderson want to do their best for the four letters, but it's obvious they're not pac-10 level talent. To even consider that Lee could bolt for the NBA is laughable in my opinion. He's a fighter, but he can't get a shot off one-on-one to save his life, and that's pretty much what the league is all about for a 2. Jerime "pass it out of bounds to no one once per game" Anderson needs no further analysis.

The call in the end was definitely rough, but I'm proud of the fight that this team showed. However, games like these will bite us big time come tourney selection time.

Why are you reporting on a game when you weren't there? You're just rehashing the box score. This is what you call being a reporter?

I saw a different game than everyone here. I saw four things that, in my humble opinion, were very very inspiring.

1. This game was ours if the officiating was barely suitable. And I am not talking about the call at the end of the night. Honestly, that was a foul, and it was before time expired. What really pisses me off is the incredibly bad calls the rest of the night. Mostly against our big boy, but also against Nelson.

2. If we learn to shoot foul shots we would have won. That is incredible. We are very close to being that good. This team has 6 games under their belt and they are competing against the #4 team in the country. They get better every game. Progress is progress. This is not something I saw last year.

3. We have three stars on the team. Anrgy-Reeves (can't think of something better), Money-Honey, and Big Boy. These guys are really incredible. If we had one suitable guard, this team goes to the final-four. Jones, despite some mess-ups, actually did a good job. The Jay Hawk defense was suffocating, and he did a very good job marshalling the troops, slowing things down. His mistakes were experience mistakes, not "what the hell were you thinking" mistakes. Give him 10 more games, and I see great things from him. He also did a great job on D. Kansas had plenty of turnovers, and they were mostly created by clever defense at the guard level. Credit Jones, Lee, Lamb, and little of Anderson. I honestly believe we win the Pac-10 this year. Lee- I think he should play off the bench, with Lamb starting for the next three games. We lose a little on offense, (but we play no one we care about) and at least we are training a future star and possibly seeing something happen. Plus, it might inspire Lee to step up. He really has the ability to be the guard we need. I think his issue is mental. Anderson should just transfer to New Mexico right now. His problem is not mental. He is just bad. He really is horrible. He had a few good plays, but they were countered by plays that I cannot explain. He needs to go. He is a distraction we do not need. Lane continues to impress me. By the time we hit Washington State, I think we will be in stride.

4. This teams really cares. They have the chemistry and fire that makes champions.

We lost this battle. We have some hope to win the war. Let’s see Kansas again in the big dance.

Go Bruins!!!! And lets beat SC this weekend. I really cannot take all these losses in both sports. I am desperate for a W.

Anonymous at 1:07 AM:

I believe the name of the BLOG is called Inside UCLA, hence the post by Jon about the UCLA game. Go back to smoking pot and staring at Wolf's video partner on the $UC blog.

1. That was an atrocious, embarrassing call at the end. In truth, the whole game was very poorly officiated.
2. The free throws were a wash. Kansas missed a lot, too. If either team shot a decent FT percentage, it would have won easily.
3. Malcolm Lee didn't have a breakout game at Notre Dame last year. A breakout game means you use the performance as a catalyst for future success. Lee regressed a lot after that game. However, Honeycutt is a player who I think will continue to deliver. Also, I'm still waiting for Smith's breakout game...hopefully it will be a 20-10 night against BYU in a few weeks.
4. The lack of basketball coverage is getting embarrassing. I know Gold isn't the decision maker, but hopefully some decision makers are reading this. This football team doesn't need to be "covered" in the middle of this week, even if it's USC-UCLA week. It's essentially a meaningless game. By comparison, UCLA is playing its signature sport (basketball) on national T.V. at one of the all-time great venues in the sport. Honestly, I think the Daily News editors used some poor editorial judgement in assuming UCLA would get blown out and there wouldn't be much of a story. If there was ever a game that demanded on-site coverage and the nice post-game video clips, this was it!

1. Refrees should not determine the game (home cooking?)
2. Jeraime Anderson couldnt start on the Bruins Womens team.
3. I hope this is a confidence booster for Smith, he played extremely well.

Re: free throws. Kansas shot an even worse percentage (16/30) than we did (14/22). True, if we shot them better we could have won, but same goes for them. The turnovers at the end of the game is what really killed us.

1. Whether it was a good or bad call at the end, it should not have been made. Refs should not be deciding games on iffy calls. If it was a blatant foul where someone was set for a shot and someone hacked him, fine, but this was essentially a scrum for the ball where someone basically just picked it up off the floor and threw it at the basket. If UCLA were #4 and Kansas was unranked and coming off a bad season, I would have been more ok with it, because UCLA could be blamed for it even getting to that point. But if you are a big underdog and you scrap and claw your way to a chance to go to OT and the ref blows it, that's different.

2. I don't really have a problem with Howland's usage of timeouts, because the cases where it has been an issue at the end of games have been few and far between. The only criticism I have is that he had Jerime Anderson in there for so long near the end (I think until there were about 2 minutes left?). Jones is not WAY better, but he is better. Jones does not become indecisive at key points and throw the ball away like Anderson, and is a better shooter. Perhaps he was resting Jones, but I think he should have put him in after the 4-minute mark TV timeout.

3. Josh Smith played very well, and while his second foul was borderline (I know Fran Fraschilla thinks it wasn't a foul, but I thought his feet were moving), his first one was just a bad call.

4. I hope Tyler Honeycutt doesn't leave, but it looks like he's gone. The only issue I saw with his game is that he thinks he's a better ballhandler than he is. He seemed to lose the ball quite a bit when dribbling in traffic. Sometimes he recovered it, but once or twice it was stolen.

Daily Bruin reports: Group of UCLA students seek revenge against USC with pranks
CBS confirms: ‘UCLA’ Painted On USC’s Practice Field

1. I agree with most (but not all) of the comments.

2. The call at the end should have been a "no-call" True, it WAS a foul with some time left, but it is most common for refs to let those go as 'no harm-no foul' in a big time game. In March, that would have DEFINITELY be a no call. Let's the teams decide the outcome in OT. I guess it ain't March yet!

3. Screw all the Ben Howland "T.O." trolls. Ben has historically used all of his TOs when he feels he needs to. Other coaches hoard them. Ben has had success with his style, so leave him alone. And, in this game, I think he called them perfectly.

4. Josh Smith is getting that Freshman/Rookie Blame the Big Man treatment. In the second half, the first two foul calls against him were HORRIBLE calls. I think Ben knows that (based upon his comments after the VCU game). So, I believe he will will start gently harping on the refs when Josh gets early calls. Josh will be a force for us in P10 play as he gets more and more acclimated and better conditioned.

5. Reeves just had an off night. It happens. Although the refs somewhat hamstrung him with their bad calls.

6. This loss could be a turning point for the Bruins. Going into KU against their crowd, their upperclassmen, their experience, etc. and to fight that hard shows that this team has a lot of upside!

7. Guard play is still a concern. Anderson is marginally better than last year -- but still sucks! Laz is better than Anderson, but still is indecisive at times. I do believe that Laz will be a good PG as time goes on and he learns to make better/quicker decisions. We are going to have PG by committee. When Laz got into a little fould trouble, Anderson got more minutes that Ben probably would have liked to see.

8. Possible for us to win our remaining non-conference games. Very possible. With the exception of BYU, which is our toughest remaining non-conf opponent, it should allow the team to gel, work on some things, get Josh, Laz, Lamb some more real game time experience. Barring injuries, we should be a good BB team come P10 play. Similary, we could be a very could team come March. (But for the PG position . . .C'mon Laz! Step it up and surprise all your critics!)

As much as I've hated on Anderson in the past, I think he's shown improvement in the last few games. Sure, he made some mistakes yesterday, esp. the pass out of bounds at a crucial time. But I think he's starting to cut down on his turnovers and should become a decent backup -- he did make a nifty dish to Honeycutt cutting for a dunk and also found him running ahead on a break for a layup. Jones was not that much better yesterday -- I'm hoping it was just a lack of experience in front of a big-time crowd. Josh Smith looked good -- if he can continue to progress, I think he could be Pac-10 freshman of the year.

Who's Hot:

1. Tyler Honeycutt-the kid was money last night.
2. Joshua Smith-"emergence" is certainly the correct word. excited for what's to come
3. Ben Howland-good sub strategy, excellent coaching, and it was AWESOME seeing ben fired up and throwing water bottles. I support this guy 100%

Who's Not:

1. Zeke/Jerime-Last year when JA played point guard, we were playing 4 v 5 on offense. Still feeling that way this year. Awful turnovers. Too much dribbling without purpose. Ridiculous. I will say that they had a few buckets I was impressed with, but not enough to negate the bad decisions or lack of decisions.

2. Malcom Lee-I really thought this was going to be another breakout game for him. He has too much athleticism to waste it like that. Sorry, but he looked like a lost kid out there. I still think he can bounce back strong though

Bad day:

1. Reeves-took some bad fouls, looked hesitant to shoot

Honorable mention:

1. Brendan Lane-he works hard and doesn't complain. NICE block on the layup.

Good stat:

1. Rebounding-Thought we did a great job grabbing solid boards.

Overall:

I see light at the end of the tunnel. It would've been nice as hell to get this win, but I sense these road trips are going to go a long way in building the confidence and unity of the team.

First, Kansas is not the #4 team in the country. Sloppy play and I'm sorry but that's not top 5 talent. Getting Selby will help I guess.

Second, the usual 4 things plagued the Bruins. (1) Fouls! Quit hacking so much and picking up silly fouls. Seems like UCLA gets to the bonus before the midway of each half and double bonus shortly after that. If Kansas was a better FT shooting team the game isn't as close. (2) Turnovers. Honeycutt great game, but often plays out of control. Anderson was a disaster. Laz Jones not much better. Nelson had a critical turnover down the stretch. Can't score if you're not putting up shots. (3) Poor FT shooting. Nothing new here. (4) Bad defense. Not as bad this game, because Kansas played a poor game, and quite frankly not sure if they're that good. Better teams will continue to exploit bad Bruin defense, especially backcourt. Dribble penetration killing us.

Third, that was a BS call at the end of the game. Already addressed.

Fourth, signs of encouragement. This team could be decent if they could replace all the guards. Lane and Stover were worthless too. Nelson was disappointing. Didn't play with much energy and looked lackadaisical on defense. Whoever says he's athletic is crazy. This guy plays well below the rim. Only dunks when he is on a fast break or has a lot of space to take off. Honeycutt and Smith were great last night. Smith needs to work on his footwork, and lose a little more weight. Once he has that down, he could dominate.

Fifth, this game shows how much Howland needs to go after some backcourt players, especially a PG. Heck, we need 2 or 3 more.

I think Lee is one of the most overrated Bruin in a long time. Athletic? Define athletic. He's neither quick nor a leaper. This is a recruiting misfire. UCLA is going to need of the guards to be a scorer. Everyone looking to Lee but not sure if that's going to happen.

Our interior help and man-to-man defense is not good enough to win consistently yet against tournament teams. It was better last night but.....
Kansas scored, consistently from beginning to end, on uncontested layups and YBA jump-shots within ten feet.
We're not a physical,skilled, or mature enough team on defense at any position, sans Joshua Smith who helps and slides like a three hundred pound true freshman to beat competitive teams. There are good things to look forward to. Its clear Smith and Honeycutt play well on a big stage. But Kansas shot better than we did. And Coach Howland apparently would not have excepted fifty percent from the floor from an opponent with his great teams, Someone wrote once he's not satisfied until his team can hold the opp. to thirty....there is little pride in defense yet from the players.

At this point in the season, our point guards turn the ball over no differently than last season: often and at crucial times, and with more frequency in the last five minutes of close and crucial games.

On top of it the mental lapses by both Honeycutt and Lee and twice by Jerime Anderson (our three veterans) in the last seconds and minutes of such an important and close game makes me skeptical. Anderson, who often plays well early in games, is not apparently, in his third season going to change this mental part of his game and the coach might want to come to terms with this -- throwing the ball to ghosts in the final three minutes of a tight game against a ranked opponent probably shouldn't be acceptable anymore, if you want to win. Maturity, poise, and control still come and go for him and other veterans -- seemingly cut from a different cloth than the Collisons, Aboyas, Luc's, and Mata-Real's.
Why did Honeycutt and Lee even come close to fouling in the final seconds of a tie game? Discipline, leadership, and experience are, like last season, not a part of our arsenal yet. I interpreted Howland throwing the towel as much for his players as for the refereeing.

Anyone who says fouls are, or should be, called the same way at the beginning, middle or very end of the game has not seen 98% of all close games over the last 30 years. The refs usually will not decide the game like that, especially when it's such a marginal call to begin with.

Unfortunately, this makes up for the totally bogus goal-tending call on Nervous Pervis Ellison of Louisville at Pauley back in the 80's, with no time left on the clock. It was a clean block with the ball clearly still going up. The ref's call gave the win to UCLA.

"Anonymous said:

Why are you reporting on a game when you weren't there? You're just rehashing the box score. This is what you call being a reporter?"

Surely, everyone knows that the newspaper industry has fallen on hard financial times in recent years!

In the age of one and done's are floor leaders a thing of the past? After six games, its maybe too early in the season and I say this knowing this team seems to have decent chemistry: But does anybody have any thoughts on who the floor leader for UCLA is? I'm asking because from across the country on a portable t.v. with bad reception there never seems to be a question, ever, on a Duke team. Ever. I personally think you have to recruit it, cultivate it, and commit to it and probably know before the player ever walks into your office who its going to be. Leadership often creates accountability, stasis, communication, confidence, a culture of consistency, knowing someone's got your back, and in general winning. As a result, mistakes tend to be less prevalent. And it needs to be someone other than the coach (too often, Coach Howland, seems to act as a paternal surrogate, to me -- autonomy is part of coaching leadership) UCLA needs a player whose watching the scoreboard, the clock, the tempo, the fouls, the big picture, and talking, checking -- other than the coach. A guy who could coach if the coach went down kind of guy. And over the last two seasons mental mistakes and turnovers have become part of the culture of UCLA basketball to me partially because this guy isn't there. And no one wants to be like this guy if no one is there if you see what I mean. I'm just saying,generally teams without Edneys, Afflalo's, and Collisons don't go far in tournaments and often lose tie games.
In the last nine years I've noticed two (one silent,and one vocal) Aaron Afflalo and Darren Collison, somewhat tentatively, in year two, three and four at UCLA. Last year, none. Last night your normal captain here might be the newest guy on the team. Maybe. It's supposed to be Anderson but can't be, because I don't think he has decided if he is deliberate and decisive yet.
Except when he is playing defense, Lee is the guy to me aside from Notre Dame who likes to defer too much, and doesn't seem sure if he is a leader and seems tentative by nature, even though he has tenure he's kind of strangely portrayed himself as the number four guy, and looks to Honyecutt, maybe hiding his youth behind his sideburns, whose great offense might qualify him but doesn't fit the mold, admittedly struggles with turnovers and defense (Coach's grail), who turns to Nelson, who seems to be vocal but visibly and admittedly unsure at times and again a novice defender, who turns to Smith who thinks Jones has been on the team as long as he has.

We're three and three with enough talent to go as far as anyone. No one is saying it, but we're not able to play to our potential. I'm simply suggesting, for a team to begin to do this everyone probably should know the leader without anyone saying it.
Even though Farmar was the vocal leader one could sense Afflalo's leadership through a T.V. cable wire. Not being on the floor, I'm personally not sensing anything in the film against Kansas. I've never been a basketball Huddle- at- the- Free- throw-line kind of guy, but if there ever was a time for a UCLA player to gather his team, last night would have been that night. Not to take anything away from guys leaving their heart on the floor, and I'm a supporter of this team, but arguably last night could have been the biggest win in three years for UCLA and one might say the leadership philosophy in the game, against a Kansas team without a center, despite Honeycutt's valor and performance, was,in the end perhaps, "I got it, you take it."

There's home cooking and then there's this. Unbelievable. However, Honeycutt's money tre brought back the recent glory years when Afflalo, Collison, Love, and Westbrook stepped up and took over when someone had to. I'm afraid that if Honeycutt bolts for the NBA next year, we've taken one step forward and two steps back. Santa, please bring UCLA a decent, consistent PG!