OT- UCLA basketball story, SI
The same writer from SI who wrote the Tressel piece is at it again, this time it's UCLA basketball. Quite the read, and really makes Ben Howland look bad, along with Reeves Nelson portrayed as borderline psychotic.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/magazine/02/28/ucla/index.html
February 29th, 2012 at 11:08 AM ^
February 29th, 2012 at 11:10 AM ^
Makes Howland look bad? That's being kind after reading everything he did. Wow. Good luck recruiting in the future, Ben.
February 29th, 2012 at 12:00 PM ^
My thoughts exactly. He doesn't know how to discipline, his players don't seem to take him seriously, and it seems like a few still don't want to be there.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:10 AM ^
was great too. It's called "Play their hearts out" and would make great offseason reading. It's about the youth basketball culture in america, and it was great
February 29th, 2012 at 11:28 AM ^
Interesting read. As a coach (albeit at the high school level), managing the players is just as difficult as devising game plans.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:37 AM ^
Just finished and I have to say that Ben Howland possibly has some serious socio issues. At the least he is just a bully but when you get into the realm of room temperature and bottled water coldness you probably need some therapy. In his defense he might not be mentally equipped for the types of pressures associated with a high profile job for the long haul or down years.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:42 AM ^
February 29th, 2012 at 11:42 AM ^
Based on this article alone, I wouldn't say he has deep personality issues. It's more along the lines that he has the intelligence of a coach, but not the personality of one.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:42 AM ^
It's that type of story that just makes you feel sick. College sports have a special feel to them- even though with each scandle that is deteriorating.
Especially college basketball with the classic powerhouses of : UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, etc. there is such steep tradition and a long line of successful players and coaches.
To see a program like UCLA lose its way and break from that tradition is hard to see. It also goes to show that building a program the right way is what leads to long term success. Duke joined the big boys of college basketball by winning hte right way under coach K. UM is competing for a Big Ten title with players that had MAC and lower Big Ten interest as recruits in many cases.
I'm glad UM is building a program the right way now under Beilein. Stories like this tarnish the good memories and leave you empty- like what happened with the Fab Five and our own issues with men's b-ball.
I want UM to be successful- but never at the expense of the traditions and expectations that need to be upheld. I am glad that it at least feels that way with men's basketball and football now. Beilein was (maybe still is) in charge of the coaches ethics thing the NCAA did as I recall, and Hoke is very well respected- and all of our recent recruits have by all measures been outstanding people who have upheld or even raised the level of expectations for what it means to be a Michigan athlete.
I feel horrible about UCLA- but it also helps me feel proud about what we are building here at UM
February 29th, 2012 at 1:14 PM ^
Meh. They admitted to cheating all those years.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:43 AM ^
Just another cautionary tale on why it's so important to recruit quality kids as much as possible. You won't always notice problem players in time, but taking them based 100% on talent and not taking attitude into account is asking for trouble.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:44 AM ^
Part of me wants to say Nelson is all the way there. Really, though, it looks like the result of being told that he produces odorless feces from high school and into college.
While Nelson's excuse that there should have been "a lot of little punishments" instead of "one big punishment" sounds like everything is Howland's fault, Nelson's pattern of disrespect toward coaches and abuse of teammates was already established long before Howland got ahold of him.
Nelson got those "little punishments" in 2011; his reaction to them got him kicked off of the team.
As for Howland, he certainly isn't the first megalomaniac to coach a major college team in any sport, nor will be be the last. Sometimes, it almost seems like a requirement. Besides, coaches like Howland make coaches like John Beilen look even more classy than they already are in comparison.
February 29th, 2012 at 12:08 PM ^
Reeves Nelson seems like a kid who needed someone to kick his ass a time or two. That could very well have been the perfect medicine. I wonder what has become of him now?
February 29th, 2012 at 1:09 PM ^
i had a feeling he was a huge douchebag. Glad i was right
February 29th, 2012 at 1:46 PM ^
After he was dismissed by UCLA he went to play in the Euroleague but was cut about a month ago.
February 29th, 2012 at 12:51 PM ^
This is tough. I have been a player and a coach (and a ref) and there are things where you need context. If any of these kids felt alienated or treated unfairly then the events that happened could be painted to be much more dramatic. Even the column itself has some contextual issues. They painted Howland to be crazy before they interjected the points where his actual coaching looked suspect. The bottle story and the room temp. story have nothing to do with anything except to say "Hey look this guy is crazy. Now here's why." That's not really fair to Howland. His personal querks have nothing to do with his failures as a coach in my e-pinion. Howland did fail as a coach with this Reeves kid though.
February 29th, 2012 at 12:58 PM ^
The water bottle/room temp stories did have to do with the larger piece, though. One of their main points was that he was disrespectful to the staff, and in turn some players took on that mentality as well.
February 29th, 2012 at 1:04 PM ^
I guess I agree with that. I am just not sure why SI would do a story about how Howland was a dick to his assistants. I understand some of the players didn't like that and that may have added to the dissent among them, but had they been winning that would have nothing to do with anything relating to basketball. I still dont really agree that that particular point has much to do with the man as he relates to coaching basketball. Just seems odd to even bring it up in a sports column.
February 29th, 2012 at 1:17 PM ^
It is juicy and makes for a good soundbyte, though.
February 29th, 2012 at 1:21 PM ^
Bill Walton: Coach, we won the national championship and I was the player of the year. So I am not going to cut my hair.
Coach Wooden: Bill, we've enjoyed having you here at UCLA and we wish you luck in your future endeavors.
Old school, yes. But it's how you keep your team. That, combined with loving your players as a good father would.
Something, perhaps off the court, has caused Howland to lose his way. To get it back, I suggest he take a copy of Coach Wooden's "Pyramid of Success" and let it soak into the marrow of his bones. Actually, that's a good thing for all of us to do.
February 29th, 2012 at 1:22 PM ^
Howland's program has been on, from an outside perspective, mystifying slide ever since the Final Four run years. The explanation that the program was run by the players makes a lot of sense given the types of guys that fueld the Final Four runs. Russel Westbrook, Darren Collison, Jordan Farmar, Aaron Afflalo, Lorenzo Mata-Real, and the rest are revered names among UCLA fans and now it turns out they should be held to an even higher plane given how epically bad Howland has turned out to be.
I've been a UCLA fan all my life and am just incredibly sad. The worst part is the Athletic Director is determined to hang on to Howland, because he can't have two failed head football coaches and a failed basketball coach on his resume and it may take another power play to get Howland out like in Neuheisel's case. It's a sad day for UCLA basketball, Howland has to go, but it's going to be a fight which is going to make UCLA look really bad...again. On the plus side, if a new coach does come in there's some great recruits coming in and still some good talent at the program that can do well if used correctly and given fresh life from a change in program atmosphere.
February 29th, 2012 at 2:14 PM ^
February 29th, 2012 at 3:31 PM ^
Maybe I am the only one to think this... but I believe this article tries to sensationalize a fairly common situation when a big time program begins to struggle - especially in basketball which is more personality driven.
In my mind, the author takes an interesting subject - the sudden and shocking collapse of a dominant bball program that had been to 3 consecutive final fours - and tries to make it into a "shocking expose." So we find out Howland gives preference to good players, doesn't discipline players as he should, got rid of a manager who enjoyed partying late with players and failed to control the intra-team tension.
In my mind, this type of story is bound to happen where a school struggles like UCLA did. Clearly, Howland is to blame for the lack of leadership with the program. But to say this is "outrageous" or "shocking" is somewhat naive, don't you think? I mean, we're talking high end college basketball with tons of kids who have pro aspirations. There will be some egos and crazies along the way.
Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. So creating a sensationalizing story about how Howland is a maniac seemed like a natural response. But the facts don't support this as an expose on par with Tresselgate (same SI author). It's very easy to make a dysfunctional team look like a group of maniacs through some good writing techniques. That's what I think we have here.
February 29th, 2012 at 4:38 PM ^
Among the UCLA fans there are two big camps right now. Those who want Holand out and those who think the program can't do any better. Your interpretation is favored by the latter. I take the former view. The decline of the program has been pretty easy to see over the past few years and when combined with watching how many talented players have transferred out and are doing well, it's pretty discouraging. This article gives a good look behind the curtain and shows an IMO, shocking inability to reign players in. This includes practice situations.
February 29th, 2012 at 5:51 PM ^
My statement was not suggesting that Howland isn't at fault or that he should not be held responsible as a coach based on team chemistry and team success. My claim is that the article suggest's that Howland is, in some ways, outrageous or maniacal in his coaching (room temprature? every coach has quirks!); or that his actions were reprehensible on a moral level.
For instance, the trainer being fired. The article suggests that Howland cajoled the trainer into naming names by promising no retribution before Howland kicked him off the team. He has the feel of a James Bond villain. The more likely scenario is that Howland was insistent on knowing who was partying late on those nights and didn't repond to pleas from the trainer that he was worried about consequences of naming names. A trainer who "would do anything for the players" and would "be at the gym at 3 am if they asked" was also someone who ended up partying with players on nights they were on curfew. Doesn't seem like a team guy to me. He may have even planned events - who knows?
So my beef is more with the insinuations of how the article characterizes Howland. And how it is very easy to frame him as a villain here, when the facts are really not that all bad.
From a coaching standpoint (and I said this in my original post), the UCLA collapse WAS shocking. I think Howland has another year or two.
Also, the article omits that aside from John Wooden's pyramid of success, he had Sam Gilbert. Maybe Howland should get his own Sam Gilbert.
Some of the stuff was over the top I agree. Where I see things as going from "not that bad" to "inexcusable, if true" is the leash he allowed to Nelson with injuring and attacking his team-mates.
Either way, between the decline of the past four years and the PR fallout from this article I don't think a case can be made to retain Howland unless the article is proven to be false.
February 29th, 2012 at 6:23 PM ^