(03-29-2013, 09:26 PM)norcalcard link Wrote:I think the off-court stuff was questionable, but I don't know if I blame Howland entirely.
Questionable? To take just one example, Reeves Nelson was allowed to run amok for more than a year, injuring multiple players for multiple weeks during practice in the process.
For example:
Quote:Once, Nelson got tangled up with forward James Keefe while going for a rebound. Keefe was playing with a surgically repaired left shoulder, and Nelson pulled down suddenly on Keefe's left arm. That reinjured Keefe's shoulder, and he missed several weeks. Later in the season Nelson hacked walk-on Alex Schrempf, the son of former NBA player Detlef Schrempf, from behind on a breakaway, knocking Schrempf to the ground. The back injury Schrempf suffered sidelined him for months. In another workout Nelson threw an elbow at Lane after the whistle, injuring Lane's ribs.
Walk-on Tyler Trapani was another Nelson victim. After Trapani took a charge that negated a Nelson dunk, Nelson went out of his way to step on Trapani's chest as he lay on the ground. Trapani is John Wooden's great-grandson. (Nelson confirmed all these incidents to SI and expressed his regret, saying, "On all that stuff, I have no trouble admitting that I lost control of my emotions sometimes. I take responsibility for my actions. I'm really just trying to learn from the mistakes I made on all levels.")
Your position is seriously "enh, whatever?"
You don't blame Howland for failing to enforce any semblance of discipline?
That's absolutely absurd. To say nothing of the "everyone does it" excuse (which isn't true, anyway. I certainly don't hear about such shenanigans at Michigan State, Florida, Duke, UNC, etc.) Mothers in sitcoms used to ask whether you'd jump off a bridge if everyone else were doing it; that question was considered so obvious that it became stupid and was dropped. Apparently the point isn't so obvious anymore.
I think the Tedford thing is an exact analogy. Both coaches had, early in their tenures, impressive results relative to expectations of the schools. Finishing in the top 25 is a very rare feat in kal history -- wikipedia says only Pappy Waldorf pulled it off -- just as finishing three consecutive final fours is for UCLA. Both then promptly foundered; if anything, given the powerful recruiting classes Howland was able to bring in (multiple top fives, I believe), Howland's subsequent decline is worse. Does 5th, 2nd, 5th and 1st look like commensurate results for such recruiting? Especially in an epically bad Pac-12? (No.)
It would be another thing if Howland could reasonably be expected to recover in the future. But given that Los Angeles AAU coaches refuse to send their prospects to UCLA, that looks unlikely. If Mack Brown suddenly stopped being able to recruit Texas, would their administration and fans sit idly by? You'd think not. Losing LA is the same for Howland.
At any rate, it's incredible to me that the debate has to come to Howland's on-court performance in the first place. After all, Howland allowed players to injure each other, fight each other; treated his players and team in a capriciously authoritarian manner; and so on. It's proof, I guess, that whatever people say, no one gives a damn about student-athletes' welfare.
