Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="gipke1, post: 2917376, member: 8948"] [B]I think UCLA is going to be great! [/B] Especially when [B]Charisma Osborne,[/B] who I've had the pleasure of watching develop over the years, gets there next year. She's an extremely gifted Point Guard and comes out of the same Windward HS/GBL Lady Rebels AAU programs that both Jordin and Chels came out of. I'm (still) a season ticket holder and fan of the UCLA program - I just wish Cori Close would do a BETTER job. Both in scouting and preparation before games, player development, even (local) recruiting opportunities. It's no secret that she has somehow managed to alienate some of the [B]local [/B]coaches. [B]CA [/B]is a "hot bed" of basketball talent. Nothing at all against Texas/Southern, Pacific Northwest, Mid-west and back East girls. Love 'em! But it makes sense (to me at least) to take care of your own backyard? Having actually been engaged through the recruitment process by UCLA and several others (Power5, BCS, Mid-majors and D2) - I can honestly see why?! The message has got be more than a broad "Hey! we're UCLA, John Wooden legacy...etc." One of my friends told me and I agree, that, at least with the top 100 "elite" players (pick whatever ranking system you'd like ESPN HoopGurlz, PN, etc.)- the advantages are on the player's side. There's (way) more scholarships and offers out there than elite players that are coveted, especially in certain positions (elite POST/center, PG leadership, etc.) UCLA pros: Is a great school academically Has a reputation for developing the individual person (e.g. You're not there just for basketball) Is headed up by good people who seem to genuinely care Has a fantastic legacy Great campus, location, etc. On the other hand: Has yet to win a National Championship (Women's Basketball) The jury is still out on the "development" issue Is not consistently well coached or even well prepared seemingly for the various "match-ups" in games Finally - NOT having a clear cut IDENTITY. What do they stand for? What are they trying to accomplish? How does the scholar/athlete fit into those plans! At LMU we knew what we were trying to do. Help build a great program that historically has not been known for it's women's basketball. That's exciting. And all the while has all of the pros and benefits (great campus, academics) of a large and public university like UCLA and then some. From a fan's point of view there are several examples, but just simple stuff like not knowing whether or not to play zone vs man (to man) defense. Extremely frequent and mind-boggling substitutions (especially when it seems a player is getting "in rhythm"), letting the players "have their own way" on the court. Counting on the sheer athleticism to get by against an opposing athletic AND skilled, experienced team. This is from a FAN and long-time supporter of the program (and I guess I'm actually on the wrong board for this :) But this thread got me going! This stuff is not happening without notice and it needs to be corrected. So Cal basketball is alive and well - what with USC's rebuilding through Mark Trakh, UCLA and yes, even LMU. Very exciting times for fans of the women's game. I go to LMU, UCLA, USC, CSUDH, Long Beach State, high school, AAU, ball - even hang out watching (and sometimes playing with) my kids, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc. No Thanksgiving dinner was ever complete without a family basketball game breaking out after dinner. Here's hoping they get it together. I'll always be there cheering for the Bruins - except when they play my Lions!! >;) [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach