UCLA 2025

[GoChips20]

We have a thread for most of the other anticipated top teams but not for UCLA yet. Despite the loss of their freshman class and two rotation players in Jones/Barker I think they should be significantly better this year. I thought their greatest issue was their limited shot creation outside of Betts which has been addressed.

Likely starting lineup:

• PG - Kiki Rice - Made a substantial leap as a junior but hasn’t quite lived up to her #2 recruiting ranking yet. Looked rattled on the floor in the UConn game but was UCLA’s second-best player for most of the season. Very competent defender. Look for her to grow her perimeter game which is the missing piece in her game for WNBA success.
• SG - Charlisse Leger-Walker - Has never been an overly efficient scorer but gives UCLA something they lacked this year, a guard who can take over games and is an upgrade over Londynn Jones. She should thrive in a role where she doesn’t have to carry a team like she did at Washington State. I believe Kneepkens is the better player at this time but expect CLW to start given her time with the program.
• SF - Gabriela Jacquez - Very solid player who is good at almost everything. Probably needs to develop an elite skill in some area to be a WNBA player but has improved in each of her seasons at UCLA and could take that next step this year.
• PF - Angela Dugalic - Likely not UCLA’s best option at this position but brings experience, length, shooting range, and defensive versatility. Very good glue player.
• C - Lauren Betts - Has improved leaps and bounds since transferring to UCLA and was handily the best center in the country this year. I’d pencil her in as the #1 pick in 2026 at this point. She’s incredibly dominant in the paint but does need to improve her free-throw shooting and midrange game with the WNBA’s focus on versatile bigs.

Bench

• SG/SF - Gianna Kneepkens - Has quietly been one of the most underrated players in the country for several seasons and put together a season very comparable to Paige Bueckers in scoring efficiency. Kneepkens is good enough to start anywhere in the country aside from maybe UConn and South Carolina and should be a favorite for the Big Ten’s 6WOY award if she does come off the bench.
• PF - Timea Gardiner - Has one of the best three-point shots for a big in the country and was dynamite for Oregon State as a sophomore. Cori Close was excellent last year but her usage of Gardiner was a bit puzzling at times. She has the size, skill, and strength to be more than a perimeter player.
• PF/C - Sienna Betts - I haven’t seen much of her but my understanding is that she’s a more polished offensive player than her sister was as a freshman although she doesn’t have the same intimidating size. I think she’ll be an important piece of the rotation and could form an exciting high-low game with Lauren.

Analysis: Cori Close silenced most doubters this year by getting UCLA to a Final Four, but now that they’ve gotten there the next step is a national championship and it’s a do-or-die year with the entire rotation graduating in 2026 aside from Sienna Betts. I think the UConn loss will fuel UCLA to get better and they’ll come in having cleared the Final Four hurdle which should lessen some pressure. They’re the clear favorites to win the Big Ten, I really can’t see anyone seriously challenging them. Anything can happen but I think we could very likely see the exact same Final Four lineup this year and it’ll come down to matchups from there.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I know Gardiner and Barker both transferred in and then came off the bench this past season, but Kneepkens transferring and then not being a starter seems insane to me.

 

[cancontent]

I know Gardiner and Barker both transferred in and then came off the bench this past season, but Kneepkens transferring and then not being a starter seems insane to me.

Yup. Crazy thought, how about Kneepkens as a starter with Leger-Walker coming off the bench? Personally, I think Kneepkens could be a better option as she's a more consistent shooter. Don't envy Coach Close when it comes to figuring out her line up this season. Those two as a starter are a coin toss to me.

 

[WBBTakeover]

That's a strong rotation, but it's still lacking in athleticism. I can see them having trouble with a team like South Carolina (especially since we have size, scoring, and won't be playing them in LA this year). UConn also presents a challenge athletically.

 

[Bone Dog]

I'm not crazy about the adjective 'athletic,' but if I assume it means something like strong and quick, then Kneepkens is not what many would call athletic. She's a good shooter, but not particularly strong or fleet of foot. I wonder about the athleticism of the rest of the roster after the loss of Barker who is both strong and quick. Jaquez and Rice seem like what people call athletic. But I'm not sure there's a whole lot of team speed after them. They'll be plenty strong with Betts & Betts and Dugalic.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I'm not crazy about the adjective 'athletic,' but if I assume it means something like strong and quick, then Kneepkens is not what many would call athletic. She's a good shooter, but not particularly strong or fleet of foot. I wonder about the athleticism of the rest of the roster after the loss of Barker who is both strong and quick. Jaquez and Rice seem like what people call athletic. But I'm not sure there's a whole lot of team speed after them. They'll be plenty strong with Betts & Betts and Dugalic.

Are you sure you've seen Kneepkens play? She is plenty athletic enough.

 

[Bone Dog]

Are you sure you've seen Kneepkens play? She is plenty athletic enough.

I think it depends what you mean by ‘athletic.’ Personally, I think the term is misused for the most part. Being strong and quick isn’t all there is to athleticism, in my view. But by that narrow definition, Kneepkens comes up short. The fact that she’s a great player shows how inadequate that definition is. She has a smooth shooting touch, understands court positioning, moves well without the ball. These are also things I’d include in the term. But she is not particularly strong or quick.

It also depends on what style of play the coach teaches. Here’s an example: Dawn teaches a style that depends on having a strong, long and quick lineup. This has worked really well for SC for over a decade. But this season, she didn’t have the right lineup to make the most of that style. Raven, Bree, Sania and Joyce are perfect for the game Dawn wants to play. Chloe, Tessa, Te-Hina, Maryam don’t exactly have the strength or speed to make that style work. And don’t get me wrong. I think all of them are excellent players and athletes, especially Chloe and Tessa. And SC was a great team this season even with a lineup that didn’t exactly fit Dawn’s game. Tessa is one of my favorite players in the country, just to point to one player. The simple fact is Chloe is not a great anchor of the frontline for Dawn, and Tessa is not a great perimeter defender. Neither is Te-Hina. But this is what Dawn needed them to be. As a side note, this really highlights the magnitude of the loss of Ashlyn to SC. She is exactly the sort of athlete Dawn’s game is made for.

Back to Kneepkens: does her type of athleticism fit whatever sort of game it is Cori coaches for? Against UConn, it was clear that overall team speed was a problem for UCLA, and this was apparent also in the two losses to USC earlier in the season. Jones and Barker were two of the quicker players, by position, on the roster. Losing then and adding Kneepkens solves one problem, perimeter shooting, but may exacerbate the other, team speed. Jaquez and Rice may not be enough by themselves to solve that problem.

If you have a different assessment of Kneepkens’ skills, I’d love to hear it.

Edited to add: the narrow definition of ‘athletic’ is often code for teams that don’t shoot well but rebound and defend well and win most of the 50-50 balls. I think of athletes more expansively and include subtlety and cleverness, lightness of touch and just being smart with one’s movements. Paige is not ‘athletic’ by the narrow definition, but she absolutely is by the more expansive one. Also, I think playing against an ‘athletic’ team is often a bruising experience. But this isn’t necessarily what I value in sports.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I just see Kneepkens differently. She is able to easily get past most defenders on the drive. No hesitation to mix it up in the interior, either shooting or going for rebounds. If she's lacking in quickness or strength, I haven't noticed it. More importantly she's tough.

 

[Bone Dog]

I just see Kneepkens differently. She is able to easily get past most defenders on the drive. No hesitation to mix it up in the interior, either shooting or going for rebounds. If she's lacking in quickness or strength, I haven't noticed it. More importantly she's tough.

Kneepkens is tough. And she has enough quickness to put a defender on her hip on a drive. In that respect, she reminds me a bit of Caroline Ducharme, who also isn’t very quick but is canny enough to get a quicker player on her hip. This is the sort of ‘athleticism’ I’m talking about. Something more than just strength and speed.

To follow out that comparison, Kneepkens is also a pretty good rebounder, maybe a little better than Caroline, but not as good a defender. Also, I think Caroline has more “court savvy.” Ultimately Kneepkens compares well to Caroline, which is a high compliment.

My only question concerned whether UCLA was a good fit for her. And even this is too slight a question. I expect she’ll have a wonderful experience there. But she may not be the ingredient Cori needs to get past the final four, or even to get back there. Only time will tell.

 

[GoChips20]

Kneepkens is good enough to be UCLA’s #2 option IMO

 

[nwhoopfan]

Kneepkens is tough. And she has enough quickness to put a defender on her hip on a drive. In that respect, she reminds me a bit of Caroline Ducharme, who also isn’t very quick but is canny enough to get a quicker player on her hip. This is the sort of ‘athleticism’ I’m talking about. Something more than just strength and speed.

To follow out that comparison, Kneepkens is also a pretty good rebounder, maybe a little better than Caroline, but not as good a defender. Also, I think Caroline has more “court savvy.” Ultimately Kneepkens compares well to Caroline, which is a high compliment.

My only question concerned whether UCLA was a good fit for her. And even this is too slight a question. I expect she’ll have a wonderful experience there. But she may not be the ingredient Cori needs to get past the final four, or even to get back there. Only time will tell.

I agree with you that athleticism is a lot more than just speed and strength. Stuff like balance, body control, proprioception, reaction time and probably some other things I'm not thinking of.

As far as Kneepkens being a good fit or not, I'm really not sure. Time will tell.

 

[BruinGold]

It's a nice write-up, and I think it's mostly on the money. As a UCLA fan, I am probably more conscious of player shortcomings than many (because aren't we all the biggest critics of our own teams?), and I would say that Timea Gardiner's main issue with usage is that she is way too slow to defend on the perimeter, and way too streaky to depend on for offense. I said this elsewhere, but offensively she is a 2 and defensively, more of a 5 (and a 5 who doesn't like contact). If she is on, it's very hard to defend a 6'3" player dropping 3s. But, she loses confidence easily and then becomes a complete negative on the floor. I hope that this offseason she is working on lateral quickness and fitness... and confidence... because when she got hot, UCLA won by 20+. Kneepkens' level of consistency makes her a serious upgrade here.

Kiki's main issue is also confidence. She, frankly, seems to think too much. She's got all of the skills, but slows the pace down with a deliberative style that allows defenses and individual defenders to set up. When she plays faster, she makes more mistakes, but more than offsets that by being able to get places that defenders haven't gotten to, yet. Pressure is not her friend. When UCLA is in front, she plays smoothly and creatively. When behind, she starts to lock up, dribbles too much and goes for a perfect play, rather than settling for a good one. I'm pretty sure that Close sat her a few times last year, with Aarnisalo running things, just to loosen up the offense. I actually think that Kneepkens and CLW will lessen the "hero" mentality for Rice and help take the pressure off her. AND, I think that we will see that trio on the floor together a lot.

Lauren Betts is, well, Lauren Betts. I expect incremental improvement from her and think that the areas she needs to work on include catching the ball on the move, range, and an "on" switch on defense. I think that the coaching staff specifically, and successfully, worked on avoiding fouls on defense, because her value on offense is so vital to the team. But, sometimes, in crunch time, you have to assert yourself.

I think that Jaquez and Dugalic are both smart, experienced players who add more than most people see on both ends of the court, and won't be left on the bench for long. They have both improved every year for the Bruins and I expect more of the same.

I think that most people believe that Sienna Betts will have an immediate impact on the team... but no one is really sure how that will play out. Will UCLA have twin towers? Will Sienna drive and drop off to Lauren? Will she be hitting midrange shots, or primarily spell her sister in the post? I don't know, but what I have seen of her is very exciting.

That leaves 6'3" Lena Bilic, and non-injury redshirt returner Amanda Muse. Muse just didn't look good her freshman year, and probably made a good decision to sit out one. She has good height, but got banged around pretty easily in her first campaign. Hopefully, a full year of apprenticing with Betts has improved her game. Bilic, though... looks like the more athletic version of Timea Gardiner. From the limited tape that I have seen, she's a stretch 4 with good handles (but they don't show you dribbling the ball off your foot on your highlight tape). Close seems to think that she picked up a key piece moving forwards. For my own sake, I hope she's right.

My team criticism: as @Bone Dog said, athletic teams are the ones who play great defense, fight for the 50/50 balls, and hustle because they can't shoot. Well, the Bruins used to be that team. And, now they can shoot. I can no longer say that UCLA is going to clamp down on a team for a whole game. In spurts, they absolutely shut some folks down. However, they did that with Barker, Jones, and even Dudley last year. Next year, I dunno. The coaching staff loves defense, but I'm not convinced that anyone on the team REALLY wants to take their player out of the game. If UCLA has a move or two left in the portal, I would want them to be looking for a junkyard dog who just wants to make someone's life miserable. I don't care if they average 2.0 points a game, as long as steals/blocks and wounded pride are part of the equation.

 

[Bone Dog]

I think that most people believe that Sienna Betts will have an immediate impact on the team... but no one is really sure how that will play out. Will UCLA have twin towers? Will Sienna drive and drop off to Lauren? Will she be hitting midrange shots, or primarily spell her sister in the post? I don't know, but what I have seen of her is very exciting.

nice analysis. I think this one paragraph raises an interesting question. How will Sienna be used? If she plays next to Lauren, then either Timea or Lena or Gianna is at the 3 or they aren't. One option makes for a slower team with not enough shooters, and the other suggests good perimeter shooting and monster rebounding, but vulnerability to quicker teams and presses. On the other hand, if Sienna mainly spells Lauren, that may be better for the future, and allows for a quicker unit overall, but otherwise little is gained over last season.

I would tend to favor not playing the twin Betts towers, just because I think the future of this team is with Sienna at the 5 and the sooner she masters that position, the better. But this may mean next season still bottoms out in the final four. That's not a bad result, and most schools would love to have that as the floor.

 

[BruinGold]

nice analysis. I think this one paragraph raises an interesting question. How will Sienna be used? If she plays next to Lauren, then either Timea or Lena or Gianna is at the 3 or they aren't. One option makes for a slower team with not enough shooters, and the other suggests good perimeter shooting and monster rebounding, but vulnerability to quicker teams and presses. On the other hand, if Sienna mainly spells Lauren, that may be better for the future, and allows for a quicker unit overall, but otherwise little is gained over last season.

I would tend to favor not playing the twin Betts towers, just because I think the future of this team is with Sienna at the 5 and the sooner she masters that position, the better. But this may mean next season still bottoms out in the final four. That's not a bad result, and most schools would love to have that as the floor.

The Betts sisters desperately want to play together, on the court, at the same time. I'm pretty sure that is going to happen.

That said, I do see a "fast break unit" that includes Sienna and maybe Rice/Kneepkens/Jaquez/Dugalic that runs a little smaller... though that's every player on the floor between 5'11" and 6'4". So, I don't see UCLA getting "outsized" ever.

But, just as in baseball, it doesn't matter how great your fastball is if you don't have an off-speed pitch to keep the defense guessing. You have to run different looks just to confuse your opponent. Without much of a talent or height dropoff, the Bruins can run some pretty weird lineups out on the court, and I expect to see them all in November and December. Dugalic and Gardiner, for example, have both done time at the 5, and I expect that we will see that, with nary a Betts in sight. The ability to rotate either of the aforementioned to the outside, dragging a post with them, is a luxury that I expect to be indulged in.

 

[YKCornelius]

The Betts sisters desperately want to play together, on the court, at the same time. I'm pretty sure that is going to happen.

That said, I do see a "fast break unit" that includes Sienna and maybe Rice/Kneepkens/Jaquez/Dugalic that runs a little smaller... though that's every player on the floor between 5'11" and 6'4". So, I don't see UCLA getting "outsized" ever.

But, just as in baseball, it doesn't matter how great your fastball is if you don't have an off-speed pitch to keep the defense guessing. You have to run different looks just to confuse your opponent. Without much of a talent or height dropoff, the Bruins can run some pretty weird lineups out on the court, and I expect to see them all in November and December. Dugalic and Gardiner, for example, have both done time at the 5, and I expect that we will see that, with nary a Betts in sight. The ability to rotate either of the aforementioned to the outside, dragging a post with them, is a luxury that I expect to be indulged in.

BruinGold, insightful post - thanks. Yours is the first post that I have read from a UCLA fan perspective that brings up the notion of having a "fast break unit", which I take to be something that will be in addition to the half court scheme of dumping the ball into the low post and kicking it out for threes which was their comfort zone for the last half of the year.

IMO, the biggest head scratcher this past year was the team's apparent decision to forego any type of transition game and seemingly focus on a more deliberate half court scheme. It won them the Big Ten crown, so it is difficult to find fault since it has been a very long time since they were conference champions. However, the consequences were it turned the Bruins into a predictable team throughout the Big Ten tournament and into the NCAAs which eventually was their downfall.

If they continue to follow that path in 2025-26 - and there is little reason to think they won't - I predict they will blow through the Big Ten regular season, win the Big Ten tourney, gain a #1 seed, and then run into the same difficulties in the NCAAs they did this year.

They need to develop the fast-break, transition unit you speak of to be successful late in the season against the other top teams. They have the talent - we will see if they do.

 

[WBBTakeover]

IMO, the biggest head scratcher this past year was the team's apparent decision to forego any type of transition game and seemingly focus on a more deliberate half court scheme. It won them the Big Ten crown, so it is difficult to find fault since it has been a very long time since they were conference champions. However, the consequences were it turned the Bruins into a predictable team throughout the Big Ten tournament and into the NCAAs which eventually was their downfall.

If they continue to follow that path in 2025-26 - and there is little reason to think they won't - I predict they will blow through the Big Ten regular season, win the Big Ten tourney, gain a #1 seed, and then run into the same difficulties in the NCAAs they did this year.

They need to develop the fast-break, transition unit you speak of to be successful late in the season against the other top teams. They have the talent - we will see if they do.

You gotta have the athletes for that. Kiki Rice, Gabriela Jaquez, Sienna Betts, and ???

That said, this is where Kendall Dudley's mom kinda had a point. There were ways to get her daughter (and 1-2 others) more involved, but Cori just didn't seem to push for that.

 

[BruinGold]

BruinGold, insightful post - thanks. Yours is the first post that I have read from a UCLA fan perspective that brings up the notion of having a "fast break unit", which I take to be something that will be in addition to the half court scheme of dumping the ball into the low post and kicking it out for threes which was their comfort zone for the last half of the year.

IMO, the biggest head scratcher this past year was the team's apparent decision to forego any type of transition game and seemingly focus on a more deliberate half court scheme. It won them the Big Ten crown, so it is difficult to find fault since it has been a very long time since they were conference champions. However, the consequences were it turned the Bruins into a predictable team throughout the Big Ten tournament and into the NCAAs which eventually was their downfall.

If they continue to follow that path in 2025-26 - and there is little reason to think they won't - I predict they will blow through the Big Ten regular season, win the Big Ten tourney, gain a #1 seed, and then run into the same difficulties in the NCAAs they did this year.

They need to develop the fast-break, transition unit you speak of to be successful late in the season against the other top teams. They have the talent - we will see if they do.

This is a Kiki Rice issue. She isn't comfortable going for broke, seemingly. She always slows it down, looking to start an offense. I don't know if that is a coaching issue (I kind of don't think so) or a Rice issue. Rice always is deliberate. She almost never takes advantage of numbers in transition and instead looks to start the standard offense. Aarnisalo was the guard who was going to make that cool half-court pass for UCLA, last year, not Rice.

As far as Kendall Dudley goes, if Kendall would have asserted herself and taken the shots that she had, I'm sure that good things would have happened. But, both Avary Cain and Kendall Dudley turned down obvious shots that they had and took the extra pass, regardless of whether that was the best move. Almost no assertiveness on their part. Now, both players had terrible shooting percentages, which may have led to a hesitation on their parts. But, it is hard to play players who refuse to contribute on offense. Dudley had a ton of opportunities... and passed to another player or missed a layup almost every time.

That said, UCLA has had a long history of having at least one or two players who just refused to shoot for loooong periods of time. This psychological hesitancy on the part of a player, the constant decision to pass to the alpha players instead of taking your own shot, is something that I see a lot with women on the court. But, UCLA attracts "nice girls" at a higher rate than some other programs. That alpha "I'm taking the shot" attitude is just less prevalent on the Bruins, and always has been. Maybe that's a function of coaching or maybe it's a function of who those players are. All I know is that players who scored in HS, but don't at UCLA, who then transfer away, don't magically become scorers at their new school. Recently, that has included Dominque Onu/Darius, Ashley Hearn, Ahlana Smith, and Jaden Owens. Players who played their whole careers at UCLA but refused to shoot include Dominique Williams and Mariah Williams. What's up with that? Coaching failures? Recruiting failures? Do you know how frustrating it is to have someone as supremely talented as Natalie Chou was on your team, and have to watch her disappear on the court over and over again?

In any case, as a UCLA fan, I'm always wondering where the aggression is. Londynn Jones was our go to "screw it, I'm taking the shot" player. Now, she's gone. Is Kneepkens the "I don't remember my past 4 misses" player, now? There are clearly players at UCLA who are expected to take "the shot": Betts, Rice, Jaquez, and, I think, Leger-Walker and Kneepkens. But, the Bruins need Sienna Betts, Angela Dugalic, Lena Bilic, and even Amanda Muse to put themselves in places where they can score, and be willing to put the ball up. And Kiki Rice (and maybe Leger-Walker) need to be willing to give them the ball, on the fly. The urge to defer to the "alpha players" in almost all cases is ultimately bad, and will be a limiting factor against UCLA.

 

[YKCornelius]

This is a Kiki Rice issue. She isn't comfortable going for broke, seemingly. She always slows it down, looking to start an offense. I don't know if that is a coaching issue (I kind of don't think so) or a Rice issue. Rice always is deliberate. She almost never takes advantage of numbers in transition and instead looks to start the standard offense. Aarnisalo was the guard who was going to make that cool half-court pass for UCLA, last year, not Rice.

As far as Kendall Dudley goes, if Kendall would have asserted herself and taken the shots that she had, I'm sure that good things would have happened. But, both Avary Cain and Kendall Dudley turned down obvious shots that they had and took the extra pass, regardless of whether that was the best move. Almost no assertiveness on their part. Now, both players had terrible shooting percentages, which may have led to a hesitation on their parts. But, it is hard to play players who refuse to contribute on offense. Dudley had a ton of opportunities... and passed to another player or missed a layup almost every time.

That said, UCLA has had a long history of having at least one or two players who just refused to shoot for loooong periods of time. This psychological hesitancy on the part of a player, the constant decision to pass to the alpha players instead of taking your own shot, is something that I see a lot with women on the court. But, UCLA attracts "nice girls" at a higher rate than some other programs. That alpha "I'm taking the shot" attitude is just less prevalent on the Bruins, and always has been. Maybe that's a function of coaching or maybe it's a function of who those players are. All I know is that players who scored in HS, but don't at UCLA, who then transfer away, don't magically become scorers at their new school. Recently, that has included Dominque Onu/Darius, Ashley Hearn, Ahlana Smith, and Jaden Owens. Players who played their whole careers at UCLA but refused to shoot include Dominique Williams and Mariah Williams. What's up with that? Coaching failures? Recruiting failures? Do you know how frustrating it is to have someone as supremely talented as Natalie Chou was on your team, and have to watch her disappear on the court over and over again?

In any case, as a UCLA fan, I'm always wondering where the aggression is. Londynn Jones was our go to "screw it, I'm taking the shot" player. Now, she's gone. Is Kneepkens the "I don't remember my past 4 misses" player, now? There are clearly players at UCLA who are expected to take "the shot": Betts, Rice, Jaquez, and, I think, Leger-Walker and Kneepkens. But, the Bruins need Sienna Betts, Angela Dugalic, Lena Bilic, and even Amanda Muse to put themselves in places where they can score, and be willing to put the ball up. And Kiki Rice (and maybe Leger-Walker) need to be willing to give them the ball, on the fly. The urge to defer to the "alpha players" in almost all cases is ultimately bad, and will be a limiting factor against UCLA.

Since I am no way near your level of insight into the Bruins players of this past season or yesteryear, I defer to you and other Bruins fans in your individual player analysis.

My only comment would be that all of your frustrations and exasperations are on the head coach to address, alter or develop as the case may be. Looking down from my perch in the bleacher seats, your insights do appear to reflect a mix of recruiting misreads, lack of individual player development once on the team, and perhaps even unrealistic player expectations.

Each one of these conditions can handcuff a program and keep it from staying on a long-term plan of success. Sounds like UCLA might have had more than their fair share of each in recent times.

 

[BruinGold]

Since I am no way near your level of insight into the Bruins players of this past season or yesteryear, I defer to you and other Bruins fans in your individual player analysis.

My only comment would be that all of your frustrations and exasperations are on the head coach to address, alter or develop as the case may be. Looking down from my perch in the bleacher seats, your insights do appear to reflect a mix of recruiting misreads, lack of individual player development once on the team, and perhaps even unrealistic player expectations.

Each one of these conditions can handcuff a program and keep it from staying on a long-term plan of success. Sounds like UCLA might have had more than their fair share of each in recent times.

It's a balance, right?

UCLA is in a pretty good position right now, and forecasting success from HS to college is difficult, even at the highest levels. As far as development goes, there has been an effort to bring in coaches with "skills development" as a major part of their resume. So, I don't think that Close is blind to these issues.

Her focus really seems to be on developing culture and cohesion, and that has been the draw for many players and their families. In this time of NIL, though, I don't know how much "the culture" is going to be successful. We just lost our entire freshman class, seemingly because waiting one more year to take over was just too much to take. That doesn't seem like a victory for "family values". On the other hand, the Bruins appear (at least right now) to be able to compete with everyone else for players.

Right now, UCLA is a "Have", and my griping must seem pretty rich to fans of schools watching their rosters evaporate, coaches leave, and/or lose almost every recruiting battle. Frankly, though, I think that is is difficult to look in a mirror and not spend most of your time zeroing in on the warts and wrinkles.

 

[Bone Dog]

Her focus really seems to be on developing culture and cohesion, and that has been the draw for many players and their families. In this time of NIL, though, I don't know how much "the culture" is going to be successful. We just lost our entire freshman class, seemingly because waiting one more year to take over was just too much to take.

I know what you mean. For me, the flashing red light was that postgame presser after the final four when Cori drew some consolation from the thought that none of her players were leaving. I gather that she is good to her players. But a team culture that makes players want to stay through the lean years requires more than this. On the other hand, she’s recruited really well, and that’s something.