So that answers my question. For you there is no longer a bar. We just get whatever we get. And yes I do believe in part that UCLA should be good in basketball because of their history and legacy, just like other schools in the same sport or different sports. We're really nobody in College Basketball right now. Not top 20 maybe not top 2…
So that answers my question. For you there is no longer a bar. We just get whatever we get. And yes I do believe in part that UCLA should be good in basketball because of their history and legacy, just like other schools in the same sport or different sports. We're really nobody in College Basketball right now. Not top 20 maybe not top 25. We just have different expectations. You have provided your reasons why UCLA is no longer relevant in College Basketball nor should they be expected to be. I don't necessarily disagree with your reasons, just that I don't find them acceptable. UCLA has an outstanding academic reputation. Are you ok with that going by the wayside as well because times have changed? The university has a history of excellence and I believe it should be maintained.
Try reading my post again. Did not say UCLA is "no longer relevant"--do not put words in my mouth. Not being in the top 10 or 15 every year does not make UCLA "not relevant"--just makes UCLA a school that sometimes will be in the top whatever and sometimes not. By your definition of "relevant", only a very few basketball schools are "relevant" and the rest of the 365 are "not relevant" I suppose you would say UNC Tarheels are not relevant because they did not make top 10 or 15 the last few years?
And do not equate academic excellence with having a top ten basketball/football team as that is mixing apples with oranges. .
I would agree that hoping for a top 15 annual team is unrealistic. However, hoping that happens more than once in a 6 year span doesn’t seem like an unreasonable bar to set. I think that’s why the question they posed for a fan like you is not unreasonable. What is your new bar for ucla? We can all agree that wooden wont be rising from the grave, and even if he did the years of college basketball dynasty are more of a myth. Will you answer the question of what your bar is? RJ stated their bar for satisfaction, why is it so hard for you to answer that question?
For reference, a number one seed has one the national championship in more than 50% of all tournaments in the 2000’s if I’m not mistaken. So my bar is to be a number one seeded tourney team at least once every 10 years at a minimum. I also think that the team should be a top 25 team at least 9-10 seasons. And a top 10 team in 5-10 seasons. Is that unrealistic? Maybe, but thats what my bar of success looks like. Cronin hasn’t done that and I don’t think he’s capable of it as he has to rebrand his offense and we all know how that turned out for Ben howland
If I was not clear before, I do not have a "bar" in terms of top 10 or 15 for any particular time period. Where is it written that I must have a "bar" in those terms other than in your head and some of the other fans? If I have anything like a "bar", it is that the players compete to the best of their ability. If that is not good enough for you, then I guess you can call me boring or not exciting like you call UCLA basketball under Cronin. BTW, what past Coach for UCLA (exclude Wooden) has "excited" you --perhaps Alford's run and gun?
Ha! Good question, alfords run and gun offense that wasn’t… definitely wasn’t exciting but for one year with ball perhaps. Hard to get excited about ucla basketball too much over the last 30 years unfortunately.
The reason we pick a “bar” if you will is to measure what we would consider a successful season. By the standards you set, was the 23-24 season a success? Gib and Evan would state that team was full of garbage players… but if they played to their full potential, then you’re saying you would consider that season a success.
By that logic, who cares if ucla loses every game in the next season as long as the players play to their full potential. It’s a strange “bar” to set for your season, but it does help future discussions as we both know our expectations and measurements of success are completely opposite of one another
So that answers my question. For you there is no longer a bar. We just get whatever we get. And yes I do believe in part that UCLA should be good in basketball because of their history and legacy, just like other schools in the same sport or different sports. We're really nobody in College Basketball right now. Not top 20 maybe not top 25. We just have different expectations. You have provided your reasons why UCLA is no longer relevant in College Basketball nor should they be expected to be. I don't necessarily disagree with your reasons, just that I don't find them acceptable. UCLA has an outstanding academic reputation. Are you ok with that going by the wayside as well because times have changed? The university has a history of excellence and I believe it should be maintained.
Try reading my post again. Did not say UCLA is "no longer relevant"--do not put words in my mouth. Not being in the top 10 or 15 every year does not make UCLA "not relevant"--just makes UCLA a school that sometimes will be in the top whatever and sometimes not. By your definition of "relevant", only a very few basketball schools are "relevant" and the rest of the 365 are "not relevant" I suppose you would say UNC Tarheels are not relevant because they did not make top 10 or 15 the last few years?
And do not equate academic excellence with having a top ten basketball/football team as that is mixing apples with oranges. .
Sorry we disagree but you are absolutely correct. I said based on your expectations they are no longer relevant.
No worries!
I would agree that hoping for a top 15 annual team is unrealistic. However, hoping that happens more than once in a 6 year span doesn’t seem like an unreasonable bar to set. I think that’s why the question they posed for a fan like you is not unreasonable. What is your new bar for ucla? We can all agree that wooden wont be rising from the grave, and even if he did the years of college basketball dynasty are more of a myth. Will you answer the question of what your bar is? RJ stated their bar for satisfaction, why is it so hard for you to answer that question?
For reference, a number one seed has one the national championship in more than 50% of all tournaments in the 2000’s if I’m not mistaken. So my bar is to be a number one seeded tourney team at least once every 10 years at a minimum. I also think that the team should be a top 25 team at least 9-10 seasons. And a top 10 team in 5-10 seasons. Is that unrealistic? Maybe, but thats what my bar of success looks like. Cronin hasn’t done that and I don’t think he’s capable of it as he has to rebrand his offense and we all know how that turned out for Ben howland
If I was not clear before, I do not have a "bar" in terms of top 10 or 15 for any particular time period. Where is it written that I must have a "bar" in those terms other than in your head and some of the other fans? If I have anything like a "bar", it is that the players compete to the best of their ability. If that is not good enough for you, then I guess you can call me boring or not exciting like you call UCLA basketball under Cronin. BTW, what past Coach for UCLA (exclude Wooden) has "excited" you --perhaps Alford's run and gun?
Have a nice Easter!
Ha! Good question, alfords run and gun offense that wasn’t… definitely wasn’t exciting but for one year with ball perhaps. Hard to get excited about ucla basketball too much over the last 30 years unfortunately.
The reason we pick a “bar” if you will is to measure what we would consider a successful season. By the standards you set, was the 23-24 season a success? Gib and Evan would state that team was full of garbage players… but if they played to their full potential, then you’re saying you would consider that season a success.
By that logic, who cares if ucla loses every game in the next season as long as the players play to their full potential. It’s a strange “bar” to set for your season, but it does help future discussions as we both know our expectations and measurements of success are completely opposite of one another