UCLA Men's Basketball 2024 Post-Mortem Part 2: Looking Forward
We continue our post-mortem for the season by analyzing the offense and defense, followed by discussing what the offseason entails.
Welcome to Part 2 of our UCLA men’s basketball post-mortem. In Part 1, we discussed the major problem at the heart of this year’s failed season and took a look at each player and how they developed throughout the season. Part 2 will focus on a more macro look at how the team developed on offense and defense, followed by an early primer for what the offseason could look like for UCLA.
A Question of Strategy
Let’s start this section by talking about the offense because that was often the biggest topic of consternation among fans and one I had to answer questions on the most.
If you’re tracing the development of the offensive philosophy throughout the year, I think you have to start with an assumption that the offense was not settled to start the season thanks to the flux in the lineup. Aday Mara and Berke Buyuktuncel did not join the team until August and were believed to be major pieces of the rotation, while Adem Bona was still recovering from shoulder surgery. That’s three major pieces who missed a lot of the summer months and even a few games to start the season, which is not ideal. And again I’ll mention that failure of roster construction by saying it is one thing to bring in highly-rated recruits, and quite another to see what they can actually do in a game situation. For example, the preseason belief was that Mara could become a focal point on offense, utilizing his strong court vision to free up offense by operating at the top of the key and utilizing his passing. That did not happen, as did many of the things that were believed possible before the games tipped off.
What did prove to be the case, at least early on, was the idea that this team could not shoot. The Bruins struggled shooting from the outside, but a lot of that had to do with an unwillingness to shoot at all. I went and crunched some numbers utilizing the Washington home game as the break point as that was when the offense finally started to click. Prior to that game, the Bruins only attempted 241 three-pointers in 16 games for an average of 15.1 attempts per game. In those games, the Bruins only made 68 of their attempts, which resulted in a 28.2% 3PFG rate. Not good, and this included the infamous Long Island game where UCLA snapped its three-point streak, only taking six attempts in the process.
But they weren’t that bad by any stretch, and from Washington on UCLA seemingly made a more concerted effort to take more threes. Since that Washington game, the Bruins took 311 three-point attempts for an average of 18.3 shots per game, an increase of over three attempts per game (to this end, only two games prior to Washington featured the Bruins crossing the 20 attempt mark, while the Bruins did that six times after Washington). They also made 115 of their attempts, shooting 37.0% in the second half of the season from three. So if you were to ask me, part of the three-point issue seemed to be fear to shoot, which is understandable from a young team that is simply trying to hold its head above water. Again, having more veteran players probably allows the team to feel more confident shooting early in the season, but the adjustment to shooting more often led to improvements on the offense.
What also helped was identifying a better offensive identity, and that was through abandoning the two-big lineup in favor of getting Adem Bona more touches in the low block. We talked earlier about how Bona grew into more of an offensive focal point this year, but it really should be stressed how his growth on this end unlocked some things offensively. UCLA would get the ball to Bona in the low post and let him react to the defense; a hard double would lead to an immediate pass out to find the open man, while the defense sending no help would lead to Bona attacking offensively. Dylan Andrews similarly felt more confident and allowed Cronin to incorporate more of a two-man game at the top of the key to free him up for a free-throw line jumper that always felt like it would go in. Those two actions became bread-and-butter for the UCLA offense, and it allowed other players like Lazar Stefanovic to flourish in an off-ball role. Stefanovic was asked to catch-and-shoot a lot more during and after the Washington game instead of creating for himself as he had earlier in the season, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that his numbers improved dramatically from that point on. The lone man out here was Sebastian Mack, as the change did not necessarily vibe with his preferred style of play, but he was also dealing with a toe injury by this point in the season so it’s hard to know how much that was limiting him.
The takeaway here is that if you’re breaking this down by how the offense did, overall this season was a failure, but you can see the bones of something that looks good next year with some additions, specifically another three-point shooter and ideally a bigger wing that can provide some sort of consistent offense. UCLA often found itself in 3 on 5 situations offensively whenever one of Bona/Andrews/Stefanovic/Mack was out because the rest of the team were not consistent offensive threats, so just getting more consistent production from a few more players would help as well.
Defensively, there were issues but not as many as you would think. UCLA finished the year ranked 47th in adjusted defense per KenPom, which is lower than we’ve seen in the past but, given the limitations of the roster, surprisingly high. A lot of that has to do with the play of Bona and Andrews. Bona rightfully won Pac-12 Defensive Player of the Year for a simply dominant performance on that end (when the Pac-12 refs weren’t legislating him out of games over things every other big in the league gets away with), and he does so many things that are hard to replicate, from the way he can hard hedge on the perimeter but still be athletic enough to get back to his defender rolling to the paint, to his ability to switch down onto smaller players and still be able to play strong defense. Throw in Dylan Andrews, who grew into a hounding defensive guard throughout the season and slowed down many of the offensive threats in the conference, and there was a solid backbone for the defense to build around.
That said, the defense could never really stay locked in for an entire game, and a lot of that had to do with a lack of effort and ability from the other players on the roster. For some, a lack of athleticism was a huge hindrance; think Lazar Stefanovic or Berke Buyuktuncel here, but Jan Vide may be the poster boy for a player the staff wanted to see on the court for his offensive ability but struggled to find time because he physically could not keep up with the quicker guards he would face nightly. On the flip side, you had a few players who had the athletic ability to be good defenders but would lack the effort required on that front. Sebastian Mack was the biggest culprit in this regard, and he was getting beat defensively with such regularity that his minutes began to dip in the back half of the season. Effort and focus in general was hard for many of the players, as backdoor cuts were a common occurrence against many players on the team.
Overall, given the limitations of the roster, the fact that this ended up being a good defensive team speaks to Mick Cronin’s ability to scheme and develop, and if you’re thinking long-term instead of short-term, having this group focus so much on the defensive end rather than on offense will likely pay off as soon as next year, as it is much easier to plug in transfers to provide you improved offense, but much harder to plug them in to improve your defense.
What Comes Next
Here’s the section I’m sure everyone is waiting for, the one where I talk about what the future for UCLA basketball looks like.
Let’s start with a quick explainer about why UCLA’s recruiting class currently looks the way it does because apparently I will have to do this repeatedly until it gets through to people. Heading into this offseason, UCLA had two available scholarships: one they held over from last year and one that will be vacated by the departing Kenneth Nwuba. Of course, there will always be the assumption that more scholarships will become available after players transfer out/leave for the pros, but it is considered bad form to recruit past the number that you know you have available. With those two scholarships, UCLA and Mick Cronin did the pragmatic thing of using one to recruit a high school player and held the other one for any potential transfer into the program. So no, Cronin is not being lazy or a bad high school recruiter for having only one high school commit in this class; it is simply the numbers game at play.
Now with that said, there will likely be more than that one extra scholarship available as players decide whether they will be coming back or not. I stated a few weeks ago in the comments that I could see a huge exodus of players leaving for various reasons, though since that time trends have indicated that many of those players do want to return. So let’s quickly go over some of the decision points for the roster:
First, before any other player gets discussed, we have to address the Louisville of it all. Louisville is currently conducting a coaching search at the moment and according to Louisville insiders Mick Cronin’s name is near the top of the list. This isn’t surprising - Cronin is from the area and is a protege of Rick Pitino - but the financials seem to be a major obstacle. Cronin currently has a $20 million buyout (which goes down to $16 million on April 1) and is getting paid around $4.1 million dollars a year. Throw in the need for Louisville to also provide an annual NIL budget in the $7-10 million range and the fact that Cronin’s daughter is currently a junior in high school and would be unlikely to move, and the cost for Louisville to make this move is seemingly prohibitive. I know that these Louisville insiders think there is a way around the buyout utilizing UCLA’s move to the Big Ten, but if they think a cash-strapped athletic department would not fight tooth and nail over that kind of money with the high-end lawyers they have access to, then I don’t know what to tell you. Put me down as this being a long-shot at best.
Three players feel like sure bets to stay: Dylan Andrews, Lazar Stefanovic, and Sebastian Mack. Andrews put on a ridiculous performance in the latter half of the season and should only get better, and while Stefanovic can run hot or cold, he’s a good player to keep around and would even thrive in a bench role should UCLA recruit over him. Sebastian Mack is maybe the biggest wild card of the bunch, but he showed enough promise as a freshman that I think Cronin will prioritize bringing him back and continuing his development.
Adem Bona is maybe the biggest domino of the group. Bona's decision is between returning to UCLA and heading to the NBA, and I don't think it’s an obvious one. The problem for Bona is he doesn't have a natural position at the next level - he's not big enough to be a true center and he doesn't have enough outside game to be a wing. You could see some development for him as a big this year and I think being on a more veteran squad next year would help him more than being a likely 2nd-round pick and languishing in the G-League. I don't think he transfers to another school, though - he seems to like UCLA and Cronin too much to do that, so it’s basically whether UCLA will bring him an NIL deal close enough to keep him around, which again I think will be a priority.
The Euros are a fascinating group to speculate about. If I had to guess, Jan Vide likely stays (he said as much to Ben Bolch after UCLA was eliminated), especially after he saw increased play at the end of the season. Aday Mara also seems like he will stay, and I think there is a justifiable optimism on how much he can grow going into next year. You have to like that he never let the early failures get him down, and he really seems to enjoy being in the program.
The other two Euros are more coin-flips to me. Berke Buyuktuncel has perhaps the highest ceiling of the group, but he looked completely out of his element this season. The staff is going to have to decide whether the tools he has are intriguing enough to keep him or not. Ilane Fiblueil is the player I would expect to leave the most - he was really raw and never seemed to translate things to the court, and given how the year went his scholarship may be better used on a player that is more ready to contribute.
Will McClendon also feels like a strong transfer candidate to me, as this year exposed him as a player who should not be providing meaningful minutes on a high-major team. Again: the knee injury he suffered before his freshman season really sapped him of athleticism, and it’s hard to justify giving him minutes on next year’s team. I think he could thrive at a lower-level program, but unless he’s fine with being the 11th guy off the bench, his days at UCLA feel numbered.
Brandon Williams is also an interesting question. He got thrust into a pronounced role earlier than anyone expected, and while he did not necessarily thrive in that role, he did at least hold his head above water for most of the season. He was not nearly good enough that the staff won’t try to bring in a transfer wing above him on the depth chart and combined with Williams being from New York, there is a legitimate question on whether he stays next year or not.
Here is the other thing to point out: UCLA and Mick Cronin are likely not going to wait to see who decides to stay or go. The staff is very aware at this point of what the deficiencies of this roster are, and have already made contact with various players that have started to enter the transfer portal. As they continue to do so, and as those players reciprocate interest, some players may recognize they are being recruited over and may choose to transfer out. Given all that, I think you can expect to see around one to three players transfer out over the next few weeks, and I think you can take some educated guesses as to which players will be leaving.
As for what UCLA will target, I think that one is pretty obvious, but here’s the list:
A scoring wing that can start. Even if they decide to keep Buyuktuncel and Williams around, the staff will not leave this position to chance. If they can get a wing that can shoot from the outside, even better, but they’ll be looking for someone who can put the ball in the basket.
An outside shooter. By the end of the season, UCLA found some shooting touch but they will want to add another consistent shooter here.
If Adem Bona leaves, UCLA will 100% target a starting post, no matter what Aday Mara chooses to do. If he leaves, UCLA will probably target another post that can at least provide backup minutes, but Bona’s decision will determine the course of action on that front.
Athleticism in general will be targeted. UCLA was shockingly unathletic this year, and you can bet Cronin will shy away from potential transfers who show the same athletic profile that much of the team already possesses.
Toughness as well will be targeted. With UCLA going to the Big Ten, Cronin will likely place more of an emphasis on physical players who won’t be pushed around come conference season.
This is not an exhaustive list, of course; there is every possibility that UCLA will try to bring in an impact transfer at any position regardless of who is already in that spot. There is already speculation that UCLA would consider bringing in a point guard that would allow Andrews to operate more off-ball in a scoring capacity. And the coaching staff would ideally like a few different lottery tickets at those spots in case a transfer doesn’t pan out, so you could see upwards of four to five transfers brought in with some redundancies in that group.
One of the key aspects here will be NIL availability. Specifically, the question of whether UCLA will have the NIL funds in place to go after the recruits it wants. UCLA’s basketball arm of NIL is in a fairly good place currently; the failed offseason prior, where UCLA was getting outbid for players it wanted, did seem to galvanize donors to step up and increase the funds available to the point where the Bruins are estimated to have funds that would put them in the top 20 of the nation. Allocation of those funds is going to be the next crucial step, especially in choosing which potential transfers the team is willing to break the bank for. On top of that, more than a few national powers had disappointing seasons this year (Gonzaga, Villanova, Kansas for example) and will be looking for major upgrades as well. The one benefit UCLA has over most of those teams is that their season is done, so the staff can fully focus on the transfer portal while many of those other staffs have to balance recruiting and game prep. It’s why this week will be so crucial to the rest of the offseason.
There are already names UCLA has reached out to. Pepperdine big Michael Ajayi is at the top of a lot of early wish lists, and UCLA has the local advantage though Gonzaga and Baylor loom large. Stanford is going to be pillaged, with Andrej Stojakovic in particular standing out as a guy who has been linked to UCLA in the past. Oregon State similarly looks likely to lose their top two players Jordan Pope and Tyler Bilodeau, with both having been linked to UCLA in some form already. The portal just opened, so there are plenty of other names that will roll through this list as the weeks pass and teams get eliminated from the NCAA Tournament.
This is a pivotal offseason for the Mick Cronin era at UCLA. He has proven thus far that he knows how to push the right buttons to get the team to play at a high level, but this past season has called into question his roster construction capabilities. The question this offseason will look to answer is whether that was a one-time blip as Cronin and his staff adjusted to the new realities of college basketball, or if it is a sign of things to come.
Go Bruins!
Thanks again for supporting The Mighty Bruin. Your paid subscriptions make this site possible. Questions, comments, story ideas, angry missives and more can be sent to @TheMightyBruin on Twitter.
Holy Alford collapse. Nevada was outscored 24-2 over the last 7:19 to lose 63-60
Judging by first round action, I'd say that you have a better chance winning when you can score rather than winning when you can't score but have to rely on your defense. And you nearly always have a chance to win when you score in the 70s and 80s, but less so when you score in the 40s and 50s. But that's just me.