Give Bruins Another Year to Prove--and Improve--Themselves

If you thought UCLA’s season-long sloppiness was a side effect, not a symptom, Princeton exposed that mirage.

If you thought the Bruins could play through spurts of horrendous, immature play just by outrunning, outrebounding, outdunking--really, just out-UCLA-ing--their opponents this season, you were wrong.

Truth be told, many people--including the UCLA players--even, at times, Jim Harrick and his staff, thought the Bruins were talented enough to overcome most of their problems, maybe enough to sneak into the Final Four again.

Harrick himself said Friday that if the Bruins could have gotten past Princeton, you don’t know what might have happened the rest of the way. . . . Remember Missouri?

But that was a point guard ago, and, despite UCLA’s success in the conference, this season’s problems were too deep-seated, and weren’t exposed by Princeton alone.

If Princeton’s patience and intensity on defense hadn’t stopped the Bruins, Mississippi State’s aggressiveness or Connecticut’s half-court offense or anybody’s hard defense would have ended UCLA’s weird season.

The Bruins had talent, NBA-quality talent, but not the right mix of talent, with players unwilling or unable to figure a way out of the kick-it-away syndrome.

Is that Harrick’s fault? He won a national title last year, and maybe he and his players thought they would naturally rise to the occasion come March. That’s understandable, but, with obvious voids in the lineup, the setup for frustration was there.

At college basketball’s most important position, point guard, Cameron Dollar has courage and canniness, but had a below-par season and was such a negligible offensive player that the Tigers barely bothered to guard him--allowing them to clog the low post, UCLA’s only consistent scoring position.

At the wing spots, Toby Bailey and Charles O’Bannon are still two of the best highlight-film players in America, but they so far have not displayed a consistent ability to create their own shots against a disciplined half-court defense. If they’re not dunking, both players force passes and become negatives on offense.

At the post, J.R. Henderson and Jelani McCoy are potential dominators, but either get thrown off a little too easily by pain, sickness or physical play (Henderson) or simply haven’t figured out how to work themselves into the flow of a tight game (McCoy).

Off the bench, UCLA had a scorer (Kris Johnson) and a utility man (Kevin Dempsey), but, once omm’A Givens went out because of injury, nobody who could take the load off Dollar or McCoy, which is what the Bruins needed most.

And in the vacuum left by the departure of Ed O’Bannon, Tyus Edney and George Zidek, the Bruins had nobody the rest of the team truly looked to for inspiration and discipline.

That was probably Harrick’s biggest miscalculation this season: To the Bruins’ benefit in the weakened Pac-10, he was incredibly patient with these immature personalities, perhaps to longer-term negative effects.

Was it Bailey’s fault that he kept trying to do things he couldn’t? Not when he was moved to an unnatural point guard position in the middle of the game, not if he never was taken out of the game for a run of mistakes, not even when he committed 12 turnovers against Washington.

Was it McCoy’s fault he was invisible against Princeton and Oregon State and Duke? Not if Harrick couldn’t find a way to make him touch the ball and make him challenge the Tigers on defense.

Harrick did nurse UCLA through an incredible run of close victories to win the Pac-10, and that’s worth a lot. That may give the 1996-97 Bruins the pride and determination to win the nonconference games it could not this season.

And with McCoy anchoring a strong defense, and Johnson having emerged as a consistent scorer and Bailey settling down slowly over the course of this season, UCLA has the framework for a Final Four run.

But somebody will have to step out of the mix of go-along guys to assume responsibility and leadership.

Bailey, O’Bannon, Johnson and Henderson all proved they wanted to and could take the last shot--but that’s not leadership, not when Princeton is softly weaving and defending you to death.

Dollar is a tough battler--but that’s not leadership, not when he can’t make a 15-foot jumper, not when Brandon Loyd has to be sent in for him to loosen up the Tiger zone.

UCLA had nobody who could lash out at a slacker in practice, or quietly instill confidence with a whisper or a glare at an opponent.

Everybody in the world has looked at the Princeton result and screamed that UCLA, ridiculously ranked No. 4 in the preseason, under-achieved once again.

But with all these weaknesses and all this undercurrent of immaturity, losing to a brilliantly coached Princeton team is probably exactly, and predictably, what should have happened.

Hey, Princeton shot 37% from the field. UCLA was probably lucky to lose only by two. The Bruins over-achieved in this transition season.

This year--the expectations, the list of victories, the Final Four dreams--was a mirage. Next season . . . that’s the real test.

Remember all these soft spots, and if they’re not fixed by next March, that’s when you can bellow about Harrick and his immature players. But wait until then.