Monday, April 1, 1996
Coach’s failure to learn from mistakes causes NCAA upsetBy James
A. Lebakken
John Wooden has said that no one is a loser until they start
pointing fingers, but the final score of the game against Princeton
is incontrovertible. UCLA lost that Thursday night (March 14) and
maybe that indicates a need for some finger pointing.
The men’s basketball team has a profusion of talent beyond any
claims Princeton can make, so why? The question keeps swirling in
my mind. A whirlpool of whys (sic). The more I think about the
game, the more I review the tape, the greater is my conviction that
this was a coaching failure.
When I first transferred to UCLA in the spring of ’94, the
campus had just begun recovering from the upsetting Northridge
quake. But the more striking characteristic of my new surroundings
was a student body trying to make sense of a first round tournament
loss to Tulsa. Articles called for Jim Harrick’s dismissal, and
others rebutted. A year later, the story had changed dramatically.
(It’s only fair to indicate that fact.)
I’ve already encountered too many people who are eager to let
Harrick off the hook while being grossly unfair to the players (who
are students), signifying a willingness to forget that Harrick is
the highly paid professional with the highest level of
responsibility on that team. (Coincidentally, certain sports
casters can keep their two cents because Harrick doesn’t need
them.)
I am not calling for his replacement. The coaching staff is
already suffering displacement with Lorenzo Romar’s departure. I
am, however, charging the current head coach with a very basic
responsibility, one we all have as students and teachers (coaches)
alike. He must, as we must, eagerly learn from our mistakes.
First round losses are rapidly becoming a chronic feature of the
Jim Harrick coaching style. He needs to address this problem Â
and it is a problem. Going to the tournament with a willingness to
"play their game" is a dangerously defeatist attitude. Letting a
less talented team dictate their style of play to you is not a
winning strategy. If Ike had gone to Normandy with that strategy,
we would all be speaking German now.
A dynamic problem-solver does not simply develop his team’s
strengths, but finds innovative ways to apply them even when the
opportunities don’t present themselves.
The Princeton style of play is/was obviously not an impregnable
strategy for two reasons: 1) They have been beaten, most recently
by Mississippi State in the March 16 game. 2) If their game plan
was flawless, then every collection of low talent, three-point
trick shooters would scrap the fundamentals and adopt that style of
play. We not only could have, we should have won that game, and the
coach is culpable.
Lebakken is a senior English student.
FRED HE/Daily Bruin
Men’s Basketball coach Jim Harrick (second from left) watches
the Bruins lose to Princeton on March 14 in the first round of NCAA
playoffs.
Going to the tournament with a willingness to "play their game"
is a dangerously defeatist attitude.Comments to
[email protected]