Jim Harrick found guilty of great coaching

Monday, April 8, 1996

By Brian Bruskrud

and Dan Cummins

This viewpoint is in response to James Lebakken’s feelings
pertaining to the coaching ability of Jim Harrick ("Pointing the
finger at Jim Harrick," April 1). Lebakken is right; we should be
pointing the finger at Harrick. However, not for the first-round
loss to Princeton as Lebakken suggests, but because he is the man
who has revitalized the greatest collegiate basketball program in
the history of college basketball.

Before Harrick came to UCLA, the program was mired in
mediocrity. The Walt Hazzard era had just ended, and the crowning
achievement during his reign was an NIT Championship.

The point is this ­ Jim Harrick recently became the third
coach ever to win 20 games in each of his first eight seasons. He
has won a national championship, reached the Sweet 16, and the
Elite Eight. Yes, it is true his teams have been bounced from the
NCAA tournament three times in the first round, but they were
immature teams who benefited from these tough losses.

For example, in ’91, UCLA lost to Penn State. But the next year,
UCLA bounced back to reach the Elite Eight. Once again in ’94, the
team lost in the first round to Tulsa, and it is worth mentioning
that Tulsa had the home court advantage since the game was played
two hours away from the Tulsa campus. However, UCLA’s 1995 team
came back from this painful loss to win the school’s 11th
championship.

Now in ’96, once again we have a first round debacle by a UCLA
Jim Harrick-coached team. But no one should be pointing the finger
at Jim Harrick in a critical way.

First off, against Princeton you have no choice but to play
Princeton’s style of basketball. Our team this year was an
athletic, up-tempo team. So, one would think we would try to run
the ball against Princeton; but the Princeton team does not allow
its opponents to run against it. When Princeton shoots the ball,
all five players retreat back on defense with no one crashing the
boards.

As a result, UCLA decisively out-rebounded Princeton, but was
also forced into a half-court game. The only way to defeat a team
like this is to have great outside shooting, which, as evident
throughout the season, was the Bruins’ Achilles heel.

Outside shooting is why a team like Mississippi State easily
disposed of Princeton. They have three great outside shooters in
Bullard, Wilson and Jones, not to mention a polished inside game in
Dampier. Their efficient outside shooting caused Princeton to
extend their defense and consequently opened up their inside game,
also.

In our game, except for Brandon Loyd, no one was hitting outside
shots. Princeton was able to pack in their defense and key on our
inside game. It is not Harrick’s fault that his team was unable to
hit from the outside. It is his job to develop a game plan and it
is the job of the team to execute it.

Furthermore, UCLA still had a 41-34 lead with 6:13 to play,
despite playing a style of basketball they were uncomfortable
playing. The reason they had that lead is because Harrick realized
that Princeton was laying off Dollar and packing in their defense.
So, he inserted Loyd, a seldom used freshman who sparked a run with
two huge three-pointers.

The only reason the lead was relinquished was because we missed
two layups and two free throws, had turnovers and got beat on a
backdoor pass. None of these mishaps are related to coaching
ability, but to mere immaturity on the part of the UCLA players.
From a historical standpoint, this loss should not reflect badly
upon coach Harrick.

For example, Bobby Knight, one of the greatest coaches ever, won
a championship and the very next year was ousted in the first
round. Is he a terrible coach? Georgetown’s 1989 team, a No. 1
seed, barely beat a 16th seeded Princeton by one point, 50-49. Is
John Thompson a horrible coach? Dean Smith has only won two
championships in 30 years.

The fact of the matter is, Jim Harrick is an outstanding coach,
and he receives a great deal of unwarranted criticism. He has the
most difficult job of any college coach ­ of any UCLA coach
­ in filling the shoes of John Wooden, shoes which can never
be filled by any coach of any school ever again. Winning 10
championships in 12 years will never again be accomplished.

UCLA went 20 years before winning it all last year. Most schools
go much longer without winning a title. Look at Kentucky, which has
one of the best basketball programs in the country. They had won
only one title (before the game against Syracuse) in the last 41
years. Jim Harrick won a championship at a school where he has been
only eight years. That is an incredible statistic in and of
itself.

John Wooden, the greatest coach of all time, went 17 seasons
before he won a title. Additionally, no team that has lost three of
its starters to graduation or the NBA has reached past the second
round of the NCAA the following year.

Jim Harrick won a championship for UCLA, and Lebakken should be
thankful that he was around to be a part of it. Many college
basketball fans never get to experience such a feat firsthand while
they are still in school.

And finally, in the same vein with coach Harrick’s response to
an ignorant reporter at the postgame press conference, "Lebakken, I
don’t think you know what coaching really is to be qualified to
write such a viewpoint."

Bruskrud is a fourth-year business economics student, and
Cummins is fourth-year economics student.