Lavin largely to blame for team woes

Wednesday, March 4, 1998

Lavin largely to blame for team woes

BASKETBALL: National title hopes melt away under faulty
leadership

By T. Richard Davis

A year and a half ago, the UCLA men’s basketball program was at
a crossroads. With head coach Jim Harrick fired for covering up a
"recruiting" dinner involving two of his players, a young,
inexperienced assistant coach was hired just days before the season
opener.

Steve Lavin coached, or organized, a team that was as highly
regarded in the country as any and was many critics’ choice to win
a second national championship in three seasons. With potential
All-Americans in Toby Bailey, Kris Johnson, J.R. Henderson and
Jelani McCoy, the UCLA basketball team was very potent. But with a
rookie coach, could this team refocus and succeed?

Following an "Elite Eight" appearance in the NCAA tournament in
the Midwest Finals in San Antonio, Texas, Lavin was deemed a
success and awarded a long-term extension of his head coach
contract.

All’s well that ends well, and Westwood is again a national
power, right? Well, yes, but not exactly. Let’s review the season,
and not just the incredible run at the end of a weak Pac-10 field,
for the 1996-1997 season.

Opening the season, UCLA played in the National Invitational
Tournament and lost in the first round. It was an overtime loss of
77-76 to unranked Tulsa. A big loss to a not-so-big team. Remember?
The lineup included Charles O’Bannon, Henderson, McCoy, Bailey,
Cameron Dollar and Johnson. A lineup that looks similar, but much
different than this year’s team.

A month later, UCLA, now ranked No. 24, played its very first
road game of the season. (Wait a minute – did I miss something?
Ranked No. 5 going into the season, played all of their first month
at home, and the Bruins went all the way down to No. 24 …
impressive. That game was not even a "home" game for opponent
Illinois; the game was played in Chicago. It was another Bruin loss
– even larger, at 79-63. Big spread, but that wasn’t the most
significant statistic; it was the shooting percentages. One team
shot 46 percent from the floor and the other shot 40 percent. What
makes the stat crucial to this letter is that UCLA shot the 46
percent, not Illinois. The Bruins clearly out-shot Illinois, and
still lost by 16! Great coaching?

And then we go to the biggest rival in the conference, the
University of Arizona. This would be the first matchup of the
season, and the tables had turned. Arizona was ranked No. 6, and
UCLA was unranked. I repeat, it was Jan. 18, 1996, and UCLA was
unranked. The game went to overtime, and UCLA held on to win 84-78.
That was close, but should it have been that close? Looking at the
key numbers shows this shouldn’t have been close at all.

Advantages: UCLA’s shooting percentage was 46 percent to
Arizona’s 40 percent; free throw percentage: UCLA, 72 percent to 60
percent; rebounding: UCLA, 44 to 35; no one from UCLA fouled out;
three Wildcats fouled out.

So answer me this question: Why did we lose the game? If it
wasn’t the players and it wasn’t the arena, what is left?
Coaching!

The second game against Arizona was more of the same. UCLA won
down the wire, 66-64, on a shot by Henderson. However, this game
had an even larger margin of shooting percentages: UCLA shot 59
percent and Arizona shot 40 percent. We barely won again. What is
keeping this team down? Coaching!

By the way, the week before the Arizona and Arizona State trip,
the Bruins had moved back into the top 25, again ranked No. 24.

Moving a couple weeks ahead into March, it would be Lavin’s
first tournament as head coach. After two strong offensive showings
against Charleston Southern and Xavier (Ohio), UCLA would face off
against relatively unknown Iowa State. In this game, the Bruins
appeared unprepared as they scored a season-low 25 points in the
first half. To end the game, Dollar made a running lay-up with 1.9
seconds to go, to save the victory run of UCLA. This play was
reminiscent of Tyus Edney’s shot against Missouri in the ’95
championships. But this one would not have as happy an ending.

After leading 33-28 at halftime against Minnesota, the Bruins
gave up an incredible 52 points in the second half, losing 80-72 in
San Antonio. Following the game, Lavin was praised for his coaching
abilities, and UCLA extended his contract soon after for some very
large dollars. But the Bruins lacked then what they lack now:
size.

In the game against the Badgers, McCoy left in the first half
with a bruised sternum, and the game was lost from there. McCoy was
the only player on the team with great size. Only Henderson even
measured 6 feet 8 inches tall, and that’s not enough. Lavin should
know that – every other coach does.

When Johnson and McCoy returned in late December, the players
received a "full reinstatement" by the team and Lavin. My
contention is that Lavin’s commitment to the team and the program
was nothing less than two-faced. If a coach makes a statement that
things are going back to the way they were, then make it so. In his
2 and 1/2 seasons at UCLA, McCoy started almost 50 games. As a
freshman, he was a starter, and as a sophomore, he was a starter.
But after being "fully reinstated" as a junior, he was not a
starter. OK, let him work back into the lineup for a couple of
days, or maybe a week. Nearly two months passed after reinstatement
and Lavin still did not insert McCoy back into the starting lineup!
McCoy was dominant inside, and Lavin looked the other way in favor
of a much smaller three-guard lineup that included two freshmen in
the backcourt. And when Bailey did not start against Duke on Feb.
22, three freshmen started.

We had a chance to win the championship this season, but not
now. Not under Lavin. I had an opportunity to speak with Lavin
following a close call against Arizona State in mid-January. It was
the first time I had spoken to him since San Antonio last March. I
told him that San Antonio was much more pleasant in April. His
response was, "I hope we can get there." Nothing more about players
or about upcoming opponents. Just a hope from a man who has no clue
what it takes to win.