Letters

Monday, March 9, 1998

Letters

LETTERS:

Evidence lacking

I am responding to T. Richard Davis’ Viewpoint article about
Steve Lavin, the coach of the UCLA basketball team ("Lavin largely
to blame for team woes," March 4). I was disappointed with the lack
of evidence for the assertion that Lavin "has no clue what it takes
to win." The fact is that I agree that Lavin is extremely
overrated, yet your reasoning, Davis, exhibits your complete lack
of basketball knowledge.

You claim that the Bruins of 1996-’97 made an "incredible run
through a weak Pac-10 field." Did you neglect to do research or did
you just forget Stanford, Cal, and Arizona? I’m guessing that you
missed March Madness last year. Had you watched the tournament, you
would have noticed very strong performances from our Pac-10
competitors. Next you claim that the Bruins having higher shooting
percentages than their victorious opponents means that the loss is
the coach’s fault. Do turnovers, free throws, three-point
percentage or any of the game’s non-statistical intangibles mean
anything to you? You also critique the two wins against Arizona
because you felt that they were too close. Last time I checked the
Bruins were not playing horseshoes or hand grenades. This is
basketball, where close doesn’t count and margin of victory is
irrelevant. The fact is that the Bruins defeated the eventual
National Champions not once, but twice. Lastly, you felt compelled
to include the infamous Jelani McCoy situation. You don’t know the
possible pressure Lavin faced, you did not notice the hustle of the
five starters, and you definitely didn’t watch McCoy’s lackluster
minutes.

If you had taken more time and contemplation you might have
strengthened your article with some logical evidence. For instance,
why did Lavin renegotiate an already lucrative contract for a
couple extra hundred thousand? There are coaches who have been
winning on this campus for years and still make a fraction of
Lavin’s salary. He was already making exponentially more money than
he ever imagined in a job that he only assumed because of a number
of odd twists of fate for the program. Looking at the team it is
easy to see the effects of poor coaching. For instance, do you
think that J.R. Henderson would be allowed to sulk on the court
after every missed shot or foul an official called or failed to
call if he played for Bobby Knight or Mike Krzyzewski? I don’t
think many of the Duke players, having picked up four fouls in four
minutes of play, would have been smiling had we been beating them
by 30 points. Would Rick Patino allow a point guard to foul out of
nine games or even one for that matter? How many coaches are afraid
to yell at their players when it is necessary? How many coaches
congratulate their players after bonehead technical fouls and
turnovers? How many coaches allow their players to walk slowly off
the court during substitutions? How many coaches plan to play only
six players? We have a group of undisciplined individuals and
potential All-Americans, yet what UCLA lacks is a team. That is the
coach’s fault.

Brady Matoian

Fourth-year

communications studies