Who underachieved more this Tourney UCLA or Zags???

Gonzaga lost a couple of great players, but Holmgren was outstanding all season long and no one really had much of an answer for him. And nobody on either team comes close to being as effective as Timme. Their backcourt wasn't too shabby either, by anyone's standards. Regardless, it's about more than talent; the Zags haven't been hurting for talent for quite some time.

I, too, think Few is taking too much heat. But after a while you do have to acknowledge that he's losing too many big games against teams that don't have more talent than the Zags, and that does come down to how he uses his roster, and the type of strategies he deploys in crunch time.

What is your beef with Cronin? My criticism stems from him not using his bench enough, but that's about it. I think he's done a great job getting every ounce of effort and talent out of his players.

@thesquat Here's the final deal. I don't remember saying that, and I looked through all the threads I could find -- which is where I got that other information. And I'm on the record, right now, saying that IF I said the Final Four was the only thing that mattered, then I take it back. IF I posted that, it must have been just a momentary slip or posted in the context of something else -- most likely a rivalry dig at USC, the kind of things that are often posted on this site and aren't always sincere. The bottom line, I think a team can have a successful season without getting to the Final Four, even if it's bittersweet. My personal benchmark for UCLA is that anything short of the Sweet Sixteen is not a success and is pretty mediocre.

Now, if you don't believe me, it won't be that hard to find whatever post you referenced. You're either too lazy or too incompetent to find it. Either way, if you're not willing or able to prove that I wrote such a post, then you're simply full of shit.

As for this other matter, I do apologize for bringing your wife into the conversation, but I have always stated that I never directed any insult toward her, and the thread would prove that. If I had known you were going to blow a gasket, I never would have mentioned her, and I'm sorry I did that. But I'm not going to apologize forever, and quite frankly at this point you don't rate an apology. You, yourself, owe the world an apology for being a bitter old man. You are pathetic.

You say you don't like basketball, and yet you post on the basketball board -- almost always after a UCLA loss, I might add. You rarely post after USC wins, again claiming you don't care. But, there you are, after a UCLA loss, showing up as the weasel and coward you are. It's pathetic.

You write about me in the third person, as if that's some kind of display of high-and-mighty integrity; if you had such little regard for me, you wouldn't even respond to my posts. I'm telling you -- it's pathetic.

Just go yell at some kids to get off your lawn and then shut the fuck up forever. You remain the board retard, and nothing is ever going to change that. Nobody on this board respects you. You are pathetic.

@Waldorf

@Waldorf another non apology- apology. Any decent gentleman would know that trash talking about another person's wife, on an internet site, ir anywhere ekse.....is NEVER APPROPRIATE. He still does not see it....thinks it is only regrettable because her husband says so. He should ask Will Smith. SDork is not a decent gentleman.....just a narcissistic punk....like Gay Fake Marine who routinely said obscene remarks about wives here....and was blasted about them.

as for the Final 4 comment, he snuck up on the truth....it was definitely in an anti USC trash talk thread.

That's right RWC! "If the other team hadn't been so good, we would have won!" How pathetic! bruins can be such little shits.

Borderline Bob is out of his cage again with another intelligent post. Where did you learn so much about basketball and football too you dumb POS.

@rwc1952 If only other people were dumb, you might look smart. You obviously majored in Logic while at ugly.

UCLA should have beaten UNC because UCLA had five returning starters, and that pretty much guarantees a national championship, and if they'd only beaten UNC then they'd have had a clear path to the Final Four again. Cronin didn't substitute as much as he should have, or at least that's the prevailing thought, as it may have led to tougher defense down the stretch. Gonzaga was favored to win it all. But maybe they were overrated. The Arkie team that beat them got seriously fucked up by Duke. So, it's hard to underachieve when you're overrated. But they beat UCLA by a bunch, so they're better than the Bruins, so maybe that means the Bruins were overrated? Or was it underrated? And the Bruins beat Villanova, but it was on the home court, and it was early in the season, and everyone knows that winning games at Pauley Pavilion doesn't count, the Bruins have to win on the road in order for the teams and the wins to be legit, and they didn't have any significant players leave for the NBA, and USC is the only team that has ever lost good players to the NBA, so they weren't expected to win anything, thus they had the best season in the Pac 12 of any team because they were shit and still managed to finish in 3rd place, and they lost two players to the NBA...oh, wait, I already said that, but it's important enough to say twice, and everyone knows that losing players to the NBA creates turnovers for your team, which is why USC didn't advance past the 1st round, but they did lose to a team that got to the Elite Eight, so that proves they're at least as good as any team that got to the Sweet 16, including UCLA, who also lost to a team that got to the Elite Eight, and that team is now in the Final Four, but that loss doesn't count as a good loss because UCLA had five starters returning, and that meant they should have won a national championship, and they didn't. So they're underachievers, unlike USC, who wasn't expected to do anything because they lost some tall guy to the NBA who was really good, but they still did really great, and they beat UCLA once, but that wasn't that big of a deal because the Bruins underachieved because they didn't win the conference, but they did beat Arizona once, something USC couldn't do, but that's no big deal because UCLA didn't advance to the Final Four, but Villanova did, and they did so despite losing to UCLA, but that was only because they played at Pauley, and UCLA wins at home don't count, and Gonzaga beat UCLA pretty badly early, but that didn't count because UCLA was underachieving, and Gonzaga was not because they were the #1 team in the world, but when they lost to the Arkies it was okay because they're Gonzaga, and they aren't expected to win anything because they never have, and neither has USC, which makes them and Gonzaga kind of the same since they each have zero national titles, and zero is just a number, but if it's the same number as someone else's number, then it must mean something important, so that must mean that USC is as good as Gonzaga since they have the same number of national titles, which means that UCLA underachieved more than any team in the history of the NCAA basketball, let alone the tournament, and that includes Kentucky and Baylor and the Zonies in 2022, but those teams didn't have five starters returning, which guarantees a national championship, and that's pretty much where we're at, although when USC hangs a banner in Gayland that reads 2022 ROUND OF 64 -- BUT WE WERE OVERACHIEVERS! then the whole world will know that UCLA underachieved, and that USC is really better because Banjo Boy gets the most of his boys -- when they can manage to hang onto the ball, which is sometimes important in basketball but not always.

@Waldorf applaud the effort!! lol

honestly that is awesome circular logic in action personified. True we can what if anything to death

My take was much simpler and fwiw it’s what I think it is actually true. 2 out of 5 is 40%. Thats not insignificant unless it’s counting pennies. 5 out of 5 is still 100%. And losing two 1st round guys is ALOT. UCLA stars are not 1st round talents. Either are USCs. So replacing 1st rounders is damn hard isn’t it???

@Pasadena Trojan Bruins did it during the Howland years. More than once.

C'mon, sometimes the other team is better, or lucky, or both.

It ain't the end of the world. If Banjo Boy is all that and a slice of toast, USC will be back in the hunt next year. So will the Bruins.

@Waldorf lmao.

we lost the conference’s POY & DPOY. Plus we lost an all pac 12 level player in Taj. I can assure you this is not BS.

Not sure isiah was a starter last year?? Thinking he wasn’t but could be wrong.

@Pasadena Trojan C'mon, this is at least the second thread you started about UCLA "underachieving." This time you included Gonzaga, but why no mention of Kentucky, Arizona, Baylor, and a couple of other high seeds who bailed out early?

You just want to somehow feel better about how USC disappeared quietly into the night, and you're looking at a UCLA loss to ease your pain. Really? That's something a "bRuin" would do. You're treading dangerously close to "utla" status.

USC lost good players to the NBA? Wow, first team that ever happened to!

@Waldorf ucla loses and I'm bitter? Just the opposite! I do, however, respect your honesty. You're the one bruin I'd like to have a beer with.

@BobLinMN-2 okay, but you're buying. I went to UCLA so I'm unemployable.

@Waldorf LOL, as many as you want!