With an unusual Sunday tip-off, a lot of people were confused
and missed UCLA’s 78-65 loss at Stanford.
Thankfully, the NCAA selection committee was part of that group.
And as I am a highly respected and thoroughly impartial member of
the journalistic community, it called me Sunday night to ask me
what happened.
I think I represented the Bruins fairly.
(Editor’s note: The following conversation is entirely
hypothetical.)
Committee: We know the score and we don’t understand. I
mean, UCLA just came off a thorough dismantling of Cal. What
gives?
Me: Uhhhh, the game was an aberration. You have to allow every
team to have a bad game once in a blue moon.
Committee: Hey, don’t worry. We badly want to put UCLA in
the tournament, especially to see Dick Vitale’s head spin
with four “diaper dandies” on the floor. Plus, everyone
would rather see your team full of exciting, spunky freshmen fly up
and down the court as opposed to the effective 2-3 zone of
Southwest Arkansas State Polytechnic. The problem is that every
time the Bruins catch our eye with a win, they follow it with a
lackluster loss.
Me (lying): UCLA didn’t really play that badly. Stanford
is simply a dominant, athletic powerhouse.
Committee: Well, we never watch the Pac-10, so we’re not
sure about that. But those guys on Stanford look more like they
should belong to a country club than a gym.
Me: Good one, NCAA.
Committee: Thanks. The box score says that Chris Hernandez
scored a career-high 37 points. He must have channeled Salim
Stoudamire and hit shots right in the Bruins’ faces because
UCLA knew he was their only good shooter, right?
Me: Well, ummm, not exactly. But his teammates were tripping,
punching and tackling the guy guarding him, and Tiger Woods paid
the refs to look the other way.
That’s why he kept getting open looks over and over and
over and over and over again.
Committee: Understandable. Those clean-cut Stanford guys always
cheat, especially now with Henry Bibby’s successor for
evilest-looking Pac-10 coach. Did anyone on UCLA play well?
Me: They shot really good free throws.
Committee: Why the 18 turnovers?
Me: They played unselfishly.
Committee: And the 33 percent field goal shooting?
Me: Those Stanford scientists obviously devised a magnet that
attracts basketballs and used it to throw the Bruins’ shots
off trajectory.
Committee: You seem to be quite good at spinning UCLA’s
deficiencies, so spin this: The Bruins have won exactly one game
this season over a team better than them. In fact, No. 13
Washington is the only team UCLA has beat that has even one vote in
the polls.
Me: That’s easy to explain. UCLA makes the teams it beats
look so miserable that no voters respect them.
Committee: Sigh. Let us guess ““ you think UCLA is a
tournament team?
Me: Hey, I’m not saying Final Four. The Bruins will have
their problems in the Elite Eight.
Committee: Wow. Your argument is more ridiculous than the plot
of “The Girl Next Door.”
Nevertheless, we’re still giving UCLA a chance. It must
reach 18 wins, which means taking three of the last four plus one
Pac-10 tournament game. This is certainly realistic.
Me: Agreed. Thanks NCAA. All positive spin aside, UCLA is a good
team and at least deserves consideration. The Bruins have been
getting better all year and always put up a fight. They are
entertaining and have the potential to pull off the kind of upset
that your tournament thrives on. But I know you don’t take my
word seriously, so you should check UCLA out next week on national
TV. Sun … errr, Saturday against Notre Dame.
Peters is a basketball columnist. E-mail him at
bpeters@media.ucla.edu.