I seem to remember, if ever so faintly, a moment when the Cal Poly men’s basketball team knocked off then, #11 UCLA, 70-68 on the road. But then again, I’m getting old. And we know the older a man gets, the less he remembers.

So remind me please: Did the Mustangs or did they not, beat a Bruins team with the #1 ranked recruiting class of 2012-2013? Did not Chris Eversley look comparable to Shabazz Muhammad? And did not Dylan Royer and Kyle Odister channel a three-point purity as pungent as J.J Redick?

Since dismantling Ben Howland’s bunch, the Mustangs are 2-2, one of those a narrow 3- point win over 5-5, Division 2 middle of the road, Eastern New Mexico. The other over an NAIA Division two Menlo College. At times, the Mustangs are unable to create their own shot, and have been lacking the ability to manufacture second and third chances off the offensive glass.

Here are some startling facts since the UCLA win.

*  Kyle Odister and Dylan Royer are a combined 22-61 from the field (36.1%). Though they shoot mostly 3-pointers, that’s still not a fantastic percentage. Combined in those games they have 6 assists and 9 turnovers.

*  Senior Drake U’u has struggled to find his way. The guard came into his senior season with an increased role as a ball-handler. So far, he’s shooting 31.7% from the floor, his minutes are down, and he’s making only 46.4% of his free throws.

* Chris Eversley is a dynamic first option offensively. That being said, Eversley is shooting just 40.4% from the floor. His jump shot isn’t particularly consistent, taking away from what he does best: slash and hit the glass.

* The Mustangs rank 289th in the country in rebounding. Behind Eversley, their second-ranked rebounder is 6’9″ freshman Brian Bennett. Since the UCLA win Bennett’s rebounding average is 3.75 per game.

And so, for me, it’s hard not to see the UCLA win as some sort of fluke. The team has been generally manhandled by St. Mary’s and Nevada, and despite a freebie over Menlo, struggled to beat Eastern New Mexico. Callero has a problem of firepower on his hands. Clearly, Eversley is the only player athletic enough to create his own shot on the offensive end.

The rest of the team is built in facets with clear and concise directives and roles. When the three point shot isn’t falling, the Mustangs struggle to hit the glass and get to the free throw line. My hope is that Kyle Odister and Brian Bennet mature and round into more efficient offensive form in the 2nd half of the season.

Cal Poly fans should hope that Odister, with his limited size, improves his ball handling and continue to find his mid-range game, while Bennett, the strongest of the Mustangs, learns to better predict misses in order to be the glass eater he should be. Without the progression of these players and individual improvement throughout the roster, the Mustangs may be just the team they were predicted to be in the Big West preseason coaches poll — a middle to lower middle of the pack Big West team.

After the team’s grind-it-out 60-57 win on Friday, coach Callero reiterated the team’s need to find their defensive identity.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Pots8Akjg

An identity me, and every Mustang maniac is praying comes together, in order that this year’s squad might assemble some sort of UCLA surprise in the Big West and the Conference tournament.  It has been 17-years in the making fans have had to wait for the green and gold to be crownded champion. A near victory in 2003 ended in a 3-point defeat to Utah st, as did another in 2007 to the hands of Long Beach.

This team is without question lacking the scorers those teams held, but with Callero’s gritty toughness, anything seems somewhat possible.

_________________________________________

UCLA basketball fans are in panic mode.

Mid-way through last season, Bruins fans had visions of a 2011-12 team that would include Tyler Honeycutt, Malcom Lee, Reeves Nelson, Joshua Smith, and the Wear twins. That team would have youth and experience. Leadership and poise. Athleticism and something Ben Howland’s teams have lacked during the past few years: depth.

Now, two games into the 2011-12 season, Bruins fans’ heads are spinning over a perceived set of dire issues with coach Howland’s program. After losses to Loyola Marymount and Middle Tennessee State and in the midst of a 2-game Reeves Nelson suspension, UCLA’s critics have become more and more vocal.

Anyone who follows the program or reads UCLA message boards is aware of the perceptions:

Howland’s teams don’t have as much fun as other teams.

UCLA focuses too much on defense.

The Bruins play at too slow a pace.

Howland runs practices that are too physical.

The coach’s track record speaks for itself. Three consecutive Final Four appearances, a huge number of players in the NBA, and three conference titles in eight years should be good enough. But UCLA expectations are different. For Howland, six out of eight winning seasons may not be enough for some fans.

Howland’s style can be described as old-school. Howland hates zone defense and preaches fundamentals. His teams play with a control of the tempo that only come from disciplined practices and the hard-nosed mentality typical of the former Weber State defensive standout.

But is Howland’s style really that different than other coaches? Many experts would say no. An ESPN article within the last year did its best to put to rest the “myth” of Ben Howland holding anyone back offensively. Howland has produced players who have had decent NBA careers. Russell Westbrook is an NBA star who came to UCLA as a skinny combo guard who was a below-average shooter. Players like Aaron Afflalo and Luc Richard Mbah a Moute have stuck in the NBA because of their ability to play on both ends of the floor — Howland’s defensive teachings seemingly paying off.

What about Howland’s recruiting ability? Well, if your definition of a good recruiting class is freakishly athletic and raw players, then UCLA hasn’t been the place for you in recent years. Instead, important recruits have included more “heady” players like Kevin Love and Jrue Holiday. While Howland was (in the past) able to recruit Mbah a Moute, Alfred Aboya, Darren Collison, Westbrook, and Love, his last few recruiting classes have left much to be desired. Drew Gordon and Chase Stanback have been recent recruits who have left UCLA to transfer and players like Tyler Lamb have yet to show any part of what made them top-flight recruits.

Here’s a good article that compares UCLA’s 2008 recruiting class to the disappointing 1998 class.

In other words, the real issue is the talent that Howland has recruited. Like Notre Dame footall, pundits and fans always assume that UCLA Basketball recruiting classes are always better than they are. Here is an article from 2008 that lists the UCLA class as one of the best. At this point, it’s safe to say that Rivals.com, among others were wrong.

This expectation of great UCLA recruiting classes had begun to wane before Howland pulled the Mbah a Moute and Westbrook classes out of his hat. While some individual players have come in with promise only to disappoint (Jerime Anderson, among others), Howland hasn’t found players that is much better than everyone thought a’la Mbah a Moute.

When you have success, expectations don’t get lower.

For Howland to dig himself out of the recruiting hole, his perception among potential recruits will have to change. More importantly, Howland will have to find the next Jordan Farmar, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, and Russell Westbrook. Ballyhooed players like Love and Holiday will still come around from time to time. But to build the kind of program Howland wants to, he needs to have more Alfred Aboyas than Brendan Lanes. More Kevin Loves than Joshua Smiths. More Mbah a Moutes than Nelsons.

Coaches and coaching strategies can take teams only so far. And the kids might be great kids — though we know Nelson has had some difficulties. Without requisite talent though, UCLA, its coaching staff, and its fans will have to do the best they can with what they have. The issue isn’t Howland’s ability to recruit any one player. The issue is with a recurring pattern. Unless Howland gets an infusion of talent that Westwood hasn’t seen during the past few years, it will probably be more of the same for the Bruins.

I know who the champion of this year’s tournament is going to be. Could it be Duke, a number-one seed with all the moxie that a defending national champion should have? Is it Notre Dame, with their rich football tradition and their more-than-budding basketball dominance? Does a team like St. John’s have a chance? They’ve played a really tough schedule all year and proven they can beat anyone. Is there a star ready to emerge? Who is really favorite this year?

The favorite, and undisputed champion of the tournament every year is, in fact, The Unexpected.

Last season, it was Butler, whose poise and talent led them to the final and a half-court heave away from a National Championship. Though the perennial Horizon League heavyweights are always good, they are still from the Horizon League and yet, they still made it to the championship game.

When talking about the unexpected, we can talk all about Bryce Drew’s Valparaiso team making it through to the Sweet 16. Western Kentucky, Davidson, and George Mason all come to mind when talking about tournament surprises. When Princeton beat UCLA, it was my first experience of being, literally, upset by the outcome of a game (Go Bruins).

Upset City?

Though there will be some upsets this year—there always are—I want to make an argument for going “with the chalk” while filling out your brackets. In the 24-hour news cycle sporting world, there is so much information that it’s hard to sort it out. This is the untenable job of the selection committee.

Where there might have been systems in place 20 years ago to ensure correct seeds, it was an inexact science. Committee members had to tout the teams that they saw from their region. Perennial powers were given the benefit of the doubt because there just weren’t as many opportunities to watch basketball or gather the statistical information that is now available.

Like the rest of America, I’m left in the dark about the exact process for seeding the teams, but I think it’s safe to say that the gentlemen in the room have more information at hand than ever before. This is why I am predicting that, starting about five years ago, there was more “chalk” than people expect, despite the parody we have seen in college basketball over the past 10-20 years.

This was my prediction in the past as well. A few years ago, the one 12-seed I picked to win was the only one that lost. While my general “when in doubt, go with the chalk” mantra might not ring true over one year or even two, I think it will start to move more and more that way.

Look out West in 2011

I’m not revealing all of my quality picks (sure to go wrong) yet, but I will say this: The Pac-10 will surprise people. Everyone has been so down on the conference all year, and for good reason. Games seem long, teams grind, and there aren’t a lot of flashy stars. But UCLA, Arizona, and Washington all have a realistic chance of some upsets.

UCLA could match-up with Florida in the second round, and you know that Ben Howland would like nothing more than to get Billy Donovan’s team back for the butt-kickings they took in the championship game and the Final Four in recent years past.

Washington is, without question, the most talented team coming from the Pac 10. Lorenzo Romar and Steve Lavin were both assistant coaches on the 1995 UCLA championship team, and Romar seems to have channeled Lavin in his ability to recruit top-notch talent. While Romar’s teams still manage to lose games they shouldn’t throughout the year, they are too talented to be ignored. Having a very good, experienced, and talented point guard in Isaiah Thomas doesn’t hurt either.

Arizona is on the rise too. While I don’t have them going as far as UCLA or Washington, Derrick Williams (The Whole Enchilada from La Mirada) is a dominant player. Talent usually prevails in the tournament and, like Washington, Arizona has a lot of talent.

Look for the Pac-10 to offer some surprises.

Are there too many teams in the tournament?

While amid conversation this week, I realized that there are games starting on Tuesday night and that the four games that are being played before Thursday aren’t just the eight worst teams. Two of the games will be played by four at-large teams; presumably the four ‘last’ teams to get into the field of 68. I’m still trying to process how I feel about:

a) the first “round” of the tournament now being 6 days long, and..

b) 12-seeds who have to play a “play-in” game.

Call me a purist, but I think I’d prefer to stay with the 64-team field. Long and spread-out events like the NFL Draft (is it 3 days now?) or the BCS, seem to water-down the actual event for me. Part of what makes the tournament fun is that we haven’t had any basketball for a week now, and then there are 48 games crammed into 4 days on the first weekend – all of which are important.

In it’s “new” format, the tournament loses some of that “excitement” and “frenzy,” as the games are spread out over an entire week. I’m 29 and probably the demographic that the tournament committee wants watching the games, but I’m also busy. I have other things in my life, including a job. Being focused on the tournament for six days instead of four is a little too much for me.

I’ll take my four days of joy – tracking who gets upset and who can achieve what every team strives for – to survive. And advance.

owen@fansmanship.com