(07-15-2019 04:44 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I don't believe the point is that we're going to be a greatly experienced team. We're not.

The point is that we return as much experience as most of the UK or Duke teams that pulled in #1 classes. And if those UK or Duke teams weren't "penalized" in preseason rankings for lack of experience, why should we expect to be? The last 10 years of #1 classes:

2010-11 UK AP preseason #11 returned 41 mpg, 12 pts, 6 rebs
2011-12 UK AP pre #2 returned 91 mpg, 39 pts, 15 rebs
2012-13 UK AP pre #3 returned 14 mpg, 5 pts, 2 rebs
2013-14 UK AP pre #1 returned 49 mpg, 20 pts, 12 rebs
2014-15 Duke AP pre #4 returned 90 mpg, 31 pts, 13 rebs
2015-16 UK AP pre #2 returned 59 mpg, 15 pts, 9 rebs
2016-17 Duke AP pre #1 returned 103 mpg, 46 pts, 13 rebs
2017-18 Duke AP pre #1 returned 43 mpg, 18 pts, 7 rebs
2018-19 Duke AP pre #4 returned 42 mpg, 11 pts, 11 rebs
2019-20 Memphis AP pre ?? returns 59 mpg, 22 pts, 8 rebs

So as far as pure experience goes, we return as much or more than 6 of the last 9 Duke and UK #1 classes. And other than the 2010-11 preseason UK ranking, all the other years had the #1 class moving their program inside the top 4.

Now, you might argue that their returning benches had higher level talent (experienced or not). Or you might argue that Penny is not a coach at their level (this is the bias I believe is at play, though none will say it). But you can't just argue "lack of experience".

pts/rebounds per game is not the same thing as experience.

They'll NEVER give Memphis respect, we shouldn't expect anything less. Even with the #1 recruiting class, Memphis should be in Top 5.

But, I won't sweat it, Coach Penny and company will use this to motivate the team to put some whoop-@ss beating on the opponents. So, thank you, ESPN, for keeping our team motivated to prove you wrong.

(07-15-2019 04:44 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I don't believe the point is that we're going to be a greatly experienced team. We're not.

The point is that we return as much experience as most of the UK or Duke teams that pulled in #1 classes. And if those UK or Duke teams weren't "penalized" in preseason rankings for lack of experience, why should we expect to be? The last 10 years of #1 classes:

2010-11 UK AP preseason #11 returned 41 mpg, 12 pts, 6 rebs
2011-12 UK AP pre #2 returned 91 mpg, 39 pts, 15 rebs
2012-13 UK AP pre #3 returned 14 mpg, 5 pts, 2 rebs
2013-14 UK AP pre #1 returned 49 mpg, 20 pts, 12 rebs
2014-15 Duke AP pre #4 returned 90 mpg, 31 pts, 13 rebs
2015-16 UK AP pre #2 returned 59 mpg, 15 pts, 9 rebs
2016-17 Duke AP pre #1 returned 103 mpg, 46 pts, 13 rebs
2017-18 Duke AP pre #1 returned 43 mpg, 18 pts, 7 rebs
2018-19 Duke AP pre #4 returned 42 mpg, 11 pts, 11 rebs
2019-20 Memphis AP pre ?? returns 59 mpg, 22 pts, 8 rebs

So as far as pure experience goes, we return as much or more than 6 of the last 9 Duke and UK #1 classes. And other than the 2010-11 preseason UK ranking, all the other years had the #1 class moving their program inside the top 4.

Now, you might argue that their returning benches had higher level talent (experienced or not). Or you might argue that Penny is not a coach at their level (this is the bias I believe is at play, though none will say it). But you can't just argue "lack of experience".

Great research! Katz’s remark was “severe” inexperience. I suspect he didn’t say anything close to that when Ky returned 5 ppg and Duke 11 ppg (or just pick a year).

(07-15-2019 10:12 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-15-2019 04:44 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I don't believe the point is that we're going to be a greatly experienced team. We're not.

The point is that we return as much experience as most of the UK or Duke teams that pulled in #1 classes. And if those UK or Duke teams weren't "penalized" in preseason rankings for lack of experience, why should we expect to be? The last 10 years of #1 classes:

2010-11 UK AP preseason #11 returned 41 mpg, 12 pts, 6 rebs
2011-12 UK AP pre #2 returned 91 mpg, 39 pts, 15 rebs
2012-13 UK AP pre #3 returned 14 mpg, 5 pts, 2 rebs
2013-14 UK AP pre #1 returned 49 mpg, 20 pts, 12 rebs
2014-15 Duke AP pre #4 returned 90 mpg, 31 pts, 13 rebs
2015-16 UK AP pre #2 returned 59 mpg, 15 pts, 9 rebs
2016-17 Duke AP pre #1 returned 103 mpg, 46 pts, 13 rebs
2017-18 Duke AP pre #1 returned 43 mpg, 18 pts, 7 rebs
2018-19 Duke AP pre #4 returned 42 mpg, 11 pts, 11 rebs
2019-20 Memphis AP pre ?? returns 59 mpg, 22 pts, 8 rebs

So as far as pure experience goes, we return as much or more than 6 of the last 9 Duke and UK #1 classes. And other than the 2010-11 preseason UK ranking, all the other years had the #1 class moving their program inside the top 4.

Now, you might argue that their returning benches had higher level talent (experienced or not). Or you might argue that Penny is not a coach at their level (this is the bias I believe is at play, though none will say it). But you can't just argue "lack of experience".

Great research! Katz’s remark was “severe” inexperience. I suspect he didn’t say anything close to that when Ky returned 5 ppg and Duke 11 ppg (or just pick a year).

That Kentucky team that returned 5 points ended up in the NIT.

(07-15-2019 04:44 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I don't believe the point is that we're going to be a greatly experienced team. We're not.

The point is that we return as much experience as most of the UK or Duke teams that pulled in #1 classes. And if those UK or Duke teams weren't "penalized" in preseason rankings for lack of experience, why should we expect to be? The last 10 years of #1 classes:

2010-11 UK AP preseason #11 returned 41 mpg, 12 pts, 6 rebs
2011-12 UK AP pre #2 returned 91 mpg, 39 pts, 15 rebs
2012-13 UK AP pre #3 returned 14 mpg, 5 pts, 2 rebs
2013-14 UK AP pre #1 returned 49 mpg, 20 pts, 12 rebs
2014-15 Duke AP pre #4 returned 90 mpg, 31 pts, 13 rebs
2015-16 UK AP pre #2 returned 59 mpg, 15 pts, 9 rebs
2016-17 Duke AP pre #1 returned 103 mpg, 46 pts, 13 rebs
2017-18 Duke AP pre #1 returned 43 mpg, 18 pts, 7 rebs
2018-19 Duke AP pre #4 returned 42 mpg, 11 pts, 11 rebs
2019-20 Memphis AP pre ?? returns 59 mpg, 22 pts, 8 rebs

So as far as pure experience goes, we return as much or more than 6 of the last 9 Duke and UK #1 classes. And other than the 2010-11 preseason UK ranking, all the other years had the #1 class moving their program inside the top 4.

Now, you might argue that their returning benches had higher level talent (experienced or not). Or you might argue that Penny is not a coach at their level (this is the bias I believe is at play, though none will say it). But you can't just argue "lack of experience".

lack of experience on the coaching staff maybe...

Who knows what he was thinking.

(07-14-2019 10:29 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 08:26 AM)mairving Wrote:  Somewhere between 10 to 15 is a good place to start. Win a few games and boom we are top 10. Win a few more and we are top 5. Win them all and we are NCAA champions.

We can lose 10 and win national championship. Rankings don’t mean shite.

It's pretty silly to say that rankings mean nothing. They certainly get you exposure. For us having being ranked highly means that we are winning. If we are winning we get a better seed in the tournament. If we get a better seed it is oftentimes easier to get to the finals.

(07-16-2019 08:33 AM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 10:29 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 08:26 AM)mairving Wrote:  Somewhere between 10 to 15 is a good place to start. Win a few games and boom we are top 10. Win a few more and we are top 5. Win them all and we are NCAA champions.

We can lose 10 and win national championship. Rankings don’t mean shite.

It's pretty silly to say that rankings mean nothing. They certainly get you exposure. For us having being ranked highly means that we are winning. If we are winning we get a better seed in the tournament. If we get a better seed it is oftentimes easier to get to the finals.

Seeds sometimes don't correlate to rankings. Houston was 11 when they had 2 loses. That could be Memphis next year. I would love for Memphis to only have 2 losses next year but that could land us a 3/4

(07-16-2019 08:45 AM)rolexjames Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:33 AM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 10:29 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 08:26 AM)mairving Wrote:  Somewhere between 10 to 15 is a good place to start. Win a few games and boom we are top 10. Win a few more and we are top 5. Win them all and we are NCAA champions.

We can lose 10 and win national championship. Rankings don’t mean shite.

It's pretty silly to say that rankings mean nothing. They certainly get you exposure. For us having being ranked highly means that we are winning. If we are winning we get a better seed in the tournament. If we get a better seed it is oftentimes easier to get to the finals.

Seeds sometimes don't correlate to rankings. Houston was 11 when they had 2 loses. That could be Memphis next year. I would love for Memphis to only have 2 losses next year but that could land us a 3/4

Yeah, I know that. It's really more about the exposure of being a top 25 team. Unless we go undefeated next year a 1 seed is probably not possible. 3 is fine with me.

(07-16-2019 09:21 AM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:45 AM)rolexjames Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:33 AM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 10:29 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 08:26 AM)mairving Wrote:  Somewhere between 10 to 15 is a good place to start. Win a few games and boom we are top 10. Win a few more and we are top 5. Win them all and we are NCAA champions.

We can lose 10 and win national championship. Rankings don’t mean shite.

It's pretty silly to say that rankings mean nothing. They certainly get you exposure. For us having being ranked highly means that we are winning. If we are winning we get a better seed in the tournament. If we get a better seed it is oftentimes easier to get to the finals.

Seeds sometimes don't correlate to rankings. Houston was 11 when they had 2 loses. That could be Memphis next year. I would love for Memphis to only have 2 losses next year but that could land us a 3/4

Yeah, I know that. It's really more about the exposure of being a top 25 team. Unless we go undefeated next year a 1 seed is probably not possible. 3 is fine with me.

exposure? Its not 2000 anymore. Anyone that wants to know or watch us can via many different ways.

(07-13-2019 03:27 PM)PATiger Wrote:  

(07-13-2019 11:34 AM)presskh Wrote:  

(07-13-2019 11:18 AM)Galilee Wrote:  ESPN must be blind.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket...25-2019-20

Since we are depending on mostly freshmen for our team firepower and have a relatively inexperienced head coach, I think that is a fair starting position.

Plus losing Jeremiah Martin, Kyvon Davenport, Kareem Brewton Jr., Raynere Thornton, Mike Parks Jr., Antwann Jones, Wvin Olds, Victor Enoh, and David Wingett might have something to do with it.

Only Tyler Harris, Isaiah Maurice, and Alex Lomax return. That's got to be the least experienced team the university has fielded in a very, very long time.

Martin and Jones would have been the only players to get PT this year.

(07-16-2019 08:33 AM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 10:29 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 08:26 AM)mairving Wrote:  Somewhere between 10 to 15 is a good place to start. Win a few games and boom we are top 10. Win a few more and we are top 5. Win them all and we are NCAA champions.

We can lose 10 and win national championship. Rankings don’t mean shite.

It's pretty silly to say that rankings mean nothing. They certainly get you exposure. For us having being ranked highly means that we are winning. If we are winning we get a better seed in the tournament. If we get a better seed it is oftentimes easier to get to the finals.

We ranked 8th by KenPom and top 20 by AP and got a 8 seed vs St. Louis. Ranked 10th by AP in 85 and first round was AT LSU on their home floor LSU was an 11 seed. That says it all.

(07-16-2019 08:38 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:33 AM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 10:29 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 08:26 AM)mairving Wrote:  Somewhere between 10 to 15 is a good place to start. Win a few games and boom we are top 10. Win a few more and we are top 5. Win them all and we are NCAA champions.

We can lose 10 and win national championship. Rankings don’t mean shite.

It's pretty silly to say that rankings mean nothing. They certainly get you exposure. For us having being ranked highly means that we are winning. If we are winning we get a better seed in the tournament. If we get a better seed it is oftentimes easier to get to the finals.

We ranked 8th by KenPom and top 20 by AP and got a 8 seed vs St. Louis. Ranked 10th by AP in 85 and first round was AT LSU on their home floor LSU was an 11 seed. That says it all.

Ranked 2nd in Kenpom is 2008 and got a 1 seed so there's that.

(07-16-2019 09:08 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:38 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:33 AM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 10:29 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 08:26 AM)mairving Wrote:  Somewhere between 10 to 15 is a good place to start. Win a few games and boom we are top 10. Win a few more and we are top 5. Win them all and we are NCAA champions.

We can lose 10 and win national championship. Rankings don’t mean shite.

It's pretty silly to say that rankings mean nothing. They certainly get you exposure. For us having being ranked highly means that we are winning. If we are winning we get a better seed in the tournament. If we get a better seed it is oftentimes easier to get to the finals.

We ranked 8th by KenPom and top 20 by AP and got a 8 seed vs St. Louis. Ranked 10th by AP in 85 and first round was AT LSU on their home floor LSU was an 11 seed. That says it all.

Ranked 2nd in Kenpom is 2008 and got a 1 seed so there's that.

I would hope so. I think most would agree that over the years we haven’t got the greatest seeds. 83 and 84 Tournaments were we’re seeded to play Houston’s Phi Slamma Jamma team in S16. Two definite F4 contenders. So counting the LSU screw job in 86 l, we might have gone to 4 straight F4s with decent seeds in those years.

And then you have the Cal years when we lost to UCLA only 100 or so miles from their arena. And playing Texas in Texas in ‘08. A&M in Houston. I could go on but I think I’ve made a strong case that the Blue Bloods got the good seeds and even though we were as good if not better most years from 81-86, we were not seeded anywhere close to real.

(07-16-2019 09:28 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:08 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:38 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:33 AM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 10:29 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  We can lose 10 and win national championship. Rankings don’t mean shite.

It's pretty silly to say that rankings mean nothing. They certainly get you exposure. For us having being ranked highly means that we are winning. If we are winning we get a better seed in the tournament. If we get a better seed it is oftentimes easier to get to the finals.

We ranked 8th by KenPom and top 20 by AP and got a 8 seed vs St. Louis. Ranked 10th by AP in 85 and first round was AT LSU on their home floor LSU was an 11 seed. That says it all.

Ranked 2nd in Kenpom is 2008 and got a 1 seed so there's that.

I would hope so. I think most would agree that over the years we haven’t got the greatest seeds. 83 and 84 Tournaments were we’re seeded to player Houston’s Phi Slamma Jamma team in S16. Two definite F4 contenders. So counting the LSU screw job in 86 we might have gone to 4 straight F4s with decent seeds in those years.

And then you have the Cal years when we lost to UCLA only 100 or so miles from their arena. And playing Texas in Texas in ‘08. A&M in Houston. I could go on but I think I’ve made a strong case that the Blue Bloods got the good seeds and even though we were as good if not better most years from 81-86, we were not seeded anywhere close to real.

1983-84 was one of the more devastating injury years for the Tigers. They lost both Parks and Philips, and we were still deep enough to make a Sweet 16 run despite that. Bedford, Lee, Batman, Turner, Becton, Doom, etc. - we were loaded.

That team along with 1987-88 (Gray/Alexander fiasco), and 1992-93 (Vaughn injury) are the 3 seasons that really could have been special IMO but instead crushed my soul.

(07-16-2019 10:02 PM)SpiderMan79x Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:28 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:08 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:38 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:33 AM)mairving Wrote:  It's pretty silly to say that rankings mean nothing. They certainly get you exposure. For us having being ranked highly means that we are winning. If we are winning we get a better seed in the tournament. If we get a better seed it is oftentimes easier to get to the finals.

We ranked 8th by KenPom and top 20 by AP and got a 8 seed vs St. Louis. Ranked 10th by AP in 85 and first round was AT LSU on their home floor LSU was an 11 seed. That says it all.

Ranked 2nd in Kenpom is 2008 and got a 1 seed so there's that.

I would hope so. I think most would agree that over the years we haven’t got the greatest seeds. 83 and 84 Tournaments were we’re seeded to player Houston’s Phi Slamma Jamma team in S16. Two definite F4 contenders. So counting the LSU screw job in 86 we might have gone to 4 straight F4s with decent seeds in those years.

And then you have the Cal years when we lost to UCLA only 100 or so miles from their arena. And playing Texas in Texas in ‘08. A&M in Houston. I could go on but I think I’ve made a strong case that the Blue Bloods got the good seeds and even though we were as good if not better most years from 81-86, we were not seeded anywhere close to real.

1983-84 was one of the more devastating injury years for the Tigers. They lost both Parks and Philips, and we were still deep enough to make a Sweet 16 run despite that. Bedford, Lee, Batman, Turner, Becton, Doom, etc. - we were loaded.

That team along with 1987-88 (Gray/Alexander fiasco), and 1992-93 (Vaughn injury) are the 3 seasons that really could have been special IMO but instead crushed my soul.

Even if Vaughn had not been hurt, that 93 team did not have a DECENT PG other than Penny and Larry wouldn’t have utilized him the “modern” way at PG say like a Magic Johnson. If I recall, that team didn’t have to depth either. Lack of PG (Penny constantly double teamed) was why we lost to WKU in NCAAs.

The 87 team ironically got one of the greatest years in Tiger history in pure PG play (making teammates better) from Wilfong and that team developed more than most Tiger teams. We were on probation so couldn’t go to tournament but most thought Tigers were top 10 by the end of the year.

(07-17-2019 07:45 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 10:02 PM)SpiderMan79x Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:28 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:08 PM)mairving Wrote:  [quote='WiseMan' pid='16198006' dateline='1563327538']

We ranked 8th by KenPom and top 20 by AP and got a 8 seed vs St. Louis. Ranked 10th by AP in 85 and first round was AT LSU on their home floor LSU was an 11 seed. That says it all.

Ranked 2nd in Kenpom is 2008 and got a 1 seed so there's that.

I would hope so. I think most would agree that over the years we haven’t got the greatest seeds. 83 and 84 Tournaments were we’re seeded to player Houston’s Phi Slamma Jamma team in S16. Two definite F4 contenders. So counting the LSU screw job in 86 we might have gone to 4 straight F4s with decent seeds in those years.

And then you have the Cal years when we lost to UCLA only 100 or so miles from their arena. And playing Texas in Texas in ‘08. A&M in Houston. I could go on but I think I’ve made a strong case that the Blue Bloods got the good seeds and even though we were as good if not better most years from 81-86, we were not seeded anywhere close to real.

1983-84 was one of the more devastating injury years for the Tigers. They lost both Parks and Philips, and we were still deep enough to make a Sweet 16 run despite that. Bedford, Lee, Batman, Turner, Becton, Doom, etc. - we were loaded.

That team along with 1987-88 (Gray/Alexander fiasco), and 1992-93 (Vaughn injury) are the 3 seasons that really could have been special IMO but instead crushed my soul.

Even if Vaughn had not been hurt, that 93 team did not have a DECENT PG other than Penny and Larry wouldn’t have utilized him the “modern” way at PG say like a Magic Johnson. If I recall, that team didn’t have much quality depth either. Lack of PG (Penny constantly double teamed) was why we lost to WKU in NCAAs.

The 87 team ironically got one of the greatest years in Tiger history in pure PG play (making teammates better) from Wilfong and that team developed more than most Tiger teams. We were on probation so couldn’t go to tournament but most thought Tigers were top 10 by the end of the year.

The Texas game was in Texas (Houston), but the A&M game was in San Antonio.

And I recall Memphis State being up double digits on Arkansas when Vaughn got hurt. That injury changed the whole dynamic of what would have been an outstanding team. I don’t really understand the comment “didn’t have a decent point guard other than Penny.” That’s like saying, “our only legit center is Shaq.”

I just wish the logic applied to UNC's ranking was also applied to our ranking. What do they have that we do not?


UNC has #8 recruiting class (to our #1 of course)
UNC non-freshman are:
Leaky Black #71 recruit from 2018, 2.5 ppg and 10.3 minutes/g last year
Brandon Robinson #60 recruit 2016, 3.4 ppg, 11.8 mpg
Garrison Brooks #131 recruit from 2017 , 7.9 ppg, 23 mpg
(Tyler Harris was #131 2018)
Christian Keeling(tran) unranked recruit, 18.7 ppg, 32.2 mpg at Charleston Southern
Caleb Ellis unranked recruit, 0.5ppg, 1.5 mpg
Andrew Platek #217 recruit 2017, 1.1 ppg, 3.6 mpg
KJ Smith
Shea Rush unranked recruit, 0.1 ppg, 1.4 mpg
Brandon Huffman #193 recruit 2017, 1.1 ppg, 2.5 mpg
Ryan McAdo unranked recruit, 0.4 ppg, 1.8 mpg
Walker Miller #435 recruit 2017, 0.8 ppg, 1.6 mpg

How many ppg do/does (English....ahhhh) Roy Williams account for?

(07-18-2019 06:52 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  The Texas game was in Texas (Houston), but the A&M game was in San Antonio.

And I recall Memphis State being up double digits on Arkansas when Vaughn got hurt. That injury changed the whole dynamic of what would have been an thoutstanding team. I don’t really understand the comment “didn’t have a decent point guard other than Penny.” That’s like saying, “our only legit center is Shaq.”

Larry did not play Penny at PG-he had Tony Madlock then no one. You are basing that whole season on one half of basketball? Two probable AA but no PG. under Larry’s offense Penny would’ve been underutilized at PG.

(07-16-2019 09:28 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:08 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:38 PM)WiseMan Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:33 AM)mairving Wrote:  

(07-14-2019 10:29 AM)WiseMan Wrote:  We can lose 10 and win national championship. Rankings don’t mean shite.

It's pretty silly to say that rankings mean nothing. They certainly get you exposure. For us having being ranked highly means that we are winning. If we are winning we get a better seed in the tournament. If we get a better seed it is oftentimes easier to get to the finals.

We ranked 8th by KenPom and top 20 by AP and got a 8 seed vs St. Louis. Ranked 10th by AP in 85 and first round was AT LSU on their home floor LSU was an 11 seed. That says it all.

Ranked 2nd in Kenpom is 2008 and got a 1 seed so there's that.

I would hope so. I think most would agree that over the years we haven’t got the greatest seeds. 83 and 84 Tournaments were we’re seeded to play Houston’s Phi Slamma Jamma team in S16. Two definite F4 contenders. So counting the LSU screw job in 86 l, we might have gone to 4 straight F4s with decent seeds in those years.

And then you have the Cal years when we lost to UCLA only 100 or so miles from their arena. And playing Texas in Texas in ‘08. A&M in Houston. I could go on but I think I’ve made a strong case that the Blue Bloods got the good seeds and even though we were as good if not better most years from 81-86, we were not seeded anywhere close to real.

Actually, we played them in Oakland, which is more like 300 miles (think Memphis to Chattanooga), but nevertheless, was certainly UCLA home crowd.