In Reply to: Missing this posted by Dr.Bruin on June 24, 2025 at 13:11:42
More length at the five only if the 3 transfers prove to be effective. Still a huge question mark. One hasn't shown he can be effective at the D1 level beyond marginal contributions and that was at a sort of stretch 4. No one knows if can perform at the low post 5 on any level. The other 2 new fives haven't performed an entire season at the high D1 level yet. Who knows how that will play out even with added height.
No one knows just how deep this team will be. It could go 10 strong or the depth could be effectively only four (although I doubt that would be the case). The point is there are so many unanswered questions that no one (particularly those making predictions) has any idea.
I disagree that Brown is the only major question mark. I think that list (for various reasons and to various levels) could and maybe should include; Brown, Jamerson, Peoples, Booker, Williams, Perry, Dailey, Freeny, and Alston. That's nine out of 12 scholarship level players. The statistics concerning the returnees is not incorrect and it certainly gives UCLA some things to build on. Also, adding Dent is a huge positive as well. Despite all of this UCLA, IMO, is a team transition. We don't know how good they can be. If everything goes in a positive way and potential is reached or nearly so this team could be quite good. If, however, those question marks aren't answered in a positive way this team could be something way south of good. Time will tell. In the meantime I choose to take those early predictions with a huge grain of salt and maybe the best thing is not even consider them at all. IMO this upcoming UCLA team's fortunes and future are indeterminate.