Who was to blame for the Lakers overtime collapse in Game 4?  Was Kobe hogging the ball, or were his teammates too passive?  I just screened the videotape of every Lakers offensive possession in overtime and concluded that early in overtime, it was Kobe's teammates who were to blame by standing around and not doing enough to present him with passing targets to continue the offensive rhythm of the offense.  After a few of those early possessions, however, I do feel it was Kobe's fault. 

In my opinion, he was too impatient to drive to the basket instead of having the offense run in rhythm.  The most egregious sequence of Kobe ignoring his teammates was when the Lakers had the ball down four with 2:10 left, which I will detail more below.  He had tunnel vision on a drive to the basket, not looking for his teammates, had his shot blocked out of bounds, and then jacked up a difficult jumper right off the ensuing inbound pass and missed.  One constant was excellent Utah defense, plugging up potential passing lanes throughout overtime. 

Below you will find my notes on each Lakers offensive possession of overtime that I took while watching the tape.  FYI ... the Lakers were 2-10 from the field in overtime.  Lamar was 1-1, Pau and Sasha were 0-1, and Kobe was 1-7.

Leave me a comment and share your point of view on the Lakers OT of horrors.

1st LAL offensive possession of overtime.  Kobe flashes out high, makes a nice pass to Odom cutting to the post, and Odom is fouled by Okur.

Off inbound pass, Kobe gets it out front isolated on Kirilenko.  Everyone else is cleared out of the lane.  Kobe can't drive on Kirilenko because of his back.  Everyone else stands around for three seconds.  No one cuts or moves off the ball.  Kobe attempts a tough jumper and misses.  BLAME = Kobe's teammates.

Kobe gets ball right of the lane, posted up on Kirilenko about 17 feet away.  Everyone else clears out.  He's isolated.  No substantial movement off the ball for five seconds.  Gasol comes to the pinch post but that's it.  Kobe then paints himself into a corner by driving into traffic with five seconds still left on the shot clock.  Had his shot easily blocked by Kirilenko.  At that point, he had Gasol open at the elbow, and maybe Fisher on the wing for a three.  BLAME = Kobe's teammates early in the possession, Kobe himself late.

Kobe passed the ball inside to Pau, makes great pivot but misses a tough reverse dunk. 

Interesting sequence.  Lakers start to run their offense well with good flowing passing.  Kobe and Pau try to work a screen and roll and their angles weren't very good to begin with, and Kobe's pass to Pau is cut off.  A potential pass to Sasha is cut off by good Utah hustling defense.  Possession than totally breaks down with the shot clock winding down.  Sasha is placed in the unusual position of trying to break down the defense off the dribble, and he makes a bad pass and turns it over.  Actually, Sasha could have rolled the ball to Pau on a pick and roll, but didn't see the small window he had to make the pass.  Odom was even pointing for Vujacic to pass to Pau!  When Sasha finally did pass, Pau wasn't expecting it.  BLAME = great Utah defense early, Sasha and Pau late.

Lakers down four with 2:10 left.  Kobe gets a high screen from Gasol, tunnels to the basket and has his shot easily rejected by Kirilenko again.  BLAME = Kobe all the way.  I wish some players would realize that they still have time on the shot clock.  They have time to peel back and reset. 

Kobe gets it off the inbound pass on the right wing with :12 to shoot.  Doesn't even wait for Pau to come over and set a screen.  Bombs a low percentage shot from the wing and misses.  BLAME = Kobe all the way.

Kobe works pick and roll out front.  Makes a tough drive to the basket and scores on a gorgeous leaning lefthanded lay-up.  However, he didn't even look for any of his teammates this time.  And for once, his teammates were making the effort to move off the ball, but they stopped when Kobe started dribbling by himself for a few seconds because it was obvious he was going to take it on his own.  The ball stopped and the rest of them just stood around watching.  BLAME = Kobe.  Even though he made a beautiful shot, this possession perfectly captured the offensive problem in overtime.  But down two with 1:20 left, still time. 

By the way, on the pick and roll preceding the jam and the and-one by Kirilenko, Carlos Boozer appeared to totally set an illegal screen on Derek Fisher.

Kobe inbounds to Gasol.  Kobe gets it back.  Gets double screen from Gasol and Odom, drives to the basket.  Can't kick out to Fisher because pass is covered.  Can't roll it back to Gasol or Odom because those lanes are covered.  Still plenty of time on shot clock though, but I think Kobe had to go for broke because they were down five with only 30 seconds left.  BLAME = Great Utah defense, no blame to Kobe. 

Kobe desperate three pointer.  Fouled, shoots three.

Lakers spread the floor well.  Vujacic penetrates, kicks to Odom for driving dunk, conceded by Utah. 

Kobe misses desperation running three.

Just listened in on Norm Chow's first conference call since being hired by UCLA.  Just like with DeWayne Walker, Norm Chow was "recruited" by Rick Neuheisel as well.

Chow considered going back to the NFL, or simply taking the year off from coaching, "but then," he said, "I got a phone call from a very persuasive fella."

It continued with two de facto "recruiting visits" when Neuheisel and Walker went to Chow's house here in Southern California this past Friday and Saturday nights, and, as Neuheisel put it, "sat there in his living room and shared the vision (for UCLA football) with his family."

And now, the UCLA program has an unusual, but potentially amazing arrangement.  I have never heard of a new head coach, whose defensive coordinator, and whose new offensive coordinator, were both interviewed for the job he just got.  What's next, Temple's Al Golden as the new special teams coach?

"The three of us are going to be partners in a start up company that has a huge upside," Neuheisel said.

Looks like this start up has the potential to become college football's Google.

Like the swallows returning to Capistrano, rumors of Pete Carroll's return to the NFL have become an annual event.

For me, it brings back warm memories of visiting http://www.flightaware.com, a web-site that allows you to track the movements of any plane in the country. Ah yes, I remember that magical moment when I found that Miami Dolphins owner Wayne Huizenga's private plane was heading to Costa Rica ... coincidentally where Carroll was on vacation at that very moment! Unfortunately, this year, I haven't yet been able to find the tail number of Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank's private jet, so if it's headed to Hawaii, where Carroll is vacationing, I'll be none the wiser.

My opinion is that Carroll is not going to the NFL this off-season, and certainly not to the Falcons. I think a number of factors must be present for Carroll to even think about leaving. He must be given complete control of the program. It must be an attractive location, like Los Angeles (if we ever get another team), San Francisco (where he's from), San Diego, etc. (not Dallas if Jerry Jones still owns the team). And finally, it must be an organization that has a high probability of being a championship contender in the short and long term. All these factors must be present, in my mind, for Carroll to consider leaving ... which is far from a guarantee that he actually would leave. Remember, last year with the Dolphins, Carroll didn't consider leaving, he just agreed to listen to what they had to say.

I get the sense that there is still a tiny part of Carroll that is intrigued by the NFL, but that is outweighed by his love for coaching at USC right now. In the last year or so, Carroll came up with sort of a slogan for what he wants to do at USC - "Win Forever". He is challenging himself to forever continue the dominance that he's enjoyed at USC over the past seven years ... essentially for the next 15-20 years until he retires. If they are able to continue that domination and indeed, "win forever", when he eventually retires, USC will probably be playing in the Pete Carroll Coliseum.

I'll leave you with this thought. In the past few years, when Carroll is asked about a player who is considering leaving college early to go to the NFL, he remarks that most of Carroll's former USC players who go on to the pros feel that although the NFL is great, it is still a job and a business, and it's simply not nearly as fun as playing in college. Even though the players are the ones saying that, I get the sense that Carroll feels the same way.

The culture that Carroll has created at USC seems so special and so fun and so unique, why would he want to give that up right now ... especially for the Falcons?

USC presented the Rose Bowl with a one year lease proposal at the Rose Bowl Operating Company's monthly meeting Thursday night. 

The RBOC did not take any action on the proposal, meaning they did not accept or reject it.  Their official comment was essentially that it is in their best interests at this time to allow USC to continue its negotiations with the Coliseum.  Their point of view is also, in effect, we don't mind having USC as a tenant, but ONLY if it's cool with UCLA.

Therefore, the next step for USC, in addition to continuing to try to negotiate with the Coliseum, is to meet with UCLA and show them the lease agreement.  If UCLA signs off on it, then USC will go back to the Rose Bowl and try to finalize an agreement.

According to the statement Dan Guerrero put out recently, UCLA wouldn't mind having USC at the Rose Bowl, but only for one year, and only if it does not slight UCLA's presence at the Rose Bowl in any way.

I don't remember the exact date, but there is one date in 2008 when both UCLA and USC are scheduled for home games on the same day.  In that case, with UCLA as the number one Rose Bowl tenant, my guess is that UCLA would keep the home game, and that USC would essentially be out of luck for that day and have to figure out something else.  Who knows, they might have to give up that as a home game and play whoever their opponent is on the road, instead.

Here's what I don't get, and Joe McDonnell made a great point in bringing this up last night.  It's obvious that if USC is going to play in the Rose Bowl, it's only going to be for one year.  UCLA will not allow USC to play there longer than that, according to Dan Guerrero's statement.  In that case, USC has no leverage after the 2008 season.  If they can't play in the Rose Bowl after 2008, there is nowhere else for them to play but the Coliseum. 

The only alternative, as I said last night, is to pull a Jack Kent Cooke.  In the late 60's, Cooke was in a dispute with the Coliseum Commission when his Lakers and Kings played in the Sports Arena.  Cooke solved the dispute ... by building his own arena, the Forum in Inglewood. 

It's unrealistic that USC would build it's own stadium for many reasons.  That's why I thought that they should partner up with the AEG people.  It'll never happen, but indulge me for a second.  AEG wanted to build a new football stadium for the NFL a few years ago downtown but it got squashed by politicians.  If AEG and USC partner up to build a football stadium in downtown L.A., it already would have a guaranteed tenant in USC, and I'm convinced that an NFL team would follow shortly thereafter.  Again, it'll never happen, but something like that is the only scenario that would give USC long term leverage over the Coliseum in their current dispute.

The standoff between USC and the Coliseum is getting pretty interesting.  The Coliseum Commission's first public response came this afternoon, in a news conference held by Coliseum general manager Pat Lynch.  You can listen to the news conference in its entirety in our podcast section. 

The most interesting thing that came out of it, at least to me, was a couple of letters that were handed out at the press conference. 

One was a letter from USC to the Coliseum Commission asking for a two year extension on their current lease, meaning USC would play there in 2008 and 2009.  The other was a letter from the Coliseum Commission to USC accepting the proposal.  Even though it was agreed to in the series of letters, the agreement was never officially signed, meaning this Saturday's game could be USC's last in the Coliseum. 

What's notable about the letters is that on it's official web page promoting its cause, http://www.usc.edu/about/coliseum, there are a bunch of documents posted detailing the correspondence between the Coliseum Commission and USC, but it omitted both of the letters we obtained from the Coliseum Commission today.

In any event, USC's flirtations with the Rose Bowl appear to be more than saber rattling, at least to me.  Below, you will find statements from USC Athletic Director Mike Garrett, UCLA Athletic Director Dan Guerrero, and Rose Bowl General Manager Darryl Dunn outlining their respective positions...

An Open Letter from Mike Garrett to the Trojan Family

November 28, 2007

Dear Fellow Trojans:

It gives me no pleasure to write a letter of this kind, but there are issues facing our university that you need to understand. The University of Southern California has been negotiating diligently for months, trying to renew USC's lease with the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, and trying to get guarantees that USC's football team and fans can enjoy home games in a completely renovated and improved stadium.

Unfortunately, talks are at an impasse, and right now we have no lease for the Coliseum next year. As a precaution, USC has negotiated a lease with the Rose Bowl to ensure that we have an acceptable stadium in which to play our home football games for the foreseeable future.

But this arrangement is not what we want. We want our football program to remain at the Coliseum. And we want the Coliseum Commission - our "landlords" who manage the stadium - to begin the long overdue rehabilitation of the Coliseum.

You all know the many things that need attention:

Complete replacement of concession facilities to afford modern food and beverage services like those offered at all major stadiums.
Replacement of, and additions to, the currently inadequate restroom facilities.
All new, state-of-the-art video and score boards.
Replacement of the grossly inadequate sound system.
Improved access through renovated and replaced stairs, elevators and escalators.
Repair of crumbling concrete stairs, walkways and infrastructure.
Replacement of all seats.
Reconfiguration of entry gates in order to move fans in and out of the stadium safely and efficiently.

This isn't just about people's comfort and enjoyment; it's about the long-term viability of the structure. It's old and worn out. And it is not being used to its fullest potential by the wider community.

USC has been waiting - I believe patiently - ten years for the Commission to do this, but they have not taken the necessary steps, and they will not promise to do so anytime soon. For a decade the nine-member Coliseum Commission has hoped to attract an NFL franchise to the stadium. Their plan has been that the NFL would pay for renovations. There was a clear message from the NFL last summer stating that "notwithstanding all of our best efforts to identify a mutually acceptable solution, we have determined that the Coliseum renovation project, as currently contemplated, would create significant economic risks for the NFL such that we are not prepared to move forward with the project at this time."

The Coliseum Commission asked USC to submit a proposal. So we did. We made them what I think is an amazing offer. USC offered to spend $100 million to repair and improve the stadium on a ten-year plan, phasing in renovations each year. In return, we requested a master lease that would allow us to play football in the Coliseum for many years. We asked to participate in making decisions regarding the Coliseum and to be given opportunities that would allow us to offset our outlay of money by controlling more of the stadium's revenues. And we'd help make sure the Coliseum has a full life all year round, with entertainment and sporting events, both large and small, not just the six home games for the USC football team.

But the Coliseum Commission rejected our offer.

Our team deserves a great stadium. So do our fans. So do the people of Los Angeles.

The Coliseum Commission is made up of representatives from the city, the county and the state. They need to know how you feel about this. I believe that our voices will be heard if we work through our elected officials. I urge you to e-mail, fax or phone the appropriate official asking them to:

Let USC direct and fund the Coliseum's refurbishment in partnership with the city, the county and the state.
Let USC, in collaboration with the Coliseum Commission, determine and perform vital repairs while ensuring steady income to offset expenses and upkeep.
Let USC be more than a tenant - USC already brings in 60 percent of the Commission's revenue and has been the only steady tenant for 80 years! We seek to be a key player in the preservation and enhancement of this great civic treasure and historic landmark. Remind them that for 80 years USC has stayed while other teams have gone, and that our home games spark spending in the neighborhood each fall to the tune of approximately $5 million. And that, in total, USC contributes $4 billion to the local economy each year.
If you'd like to join me in taking action, click here and you'll get the names of the people to contact.

Your support of and commitment to the University of Southern California is invaluable. Together, let's continue to work hard to keep the USC football program in our beloved Coliseum.

Thank you for caring about this issue and for expressing your concerns.

Yours truly,

Michael L. Garrett
Director of Athletics
University of Southern California

STATEMENT FROM UCLA ATHLETIC DIRECTOR
DAN GUERRERO

This statement is to clarify UCLA's position regarding the possibility of USC becoming a temporary secondary tenant at the Rose Bowl.

First, there is no agreement in place. At the request of USC, UCLA permitted USC to have preliminary discussions with the Rose Bowl regarding the possibility of temporary usage while it continues to negotiate with the Coliseum Commission. This is where the matter presently stands.

Any possible agreement would be for one year and subject to approval by UCLA. No long-term arrangement between USC and the Rose Bowl would even be considered by UCLA. Our position as the primary tenant is protected by our long-term lease, which runs through 2023.

Any temporary usage by USC at the Rose Bowl would have to be non-impactful on UCLA, our football program and our fans. Any such arrangement would have to ensure that the integrity of the UCLA football experience for our team and fans would not be compromised in any way. The Rose Bowl is UCLA's home venue and the occupancy of any additional tenant on a temporary basis, if approved by UCLA, must be clearly secondary to that concept.

I feel that it is in the best interest of college football in Southern California for each institution to have its own home stadium and I remain hopeful that USC and the Coliseum Commission can reach a satisfactory accord.

Rose Bowl Operating Company

Darryl Dunn
General Manager

STATEMENT BY DARRYL DUNN
GENERAL MANAGER OF THE ROSE BOWL

We have been approached by the University of Southern California related to playing its home games at the Rose Bowl on a short-term basis but we have made no commitments in any fashion.

Our primary tenant at the Rose Bowl is UCLA and we have an excellent relationship and working agreement with the university. UCLA has exclusive college football rights as part of its long-term agreement with the Rose Bowl and would have to approve USC playing its home games in the Rose Bowl.

The governing body of the Rose Bowl is the Rose Bowl Operating Company and our board of directors will be meeting next Thursday evening. We plan to hold a limited discussion of any potential lease negotiation in closed, executive session at the meeting.

In accord with California's open meeting laws, there would be an announcement in open session of any reportable action taken. However, at this time it is highly unlikely that any final action will be taken or reported.

We have kept UCLA informed of any and all discussions we have had with USC related to its plans for home games in the near future. Our discussions with USC have been at a preliminary stage of negotiation.

We are open to assisting USC on a short-term basis if this meets with the desires of UCLA and our board of directors of the Rose Bowl Operating Company.