So are we competitive now? For one game at least?

It was a nice win, but we beat the 2nd or 3rd worst team in the Pac. That should be a given, not a cause for gloating.

concernedparent said:

---

It was a nice win, but we beat the 2nd or 3rd worst team in the Pac. That should be a given, not a cause for gloating.

---

Utah beat Stanford. Beating Utah on the road is an indication we are not the worst team in the conference. I'll take it. Moreover, we are now on track to best Wyking Jones Pac-12 wins in his worst year.

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

It was a nice win, but we beat the 2nd or 3rd worst team in the Pac. That should be a given, not a cause for gloating.

---

Utah beat Stanford. Beating Utah on the road is an indication we are not the worst team in the conference. I'll take it. Moreover, we are now on track to best Wyking Jones Pac-12 wins in his worst year.

---

...if you unplugged an All PAC 12 Team player from the PAC 12 teams that have one, they would be grinding a bit more. Yes, the program has a lot of work to do, but that win from behind, on the road, without Bradley, is not insignificant. I can think of a Cal coach, or two, that lose that game by 25 points, easy.

When is the last time every player on a Cal team scored in a league game? I have no memory of seeing it before.

SFCityBear said:

---

So are we competitive now? For one game at least?

---

Relentless D drives undermanned O. It has always been thus.

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

It was a nice win, but we beat the 2nd or 3rd worst team in the Pac. That should be a given, not a cause for gloating.

---

Utah beat Stanford. Beating Utah on the road is an indication we are not the worst team in the conference. I'll take it. Moreover, we are now on track to best Wyking Jones Pac-12 wins in his worst year.

---

LOL at how low your standards are.

I feel like the team actually plays better without Bradley. Not sure why, but it feels more like team ball.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

I feel like the team actually plays better without Bradley. Not sure why, but it feels more like team ball.

---

Agreed - and I think you answered your own question.

Bradley is a dominant player. No one else on the team fits that bill. So when Bradley is in or available, I think the rest of the team defer to that and maybe curb (a bit) their individual need to step up. When he's not available, they all seem to step up.

Offensively, he's our best player, so I think it is natural for team players to default to getting the ball in his hands. When he is not available, they are looking to others. Since there isn't a clear cut #2 - the offense is spread around more and voila! team ball.

I'm not suggesting that any of this is the fault of the coaches, Bradley or any of the players. That is just how things often work when you have one player who is a level above the rest (and that player isn't a pass first point guard).

A bit of silver lining is that with Bradley cheering from the sidelines for a few games - the team may improve and possibly retain much of that improvement when Bradley returns.

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

It was a nice win, but we beat the 2nd or 3rd worst team in the Pac. That should be a given, not a cause for gloating.

---

Utah beat Stanford. Beating Utah on the road is an indication we are not the worst team in the conference. I'll take it. Moreover, we are now on track to best Wyking Jones Pac-12 wins in his worst year.

---

LOL at how low your standards are.

---

When you're lousy, the next step up is "less lousy". At that point, you're only a couple of levels away from "mediocre"!

(tryin' to avoid the "c word" here... )

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

It was a nice win, but we beat the 2nd or 3rd worst team in the Pac. That should be a given, not a cause for gloating.

---

Utah beat Stanford. Beating Utah on the road is an indication we are not the worst team in the conference. I'll take it. Moreover, we are now on track to best Wyking Jones Pac-12 wins in his worst year.

---

LOL at how low your standards are.

---

I've made it abundantly clear I am not happy with mediocrity. I want a team that regularly makes the NCAA Tournament and at least occasionally advances beyond the first weekend. I'd rather have taken a chance on a young up and comer than hire a coach that was unable to win a single NCAA tournament game in 9 years at a power conference school located in a recruiting hotbed.

However, I root for our players always. I don't like being negative. I want to recognize improvement when I see it. I honestly thought we might be the worst team in the league after we lost to the teams I thought might be worse. It now appears we are not the worst team. The Utah win on the road was a good one for these players.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

It was a nice win, but we beat the 2nd or 3rd worst team in the Pac. That should be a given, not a cause for gloating.

---

So saying we are competitive = gloating?

---

The tone of the OP is obviously gloating. We're competitive with the worst teams in the Pac 12. Fantastic.

---

The "tone" was a result of SFCity's original post being blasted by cynics, because he simply commented that Cal's team was competitive.

Cal is a obviously a sub par team this year. But anybody who WATCHES them play this year knows that the team is competitive. Saturday night was a good example. Its not that complicated.

---

I watch them from time to time. They are good kids, they play hard, some of them will have nice careers overseas, all of them will be successful in life. But they aren't competing for a title in the conference (let alone the national stage), which is what most people mean when they say a college team is competitive. Using some tortured, Scalia-esque, dictionary.com definition of "competitive" doesn't change that.

BeachedBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

I feel like the team actually plays better without Bradley. Not sure why, but it feels more like team ball.

---

Agreed - and I think you answered your own question.

Bradley is a dominant player. No one else on the team fits that bill. So when Bradley is in or available, I think the rest of the team defer to that and maybe curb (a bit) their individual need to step up. When he's not available, they all seem to step up.

Offensively, he's our best player, so I think it is natural for team players to default to getting the ball in his hands. When he is not available, they are looking to others. Since there isn't a clear cut #2 - the offense is spread around more and voila! team ball.

I'm not suggesting that any of this is the fault of the coaches, Bradley or any of the players. That is just how things often work when you have one player who is a level above the rest (and that player isn't a pass first point guard).

A bit of silver lining is that with Bradley cheering from the sidelines for a few games - the team may improve and possibly retain much of that improvement when Bradley returns.

---

It is the coaching though, IMO. Either the coaches are telling them to look to him as the option, or they need to work on getting them to realize that the whole team needs to develop and play together consistently instead of putting all our eggs in Matt's basket.

Dear Concerned: At this point in your life, you are no longer a fan. what you say, is, technically correct, or, at least arguable. But, when you are a fan, being technically correct is never a consideration. You are, by definition, emotionally committed to the team ( any enterprise really) and objective reality has no place in your radar system. "hope springs eternal', right????Cal fans have been beating dead horses for about 60 years. The beatings will continue even if we run out of horses. INOW, you believe what you believe because you have a terrific need to believe what you believe.

concernedparent said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

It was a nice win, but we beat the 2nd or 3rd worst team in the Pac. That should be a given, not a cause for gloating.

---

So saying we are competitive = gloating?

---

The tone of the OP is obviously gloating. We're competitive with the worst teams in the Pac 12. Fantastic.

---

The "tone" was a result of SFCity's original post being blasted by cynics, because he simply commented that Cal's team was competitive.

Cal is a obviously a sub par team this year. But anybody who WATCHES them play this year knows that the team is competitive. Saturday night was a good example. Its not that complicated.

---

I watch them from time to time. They are good kids, they play hard, some of them will have nice careers overseas, all of them will be successful in life. But they aren't competing for a title in the conference (let alone the national stage), which is what most people mean when they say a college team is competitive. Using some tortured, Scalia-esque, dictionary.com definition of "competitive" doesn't change that.

---

Concerned. Reasonable post, but I would say that is your definition of 'competitive'

mine is different.

One test is you walking into a team meeting and telling the players they are not competitive. Would you be willing to do that?

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

It was a nice win, but we beat the 2nd or 3rd worst team in the Pac. That should be a given, not a cause for gloating.

---

So saying we are competitive = gloating?

---

The tone of the OP is obviously gloating. We're competitive with the worst teams in the Pac 12. Fantastic.

---

The "tone" was a result of SFCity's original post being blasted by cynics, because he simply commented that Cal's team was competitive.

Cal is a obviously a sub par team this year. But anybody who WATCHES them play this year knows that the team is competitive. Saturday night was a good example. Its not that complicated.

---

I watch them from time to time. They are good kids, they play hard, some of them will have nice careers overseas, all of them will be successful in life. But they aren't competing for a title in the conference (let alone the national stage), which is what most people mean when they say a college team is competitive. Using some tortured, Scalia-esque, dictionary.com definition of "competitive" doesn't change that.

---

Concerned. Reasonable post, but I would say that is your definition of 'competitive'

mine is different.

One test is you walking into a team meeting and telling the players they are not competitive. Would you be willing to do that?

---

I wouldn't tell my cousin she's not pretty, but that doesn't mean she is.

---

well if you posted that she is not pretty on twitter that she reads, you would be telling her indirectly

HoopDreams said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

It was a nice win, but we beat the 2nd or 3rd worst team in the Pac. That should be a given, not a cause for gloating.

---

So saying we are competitive = gloating?

---

The tone of the OP is obviously gloating. We're competitive with the worst teams in the Pac 12. Fantastic.

---

The "tone" was a result of SFCity's original post being blasted by cynics, because he simply commented that Cal's team was competitive.

Cal is a obviously a sub par team this year. But anybody who WATCHES them play this year knows that the team is competitive. Saturday night was a good example. Its not that complicated.

---

I watch them from time to time. They are good kids, they play hard, some of them will have nice careers overseas, all of them will be successful in life. But they aren't competing for a title in the conference (let alone the national stage), which is what most people mean when they say a college team is competitive. Using some tortured, Scalia-esque, dictionary.com definition of "competitive" doesn't change that.

---

Concerned. Reasonable post, but I would say that is your definition of 'competitive'

mine is different.

One test is you walking into a team meeting and telling the players they are not competitive. Would you be willing to do that?

---

I wouldn't tell my cousin she's not pretty, but that doesn't mean she is.

---

well if you posted that she is not pretty on twitter that she reads, you would be telling her indirectly

---

Good point. That's probably why it's best advised for players to stay away from anonymous fan sites. That said, I think our Bears are competitive in trying to get out of BDW status. Yes, they appear to compete hard in all games (didn't see the Buff game), but don't appear to be competitive in all of them.