Quote:

---

It is a pretty bad situation that no one cares enough to be upset.

---

Yep. But in my case the isolation forced by COVID-19 has sapped my interest more than the quality of play. Our women are doing even worse, though they have better excuses and a brighter future. But I'd be posting several times a day if I could be there and feel more involved.

NathanAllen said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

I guess my view is that Martin's last year, and the two years under Jones, were not just a dumpster fire, but tires burning underground. Given those three years, it seems like you have to give Fox three years to try and climb out of the hole. He's only in year two, and that doesn't count what weight can be put on this season regarding the COVID impacts.

I think a real measure will be the two games against Stanford next week, since hopefully by then Bradley will be back at full strength, which means we'll finally have the complete healthy line-up that was projected at the start of the season.

---

I get some fans are still upset about the way Martin's time ended in Berkeley, but to call a 21-13 season that had Ivan Rabb, Jabari Bird, and Grant Mullins worse than a dumpster fire is insane. Calling the two years with Jones a dumpster fire? That makes sense.

---

Agree that Martin's last year wasn't a dumpster fire. What he did to the roster was a dumpster fire. And I was on his side and hoped it would work out. But you can't just complain about admissions and then keep recruiting guys they won't take. Maybe they should take them. Maybe they shouldn't. But he needed to work within the limitations he had.

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

According to Sagarin's algorithms based on all the data being treated equally, Cal is #144 in Predictor and #143 in Golden Mean. This is #12 in the PAC-12.

However, In the model that weights more recent data more heavily, Recent, Cal is #133 showing we have improved somewhat as the season has progressed thus far. Cal is #9 in the PAC-12 in Recent, not so much because of Cal's improvement, but the collapse of Arizona State (#164), Washington State (#161), and Washington (#162).

Good shot at another win coming up

---

God, we are even more horrible than I thought.

And what happened to the Pac-12 in general!?

---

If you want to feel better, go back and look where Cal was in 2018 and 2019.

As for the conference, it has really slid over the past decade. I'm not really sure why. Outside of California, it's not super talent-rich compared to other parts of the country, but teams like Oregon, Arizona, UCLA, UW, and USC always seem to bring in a lot of new talent each year. Perhaps someone else has better insights, but for whatever reasons, Pac-12 schools have consistently underperformed compared to their Power 5 conference counterparts over the past 10 years or so.

---

I was going to say... maybe more horrible than dimitrig thought, but less horrible than before. If Fox is looking for a marketing slogan, perhaps we've stumbled onto something: "Cal Basketball -- Less and less horrible!"

Seriously, we were getting BLOWN OUT by nobodies. And our rankings... I didn't even know there were that many teams! At least we're trending up.

---

In Jones' last year we were 3-15 in conference averaging losing by 10.5 points and we were virtually unanimous Jones had to go. So far this year we are 2-8 in conference averaging losing by 8.5 points. What a difference 2 points makes.

Edit to add:

It is the middle of the conference season. Over the last 43 hours on the primary fan board for Cal basketball there have been exactly 6 posts about the current Cal basketball team. 12 if you count a discussion regarding the cable providers the games are on.

Anyone see a problem?

---

Apples to apples: Jones' last year, ten games in to conference, we were 0-10, were we not? Notably lower national rankings, too.

Still, I get the point: We're still not very good and fan interest is at a low ebb. At this point, I don't know what else to do except to wait until the incremental improvement plateaus and then make a change. In the meantime, let's enjoy the journey up to mediocre!

---

So just remember then that we finished the season very strong with 3 wins in a row including over a ranked team and a close loss in the PAC 12 tournament. I personally wouldn't look at it that way, but Cal finished 2019 a much better team than it started.

---

If you really want to bring Jones back, I think he's available - give him a call. Otherwise, not sure why you keep picking at that scab. The twelve of us still posting haven't forgotten.

---

I vehemently argued for Jones' firing. I'm being consistent based on results. I'm challenging the universal narrative of the twelve of you that there has been significant improvement. The data says otherwise.

---

Actually, the data do show improvements, probably just not to your expectations yet, which is understandable based on recent history of the program.

Here's a macro look:

Overall Kenpom rank:

2018: 244
2019: 241
2020: 153
2021 (through the 17 games played): 144

Kenpom adjusted offensive efficiency rank:

2018: 296
2019: 192
2020: 195
2021: 130

Kenpom adjusted defensive efficiency rank:

2018: 181
2019: 286
2020: 130
2021: 160

So the data say, objectively and overall, the program/team has been improving. The defense has for sure been a disappointment this year, especially considering that is what Fox is traditionally known as being better at coaching. But I think we'll continue to see improvements as the season progresses and Cal's data/metrics will improve.

Now, I get the overall frustration. Cal hasn't had a team ranked worse in Kenpom than the rankings above since the 2004-2005 season, when the Bears were No. 141. Cal's only had one other season since that time where it wasn't ranked within Kenpom's top-100 (No. 113 in 2014-2015, Martin's first year), but even that year Cal finished with an 18-15 record.

I guess it kind of depends on what your definition of "significant improvement" is. But to say there haven't been any improvements and that the data back that up is objectively not true. If you look at other data-based college hoops measurements, it shows the same story. For example, Bart Torvik's metrics have Cal going from No. 244 to No. 241 to No. 143 to No. 137 over the past four seasons, including this one.

I also realize the win/loss record doesn't reflect improvement, but a lot of that has to do with the circumstances of this season (abbreviated non-con season, playing two conference games in early December, injuries to key players, etc.). Not to make excuses, but a team can be objectively better than its record shows.

---

I would argue that a more relevant rank is what we rank among power conferences. I don't think it shows big improvement to overtake 100 CYO basketball teams. If you are a power conference team in the mid 100's in sagarin, you are in bad shape. Passing 100 teams who should never compete with you doesn't say much. That is like saying last year the Pirates were the 50th best professional baseball team and now they are 30th best because they passed up all the minor league teams shows significant improvement. Wyking Jones had to be a special kind of bad to drop to the mid 200's behind 100 teams that can't compete in a power conference. That is why a slightly better win percentage and 2 points per game bumps a power conference team up 100 spots. That is a confluence of a totally depleted roster and a completely disorganized system. Fox walked in and increased it by 100 places by being anybody but Wyking. I'd argue that there are maybe 5 Division 1 coaches that would have failed to do that. We are barely improved from last year depending on the metric you want to use. That is basically achieved on a young team like we had by getting a year older. We are worse in national Sagarin. Worse in Sagarin among power conference teams. As I said elsewhere, we are 85 out of 87 power conference teams in Sagarin. That is not significant improvement. Tell me when it gets to 60 (which would still be awful).

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

According to Sagarin's algorithms based on all the data being treated equally, Cal is #144 in Predictor and #143 in Golden Mean. This is #12 in the PAC-12.

However, In the model that weights more recent data more heavily, Recent, Cal is #133 showing we have improved somewhat as the season has progressed thus far. Cal is #9 in the PAC-12 in Recent, not so much because of Cal's improvement, but the collapse of Arizona State (#164), Washington State (#161), and Washington (#162).

Good shot at another win coming up

---

God, we are even more horrible than I thought.

And what happened to the Pac-12 in general!?

---

If you want to feel better, go back and look where Cal was in 2018 and 2019.

As for the conference, it has really slid over the past decade. I'm not really sure why. Outside of California, it's not super talent-rich compared to other parts of the country, but teams like Oregon, Arizona, UCLA, UW, and USC always seem to bring in a lot of new talent each year. Perhaps someone else has better insights, but for whatever reasons, Pac-12 schools have consistently underperformed compared to their Power 5 conference counterparts over the past 10 years or so.

---

I was going to say... maybe more horrible than dimitrig thought, but less horrible than before. If Fox is looking for a marketing slogan, perhaps we've stumbled onto something: "Cal Basketball -- Less and less horrible!"

Seriously, we were getting BLOWN OUT by nobodies. And our rankings... I didn't even know there were that many teams! At least we're trending up.

---

In Jones' last year we were 3-15 in conference averaging losing by 10.5 points and we were virtually unanimous Jones had to go. So far this year we are 2-8 in conference averaging losing by 8.5 points. What a difference 2 points makes.

Edit to add:

It is the middle of the conference season. Over the last 43 hours on the primary fan board for Cal basketball there have been exactly 6 posts about the current Cal basketball team. 12 if you count a discussion regarding the cable providers the games are on.

Anyone see a problem?

---

Apples to apples: Jones' last year, ten games in to conference, we were 0-10, were we not? Notably lower national rankings, too.

Still, I get the point: We're still not very good and fan interest is at a low ebb. At this point, I don't know what else to do except to wait until the incremental improvement plateaus and then make a change. In the meantime, let's enjoy the journey up to mediocre!

---

So just remember then that we finished the season very strong with 3 wins in a row including over a ranked team and a close loss in the PAC 12 tournament. I personally wouldn't look at it that way, but Cal finished 2019 a much better team than it started.

---

If you really want to bring Jones back, I think he's available - give him a call. Otherwise, not sure why you keep picking at that scab. The twelve of us still posting haven't forgotten.

---

I vehemently argued for Jones' firing. I'm being consistent based on results. I'm challenging the universal narrative of the twelve of you that there has been significant improvement. The data says otherwise.

---

Actually, the data do show improvements, probably just not to your expectations yet, which is understandable based on recent history of the program.

Here's a macro look:

Overall Kenpom rank:

2018: 244
2019: 241
2020: 153
2021 (through the 17 games played): 144

Kenpom adjusted offensive efficiency rank:

2018: 296
2019: 192
2020: 195
2021: 130

Kenpom adjusted defensive efficiency rank:

2018: 181
2019: 286
2020: 130
2021: 160

So the data say, objectively and overall, the program/team has been improving. The defense has for sure been a disappointment this year, especially considering that is what Fox is traditionally known as being better at coaching. But I think we'll continue to see improvements as the season progresses and Cal's data/metrics will improve.

Now, I get the overall frustration. Cal hasn't had a team ranked worse in Kenpom than the rankings above since the 2004-2005 season, when the Bears were No. 141. Cal's only had one other season since that time where it wasn't ranked within Kenpom's top-100 (No. 113 in 2014-2015, Martin's first year), but even that year Cal finished with an 18-15 record.

I guess it kind of depends on what your definition of "significant improvement" is. But to say there haven't been any improvements and that the data back that up is objectively not true. If you look at other data-based college hoops measurements, it shows the same story. For example, Bart Torvik's metrics have Cal going from No. 244 to No. 241 to No. 143 to No. 137 over the past four seasons, including this one.

I also realize the win/loss record doesn't reflect improvement, but a lot of that has to do with the circumstances of this season (abbreviated non-con season, playing two conference games in early December, injuries to key players, etc.). Not to make excuses, but a team can be objectively better than its record shows.

---

I would argue that a more relevant rank is what we rank among power conferences. I don't think it shows big improvement to overtake 100 CYO basketball teams. If you are a power conference team in the mid 100's in sagarin, you are in bad shape. Passing 100 teams who should never compete with you doesn't say much. That is like saying last year the Pirates were the 50th best professional baseball team and now they are 30th best because they passed up all the minor league teams shows significant improvement. Wyking Jones had to be a special kind of bad to drop to the mid 200's behind 100 teams that can't compete in a power conference. That is why a slightly better win percentage and 2 points per game bumps a power conference team up 100 spots. That is a confluence of a totally depleted roster and a completely disorganized system. Fox walked in and increased it by 100 places by being anybody but Wyking. I'd argue that there are maybe 5 Division 1 coaches that would have failed to do that. We are barely improved from last year depending on the metric you want to use. That is basically achieved on a young team like we had by getting a year older. We are worse in national Sagarin. Worse in Sagarin among power conference teams. As I said elsewhere, we are 85 out of 87 power conference teams in Sagarin. That is not significant improvement. Tell me when it gets to 60 (which would still be awful).

---

I see what you're doing here: You're trying to make sure all twelve of us are angry, aren't you?

If I didn't already have so many darn t-shirts, I'd look into having t-shirts made up, even though they're $$$ by the dozen.

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

According to Sagarin's algorithms based on all the data being treated equally, Cal is #144 in Predictor and #143 in Golden Mean. This is #12 in the PAC-12.

However, In the model that weights more recent data more heavily, Recent, Cal is #133 showing we have improved somewhat as the season has progressed thus far. Cal is #9 in the PAC-12 in Recent, not so much because of Cal's improvement, but the collapse of Arizona State (#164), Washington State (#161), and Washington (#162).

Good shot at another win coming up

---

God, we are even more horrible than I thought.

And what happened to the Pac-12 in general!?

---

If you want to feel better, go back and look where Cal was in 2018 and 2019.

As for the conference, it has really slid over the past decade. I'm not really sure why. Outside of California, it's not super talent-rich compared to other parts of the country, but teams like Oregon, Arizona, UCLA, UW, and USC always seem to bring in a lot of new talent each year. Perhaps someone else has better insights, but for whatever reasons, Pac-12 schools have consistently underperformed compared to their Power 5 conference counterparts over the past 10 years or so.

---

I was going to say... maybe more horrible than dimitrig thought, but less horrible than before. If Fox is looking for a marketing slogan, perhaps we've stumbled onto something: "Cal Basketball -- Less and less horrible!"

Seriously, we were getting BLOWN OUT by nobodies. And our rankings... I didn't even know there were that many teams! At least we're trending up.

---

In Jones' last year we were 3-15 in conference averaging losing by 10.5 points and we were virtually unanimous Jones had to go. So far this year we are 2-8 in conference averaging losing by 8.5 points. What a difference 2 points makes.

Edit to add:

It is the middle of the conference season. Over the last 43 hours on the primary fan board for Cal basketball there have been exactly 6 posts about the current Cal basketball team. 12 if you count a discussion regarding the cable providers the games are on.

Anyone see a problem?

---

Apples to apples: Jones' last year, ten games in to conference, we were 0-10, were we not? Notably lower national rankings, too.

Still, I get the point: We're still not very good and fan interest is at a low ebb. At this point, I don't know what else to do except to wait until the incremental improvement plateaus and then make a change. In the meantime, let's enjoy the journey up to mediocre!

---

So just remember then that we finished the season very strong with 3 wins in a row including over a ranked team and a close loss in the PAC 12 tournament. I personally wouldn't look at it that way, but Cal finished 2019 a much better team than it started.

---

If you really want to bring Jones back, I think he's available - give him a call. Otherwise, not sure why you keep picking at that scab. The twelve of us still posting haven't forgotten.

---

I vehemently argued for Jones' firing. I'm being consistent based on results. I'm challenging the universal narrative of the twelve of you that there has been significant improvement. The data says otherwise.

---

Actually, the data do show improvements, probably just not to your expectations yet, which is understandable based on recent history of the program.

Here's a macro look:

Overall Kenpom rank:

2018: 244
2019: 241
2020: 153
2021 (through the 17 games played): 144

Kenpom adjusted offensive efficiency rank:

2018: 296
2019: 192
2020: 195
2021: 130

Kenpom adjusted defensive efficiency rank:

2018: 181
2019: 286
2020: 130
2021: 160

So the data say, objectively and overall, the program/team has been improving. The defense has for sure been a disappointment this year, especially considering that is what Fox is traditionally known as being better at coaching. But I think we'll continue to see improvements as the season progresses and Cal's data/metrics will improve.

Now, I get the overall frustration. Cal hasn't had a team ranked worse in Kenpom than the rankings above since the 2004-2005 season, when the Bears were No. 141. Cal's only had one other season since that time where it wasn't ranked within Kenpom's top-100 (No. 113 in 2014-2015, Martin's first year), but even that year Cal finished with an 18-15 record.

I guess it kind of depends on what your definition of "significant improvement" is. But to say there haven't been any improvements and that the data back that up is objectively not true. If you look at other data-based college hoops measurements, it shows the same story. For example, Bart Torvik's metrics have Cal going from No. 244 to No. 241 to No. 143 to No. 137 over the past four seasons, including this one.

I also realize the win/loss record doesn't reflect improvement, but a lot of that has to do with the circumstances of this season (abbreviated non-con season, playing two conference games in early December, injuries to key players, etc.). Not to make excuses, but a team can be objectively better than its record shows.

---

I would argue that a more relevant rank is what we rank among power conferences. I don't think it shows big improvement to overtake 100 CYO basketball teams. If you are a power conference team in the mid 100's in sagarin, you are in bad shape. Passing 100 teams who should never compete with you doesn't say much. That is like saying last year the Pirates were the 50th best professional baseball team and now they are 30th best because they passed up all the minor league teams shows significant improvement. Wyking Jones had to be a special kind of bad to drop to the mid 200's behind 100 teams that can't compete in a power conference. That is why a slightly better win percentage and 2 points per game bumps a power conference team up 100 spots. That is a confluence of a totally depleted roster and a completely disorganized system. Fox walked in and increased it by 100 places by being anybody but Wyking. I'd argue that there are maybe 5 Division 1 coaches that would have failed to do that. We are barely improved from last year depending on the metric you want to use. That is basically achieved on a young team like we had by getting a year older. We are worse in national Sagarin. Worse in Sagarin among power conference teams. As I said elsewhere, we are 85 out of 87 power conference teams in Sagarin. That is not significant improvement. Tell me when it gets to 60 (which would still be awful).

---

I see what you're doing here: You're trying to make sure all twelve of us are angry, aren't you?

If I didn't already have so many darn t-shirts, I'd look into having t-shirts made up, even though they're $$$ by the dozen.

---

The table is set. Let the big bear eat!

OaktownBear said:

---

The table is set. Let the big bear eat!

---

quoting the right honorable Blueblood (mia since november 1st) snort.

Jeff82 said:

---

I guess my view is that Martin's last year, and the two years under Jones, were not just a dumpster fire, but tires burning underground. Given those three years, it seems like you have to give Fox three years to try and climb out of the hole. He's only in year two, and that doesn't count what weight can be put on this season regarding the COVID impacts.

I think a real measure will be the two games against Stanford next week, since hopefully by then Bradley will be back at full strength, which means we'll finally have the complete healthy line-up that was projected at the start of the season.

---

bradley is not going to 100% the rest of the season

NathanAllen said:

---

Actually, the data do show improvements, probably just not to your expectations yet, which is understandable based on recent history of the program.

Here's a macro look:

Overall Kenpom rank:

2018: 244
2019: 241
2020: 153
2021 (through the 17 games played): 144

Kenpom adjusted offensive efficiency rank:

2018: 296
2019: 192
2020: 195
2021: 130

Kenpom adjusted defensive efficiency rank:

2018: 181
2019: 286
2020: 130
2021: 160

So the data say, objectively and overall, the program/team has been improving. The defense has for sure been a disappointment this year, especially considering that is what Fox is traditionally known as being better at coaching. But I think we'll continue to see improvements as the season progresses and Cal's data/metrics will improve.

Now, I get the overall frustration. Cal hasn't had a team ranked worse in Kenpom than the rankings above since the 2004-2005 season, when the Bears were No. 141. Cal's only had one other season since that time where it wasn't ranked within Kenpom's top-100 (No. 113 in 2014-2015, Martin's first year), but even that year Cal finished with an 18-15 record.

I guess it kind of depends on what your definition of "significant improvement" is. But to say there haven't been any improvements and that the data back that up is objectively not true. If you look at other data-based college hoops measurements, it shows the same story. For example, Bart Torvik's metrics have Cal going from No. 244 to No. 241 to No. 143 to No. 137 over the past four seasons, including this one.

I also realize the win/loss record doesn't reflect improvement, but a lot of that has to do with the circumstances of this season (abbreviated non-con season, playing two conference games in early December, injuries to key players, etc.). Not to make excuses, but a team can be objectively better than its record shows.

---

I like Kenpom's stats, and it shows a steady improvement on offense (should be obvious to everyone)

the problem is our defense took a dip downward (should be obvious to everyone)

net result is improvement, but not a quantum leap

I hope to see defense improve, as I think it's easier to improve defense than offense

HoopDreams said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

Actually, the data do show improvements, probably just not to your expectations yet, which is understandable based on recent history of the program.

Here's a macro look:

Overall Kenpom rank:

2018: 244
2019: 241
2020: 153
2021 (through the 17 games played): 144

Kenpom adjusted offensive efficiency rank:

2018: 296
2019: 192
2020: 195
2021: 130

Kenpom adjusted defensive efficiency rank:

2018: 181
2019: 286
2020: 130
2021: 160

So the data say, objectively and overall, the program/team has been improving. The defense has for sure been a disappointment this year, especially considering that is what Fox is traditionally known as being better at coaching. But I think we'll continue to see improvements as the season progresses and Cal's data/metrics will improve.

Now, I get the overall frustration. Cal hasn't had a team ranked worse in Kenpom than the rankings above since the 2004-2005 season, when the Bears were No. 141. Cal's only had one other season since that time where it wasn't ranked within Kenpom's top-100 (No. 113 in 2014-2015, Martin's first year), but even that year Cal finished with an 18-15 record.

I guess it kind of depends on what your definition of "significant improvement" is. But to say there haven't been any improvements and that the data back that up is objectively not true. If you look at other data-based college hoops measurements, it shows the same story. For example, Bart Torvik's metrics have Cal going from No. 244 to No. 241 to No. 143 to No. 137 over the past four seasons, including this one.

I also realize the win/loss record doesn't reflect improvement, but a lot of that has to do with the circumstances of this season (abbreviated non-con season, playing two conference games in early December, injuries to key players, etc.). Not to make excuses, but a team can be objectively better than its record shows.

---

I like Kenpom's stats, and it shows a steady improvement on offense (should be obvious to everyone)

the problem is our defense took a dip downward (should be obvious to everyone)

net result is improvement, but not a quantum leap

I hope to see defense improve, as I think it's easier to improve defense than offense

---

We get a little better in February, then we build on that for next season. What the hell else can we do?

OaktownBear said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

According to Sagarin's algorithms based on all the data being treated equally, Cal is #144 in Predictor and #143 in Golden Mean. This is #12 in the PAC-12.

However, In the model that weights more recent data more heavily, Recent, Cal is #133 showing we have improved somewhat as the season has progressed thus far. Cal is #9 in the PAC-12 in Recent, not so much because of Cal's improvement, but the collapse of Arizona State (#164), Washington State (#161), and Washington (#162).

Good shot at another win coming up

---

God, we are even more horrible than I thought.

And what happened to the Pac-12 in general!?

---

If you want to feel better, go back and look where Cal was in 2018 and 2019.

As for the conference, it has really slid over the past decade. I'm not really sure why. Outside of California, it's not super talent-rich compared to other parts of the country, but teams like Oregon, Arizona, UCLA, UW, and USC always seem to bring in a lot of new talent each year. Perhaps someone else has better insights, but for whatever reasons, Pac-12 schools have consistently underperformed compared to their Power 5 conference counterparts over the past 10 years or so.

---

I was going to say... maybe more horrible than dimitrig thought, but less horrible than before. If Fox is looking for a marketing slogan, perhaps we've stumbled onto something: "Cal Basketball -- Less and less horrible!"

Seriously, we were getting BLOWN OUT by nobodies. And our rankings... I didn't even know there were that many teams! At least we're trending up.

---

In Jones' last year we were 3-15 in conference averaging losing by 10.5 points and we were virtually unanimous Jones had to go. So far this year we are 2-8 in conference averaging losing by 8.5 points. What a difference 2 points makes.

Edit to add:

It is the middle of the conference season. Over the last 43 hours on the primary fan board for Cal basketball there have been exactly 6 posts about the current Cal basketball team. 12 if you count a discussion regarding the cable providers the games are on.

Anyone see a problem?

---

Apples to apples: Jones' last year, ten games in to conference, we were 0-10, were we not? Notably lower national rankings, too.

Still, I get the point: We're still not very good and fan interest is at a low ebb. At this point, I don't know what else to do except to wait until the incremental improvement plateaus and then make a change. In the meantime, let's enjoy the journey up to mediocre!

---

So just remember then that we finished the season very strong with 3 wins in a row including over a ranked team and a close loss in the PAC 12 tournament. I personally wouldn't look at it that way, but Cal finished 2019 a much better team than it started.

---

If you really want to bring Jones back, I think he's available - give him a call. Otherwise, not sure why you keep picking at that scab. The twelve of us still posting haven't forgotten.

---

I vehemently argued for Jones' firing. I'm being consistent based on results. I'm challenging the universal narrative of the twelve of you that there has been significant improvement. The data says otherwise.

---

Actually, the data do show improvements, probably just not to your expectations yet, which is understandable based on recent history of the program.

Here's a macro look:

Overall Kenpom rank:

2018: 244
2019: 241
2020: 153
2021 (through the 17 games played): 144

Kenpom adjusted offensive efficiency rank:

2018: 296
2019: 192
2020: 195
2021: 130

Kenpom adjusted defensive efficiency rank:

2018: 181
2019: 286
2020: 130
2021: 160

So the data say, objectively and overall, the program/team has been improving. The defense has for sure been a disappointment this year, especially considering that is what Fox is traditionally known as being better at coaching. But I think we'll continue to see improvements as the season progresses and Cal's data/metrics will improve.

Now, I get the overall frustration. Cal hasn't had a team ranked worse in Kenpom than the rankings above since the 2004-2005 season, when the Bears were No. 141. Cal's only had one other season since that time where it wasn't ranked within Kenpom's top-100 (No. 113 in 2014-2015, Martin's first year), but even that year Cal finished with an 18-15 record.

I guess it kind of depends on what your definition of "significant improvement" is. But to say there haven't been any improvements and that the data back that up is objectively not true. If you look at other data-based college hoops measurements, it shows the same story. For example, Bart Torvik's metrics have Cal going from No. 244 to No. 241 to No. 143 to No. 137 over the past four seasons, including this one.

I also realize the win/loss record doesn't reflect improvement, but a lot of that has to do with the circumstances of this season (abbreviated non-con season, playing two conference games in early December, injuries to key players, etc.). Not to make excuses, but a team can be objectively better than its record shows.

---

I would argue . . .

---

FIFY

stu said:

---

Quote:

---

It is a pretty bad situation that no one cares enough to be upset.

---

Yep. But in my case the isolation forced by COVID-19 has sapped my interest more than the quality of play. Our women are doing even worse, though they have better excuses and a brighter future. But I'd be posting several times a day if I could be there and feel more involved.

---

The other day I accidentally clicked on the Women's page. I was shocked to see their last game thread had more posts than the Men's. Good for them, woe for us who still follow the men. I am wondering how good my season ticket seats are going to get after the "Welcome Back" reseat event.

Go!Bears said:

---

stu said:

---

Quote:

---

It is a pretty bad situation that no one cares enough to be upset.

---

Yep. But in my case the isolation forced by COVID-19 has sapped my interest more than the quality of play. Our women are doing even worse, though they have better excuses and a brighter future. But I'd be posting several times a day if I could be there and feel more involved.

---

The other day I accidentally clicked on the Women's page. I was shocked to see their last game thread had more posts than the Men's. Good for them, woe for us who still follow the men. I am wondering how good my season ticket seats are going to get after the "Welcome Back" reseat event.

---

do you know when the reseating event will be?

HoopDreams said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

The other day I accidentally clicked on the Women's page. I was shocked to see their last game thread had more posts than the Men's. Good for them, woe for us who still follow the men. I am wondering how good my season ticket seats are going to get after the "Welcome Back" reseat event.

---

---

we're also interested, but haven't heard any m/w rumors about next season. # waay too early

smh said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

The other day I accidentally clicked on the Women's page. I was shocked to see their last game thread had more posts than the Men's. Good for them, woe for us who still follow the men. I am wondering how good my season ticket seats are going to get after the "Welcome Back" reseat event.

---

---

we're also interested, but haven't heard any m/w rumors about next season. # waay too early

---

Thats the worst thing they could do. , taking away the seats of long time season ticket holders at a time when every renewal will be important. Have an event offering those seats of people who have not renewed would be better. I could not better my location.

I will stand corrected regarding Martin's last year. Looking back at the game results, it looks to me like he and the team were trying all the way, right up to his bombshell before the Bakersfield game.

Meanwhile, as someone who thought someone else (DeCuire) should have been hired instead of Fox, I'm not sure what the proportion of the Dirty Dozen who are negabears think we should do. If you fire Fox now, probably the only thing that's going to be relevant is whether his successor can maintain the roster and the recruiting class, something that I doubt can be predicted in advance. I would give him one more year. If we don't see significant improvement, which I would define as .500 in conference, given where we're at now, I'd move on, again looking for someone younger.

Civil Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

NathanAllen said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

According to Sagarin's algorithms based on all the data being treated equally, Cal is #144 in Predictor and #143 in Golden Mean. This is #12 in the PAC-12.

However, In the model that weights more recent data more heavily, Recent, Cal is #133 showing we have improved somewhat as the season has progressed thus far. Cal is #9 in the PAC-12 in Recent, not so much because of Cal's improvement, but the collapse of Arizona State (#164), Washington State (#161), and Washington (#162).

Good shot at another win coming up

---

God, we are even more horrible than I thought.

And what happened to the Pac-12 in general!?

---

If you want to feel better, go back and look where Cal was in 2018 and 2019.

As for the conference, it has really slid over the past decade. I'm not really sure why. Outside of California, it's not super talent-rich compared to other parts of the country, but teams like Oregon, Arizona, UCLA, UW, and USC always seem to bring in a lot of new talent each year. Perhaps someone else has better insights, but for whatever reasons, Pac-12 schools have consistently underperformed compared to their Power 5 conference counterparts over the past 10 years or so.

---

I was going to say... maybe more horrible than dimitrig thought, but less horrible than before. If Fox is looking for a marketing slogan, perhaps we've stumbled onto something: "Cal Basketball -- Less and less horrible!"

Seriously, we were getting BLOWN OUT by nobodies. And our rankings... I didn't even know there were that many teams! At least we're trending up.

---

In Jones' last year we were 3-15 in conference averaging losing by 10.5 points and we were virtually unanimous Jones had to go. So far this year we are 2-8 in conference averaging losing by 8.5 points. What a difference 2 points makes.

Edit to add:

It is the middle of the conference season. Over the last 43 hours on the primary fan board for Cal basketball there have been exactly 6 posts about the current Cal basketball team. 12 if you count a discussion regarding the cable providers the games are on.

Anyone see a problem?

---

Apples to apples: Jones' last year, ten games in to conference, we were 0-10, were we not? Notably lower national rankings, too.

Still, I get the point: We're still not very good and fan interest is at a low ebb. At this point, I don't know what else to do except to wait until the incremental improvement plateaus and then make a change. In the meantime, let's enjoy the journey up to mediocre!

---

So just remember then that we finished the season very strong with 3 wins in a row including over a ranked team and a close loss in the PAC 12 tournament. I personally wouldn't look at it that way, but Cal finished 2019 a much better team than it started.

---

If you really want to bring Jones back, I think he's available - give him a call. Otherwise, not sure why you keep picking at that scab. The twelve of us still posting haven't forgotten.

---

I vehemently argued for Jones' firing. I'm being consistent based on results. I'm challenging the universal narrative of the twelve of you that there has been significant improvement. The data says otherwise.

---

How very SFCity of you to cherrypick data and not use your eyes. Anyone watching can see the Bears are appreciably better at this point in the season with less talent. This from a 30-yr season ticket holder that gave them up under Jones and didn't care eitherway if he got fired before his contract expired, but can now stomach watching the games again. They have actually reached Div I mediocracy at this point. I fully understand your hesitancy to potentially get drawn back in; but if you have truly given up, then why are you even here?

---

I disagree with who is channeling SFCity here. His problem isn't using cherrypicked data over his eyes. I think you have a number of City-esque statements.

1. They have reached Div I mediocrity. This one is classic SFCity material. So, yes. Technically they are Division I mediocre. There are 350 Division I teams. You full well know that Power conference teams do not measure themselves against mid majors any more than FBS teams measure themselves against FCS in football. Fact is, our Sagarin is last in conference. We are last out of the following conferences:

Pac-12 - 12 teams
ACC - 15 teams
Big East - 11 teams
Big 10 - 14 teams
Big 12 - 10 teams
SEC - 14 teams

There are two teams in the American Athletic Conference that are worse than us. Out of 11.

That is our competition. Not all of DI. 7 conferences. We are 85th out of 87 teams.

2. Another City-esque argument. For some reason we are supposed to ignore that the rest of the season in 2019 happened. Because for some reason we supposed to compare the exact date of each season. Well, my preference is to measure at the end of the season, and that is what we will do. But the pronouncements of the 12 are already coming in that we are much improved. That is very preliminary, but if we are going to do that comparison now, .200 against conference teams (and I'm not counting the loss to OSU "nonconference"), is not a lot better than .167. 11th or 12th place (depending how you measure) is not a lot better than 12th. 2 points shaved off average margin of loss is not a lot better. 85 out of 87 is not a lot better.

3. Note, I didn't say we weren't better. We have improved a little on what was a terrible season. That is reflected in the Sagarin that Nathan posted to prove we had improved. Wyking Jones was the worst coach in America. Mark Fox is not. Keith Gilbertson being better than Tom Holmoe does not mean I want Keith Gilbertson

4. I don't trust "eyes". Anyone who has read Moneyball should know that. Eyes belong to humans who make emotional decisions based on preferences that are irrelevant to the purpose. I don't care if the games are "watchable". Because Cal fans "eyes" tend to prefer watching a team of 5 foot 4 guys going 0-18 running an organized offense where they pass three times before they shoot, than watching a team of good players going 6-12 running a disorganized offense. I don't. I know Fox's decidedly average game day coaching is decidedly better than Jones' decidedly bad game day coaching. However, there are many facets to coaching and he is below average at best at everything else including attributes that a coach at Cal really needs to excel at have any chance

5. If we are going to use "eyes", if you think this team is better than Cal was at the end of 2019, I think you stopped watching. The team that beat a ranked opponent, won three in a row, and as a huge underdog lost by 4 in the conference tournament to a team that went to the championship is better to my eyes than this year's team. Cal improved an unusual amount over the last 10 games of the season that year, partially with improvement in Vanover's game.

6. Wyking Jones inherited an incredibly crappy roster. I didn't see that as an excuse for the obvious coaching issues. But he had just started to get the roster to serviceable as was evident in the end of 2019. Then we hired a coach who immediately lost most of the best parts of the roster. So when you start with a crappy roster because you lost most of the best guys, I don't see that as an excuse for being where we are now. I'm just confused why watchable is the standard now. I don't see that this team is in any better position to improve in the coming years than it was in 2019. I expect us to be better next year assuming everyone comes back, just as I expected that at the end of 2019. Now as then I do not see what anyone is smoking if they see any timeline that gets us to even 4th place.

7. While I have given up hope until Cal pulls its head out of its ass, I think decades of fandom makes it okay for me to hope and lobby for Cal to pull its head out of its ass. I have specifically not posted a lot. I did not take the bait of City and others acting like they won an argument when Cal actually won a game, because I firmly believe all of you ought to be happy when Cal wins, lord knows it doesn't come along often, and I'm not going step on that. I do reserve the right to once in a while take issue with people being thrilled with a watchable last place. Frankly, my posts every couple weeks are only standing out because everyone is gone. When Holmoe was this bad, there were like a 100 negative posts a day. When Dykes was this bad, there were like a 100 negative posts a day. When Braun wasn't nearly this bad, there were like 100 negative posts a day. When Tedford still had a winning record there were like 100 posts a day. Cal basketball fandom is approaching the Friends and Family plan. It is a pretty bad situation that no one cares enough to be upset.

---

LOL. I guess if the argument is Cal is still at the bottom of the conference, then there is no argument. If that is the only criteria of improvement, then case closed for now. However, anyone that has watched them play recently can see plain as day there has been an improvement. How do I know? Because they have gone from unwatchable to watchable. Granted that is a subjective criterion, but it is my criterion, and as a person that was against the Fox hire it is significant to me.

Am I ready to renew my season tickets? Nope. Have they gone from one of the worst teams in Div I to an average Div 1 team? Yup. Are they poised to battle for the middle of the Pac? Maybe. Is that something we should aspire to? Nope. But it would be a continued move in the right direction. And they have become watchable.

---

Technically if we are going to use all of D1 as metric, which is ridiculous for reasons already stated, there were over 100 teams in D1 that were worse before so we were never one of the worst teams in D1. If that is the standard, we went from below average to average.

Or we went from one of the worst power teams to one of the worst power teams.

Jeff82 said:

---

I will stand corrected regarding Martin's last year. Looking back at the game results, it looks to me like he and the team were trying all the way, right up to his bombshell before the Bakersfield game.

Meanwhile, as someone who thought someone else (DeCuire) should have been hired instead of Fox, I'm not sure what the proportion of the Dirty Dozen who are negabears think we should do. If you fire Fox now, probably the only thing that's going to be relevant is whether his successor can maintain the roster and the recruiting class, something that I doubt can be predicted in advance. I would give him one more year. If we don't see significant improvement, which I would define as .500 in conference, given where we're at now, I'd move on, again looking for someone younger.

---

At this point I would settle for giving him one more year while not fawning over the vast improvement of losing closer.

NathanAllen said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

I will stand corrected regarding Martin's last year. Looking back at the game results, it looks to me like he and the team were trying all the way, right up to his bombshell before the Bakersfield game.

Meanwhile, as someone who thought someone else (DeCuire) should have been hired instead of Fox, I'm not sure what the proportion of the Dirty Dozen who are negabears think we should do. If you fire Fox now, probably the only thing that's going to be relevant is whether his successor can maintain the roster and the recruiting class, something that I doubt can be predicted in advance. I would give him one more year. If we don't see significant improvement, which I would define as .500 in conference, given where we're at now, I'd move on, again looking for someone younger.

---

I wasn't a fan of the Fox hire. I would've also have liked to see Cal take a bit more of a higher risk hire like a DeCuire or another mid-major coach. But the Fox hire also makes a lot of sense. You know you're going to get a guy who will put a respectable or "watchable" team on the court more games and seasons than not. He's a good program stabilizer.

Even though I wasn't personally impressed or blown away by the hire, I'd be OK giving him a few more years. As we've all discussed in this thread, the program was at a historical low. It'd take time for almost any coach in the country to dig out of that. Since Fox has never really been an ace recruiter, it's gonna take him a bit longer to get some developmental guys in and developed.

I think most give him a pass this year because of COVID and some untimely injuries/surgeries. But assuming both Anticevich and Bradley come back next year and you have Brown, Kelly, Hyder, Bowser, Thiemann, K2, etc. all healthy and a year older, I think we need to see at least a .500 conference season. If Fox has that roster healthy and doesn't get to that in the Pac-12, I'll personally be readjusting my expectations and questioning how much more time he deserves.

For the record, if that roster does return and stay healthy, I think we're looking at a potential bubble team. That could be the season that is leveraged into some solid recruiting classes and officially the turn-around the program needs.

---

Why are any basketball teams getting a pass because of COVID? Other than no fans, what has been the big disruption? How are we or anyone else more impacted than anyone? Football was a cluster, but basketball has been reasonably normal enough to have normal expectations.

Why are we not permitted by the software to give a staff member a star for his post? I would like to give Nathan Allen a star for his informative and level-headed posts in this thread.

I sitnin the first row above the padded benches in section 14. Thats basically 9 rows from the floor. Its also the senior discount section.

Four years ago, in 2016-17, in DeCuire's third season, the Montaza Griz were a mediocre 16-16.

Three years ago, in 2017-18, the Griz were 26-8. They won the Big Sky conference and tournament, and lost in the first round to Michigan as a #14 seed. They were 0-2 against Pac-12 teams (one close game, one blowout) and didn't play a ranked team in the regular season.

Two years ago, in 2018-19, the Montana Griz were 26-9. They won the Big Sky conference and tournament, and lost again in the first round to Michigan as a #15 seed. They were 0-1 against Pac-12 teams (a blowout) and didn't play a ranked team in the regular season. Was this the peak value of DeCuire's stock?

Last year, in 2019-20, they were 18-12. They finished in 3rd place in the conference. The Big Sky tournament was cancelled due to the virus. They were 0-3 against Pac-12 teams (none of the games were within 10 points) and 0-2 against ranked teams (both in the Pac-12) in the regular season.

This year the Griz are 7-8. They are 1-3 against the Pac-12 (they won @Washington in December) and they played no ranked teams. I don't know anything about their team.

I wonder if Decuire, now in his 7th season at Montana, is today considered more of a rising star than he was 2-3 years ago, less of one, or about the same? At face value, it appears DeCuire's stock probably peaked 2 years ago.

DeCuire is 0-2 in the NCAA tournament with Montana. Montana virtually never beats Pac-12 teams when they play, and they always lose when they play a ranked team (which is seldom). And let's remember just how shltty the teams are in the Big Sky: Eastern Washington, Northern Colorado, Montana, Portland State, Northern Arizona, Montana State, Southern Utah, Sacramento State, Weber State, Idaho State, Idaho.

Sitting here today, I don't see why DeCuire would be a serious candidate for the Cal job if a Fox replacement were needed.

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

I will stand corrected regarding Martin's last year. Looking back at the game results, it looks to me like he and the team were trying all the way, right up to his bombshell before the Bakersfield game.

Meanwhile, as someone who thought someone else (DeCuire) should have been hired instead of Fox, I'm not sure what the proportion of the Dirty Dozen who are negabears think we should do. If you fire Fox now, probably the only thing that's going to be relevant is whether his successor can maintain the roster and the recruiting class, something that I doubt can be predicted in advance. I would give him one more year. If we don't see significant improvement, which I would define as .500 in conference, given where we're at now, I'd move on, again looking for someone younger.

---

At this point I would settle for giving him one more year while not fawning over the vast improvement of losing closer.

---

I'm sort of this stage myself. Maybe leaning towards two years - assuming we're at least a bubble team next season.

---

I completely agree that if we are a bubble team next season he will have earned another year.

Quote:

---

I don't get the folks that say "you need to give a coach X years. Period" Too simplistic. You need to watch each season and every game and identify improvement.

---

As I think you know, I completely agree.

Quote:

---

At this point, I think two things are ridiculous:

1. Trying to go back in time and hire TD and make the Jones fiasco erase from the time stream. Let it go. I believe it was OTB and Calumnus that tried and failed to convince me that this was sooooo obvious.

---

It is not my intent to relitigate the hiring decision. I'll take responsibility for the poor communication skills. The point isn't to relitigate it. The point is not to forget all the expectations at the time. The point is that we knew Fox's strengths and weaknesses when we hired him. Based on what we knew, those of us who said it was a problematic hire could and did predict exactly what has happened.

On the court, we could not help but "improve". A power conference team has to work extremely hard to be bad enough to be in the mid 200's in Sagarin. You cannot maintain that level of badness. The worst power conference team right now is192. The second worst is 153. Basically, for Wyking to achieve that, he had to take what was probably the 120th best roster in the country, maybe 150th on the outside, and make it play worse than 100 teams who don't have a single player that would sniff a scholarship at Cal. Wyking was not prepared for the job. There was nothing in his history that indicated he was remotely trying to prepare himself to be a head coach. It was pretty much impossible not to improve from that point. The point was, what would be good improvement and what would be a dead cat bounce.

Fox is a competent game day coach. That was never the issue. It was obvious that the team would improve over Wyking. Those of us who disagreed with the hire said exactly this would happen. The optimistic among us were not championing "Hooray! Two years from now we'll be last place by less!"

And the next prediction that those of us who disagreed with the hire made at the time was that the optimistic would forget everything we said, and everything they said, and cheerlead the inevitable bargain basement improvement as a great accomplishment. Because Cal.

Let me take one more minute to explain how bad our current Sagarin rating is and how hard it is to push it down to Wyking levels. We just lost to ASU. ASU last won a game over 6 weeks ago, a 1 point victory over Grand Canyon. Our Sagarin rating is so low that a LOSS to THAT team RAISED IT BY 7 POINTS!

The Pac-12 is not a good conference. It has 4 teams that all would have the worst Sagarin rating in 3 conferences and no better than 2nd worst in 2 others. As of today, out of 87 power conference teams, the Pac has teams ranked 80th, 81, 82, 83. And we are in last place. That is not the kind of improvement anyone optimistic about the hire was talking about.

Quote:

---

2. Believing that incremental improvement (although important) is reason to believe that everything is peachy. 'Competitive' by any definition is not my bar - just a stepping stone.

---

Seriously, two years in the word "watchable" has been used as praise about 20 times on this board in the past couple weeks.

Quote:

---

Does Fox need to be fired and replaced. That's silly at this point.

---

It is silly and no one has said that. (although the fact that it is silly is part of the problem). What is also silly is praising "watchable" and being "competitive" enough to lose by 13 points, and praising that we "could" beat anyone in a bad conference. We "could". We don't, but we "could". We are in last place. Fox deserves no praise for that.

Quote:

---

This team needs to play near perfect ball while the opponent needs to have an off night.

---

Exactly the problem and exactly what we said would happen.

Quote:

---

This team plays with heart, energy and is worth rooting for.

---

The team is worth rooting for. I praise their effort. I don't think the program is worth rooting for at this point.

BeachedBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

I will stand corrected regarding Martin's last year. Looking back at the game results, it looks to me like he and the team were trying all the way, right up to his bombshell before the Bakersfield game.

Meanwhile, as someone who thought someone else (DeCuire) should have been hired instead of Fox, I'm not sure what the proportion of the Dirty Dozen who are negabears think we should do. If you fire Fox now, probably the only thing that's going to be relevant is whether his successor can maintain the roster and the recruiting class, something that I doubt can be predicted in advance. I would give him one more year. If we don't see significant improvement, which I would define as .500 in conference, given where we're at now, I'd move on, again looking for someone younger.

---

At this point I would settle for giving him one more year while not fawning over the vast improvement of losing closer.

---

I'm sort of this stage myself. Maybe leaning towards two years - assuming we're at least a bubble team next season.

I don't get the folks that say "you need to give a coach X years. Period" Too simplistic. You need to watch each season and every game and identify improvement. At this point, I think two things are ridiculous:

1. Trying to go back in time and hire TD and make the Jones fiasco erase from the time stream. Let it go. I believe it was OTB and Calumnus that tried and failed to convince me that this was sooooo obvious.
2. Believing that incremental improvement (although important) is reason to believe that everything is peachy. 'Competitive' by any definition is not my bar - just a stepping stone.

Does Fox need to be fired and replaced. That's silly at this point. Does Fox need a contract extension or a locker room named for him? Just as silly.

But there are two things that Knowlton should be doing RIGHT NOW. First, he should be building a list and connections for a possible upgrade (and not wait until the dumpster is burning again). Second. play the optics game with contracts to ensure that no one thinks Fox is a lame duck by any means.

The last half dozen games have shown me: This team can play watchable bball on both sides of the ball. This team has deficiencies closing games out and winning. This team needs to play near perfect ball while the opponent needs to have an off night. This team plays with heart, energy and is worth rooting for.

---

Knowlton, being a CEO-type of leader, has his search firm do the time-consuming job of building a list of coaching candidates. This frees him up to provide leadership in a lot of other areas.

Before somebody argues that this is perhaps the most important part of the AD's job and shouldn't be farmed out, note that I am being sarcastic.

As a complete wild card to this discussion, Wilner in his mailbag column this week was asked by someone if Coach Larry K. at Utah is at all on the hot seat, given that he has the second-highest pay in the conference and has not had the second best performance.

Wilner said no chance, mostly because the buyout at this point would be $6m.

I only bring it up because if he ever did become available, I'd be interested in him as the Cal coach, given that he's in the Monty tree, and has had some recruiting success relative to where he's at. (Poetl, for one). We would obviously pay him less than the Utes.

Comments?

We've been down big early before but I felt we could still come back as we were getting good shots, just not hitting them

Today half way through the first half I thought we would lose, possibly a blowout

AZ extended their defense and smothered us inside with their size

We were clearly outmatched

Big C said:

---

For me, sometimes a word like "competitive" is hard to define, but I know it when I see it. Or when I DON'T see it, as was the case today vs. U of A.

---

HoopDreams said:

---

We've been down big early before but I felt we could still come back as we were getting good shots, just not hitting them

Today half way through the first half I thought we would lose, possibly a blowout

AZ extended their defense and smothered us inside with their size

We were clearly outmatched

Big C said:

---

For me, sometimes a word like "competitive" is hard to define, but I know it when I see it. Or when I DON'T see it, as was the case today vs. U of A.

---

---

What he said. Fortunately, my power went out with 3 minutes left in the first half. When I checked the score later, I'm glad I missed it.