drizzlybear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

philbert said:

---

Go Beavs! If they can make the elite 8, why can't Cal?

---

Wayne Tinkle versus Mark Fox.

---

That is unfair, just another chance to bash the current Cal coach.

Wayne Tinkle is a good coach, but it took him 7 years to have this good team at Oregon State. He still hasn't had a 20 win season at OSU. And much of his success, maybe even allowing him to hold his job was he brought along his son, who was arguably his best player for 4 seasons.The year that Tres Tinkle was hurt, and played only 6 games, Wayne Tinkle's OSU team went 5-27, right down there with Fox's season this year and both Wyking Jones' seasons in terms of failure. Unfortunately, Fox did not bring a son of Tres Tinkle's caliber with him to Cal.

It takes time to build a winner at schools like OSU and Cal. Both schools had great basketball success in the past, and both have suffered a loss of basketball reputation over time. It is hard to recruit to either school, and hard to find the money to pay a proven coach. It took Larry Kristowiak four years to have a good team, a 20-win team at Utah. It just takes time.

---

It is completely fair. Tinkle did not build a great program at OSU. He is just a good coach who puts his team in a position to have success if they get a few breaks. Similar to Mike M., Thad Boyle, Kyle Smith and Larry K.. The formula is you hire a coach who is good at Xs and Os and player development. Every so often, the planets will align and you will have success. It is no coincidence that the best Cal coach of my lifetime is the only one to win a conference championship in my lifetime.

When Monty came Cal looked good right away. It was night and day compared to Braun, who was incompetent like Fox. Every Tinkle team plays at or above their talent. Fox's team looked like crap last year and this year. And they will next year and every year until he is fired. I am looking forward to that day.

---

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but it's worth noting that there are informed non-cal fans who believe Fox did very well last year. Heck, Jon Wilner voted Fox Pac12 coach of the year last year.

And while you've said you rely on your personal "eye test" over the 7 years of Tinkle's poor-to-abysmal records at OSU (including 1-17 in Year 3), I simply don't buy that if Wayne Tinkle were coaching at Cal with that kind of performance over seven years, that you'd be satisfied and supportive. I think you're falling for, and exploiting, Tinkle's glass slipper moment.

---

Last year Cal ran no off-ball screens. This year Cal ran no off-ball screens. Any bets on next year? Should I ask Wilner?

I mentioned that I liked Tinkle before his NCAA run, probably after he beat Cal for the third time. I supported Monty win or lose because he was good at his job. It is all I want. Results will vary.

---

Wait, I'm stuck on you saying Cal ran no off-ball screens. I assume you're not speaking literally. Do you mean you feel they should have run more off-ball screens? Because I'm pretty sure nearly every single offensive set includes multiple off-ball screens.

---

I counted for a half and posted here. I think it was like 6 in the half. Not literal.

---

OK, I can't believe I had to do this, but your comment really shocked me. I just watched 10 Cal possessions in their conference tournament loss vs Colorado. They were the first ten possessions of a P12Net rebroadcast of the game (the most recent game still on my DVR). They are not the first ten possessions of the game because the rebroadcast jumped ahead "due to time constraints" from the 16:55 mark to the 10:51 mark of H1.
Possession 1: two off-ball screens (JC-GA, LT-GA)
Possession 2: one off-ball screen (GA-MB)
Possession 3: two off-ball screens (double screen for MB, GA-JC)
Possession 4: no off-ball screen
Possession 5: no off-ball screen
(Pac12 Net rebroadcast jumps ahead to 10:51)
Possession 6: one off-ball screen (Thorpe-MF)
Possession 7: three off-ball screens (Thorpe-Betley, Thorpe-GA, GA-MB)
Possession 8: no off-ball screen
Possession 9: N/A, early turnover
Possession 10: three off-ball screens (JB-GA, JC-AK, GA-MB)

These ten possessions and 11 documented off-ball screens occurred in less than five minutes of game time. I don't know what game you watched where you said you saw only 6 off-ball screens in half a game, but in this game Cal reached 6 off-ball screens (and I'm talking actual, feet-set screens, not merely players crossing paths) within the game's first three possessions. Not including the early turnover possession, 6 of Cal's first 9 possessions shown in this broadcast included off-ball screens, and four of those six included multiple off-ball screens within the possession.

So those number are way in excess of what you assert. Nevertheless, for comparison I also tracked Colorado's off-ball screens during the same portion of the broadcast. In their first ten possessions, two were transition possessions so I obviously won't count those (to be clear, though, neither of those possessions had any off-ball screens), and two more had zero off-ball possessions. That left six possessions of eight possessions with off-ball screens: one with one OBS, two with two, and three with three.

And while this was certainly a fairly small sample size, I'll note that on only two of those possessions was the Colorado shot taken or the play created by a person for whom an off-ball screen was made. I'll also note that Colorado did not make a basket nor getting a shooting foul on any of these possessions.

My conclusion from this mini-study is that in this portion of the broadcast of this particular game, selected essentially at random, there was no appreciable difference in the two teams' use of off-ball screens. Colorado had slightly more off-ball screens, but that is explained by Cal actually having made more baskets than Colorado during that portion of the broadcast (allowing them more opportunity to take the next possession in a set offense). In both teams' cases, basically every possession off a dead ball or made basket involved set piece that included multiple off-ball screens, and few possessions for either team otherwise did.

Of course, this was really an absurd study for me to do. Look, I know you to be a smart person in your field (so many of us have learned so much from you and the thread you've led on the COVID science topic, for which I am extremely appreciative), but the notion that any of us spectator fans would have the knowledge to judge long-time, high-level, successful college basketball coaches such as Fox and Johnson, etc., on the basis that we think they essentially don't do off-ball screens (which appears to not even be accurate), is, frankly, absurd and insulting.

---

watching games it's interesting the perception of many people

during the game it's hard to accurately see it as we are generally caught up with the game and score, momentum, big plays or runs, etc.

We rarely truly see what's happening off the ball, or what the opponent is really doing.

During the offseason, I watch a few games like I was scouting the team. It's also easier to be more objective, and I turn off the sound as it's a distraction.

I am often surprised what I see. Sometimes it confirms by perception, but often times it doesn't. I've already watched the stanford game (fast forward is great for commercials)

However, listening to this board over the various coaches, there are some very common criticisms (Monty, Bozeman and WK seem to be the exception as their offenses were discernibly different to most cal fans that watch the team closely)

I also think many people don't recognize that in the modern college game, coaches use a variety of styles and looks throughout a game. For example, I was watching part of the OSU game, and Loyola Chicago was sometimes running an inside-out game, sometimes running a dribble drive offense, and sometimes just trying to space the floor with quick passing

# 2 (Timme) and # 13 (Bishop) destined for a fight.

drizzlybear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

philbert said:

---

Go Beavs! If they can make the elite 8, why can't Cal?

---

Wayne Tinkle versus Mark Fox.

---

That is unfair, just another chance to bash the current Cal coach.

Wayne Tinkle is a good coach, but it took him 7 years to have this good team at Oregon State. He still hasn't had a 20 win season at OSU. And much of his success, maybe even allowing him to hold his job was he brought along his son, who was arguably his best player for 4 seasons.The year that Tres Tinkle was hurt, and played only 6 games, Wayne Tinkle's OSU team went 5-27, right down there with Fox's season this year and both Wyking Jones' seasons in terms of failure. Unfortunately, Fox did not bring a son of Tres Tinkle's caliber with him to Cal.

It takes time to build a winner at schools like OSU and Cal. Both schools had great basketball success in the past, and both have suffered a loss of basketball reputation over time. It is hard to recruit to either school, and hard to find the money to pay a proven coach. It took Larry Kristowiak four years to have a good team, a 20-win team at Utah. It just takes time.

---

It is completely fair. Tinkle did not build a great program at OSU. He is just a good coach who puts his team in a position to have success if they get a few breaks. Similar to Mike M., Thad Boyle, Kyle Smith and Larry K.. The formula is you hire a coach who is good at Xs and Os and player development. Every so often, the planets will align and you will have success. It is no coincidence that the best Cal coach of my lifetime is the only one to win a conference championship in my lifetime.

When Monty came Cal looked good right away. It was night and day compared to Braun, who was incompetent like Fox. Every Tinkle team plays at or above their talent. Fox's team looked like crap last year and this year. And they will next year and every year until he is fired. I am looking forward to that day.

---

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but it's worth noting that there are informed non-cal fans who believe Fox did very well last year. Heck, Jon Wilner voted Fox Pac12 coach of the year last year.

And while you've said you rely on your personal "eye test" over the 7 years of Tinkle's poor-to-abysmal records at OSU (including 1-17 in Year 3), I simply don't buy that if Wayne Tinkle were coaching at Cal with that kind of performance over seven years, that you'd be satisfied and supportive. I think you're falling for, and exploiting, Tinkle's glass slipper moment.

---

Last year Cal ran no off-ball screens. This year Cal ran no off-ball screens. Any bets on next year? Should I ask Wilner?

I mentioned that I liked Tinkle before his NCAA run, probably after he beat Cal for the third time. I supported Monty win or lose because he was good at his job. It is all I want. Results will vary.

---

Wait, I'm stuck on you saying Cal ran no off-ball screens. I assume you're not speaking literally. Do you mean you feel they should have run more off-ball screens? Because I'm pretty sure nearly every single offensive set includes multiple off-ball screens.

---

I counted for a half and posted here. I think it was like 6 in the half. Not literal.

---

OK, I can't believe I had to do this, but your comment really shocked me. I just watched 10 Cal possessions in their conference tournament loss vs Colorado. They were the first ten possessions of a P12Net rebroadcast of the game (the most recent game still on my DVR). They are not the first ten possessions of the game because the rebroadcast jumped ahead "due to time constraints" from the 16:55 mark to the 10:51 mark of H1.
Possession 1: two off-ball screens (JC-GA, LT-GA)
Possession 2: one off-ball screen (GA-MB)
Possession 3: two off-ball screens (double screen for MB, GA-JC)
Possession 4: no off-ball screen
Possession 5: no off-ball screen
(Pac12 Net rebroadcast jumps ahead to 10:51)
Possession 6: one off-ball screen (Thorpe-MF)
Possession 7: three off-ball screens (Thorpe-Betley, Thorpe-GA, GA-MB)
Possession 8: no off-ball screen
Possession 9: N/A, early turnover
Possession 10: three off-ball screens (JB-GA, JC-AK, GA-MB)

These ten possessions and 11 documented off-ball screens occurred in less than five minutes of game time. I don't know what game you watched where you said you saw only 6 off-ball screens in half a game, but in this game Cal reached 6 off-ball screens (and I'm talking actual, feet-set screens, not merely players crossing paths) within the game's first three possessions. Not including the early turnover possession, 6 of Cal's first 9 possessions shown in this broadcast included off-ball screens, and four of those six included multiple off-ball screens within the possession.

So those number are way in excess of what you assert. Nevertheless, for comparison I also tracked Colorado's off-ball screens during the same portion of the broadcast. In their first ten possessions, two were transition possessions so I obviously won't count those (to be clear, though, neither of those possessions had any off-ball screens), and two more had zero off-ball possessions. That left six possessions of eight possessions with off-ball screens: one with one OBS, two with two, and three with three.

And while this was certainly a fairly small sample size, I'll note that on only two of those possessions was the Colorado shot taken or the play created by a person for whom an off-ball screen was made. I'll also note that Colorado did not make a basket nor getting a shooting foul on any of these possessions.

My conclusion from this mini-study is that in this portion of the broadcast of this particular game, selected essentially at random, there was no appreciable difference in the two teams' use of off-ball screens. Colorado had slightly more off-ball screens, but that is explained by Cal actually having made more baskets than Colorado during that portion of the broadcast (allowing them more opportunity to take the next possession in a set offense). In both teams' cases, basically every possession off a dead ball or made basket involved set piece that included multiple off-ball screens, and few possessions for either team otherwise did.

Of course, this was really an absurd study for me to do. Look, I know you to be a smart person in your field (so many of us have learned so much from you and the thread you've led on the COVID science topic, for which I am extremely appreciative), but the notion that any of us spectator fans would have the knowledge to judge long-time, high-level, successful college basketball coaches such as Fox and Johnson, etc., on the basis that we think they essentially don't do off-ball screens (which appears to not even be accurate), is, frankly, absurd and insulting.

---

Well, I posted the game and the count on this board. You could find it if you know how to search old posts. I don't. There was a little more screening as the season went on. Overall, there was little purposeful movement. The team was in the 200s in adjusted offensive efficiency. How do you explain that? Do we even have to argue?

And Fox has no tournament wins in his last 13 years of coaching. I suppose next year is the year, he is just learning his craft. Calling Fox successful is ludicrous. Counting the days.

He cant win without the players. We have one.

oskidunker said:

---

He cant win without the players. We have one.

---

I wonder how many years he will be able to stretch out that excuse? Next year too? He was able to retain our #4 scorer from the previous year. He needed to retain talent but for the most part did not. One of the consequences of hiring a coach that has been away from coaching in the prior year is they have no recruits to bring with them. One of the consequences of hiring a coach who was on the East Coast prior to that us they gave no West Coast recruiting contacts. One of the consequences of hiring a coach who coached at Georgia is he never had to develop international recruiting, never really had to sell great academics, he just had to try to get some of the great talent in Georgia to stay home.

Monty had the one problem (had been away from recruiting) but not the others and with the help of his assistants was quickly able to plug back in otherwise. Mostly, Monty is great at coaching up the talent he has. That success, when combined with his Stanford resume, attracted a few top recruits, not enough to be a national power (which was disappointing for many of us), but enough to be a significant player in the PAC-12 (which was good enough for most here).

I just don't see even that happening with Fox. We are recruiting among the bottom of the PAC -12. Now OSU may even get a boost. With below average players, Fox will continue to produce below average results.

If someone thinks otherwise, please explain how they see that happening other than "he needs time."

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

He cant win without the players. We have one.

---

I wonder how many years he will be able to stretch out that excuse? Next year too? He was able to retain our #4 scorer from the previous year. He needed to retain talent but for the most part did not. One of the consequences of hiring a coach that has been away from coaching in the prior year is they have no recruits to bring with them. One of the consequences of hiring a coach who was on the East Coast prior to that us they gave no West Coast recruiting contacts. One of the consequences of hiring a coach who coached at Georgia is he never had to develop international recruiting, never really had to sell great academics, he just had to try to get some of the great talent in Georgia to stay home.

Monty had the one problem (had been away from recruiting) but not the others and with the help of his assistants was quickly able to plug back in otherwise. Mostly, Monty is great at coaching up the talent he has. That success, when combined with his Stanford resume, attracted a few top recruits, not enough to be a national power (which was disappointing for many of us), but enough to be a significant player in the PAC-12 (which was good enough for most here).

I just don't see even that happening with Fox. We are recruiting among the bottom of the PAC -12. Now OSU may even get a boost. With below average players, Fox will continue to produce below average results.

If someone thinks otherwise, please explain how they see that happening other than "he needs time."

---

I have largely been in in agreement with you since the Fox hire (and about the hiring process). That said, what do you think California Basketball should be doing right now? Because I really don't see any alternative, other than to hope Fox improves things and to revisit the situation in 11-12 months.

Well, check that: I'd also like us to be thinking how we can go about hiring a better coach, when that time comes, but that's starting to get WAY THE HECK above my pay grade.

bear runts rolling the tahd

Notwithstanding the win/loss record, the Bears improved greatly over the season. Fox is developing the talent.

UCLA is so deep; all their guys have some bounce and can shoot. No seniors either, they are going to do serious damage next year.

After watching the last Alabama layup: What is the technique for playing defense against a player that goes in for a layup after taking 5 steps?

Announcer: "Alabama player got shoved a little going out of bounds on a rebound."

So not only are the refs corrupt, the announcers are corrupt.

bearchamp said:

---

Notwithstanding the win/loss record, the Bears improved greatly over the season. Fox is developing the talent.

---

That is not what the data shows. Sagarin shows Cal as #125 in Predictor (all games weighted equally) and #139 in Recent (more recent games given heavier weight), indicating we declined 11% over the course of the season.

The worst was Stanford, #61 in Predictor and #186 in Recent. The best is OSU, #68 in Predictor and #4 in Recent.

Note, this is not saying we didn't improve, just that the rest of college basketball improved more over the course of the season than we did.

The PAC-12 improvement rankings:
1. OSU 94%
2. Oregon 50%
3. UCLA 36%
4. USC 18%
5. Utah 10%
6. Arizona 0%
7. WSU -11%
8. Cal -11%
9. ASU -30%
10. UW -35%
11. Colorado -75%
12. Stanford -205%

UCLA gets away with a clear foul on a shooter with 1 minute to go in a one pt game

This is why you foul when you're up by 3

Alabama misses 2 FTs, UCLA makes two, and Alabama gets the best look you're ever going to see in 4 seconds to tie it at the buzzer

OT

HoopDreams said:

---

Alabama misses 2 FTs, UCLA makes two, and Alabama gets the best look you're ever going to see in 4 seconds to tie it at the buzzer

OT

---

That was from deep.

The announcers are such homers they are dreaming up winning scenarios for Alabama like Greg Papa used to do when the Raiders were down 3 TDs with 2 minutes left.

HoopDreams said:

---

3 Pac12 teams to the elite

---

HD, why is PAC 12 the dominant league in this tourney? Break it down for us.

HoopDreams said:

---

3 Pac12 teams to the elite

---

This is incredible.

More money for Cal.

Is this the greatest Pac-12 tournament run ever? In terms of beating our seeds it's got to be. Last time we had four teams in the Sweet 16 was 1997, I think, and then only two made the Elite 8.

SC and O played once this season at SC. SC won 72-58. I expect no less tonight. At will scoring down low will stab the 3 pointer in the heart.

Usc could win the whole thing. I hope they do. We need the money.

oskidunker said:

---

Usc could win the whole thing. I hope they do. We need the money.

---

Hell Oregon State could win this whole deal at this point.

oskidunker said:

---

Usc could win the whole thing. I hope they do. We need the money.

---

O focusing on Mobleys who have a combined 14 points; White + Eaddy = 30 points so far.
Phil Knight just introduced a designer drug to his flask.
It doesn't get any better than PAC 12 advancing but O losing.

sycasey said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

3 Pac12 teams to the elite

---

This is incredible.

---

Pac 12 uber alles

More evidence of ESPN fellating the SEC with this headline. "Holding on"? How about UCLA dominating OT. Or a #11 seed upsetting a #2? Or UCLA winning it's fourth tournament game by beating a media favorite?

PalyBear said:

---

More evidence of ESPN fellating the SEC with this headline. "Holding on"? How about UCLA dominating OT. Or a #11 seed upsetting a #2? Or UCLA winning it's fourth tournament game by beating a media favorite?

---

Well, you have to realize that the SEC territory dominates all modern media markets.

It doesn't?

Well, it is comprised of the US' largest population centers.

It isn't?

Well, its fans are definitely the target demographic in terms of ad sales

They're not?

So why cater to the SEC then?

PalyBear said:

---

More evidence of ESPN fellating the SEC with this headline. "Holding on"? How about UCLA dominating OT. Or a #11 seed upsetting a #2? Or UCLA winning it's fourth tournament game by beating a media favorite?

---

Some Bama fans on their forums were mentioning this and I kind of observed it as well, but the coverage was pretty pro-UCLA and the bear runts did control most of the game and let it slip into overtime before re-establishing themselves in extra time.

dimitrig said:

---

PalyBear said:

---

More evidence of ESPN fellating the SEC with this headline. "Holding on"? How about UCLA dominating OT. Or a #11 seed upsetting a #2? Or UCLA winning it's fourth tournament game by beating a media favorite?

---

Well, you have to realize that the SEC territory dominates all modern media markets.

It doesn't?

Well, it is comprised of the US' largest population centers.

It isn't?

Well, its fans are definitely the target demographic in terms of ad sales

They're not?

So why cater to the SEC then?

---

With football it does make sense since the SEC fan bases are legitimately more rabid. Not sure about hoops; with a few exceptions (Kentucky), that sport seems to rank a very distant second place within the conference.

"Impending legislation will allow student-athletes to monetize their name, image and likeness (NIL) through sponsored social media posts and other means.

Why it matters: If athletes had full control of their NIL rights, the top women's basketball players in this year's Elite Eight would have greater earning power than the top men.

By the numbers: Among the men's and women's Elite Eight teams, eight of the 10 most-followed players and 10 of the top 20 are women.

Listed below are the combined Twitter and Instagram follower counts for the 20 most-followed players, plus their estimated annual earnings, provided to Axios by athlete marketing platform Opendorse.
Opendorse's estimates weigh multiple factors, including engagement rate, market size (e.g. UCLA > Gonzaga) and overall sponsorship and athletic department revenue by school (e.g. Louisville > UConn).
Top 20:

Paige Bueckers, UConn: ~730k ($382k)
Hailey Van Lith, Louisville: 696k ($965k)
Jalen Suggs, Gonzaga: 325k ($495k)
Jaden Owens, Baylor: 295k ($310k)
Zia Cooke, South Carolina: 206k ($178k)
Cameron Brink, Stanford: 91k ($47k)
Adrian Nunez, Michigan: 83k ($70k)
Anna Wilson, Stanford: 80k ($41k)
Olivia Nelson-Ododa, UConn: 77k ($30k)
Brea Beal, South Carolina: 74k ($69k)
Quentin Grimes, Houston: 66k ($67k)
Destanni Henderson, South Carolina: 65k ($81k)
Evan Mobley, USC: 62k ($46k)
Johnny Juzang, UCLA: 55k ($53k)
Tyger Campbell, UCLA: 54k ($59k)
Moses Moody, Arkansas: 50k ($72k)
Drew Timme, Gonzaga: 49k ($40k)
Hunter Dickinson, 49k ($33k)
Jaylen Clark, UCLA: 49k ($38k)
Caitlin Clark, Iowa: 42k ($11k)"
Axios

They can make a lot more money then that (3X+), and with a concerted effort to gain more followers they will get sponsors and click through product commissions

bearister said:

---

"Impending legislation will allow student-athletes to monetize their name, image and likeness (NIL) through sponsored social media posts and other means.

Why it matters: If athletes had full control of their NIL rights, the top women's basketball players in this year's Elite Eight would have greater earning power than the top men.

By the numbers: Among the men's and women's Elite Eight teams, eight of the 10 most-followed players and 10 of the top 20 are women.

Listed below are the combined Twitter and Instagram follower counts for the 20 most-followed players, plus their estimated annual earnings, provided to Axios by athlete marketing platform Opendorse.
Opendorse's estimates weigh multiple factors, including engagement rate, market size (e.g. UCLA > Gonzaga) and overall sponsorship and athletic department revenue by school (e.g. Louisville > UConn).
Top 20:

Paige Bueckers, UConn: ~730k ($382k)
Hailey Van Lith, Louisville: 696k ($965k)
Jalen Suggs, Gonzaga: 325k ($495k)
Jaden Owens, Baylor: 295k ($310k)
Zia Cooke, South Carolina: 206k ($178k)
Cameron Brink, Stanford: 91k ($47k)
Adrian Nunez, Michigan: 83k ($70k)
Anna Wilson, Stanford: 80k ($41k)
Olivia Nelson-Ododa, UConn: 77k ($30k)
Brea Beal, South Carolina: 74k ($69k)
Quentin Grimes, Houston: 66k ($67k)
Destanni Henderson, South Carolina: 65k ($81k)
Evan Mobley, USC: 62k ($46k)
Johnny Juzang, UCLA: 55k ($53k)
Tyger Campbell, UCLA: 54k ($59k)
Moses Moody, Arkansas: 50k ($72k)
Drew Timme, Gonzaga: 49k ($40k)
Hunter Dickinson, 49k ($33k)
Jaylen Clark, UCLA: 49k ($38k)
Caitlin Clark, Iowa: 42k ($11k)"
Axios

---

7 of 8 teams are also from west of the Mississippi!

Chabbear said:

---

7 of 8 teams are also from west of the Mississippi!

---

....but at least the color commentators for the games nakedly root for the teams East of the Mississippi. Their analysis of fouls and video replays is corrupt.