How is that at timeout for Utah? OK the announcer got it wrong.

kelly had to play against 2 long defenders + a double ... everyone has scouted him and know they can't let him go off

1 rebound deficit which is good considering I was worried about rebounding

Gach hurt us again big time. Other major problem was their 3 point shooting.

Foreman 5-9, 3-7 for 13 points, 2 rebounds

Klonaras was a score, block and rebound

Brown still a poor finisher. He needs to learn how to do a layup high off the glass like Sheperd

ZzzzZZzzzZzZZzzzzzzzZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzz

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

ZzzzZZzzzZzZZzzzzzzzZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzz

---

Basketball very similar to football:

Football had four 50-50 games -- Nevada, TCU, UW, and Oregon. Couldn't win any.

Basketball has had three tough 50-50 type games -- UNLV, Seton Hall and Utah, all away from Haas. Couldn't win any.

We're doing better than I thought we would. What worries me is this level of play might be our ceiling.

We should be able to win the next four. I said "should".

The fraud aint great. Maybe we have a chance.

Team is progressing. Cal is already better than most doomsayers here expected. They will continue to improve. Celestine is going to get better and perhaps be dominant by the end of the season. Soon, they will actually throw entry passes to Kelly and the offense will improve dramatically.

bearchamp said:

---

Team is progressing. Cal is already better than most doomsayers here expected. They will continue to improve. Celestine is going to get better and perhaps be dominant by the end of the season. Soon, they will actually throw entry passes to Kelly and the offense will improve dramatically.

---

Tend to agree, but yesterday was a bit disappointing. Really thought we had enough going to pull out the W. Maybe its that old Utah-altitude thing, but it appeared Fox was trying to deal with it by substituting frequently. Anyway, anyone have news on the Kuany injury?

bearchamp said:

---

Team is progressing. Cal is already better than most doomsayers here expected. They will continue to improve. Celestine is going to get better and perhaps be dominant by the end of the season. Soon, they will actually throw entry passes to Kelly and the offense will improve dramatically.

---

You don't understand. We don't really care. The athletic department demonstrated that they are unwilling to compete with our peers. They flat out quit when they hired Wyking. It doesn't matter how many wins the team gets versus a ridiculously artificially low bar. It will take years to repair the damage, no matter what 20 die-hard weirdos (no offense) on this message board think.

KoreAmBear said:

---

This is my problem with Fox's offense. It's so stagnant hardly anyone moving, burn clock and not look for offense early. Well if we have good 1 v 1 matchups and our shooters are hot, we are good. If not, we have nothing going to the basket to fall back on. That's why we seem to have a stretch every game where we can't buy a bucket.

---

It is easy to blame Fox. This is very early in the season for the first conference game, and I've been surprised by how well our players are moving at times. Sometimes "Fox's offense" looks good, with all the players moving. It is the players who get stagnant, usually due to getting tired or defenses not letting Cal players go where they want to go. Sometimes our players get into playing by themselves too much. In the case of Utah, I think that Utah had very athletic and very mobile players, and Cal players were having to work hard on defense, along with Cal having to play just one game at altitude, without acclimating. If players are at altitude for two games, like the usual Colorado/Utah trip, they can be better acclimated to altitude by the second day. Cal has had difficulty winning at altitude since Utah and Colorado joined the conference. Cal's players looked to me like they lost their legs in the 2nd half.

KoreAmBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

That big Ute deserves an Oscar.

---

Yep.

Looks like another UNLV or Seton Hall.

Just can't seem to get over. Golden opportunity to go to 2-0 in conference.

Problem is we depend on guys getting hot. We don't have an offense that just sustains. Sorry I'm just not a fan of Fox. The mark of our team is every game we go cold for long stretches.

---

Fox is not the guy going cold. It is the players who are going cold.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

ZzzzZZzzzZzZZzzzzzzzZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzz

---

Basketball very similar to football:

Football had four 50-50 games -- Nevada, TCU, UW, and Oregon. Couldn't win any.

Basketball has had three tough 50-50 type games -- UNLV, Seton Hall and Utah, all away from Haas. Couldn't win any.

---

How do you define a 50-50 game? Do you mean it was predicted to be a close game? Or do you mean it turned out to be a close game when it was played? I think football and basketball have some differences. I think the weather affects football games more than basketball, and that means rain in Oregon and blizzards in Eastern Washington, at least. The rims in different basketball arenas make a difference. The hostile crowds for basketball in a closed arena are a big factor in conference games, except during Covid, where there are no crowds. In basketball, every PAC12 road game places the visitor at a disadvantage. Any close to sea level PAC12 team going to Utah or Colorado to play a basketball game at altitude starts out as an underdog, or if they were favored to win, they would be less of a favorite. You can have 50-50 games on a neutral floor like we had in Florida recently, but I don't think Seton Hall, ranked #21, would be a 50-50 game. Maybe I just don't understand your definition.

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

That big Ute deserves an Oscar.

---

Yep.

Looks like another UNLV or Seton Hall.

Just can't seem to get over. Golden opportunity to go to 2-0 in conference.

Problem is we depend on guys getting hot. We don't have an offense that just sustains. Sorry I'm just not a fan of Fox. The mark of our team is every game we go cold for long stretches.

---

Fox is not the guy going cold. It is the players who are going cold.

---

Are you aware how often you defend the coach by blaming the players?

Shooters are recruited. Fox has assembled a team of guys that mostly were not known for their 3 point shooting. So far this year, Cal is one of the top 3 point shooting teams in the conference. It is not reasonable to expect that to continue.

Pertaining to the Utah game: the hot hand in the first half was Foreman (one of our players with a history of good three point shooting). He did not appear in the second half. Hence a big reason why "shooting went cold." Was he injured or was that the coach's decision?

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

That big Ute deserves an Oscar.

---

Yep.

Looks like another UNLV or Seton Hall.

Just can't seem to get over. Golden opportunity to go to 2-0 in conference.

Problem is we depend on guys getting hot. We don't have an offense that just sustains. Sorry I'm just not a fan of Fox. The mark of our team is every game we go cold for long stretches.

---

Fox is not the guy going cold. It is the players who are going cold.

---

Fox needs an offense that does not depend on guys hitting 3 pointers. We don't have a lot of shooters. Sure if Shepherd (like v. Oregon State) or Grant go off it helps out along with Kelly's baskets in the paint. But our half court offensive does not create a lot of good looks close to the basket except for Kelly - who does a lot of the work on his own.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Team is progressing. Cal is already better than most doomsayers here expected. They will continue to improve. Celestine is going to get better and perhaps be dominant by the end of the season. Soon, they will actually throw entry passes to Kelly and the offense will improve dramatically.

---

You don't understand. We don't really care. The athletic department demonstrated that they are unwilling to compete with our peers. They flat out quit when they hired Wyking. It doesn't matter how many wins the team gets versus a ridiculously artificially low bar. It will take years to repair the damage, no matter what 20 die-hard weirdos (no offense) on this message board think.

---

With all due respect CIG, this is a Cal fan board. Call me a worshipper of mediocrity, a fool, or maybe a realist. I enjoy rooting for Cal. I enjoy Cal basketball on a game to game basis because I am a fan. I am 65 and realize I most likely will never see Cal in a final four in my lifetime. Its okay.
Excuse me for saying this, but if you really feel this way, if you don't think the AD cares, then why do you care? And honestly why even bother to read this board and make a comment on it? Let us "die-hard weirdos" talk basetball and make yourself feel better by doing something else, because your comment above is old, tired, and adds nothing to the conversation. Let it rest.

---

I would argue that it is a helpful reality check for the voice of one of the tens of thousands of fans who once had CHAIRBACK SEATS to occasionally be heard. Do you want to silence that voice? Why?

Why do I still care? Why am I a die-hard Padres fan, a team that had a losing record for the first 15 years of its existence and still has not won a World Series? Because I have no control over who I am a fan of. But that doesn't mean I can't be critical. You should feel lucky that 99% of the old fans of this program who used to care don't come on here and let the program know how they feel, because you wouldn't survive the deluge.

Adding "nothing to the conversation" is what you 20 folks do day after day, while I sit down here in SD and watch Bradley's SDSU highlights on the nightly news. Pathetic.

My name is on that wall !!!

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Team is progressing. Cal is already better than most doomsayers here expected. They will continue to improve. Celestine is going to get better and perhaps be dominant by the end of the season. Soon, they will actually throw entry passes to Kelly and the offense will improve dramatically.

---

You don't understand. We don't really care. The athletic department demonstrated that they are unwilling to compete with our peers. They flat out quit when they hired Wyking. It doesn't matter how many wins the team gets versus a ridiculously artificially low bar. It will take years to repair the damage, no matter what 20 die-hard weirdos (no offense) on this message board think.

---

With all due respect CIG, this is a Cal fan board. Call me a worshipper of mediocrity, a fool, or maybe a realist. I enjoy rooting for Cal. I enjoy Cal basketball on a game to game basis because I am a fan. I am 65 and realize I most likely will never see Cal in a final four in my lifetime. Its okay.
Excuse me for saying this, but if you really feel this way, if you don't think the AD cares, then why do you care? And honestly why even bother to read this board and make a comment on it? Let us "die-hard weirdos" talk basetball and make yourself feel better by doing something else, because your comment above is old, tired, and adds nothing to the conversation. Let it rest.

---

I would argue that it is a helpful reality check for the voice of one of the tens of thousands of fans who once had CHAIRBACK SEATS to occasionally be heard. Do you want to silence that voice? Why?

Why do I still care? Why am I a die-hard Padres fan, a team that had a losing record for the first 15 years of its existence and still has not won a World Series? Because I have no control over who I am a fan of. But that doesn't mean I can't be critical. You should feel lucky that 99% of the old fans of this program who used to care don't come on here and let the program know how they feel, because you wouldn't survive the deluge.

Adding "nothing to the conversation" is what you 20 folks do day after day, while I sit down here in SD and watch Bradley's SDSU highlights on the nightly news. Pathetic.

My name is on that wall !!!

---

I upgraded to great chairback seats and enjoy every game

KoreAmBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

That big Ute deserves an Oscar.

---

Yep.

Looks like another UNLV or Seton Hall.

Just can't seem to get over. Golden opportunity to go to 2-0 in conference.

Problem is we depend on guys getting hot. We don't have an offense that just sustains. Sorry I'm just not a fan of Fox. The mark of our team is every game we go cold for long stretches.

---

Fox is not the guy going cold. It is the players who are going cold.

---

Fox needs an offense that does not depend on guys hitting 3 pointers. We don't have a lot of shooters. Sure if Shepherd (like v. Oregon State) or Grant go off it helps out along with Kelly's baskets in the paint. But our half court offensive does not create a lot of good looks close to the basket except for Kelly - who does a lot of the work on his own.

---

I agree with you, but I'm not sure what you propose for an offense is possible in this day and age. I hate it that Cal (or any team) needs to have an offense that depends on guys hitting 3-pointers. But nearly every team does, unless they have outstanding big men inside. The only players we have who can consistently score in the paint are Kelly and Shepherd. Defenses know we are not a great 3-point shooting team, and pack their defense to protect the rim, making it hard to get open looks inside. I would like to see an offense that could maybe concentrate on shooting a good mix of mid-range shots. I like that we are using a weave, but I would like to see the dribbler set a screen as soon as he hands the ball off, like the weave of olden times, as long as we are going to use it. I would like to see more 2-man plays, give and go, pick and roll, back cuts, etc., and I would like to see mid-range jump shots from behind screens, maybe double screens. I don't know the modern player, whether they would be receptive to simple plays like these. They seem too often anxious to go one on one, whether driving to the basket, or shooting a three. I can't judge whether this coach is teaching effective plays, or whether the players are reluctant to use them. And I can't tell if these players are not fundamentally skilled enough so that Fox can spend an appropriate amount of time with them to teach his plays. I mean Fox can't install an offense to create open looks, if he has to teach the players how to make the shots. The only way I know of to know the answer is to go to some practices and see what Fox is asking the players to do, and how they are responding. I really can't judge Fox's offense, until I know what he is trying to have his players do. It is why I pay attention to what people who have been to practices, color broadcasters like Montgomery, or 4thgen on this board. It is not much to go on, but enough to give me a little hope. One thing the weave has done is show the players that once in a while it does create openings or opportunities.

Cal, except for Foreman, had a terrible shooting night in Utah, and still shot better than Utah. I think we still need to shoot threes when we are open, but not everyone should shoot them. Foreman, Grant, Alajiki, Kuany, Celestine, yes. Shepherd less than he does, Hyder, no more until his foot heals. Barring injuries, we will beat Utah at Haas.

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

bearister said:

---

That big Ute deserves an Oscar.

---

Yep.

Looks like another UNLV or Seton Hall.

Just can't seem to get over. Golden opportunity to go to 2-0 in conference.

Problem is we depend on guys getting hot. We don't have an offense that just sustains. Sorry I'm just not a fan of Fox. The mark of our team is every game we go cold for long stretches.

---

Fox is not the guy going cold. It is the players who are going cold.

---

Are you aware how often you defend the coach by blaming the players?

Are you aware of how often you respond to a post by putting words in the poster's mouth?

Please provide all these other examples of me "blaming the players". I blamed no one. There is nothing to blame here. Players are human beings. They do not always shoot well, even the best of them. When Steph Curry, maybe the best shooter on the planet, goes cold for a stretch or a game, or a string of games (and it does happen), do you think I blame Curry?

What I did was state facts: Fox is the coach. He never took a shot in that game. The players took all the shots, and missed too many of them. It happens. They are human.

I take pains not to blame players, unless a player does something morally wrong, like stealing laptops and tarnishing the reputation of Cal and the Cal team, or deliberately trying to injure another player, like Draymond Green appeared to do while laying on the floor of a playoff game, or just being selfish like DJ Seeley, sulking on the bench, and then when the coach calls on him to play, he dogs it and does not try to play hard.

The three point shot has the lowest percentage chance of being successful of any type of shot in the game. 34% is average. The only way the leagues could get coaches and players interested in it, was to make it worth an extra point. I would never blame any player for missing a three, or missing a bunch of them. .I recall you being highly critical of Ryan Betley for shooting threes way too often and missing way too many.

All college players are in various stages of development, still maturing and growing into their bodies, and learning the game. And most three point shooters only shoot 2 or 3 threes a game. That is not enough to get warmed up. In an NBA game, Curry is the best around, and he might shoot 10 or more threes in a half, and still might not find his stroke.

I defend Fox, but I also am critical of him. I'm not happy with his offense, but as you said he has not recruited enough good players. I don't like the way he is embarrassing Celestine at a game to make a point. I don't think a coach should ever do that in public. It is OK by by me to be hard on players to make a point, but it should be done behind closed doors. I always try to be fair.

Shooters are recruited. Fox has assembled a team of guys that mostly were not known for their 3 point shooting. So far this year, Cal is one of the top 3 point shooting teams in the conference. It is not reasonable to expect that to continue.

I agree with this. Fox may be focusing on shooting too many threes, but the only option inside is Kelly, or Shepherd on a drive. We don't know if any of these players can shoot a mid-range shot at a high percentage. No team shoots a lot of them, do they? Fox needs to get a point guard badly, and he also needs a center who can dominate. I do think Fox did recruit both Celestine and Alajiki to shoot threes, not a high volume, but they obviously have some skill there, and either Fox should tell or let them shoot more, or they have to decide to do so themselves. They have to do this, there is no one else. Kuany perhaps. We have only two three point shooters who shoot for volume and percentage, Foreman and Grant.

Pertaining to the Utah game: the hot hand in the first half was Foreman (one of our players with a history of good three point shooting). He did not appear in the second half. Hence a big reason why "shooting went cold." Was he injured or was that the coach's decision?


I disagree a bit about Foreman being a good three point shooter. He is average, that is all. He may be better against shorter defenders or in a lesser league. Foreman began the season injured enough to have his foot in a boot. When he did return, he was still hobbled by the injury, and was in a shooting slump for several games. Was this the same injury he had mid season last year? Against Utah, he broke out of the slump in the 1st half. My guess is that the injury returned and he did not play in the second half. The other possibility is he was benched for a disciplinary reason, but I think that is less likely.

---