Two main issues last night.
The foul call on 2K. Perhaps it was technically correct but if it was the rule it doesn't make sense. Since CBB has incorporated this whole process of the elbow play, and the video review, I for one have been sickened by it. I try to be as politically correct as the next guy (understand the injury factor) but more times than not since its implementation, I have seen players unjustly called for this "fragrant" foul more than there should be.

When I was in high school my coach addressed the rule pertaining to "elbow swinging." His instruction was that a player could possess the ball with his elbows out, and what determined a possible foul was whether his elbows were "swinging" side to side, as opposed to the player "pivoting", with his feet, causing his elbows to move. There should always be a natural zone of possession that the player holding the ball should be entitled to that allows him to manuever. Evidently, the current rule restricts a player from rebounding with his elbows out. What technically qualifies as "elbows out?" What amazes me is that Kuany is called for a "flagrant one" when initially he wasn't even called for a foul. Why is that? Because most of these refs subconciously view the elbow issue the same way my high school coach addressed it. Just can't stand what I saw, and I know I will be seeing it again.

That being said, the Bears were on their way to losing anyway. Like many, really like MacLean as a commentator, and even though he has a tendency to over emphasize things, his issue with Cal's constant unchanging style of play is completely relevant.

In the games this team has won recently, the Bears were able to dictate the style of play basically from beginning to end. This is where SoCal's "talent factor" comes in. If you can't adjust your strategy in certain situations it will almost certainly the restrict the number of games you win. Fox has taught the Bears well in games where they match up athletically, but when a team like Washington speeds up play like last night the Bears have shown no ability to adjust. Its like having a car that runs well in 4th gear on a moderate freeway, but on a faster freeway the Bears have no "overdrive" capacity. They just simply keep playing their same game. A coach needs to teach a team to adapt to certain situations. So far I haven't seen that from Mark Fox.

Other observations: despite the horrific foul call, the disparity was really due to the fact that Washington played zone the entire game while the Bears were in a man to man.
I thought we would have been better prepared against a zone, since we have decent outside shooters, but except for the last 10 minutes of the first half it didn't look like it.
Really like Celestine's game. Solid combination of talent and basketball smarts out there. Wish we had five of him in different ht/wt dimensions.

I guess that's enough for now.

Brown may have been able to slow up Brown but I doubt it the liability on offense would have not helped.

The thing that really bothers me, and one of the W4C writers noted this on twitter as well, is that it sure seems like Fox is so insistent that we drain the clock that we pass up good, open shots in the first 10-15 seconds of the clock. Last night, there were at least a few instances of Alajiki/Anticevich having open 3-point looks early in the clock that they passed up to continue the "pass it around the wing to burn clock" strategy. Many times, those possessions will end up with rushed long 2s (a much worse shot than the open shot that was passed up). I'm not saying we need to let fly with every open 3 with 25s on the shot clock, but our good 3-point shooters should be ready to let fly when they are open independent of the time remaining.

Alajiki passes a wide open corner 3 early in the shot clock, and they later settle for a contested long 2, and that 3 is the exact kind of shot the coaching staff should be drilling their players to attempt but quite evidently don’t.

— Nicolas Kranz (@NorCalNickW4C) January 13, 2022

There's another possibility here that needs to be considered, and again it means the fix will be in recruiting rather than coaching:

These guys are passing up open looks at 3-pointers because they are not good outside shooters. It's not a matter of draining the shot clock for the sake of draining the shot clock, it's a matter of not quickly finding a shot that is high-percentage for the players who are on the floor.

The short-term solution might be to work harder at getting into the lane for shots and when that is difficult, drawing contact and getting foul calls. But the lasting solution is to recruit a few or several players who are good outside shooters.

BearSD said:

---

There's another possibility here that needs to be considered, and again it means the fix will be in recruiting rather than coaching:

These guys are passing up open looks at 3-pointers because they are not good outside shooters. It's not a matter of draining the shot clock for the sake of draining the shot clock, it's a matter of not quickly finding a shot that is high-percentage for the players who are on the floor.

The short-term solution might be to work harder at getting into the lane for shots and when that is difficult, drawing contact and getting foul calls. But the lasting solution is to recruit a few or several players who are good outside shooters.

---

Can't buy in to this one. Grant, Sam, Makale, Jordan, Jalen, can all stroke the three when open. None of them may be ultimate top notch quality, but all are quite capable.

socaltownie said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

The thing that really bothers me, and one of the W4C writers noted this on twitter as well, is that it sure seems like Fox is so insistent that we drain the clock that we pass up good, open shots in the first 10-15 seconds of the clock. Last night, there were at least a few instances of Alajiki/Anticevich having open 3-point looks early in the clock that they passed up to continue the "pass it around the wing to burn clock" strategy. Many times, those possessions will end up with rushed long 2s (a much worse shot than the open shot that was passed up). I'm not saying we need to let fly with every open 3 with 25s on the shot clock, but our good 3-point shooters should be ready to let fly when they are open independent of the time remaining.

Alajiki passes a wide open corner 3 early in the shot clock, and they later settle for a contested long 2, and that 3 is the exact kind of shot the coaching staff should be drilling their players to attempt but quite evidently don’t.

— Nicolas Kranz (@NorCalNickW4C) January 13, 2022

---

Mark Fox Basketball. This is a feature not a bug and it is unclear it will ever change. This is one of those "bad" losses - not the L but in how. Feels like 13/14 wins is once again our ceiling but I haven't stared long enough at the schedule to make a full prediction.

---

Exactly. People are still confused about this? This is what we signed up for and are paying $millions to get. It is a style that used to be popular in the Midwest. It is Cuonzo Martin's offense and defense but without the charisma and good recruiting.

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

The thing that really bothers me, and one of the W4C writers noted this on twitter as well, is that it sure seems like Fox is so insistent that we drain the clock that we pass up good, open shots in the first 10-15 seconds of the clock. Last night, there were at least a few instances of Alajiki/Anticevich having open 3-point looks early in the clock that they passed up to continue the "pass it around the wing to burn clock" strategy. Many times, those possessions will end up with rushed long 2s (a much worse shot than the open shot that was passed up). I'm not saying we need to let fly with every open 3 with 25s on the shot clock, but our good 3-point shooters should be ready to let fly when they are open independent of the time remaining.

Alajiki passes a wide open corner 3 early in the shot clock, and they later settle for a contested long 2, and that 3 is the exact kind of shot the coaching staff should be drilling their players to attempt but quite evidently don’t.

— Nicolas Kranz (@NorCalNickW4C) January 13, 2022

---

Mark Fox Basketball. This is a feature not a bug and it is unclear it will ever change. This is one of those "bad" losses - not the L but in how. Feels like 13/14 wins is once again our ceiling but I haven't stared long enough at the schedule to make a full prediction.

---

Exactly. People are still confused about this? This is what we signed up for and are paying $millions to get. It is a style that used to be popular in the Midwest. It is Cuonzo Martin's offense and defense but without the charisma and good recruiting.

---

The only point I would say is while generally true, I'm pretty sure that in Cuonzo's last year at Tennessee (his sweet sixteen team), he was top 10 in the country in both offensive and defensive efficiency. Without confirming the efficiency of Fox's teams over the course of his career, I'd be willing to bet he hasn't reached that level of performance.

CalLifer said:

---

The thing that really bothers me, and one of the W4C writers noted this on twitter as well, is that it sure seems like Fox is so insistent that we drain the clock that we pass up good, open shots in the first 10-15 seconds of the clock. Last night, there were at least a few instances of Alajiki/Anticevich having open 3-point looks early in the clock that they passed up to continue the "pass it around the wing to burn clock" strategy. Many times, those possessions will end up with rushed long 2s (a much worse shot than the open shot that was passed up). I'm not saying we need to let fly with every open 3 with 25s on the shot clock, but our good 3-point shooters should be ready to let fly when they are open independent of the time remaining.

Alajiki passes a wide open corner 3 early in the shot clock, and they later settle for a contested long 2, and that 3 is the exact kind of shot the coaching staff should be drilling their players to attempt but quite evidently don’t.

— Nicolas Kranz (@NorCalNickW4C) January 13, 2022

---

OMG, absolutely. How many times this season have I seen us milk the ball and then have to throw up a lousy shot because the clock was about to expire (as the opponent's defense tightened up). Exasperating to watch!

Big C said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

The thing that really bothers me, and one of the W4C writers noted this on twitter as well, is that it sure seems like Fox is so insistent that we drain the clock that we pass up good, open shots in the first 10-15 seconds of the clock. Last night, there were at least a few instances of Alajiki/Anticevich having open 3-point looks early in the clock that they passed up to continue the "pass it around the wing to burn clock" strategy. Many times, those possessions will end up with rushed long 2s (a much worse shot than the open shot that was passed up). I'm not saying we need to let fly with every open 3 with 25s on the shot clock, but our good 3-point shooters should be ready to let fly when they are open independent of the time remaining.

Alajiki passes a wide open corner 3 early in the shot clock, and they later settle for a contested long 2, and that 3 is the exact kind of shot the coaching staff should be drilling their players to attempt but quite evidently don’t.

— Nicolas Kranz (@NorCalNickW4C) January 13, 2022

---

OMG, absolutely. How many times this season have I seen us milk the ball and then have to throw up a lousy shot because the clock was about to expire (as the opponent's defense tightened up). Exasperating to watch!

---

That possession where Makale couldn't even get off the shot before the shot clock expired was the best example of this approach.

We were actually moving the ball, cutting and spacing out much better the like for 5 minutes on either side of the half. Then we reverted back to stall ball. Why didn't we continue to attack like we did the end of the half (the diagonal pass from Grant to a cutting Roberson being a such a great way to break their press)?

BearSD said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

BearSD said:

---

There's another possibility here that needs to be considered, and again it means the fix will be in recruiting rather than coaching:

These guys are passing up open looks at 3-pointers because they are not good outside shooters. It's not a matter of draining the shot clock for the sake of draining the shot clock, it's a matter of not quickly finding a shot that is high-percentage for the players who are on the floor.

The short-term solution might be to work harder at getting into the lane for shots and when that is difficult, drawing contact and getting foul calls. But the lasting solution is to recruit a few or several players who are good outside shooters.

---

But the guys passing up these shots are our good shooters... Alajiki, Anticevich, Celestine, etc. These are not bad shooters.

And I think the larger point is that we are a generally limited offensive team. There may be some possessions where we pass up that open 3 and end up with a layup, but there will also be many where we end up with a contested long 2 (or worse, a prayer) b/c the other option is a shot clock violation. The coaching staff should understand that an open 3 in the flow of our offense from one of our good shooters is a good shot *independent of how much is left on the shot clock* and be encouraging those shots. The rigidity to make sure we work the clock independent of the looks we might get sure seems like a Fox preference/goal.

---

Good in the context of this team, I guess. Not in the context of the entire sport.

Anticevich would count, he has more than 70 3 pt attempts and is at 37%. He's attempting more than four 3s per game. The only other Bears who have more than 40 3 pt attempts are under 30%. The top 50 on the NCAA leaderboard are averaging over 80 attempts so far this season, about 5 per game, at a median of 44%.

Alajiki is a solid player, but as a shooter he averages barely more than one 3 pt attempt per game. IMO you can't expect an infrequent shooter to flip a switch and become a 40% high-volume 3 pt guy.

If the Bears had 3 guys who shoot 3s at a high volume and high percentage, I'd say spread the floor, coach a good passing offense and let whomever is open fire away, but I don't think that strategy fits this roster.

---

Again, though this is a chicken-and-egg problem, no? i.e. would they have higher volume if they were coached/encouraged to take open looks when they came, independent of the shot-clock?

Alajiki is 11-19 so far this year (better than 50%). Yes, it's low volume, but I would 100% welcome more open shots from Sam early in the clock (and he passed up at least one great look last night). Looking at his form and results, I would posit he is at least a good shooter when open and our offense would be helped by him taking more threes. Celestine is 12-33 (36%), on top of 12-29 last year, for a combined 24-62 (38.7%). I would welcome him taking open looks any time he had them. Kuany is only 7-17, but again, his shot looks good enough that I would be happy for the coaches to encourage him to take that shot when available (would also lead to fewer TOs from Kuany if he was ready to catch and shoot ).

And I would also suggest that part of how defenses play against Cal is emboldened by the fact that they know the Bears won't take open shots early in the clock (can play loose against the bears on the perimeter early in the clock and then tighten things up as the clock progresses). How many more layups would we get if those good shooters needed to be guarded early, leading to less congestion in the paint?

I'm absolutely baffled at Mark Fox's inability to recruit one elite shooter and one elite scorer. There has to be two guys in the state of California (or elsewhere) who can academically get into Cal who can score. We have been offensively challenged for years. Washington was begging Cal to shoot threes because the Bears can't. And it worked. Sometimes you need dudes on your team who can score, and while they may not be the best defender, they can score 8-10 points in a row. If you're depending on Anticevich to be your second-leading scorer when he barely shoots 2's better than 3's, you're in trouble. I'd try to turn Celestine and Akajaki into scorers for next season, recruit a JC kid or get a transfer who can score and recruit two or three elite shooters.

I think Fox thought Shepard would carrying the scoring load with Kelly but Shepard is shooting 37 percent from the field and 29 from the 3-point line, not exactly zone-busting numbers.

gwashburn14 said:

---

I'm absolutely baffled at Mark Fox's inability to recruit one elite shooter and one elite scorer. There has to be two guys in the state of California (or elsewhere) who can academically get into Cal who can score. We have been offensively challenged for years. Washington was begging Cal to shoot threes because the Bears can't. And it worked. Sometimes you need dudes on your team who can score, and while they may not be the best defender, they can score 8-10 points in a row. If you're depending on Anticevich to be your second-leading scorer when he barely shoots 2's better than 3's, you're in trouble. I'd try to turn Celestine and Akajaki into scorers for next season, recruit a JC kid or get a transfer who can score and recruit two or three elite shooters.

I think Fox thought Shepard would carrying the scoring load with Kelly but Shepard is shooting 37 percent from the field and 29 from the 3-point line, not exactly zone-busting numbers.

---

LOL. We did have scorers. One is playing for SDSU and then another one heard the inspiring speech and bolted for the Ohio State University.

Now true, he inherited these guys......

Fundamentally Mark Fox's expiration date has run out about 10 years ago. And I get it. There was a time this approach worked. But in the era of the portal, NIL, one and dones, and the lack of NCAA enforcement (compare this era to the one that UNLV faced) and it is clear that more and more NCAA coaches have to act like NBA coaches - managing ego and minutes, being a players coach, etc. etc. etc.

Please - you have to wrap your head around it. UCLA, USC, Oregon and Arizona don't CARE about your ethics. They want to win. And so either we get down in the gutter or we reconcile ourselves that this is our ceiling.

PS. I think Monty would be struggling just about as much right now. In a Portal era and the opportunity to bolt without sitting out a year because of the appeal process the shover could be in trouble.

CalLifer said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

The thing that really bothers me, and one of the W4C writers noted this on twitter as well, is that it sure seems like Fox is so insistent that we drain the clock that we pass up good, open shots in the first 10-15 seconds of the clock. Last night, there were at least a few instances of Alajiki/Anticevich having open 3-point looks early in the clock that they passed up to continue the "pass it around the wing to burn clock" strategy. Many times, those possessions will end up with rushed long 2s (a much worse shot than the open shot that was passed up). I'm not saying we need to let fly with every open 3 with 25s on the shot clock, but our good 3-point shooters should be ready to let fly when they are open independent of the time remaining.

Alajiki passes a wide open corner 3 early in the shot clock, and they later settle for a contested long 2, and that 3 is the exact kind of shot the coaching staff should be drilling their players to attempt but quite evidently don’t.

— Nicolas Kranz (@NorCalNickW4C) January 13, 2022

---

Mark Fox Basketball. This is a feature not a bug and it is unclear it will ever change. This is one of those "bad" losses - not the L but in how. Feels like 13/14 wins is once again our ceiling but I haven't stared long enough at the schedule to make a full prediction.

---

Exactly. People are still confused about this? This is what we signed up for and are paying $millions to get. It is a style that used to be popular in the Midwest. It is Cuonzo Martin's offense and defense but without the charisma and good recruiting.

---

The only point I would say is while generally true, I'm pretty sure that in Cuonzo's last year at Tennessee (his sweet sixteen team), he was top 10 in the country in both offensive and defensive efficiency. Without confirming the efficiency of Fox's teams over the course of his career, I'd be willing to bet he hasn't reached that level of performance.

---

Yes, his Sweet 16 Tennessee team prior to taking the Cal job was #15 in Offensive Efficiency and #19 in Defensive Efficiency. They were #313 in Tempo.

Interestingly Cronin's current UCLA team is also #15 in Offense and #19 in Defrnse but is #160 in Tempo.

calumnus said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

The thing that really bothers me, and one of the W4C writers noted this on twitter as well, is that it sure seems like Fox is so insistent that we drain the clock that we pass up good, open shots in the first 10-15 seconds of the clock. Last night, there were at least a few instances of Alajiki/Anticevich having open 3-point looks early in the clock that they passed up to continue the "pass it around the wing to burn clock" strategy. Many times, those possessions will end up with rushed long 2s (a much worse shot than the open shot that was passed up). I'm not saying we need to let fly with every open 3 with 25s on the shot clock, but our good 3-point shooters should be ready to let fly when they are open independent of the time remaining.

Alajiki passes a wide open corner 3 early in the shot clock, and they later settle for a contested long 2, and that 3 is the exact kind of shot the coaching staff should be drilling their players to attempt but quite evidently don’t.

— Nicolas Kranz (@NorCalNickW4C) January 13, 2022

---

Mark Fox Basketball. This is a feature not a bug and it is unclear it will ever change. This is one of those "bad" losses - not the L but in how. Feels like 13/14 wins is once again our ceiling but I haven't stared long enough at the schedule to make a full prediction.

---

Exactly. People are still confused about this? This is what we signed up for and are paying $millions to get. It is a style that used to be popular in the Midwest. It is Cuonzo Martin's offense and defense but without the charisma and good recruiting.

---

The only point I would say is while generally true, I'm pretty sure that in Cuonzo's last year at Tennessee (his sweet sixteen team), he was top 10 in the country in both offensive and defensive efficiency. Without confirming the efficiency of Fox's teams over the course of his career, I'd be willing to bet he hasn't reached that level of performance.

---

Yes, his Sweet 16 Tennessee team prior to taking the Cal job was #15 in Offensive Efficiency and #19 in Defensive Efficiency. They were #313 in Tempo.

---

Thanks for the clarification, they were top 20 in both (I remember reading that his Tennessee team should have been considered a sleeper going into the tournament as being top 20 in both was a good sign of a strong team). Of course, it's a bit of an indictment on Cuonzo that even with those efficiency numbers Tennessee was in the play-in game that year, I believe.

Then again, the play-in (or the #4 seed he took us to at Cal) is a far sight from where we are now .