Bobodeluxe said:
Wilner is on board:
11. Cal
Mark Madsen has done as well as could be expected no, check that: far beyond what could have been expected in his first few months on the job, with some help from the administration: The Bears have acquired five transfers (five!), and several are contenders for starting positions. (Two of the newcomers, Jaylon Tyson and Fardaws Aimaq, averaged double figures for Texas Tech last season.) But our broader view remains the same: The upgrades required to turn Cal into a respectable program cannot be completed in one offseason. Previous: 11
Link?ducky23 said:Bobodeluxe said:
Wilner is on board:
11. Cal
Mark Madsen has done as well as could be expected no, check that: far beyond what could have been expected in his first few months on the job, with some help from the administration: The Bears have acquired five transfers (five!), and several are contenders for starting positions. (Two of the newcomers, Jaylon Tyson and Fardaws Aimaq, averaged double figures for Texas Tech last season.) But our broader view remains the same: The upgrades required to turn Cal into a respectable program cannot be completed in one offseason. Previous: 11
Wait? What?!?! 11??? As in 11th in the conference? Is he insane?
I'd be willing to bet him anything he wants that (unless severe injuries strike) Cal is not finishing anywhere near 11th next year. That's just laughable. He's clearly done zero research on how good the incoming transfers are. Idiot
Who knows. New recruits are always hyped. We wont know until we see them play.stu said:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/06/05/pac-12-basketball-usc-remains-the-frontrunner-in-our-revised-projections-for-2023-24-but-theres-movement-below/
Agree - 11th in the Pac is just a moronic prediction. Maybe he's confusing Cal football with basketball? There's no way this group of players and coaches will have the second worst record in the conference. We have the top-ranked portal class in the conference for starters and it's not even close.ducky23 said:Bobodeluxe said:
Wilner is on board:
11. Cal
Mark Madsen has done as well as could be expected no, check that: far beyond what could have been expected in his first few months on the job, with some help from the administration: The Bears have acquired five transfers (five!), and several are contenders for starting positions. (Two of the newcomers, Jaylon Tyson and Fardaws Aimaq, averaged double figures for Texas Tech last season.) But our broader view remains the same: The upgrades required to turn Cal into a respectable program cannot be completed in one offseason. Previous: 11
Wait? What?!?! 11??? As in 11th in the conference? Is he insane?
I'd be willing to bet him anything he wants that (unless severe injuries strike) Cal is not finishing anywhere near 11th next year. That's just laughable. He's clearly done zero research on how good the incoming transfers are. Idiot
True enough with high school recruits but these guys have a track record. It's a question whether they can all blend into a team as opposed to a collection of talent but other schools have managed it and I think Madsen's system will help.oskidunker said:Who knows. New recruits are always hyped. We wont know until we see them play.stu said:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/06/05/pac-12-basketball-usc-remains-the-frontrunner-in-our-revised-projections-for-2023-24-but-theres-movement-below/
I think 20 wins is possible which is probably NIT territory and an enormous leap. If we can get into NCAA territory we need to think about a statue for Mad Dog for the biggest turnaround in the history of Cal sports haha. Yes Tedford took a team from 1-11 to 7-5 but that's barely lower bowl territory (and because we were ineligible Boller our 5 star phenom never got to play in bowl game).stu said:
The way I see it we have a clear upgrade in talent and an enormous improvement in coaching.
A skeptic could say we've added only mid-major players but IMHO a good mid-major player is likely to be better than a mediocre high-major player. Definitely better than a bad high-major player.
Same with coaching. We don't need a conference coach of the year to rectify the shortcomings of the previous guy. Any good mid-major coach should be much better than a horrible high-major coach.
That said, I don't know how good we'll be or how good the top teams in the conference will be. I think middle of the pack is a lot more likely than 11th and contending for a title is a possibility.
KoreAmBear said:I think 20 wins is possible which is probably NIT territory and an enormous leap. If we can get into NCAA territory we need to think about a statue for Mad Dog for the biggest turnaround in the history of Cal sports haha. Yes Tedford took a team from 1-11 to 7-5 but that's barely lower bowl territory (and because we were ineligible Boller our 5 star phenom never got to play in bowl game).stu said:
The way I see it we have a clear upgrade in talent and an enormous improvement in coaching.
A skeptic could say we've added only mid-major players but IMHO a good mid-major player is likely to be better than a mediocre high-major player. Definitely better than a bad high-major player.
Same with coaching. We don't need a conference coach of the year to rectify the shortcomings of the previous guy. Any good mid-major coach should be much better than a horrible high-major coach.
That said, I don't know how good we'll be or how good the top teams in the conference will be. I think middle of the pack is a lot more likely than 11th and contending for a title is a possibility.
True.Civil Bear said:KoreAmBear said:I think 20 wins is possible which is probably NIT territory and an enormous leap. If we can get into NCAA territory we need to think about a statue for Mad Dog for the biggest turnaround in the history of Cal sports haha. Yes Tedford took a team from 1-11 to 7-5 but that's barely lower bowl territory (and because we were ineligible Boller our 5 star phenom never got to play in bowl game).stu said:
The way I see it we have a clear upgrade in talent and an enormous improvement in coaching.
A skeptic could say we've added only mid-major players but IMHO a good mid-major player is likely to be better than a mediocre high-major player. Definitely better than a bad high-major player.
Same with coaching. We don't need a conference coach of the year to rectify the shortcomings of the previous guy. Any good mid-major coach should be much better than a horrible high-major coach.
That said, I don't know how good we'll be or how good the top teams in the conference will be. I think middle of the pack is a lot more likely than 11th and contending for a title is a possibility.
I think 20 wins for a P5 team is NCAA territory. That would be insane coming off of a 3 win season!
I think you're in the right ballpark....with a few good bounces, we could get to 18 to 20 wins...Gel early enough and maybe a few more can come our way....tops = 23 wins...Big C said:
Yeah, I mean this now looks like a team that will go .500 in conference, give or take. Overall winning record, probably NIT. If everything comes together (like the pg role being successfully filled), maybe better.
bearmanpg said:I think you're in the right ballpark....with a few good bounces, we could get to 18 to 20 wins...Gel early enough and maybe a few more can come our way....tops = 23 wins...Big C said:
Yeah, I mean this now looks like a team that will go .500 in conference, give or take. Overall winning record, probably NIT. If everything comes together (like the pg role being successfully filled), maybe better.
