well six games in. Pretty clear that making thhe NIT will be a pretty uge accomplishment. The wold of NIL and transfers have upset the apple cart (though we are slowly working our way through the COVID extensions so soon the 1 transfer without penalty will get things a bit more normalized).

So what are your prorgram goals? I guess I am looking for depth in recruiting cause it is pretty clear that at least this iteration is a tale so oft told - a decent starting 5 but once any piece of the puzzle goes missing the wheels fall completely off.

And the relentless happytalk has got to get balanced. I mean I get it but this team is no way capable of competing for an NCAA bid - even with the best players back and especially now.

Yeah the hype was too big to start off with Madsen. Gonna take some time but I'm still a believer. I think me (and similar fans) being interested in Cal basketball again is step 1. I know conference play will be a big step up but if we can play competitive games I will continue to believe in the upward trajectory of the program

Rebuilds take time. We saw that with Arizona Football. They won 1 game first. Then 5 and now are competing for a Pac 12 Championship bid. Hoping that Madsen will replicate that, if not faster.

Tyson was a good get. We need another two of him to be competitive. The talent is still not there.

I'm looking for directional goals with this staff. Which is something that was missing in the last 2.5 staffs.

Simply general improvement over time. I'd be ecstatic if the win total over the next 3 years was 15, 20, 25 and incremental afterwards.

So far, I'm OK with what I'm seeing with this staff. Not blown away, but OK. The hype and PR were nice bonuses, but 90% of my interest is what happens on the court. 9% is what happens elsewhere to support what happens on the court. The last 1% is probably the Bearettes (but that is increasing as a percentage).

In eight years 32-34 wins. Delusional.

BeachedBear said:

---

I'm looking for directional goals with this staff. Which is something that was missing in the last 2.5 staffs.

Simply general improvement over time. I'd be ecstatic if the win total over the next 3 years was 15, 20, 25 and incremental afterwards.

So far, I'm OK with what I'm seeing with this staff. Not blown away, but OK. The hype and PR were nice bonuses, but 90% of my interest is what happens on the court. 9% is what happens elsewhere to support what happens on the court. The last 1% is probably the Bearettes (but that is increasing as a percentage).

---

For those claiming optimism or who "like what they see" or who are happy about having upside, what are they seeing on the court that brings them to that conclusion. Note there is a very big difference between "it is too early to judge" - it very much is - to anything being positive in an actual game. Because let me be blunt, there has been absolute zero in the games against mostly atrocious competition so far. So far the results have been very similar to Wyking's first year. Upside seems to be code for "at least we don't know yet we irreversibly suck" vs. here are things that demonstrate upside

I like what I've seen of Tyson (expected) and Larson (unexpected). And I think Aimaq looks better overall than Thiemann, Rooks, or Okoroh. The team as a whole not so much.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

I'm looking for directional goals with this staff. Which is something that was missing in the last 2.5 staffs.

Simply general improvement over time. I'd be ecstatic if the win total over the next 3 years was 15, 20, 25 and incremental afterwards.

So far, I'm OK with what I'm seeing with this staff. Not blown away, but OK. The hype and PR were nice bonuses, but 90% of my interest is what happens on the court. 9% is what happens elsewhere to support what happens on the court. The last 1% is probably the Bearettes (but that is increasing as a percentage).

---

For those claiming optimism or who "like what they see" or who are happy about having upside, what are they seeing on the court that brings them to that conclusion. Note there is a very big difference between "it is too early to judge" - it very much is - to anything being positive in an actual game. Because let me be blunt, there has been absolute zero in the games against mostly atrocious competition so far. So far the results have been very similar to Wyking's first year. Upside seems to be code for "at least we don't know yet we irreversibly suck" vs. here are things that demonstrate upside

---

Upside- We are starting two bench players who have combined to score 6 pts. in the last two games. We lost those games by only 2 and 3 points. We have 2 of our starters injured. We have kept everyone of those games close. I would bet my HOME that if they were healthy we would have won both games. For me that is something to look forward to. Celestine averaged 10pts in the first three games. Askew has averaged 10 pts in his first three games before the injury. That is a total of 20 extra points minus the 3 avg we got from the two bench players =17. As someone else stated we would have beaten these teams by over 10 points. we were 2-1 when we lost both Celestine and Askew.
Off the bench Larson is giving us 8 points in the last two games.

Civil Bear said:

---

Basketball Bear said:

---

Upside- We are starting two bench players who have combined to score 6 pts. in the last two games. We lost those games by only 2 and 3 points. We have 2 of our starters injured. We have kept everyone of those games close. I would bet my HOME that if they were healthy we would have won both games. For me that is something to look forward to. Celestine averaged 10pts in the first three games. Askew has averaged 10 pts in his first three games before the injury. That is a total of 20 extra points minus the 3 avg we got from the two bench players =17. As someone else stated we would have beaten these teams by over 10 points. we were 2-1 when we lost both Celestine and Askew.
Off the bench Larson is giving us 8 points in the last two games.

---

If only basketball was that linear.

---

Agreed.

Celestine played well when he played so he is a definite loss, but Askew's Box +/- is -7.4 the lowest of any player with significant minutes.

Right now Kennedy is the most intriguing player that is out because we haven't seen him play and PG is where we have the biggest need.

Ratcheting expectations downward somewhat:

+ Double digits in overall wins.
+ Single digit finish in conference standings.

That's a floor. Maybe we surpass that somewhat, as a ceiling.

Big C said:

---

Ratcheting expectations downward somewhat:

+ Double digits in overall wins.
+ Single digit finish in conference standings.

That's a floor. Maybe we surpass that somewhat, as a ceiling.

---

Yeah, I'm not even confident that is the floor now, but as a goal, absolutely.

With a more healthy roster, I would like to see better team defense and a WAY better assist to turnover ratio. The wins and losses will take care of itself if the team gets better in those ways, because they are not playing like a team right now. They do seem to have some talented players versus last year.. So with that in mind, 15 wins and somewhere in the middle tier of the Pac would be a aspirational goal.


My sense is the Pac is decent, not great this year. Arizona, Colorado and maybe SC being very good.

Aimaq is our best big since Ivan Rabb, but Ivan was a better defender

Aimaq Can't seem to stay in front of a player, but what concerned me was when that strong/undersized center scored on him every time

Not sure what he's been coached to do the last 4 years including by a NBA PF, but when a player backs you down, including the use of spin moves, you're supposed to use an arm bar low on the players hip. It takes away their leverage and power and also puts distance between you and the player so they can't use that spin move as easily

stu said:

---

I like what I've seen of Tyson (expected) and Larson (unexpected). And I think Aimaq looks better overall than Thiemann, Rooks, or Okoroh. The team as a whole not so much.

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Aimaq is our best big since Ivan Rabb, but Ivan was a better defender

Aimaq Can't seem to stay in front of a player, but what concerned me was when that strong/undersized center scored on him every time

Not sure what he's been coached to do the last 4 years including by a NBA PF, but when a player backs you down, including the use of spin moves, you're supposed to use an arm bar low on the players hip. It takes away their leverage and power and also puts distance between you and the player so they can't use that spin move as easily

stu said:

---

I like what I've seen of Tyson (expected) and Larson (unexpected). And I think Aimaq looks better overall than Thiemann, Rooks, or Okoroh. The team as a whole not so much.

---

---

I'd love to have Marcus Lee or Andre Kelly on this team.

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Aimaq is our best big since Ivan Rabb, but Ivan was a better defender

Aimaq Can't seem to stay in front of a player, but what concerned me was when that strong/undersized center scored on him every time

Not sure what he's been coached to do the last 4 years including by a NBA PF, but when a player backs you down, including the use of spin moves, you're supposed to use an arm bar low on the players hip. It takes away their leverage and power and also puts distance between you and the player so they can't use that spin move as easily

stu said:

---

I like what I've seen of Tyson (expected) and Larson (unexpected). And I think Aimaq looks better overall than Thiemann, Rooks, or Okoroh. The team as a whole not so much.

---

---

I'd love to have Marcus Lee or Andre Kelly on this team.

---

Andre Kelly was a stud but Marcus Lee would speed things up and protect the rim.

Yeah, a rim protector covers up a lot of flaws in a defense

By the way, NCAA approved Madsen's prior center after they were just about to file a lawsuit

stu said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Aimaq is our best big since Ivan Rabb, but Ivan was a better defender

Aimaq Can't seem to stay in front of a player, but what concerned me was when that strong/undersized center scored on him every time

Not sure what he's been coached to do the last 4 years including by a NBA PF, but when a player backs you down, including the use of spin moves, you're supposed to use an arm bar low on the players hip. It takes away their leverage and power and also puts distance between you and the player so they can't use that spin move as easily

stu said:

---

I like what I've seen of Tyson (expected) and Larson (unexpected). And I think Aimaq looks better overall than Thiemann, Rooks, or Okoroh. The team as a whole not so much.

---

---

I'd love to have Marcus Lee or Andre Kelly on this team.

---

Andre Kelly was a stud but Marcus Lee would speed things up and protect the rim.

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Yeah, a rim protector covers up a lot of flaws in a defense

By the way, NCAA approved Madsen's prior center after they were just about to file a lawsuit

---

Does that mean we still have a chance at Marcus Lee?

stu said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Yeah, a rim protector covers up a lot of flaws in a defense

By the way, NCAA approved Madsen's prior center after they were just about to file a lawsuit

---

Does that mean we still have a chance at Marcus Lee?

---

Cal grad, currently plays for the Tasmania Jack Jumpers.

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Aimaq is our best big since Ivan Rabb, but Ivan was a better defender

Aimaq Can't seem to stay in front of a player, but what concerned me was when that strong/undersized center scored on him every time

Not sure what he's been coached to do the last 4 years including by a NBA PF, but when a player backs you down, including the use of spin moves, you're supposed to use an arm bar low on the players hip. It takes away their leverage and power and also puts distance between you and the player so they can't use that spin move as easily

stu said:

---

I like what I've seen of Tyson (expected) and Larson (unexpected). And I think Aimaq looks better overall than Thiemann, Rooks, or Okoroh. The team as a whole not so much.

---

---

I'd love to have Marcus Lee or Andre Kelly on this team.

---

I feel like a Jason Kidd could help us, too.

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Aimaq is our best big since Ivan Rabb, but Ivan was a better defender

Aimaq Can't seem to stay in front of a player, but what concerned me was when that strong/undersized center scored on him every time

Not sure what he's been coached to do the last 4 years including by a NBA PF, but when a player backs you down, including the use of spin moves, you're supposed to use an arm bar low on the players hip. It takes away their leverage and power and also puts distance between you and the player so they can't use that spin move as easily

stu said:

---

I like what I've seen of Tyson (expected) and Larson (unexpected). And I think Aimaq looks better overall than Thiemann, Rooks, or Okoroh. The team as a whole not so much.

---

---

I'd love to have Marcus Lee or Andre Kelly on this team.

---

I feel like a Jason Kidd could help us, too.

---

"Aimaq is our best big since Ivan Rabb…."

Lee and Kelly were bigs since Ivan Rabb who could help this team.

While Jason Kidd could help this team he was not a big and he played long before Ivan Rabb.