ducky23 said:

---

I turned off the TV once the ball was inbounded to aimaq. I knew how that story was going to end

Look I think madsen is great, the team has improved but holy Christ his late game management is atrocious

Up 4 with like 30 seconds and we're playing a zone???? A zone????? Are you f'ing kidding me????

And then we inbound it to aimaq?

Remember when Montgomery was coach? Do you remember anyone other than randle taking a late game FT???

---

Ducky, you nailed it.

If you had left the TV on, you'd have seen, first of all, Aimaq having a one and one FT, and his first almost completely missed the front of the rim, it was so weak. There went the game, because he needed to make both FTs to give Cal a 3 point lead and the worst that could happen was to end regulation in a tie.

Then you would have seen with 4 seconds to play, Cal go into a zone again, with all the UW shooters widely spaced beyond the 3PT line, and one player inbounding the ball from the endline right under the basket. Cal goes into a zone again, with Newell under the basket, defending the passer, Aimaq in the paint about 7 or 8 feet from the basket, Tyson a couple of inches from the paint on the right side, about 3-4 feet from Aimaq, and guarding no one. Brown was also in the paint near the free throw line. but too far away from any man to intercept a pass. Wood and another shooter were about 15-20 feet apart behind the 3PT line, with Cone in between them, trying to guess which one to guard. Except for Newell, Cal was in a freaking zone! Trying to defend what obviously was going to be a 3PT shot!

As soon as he inbounded the ball deep to a perimeter player, the passer ran to the corner on the right side to become a 5th possible 3 point shooter, and Newell ran to chase him. No Cal defender except maybe Cone, who was guarding the wrong shooter, was close enough to any of the 5 shooters to defend a shot. The player who caught the inbound pass, took a dribble or two to the paint, and rifled a pass to wide open Wood in the left corner. Cone had two shooters in his zone, and he had moved to guard the one closest to the passer. He made the wrong choice, as the pass went to Wood in the left corner. Newell made a heroic run almost from the right corner, the entire width of the court to the left corner to try and deflect Wood's shot. He failed to make it in time.

Maybe Madsen needs to get a refresher course on end-of-game management, from his old coach, Montgomery, as you mentioned. Everybody knew UW was going to take a three point shot, and we are in a zone. Baffling.

ducky23 said:

---

I didn't watch the last possession, but I don't have a problem with going zone up 1. The problem was going zone up 4 with 30 seconds, where you have to play a "no threes" defense. It's just crazy that was madsen's decision.

And again, I didn't watch the last possession but I also find it curious that cone was on the court. Shouldn't we be playing our best defenders? (I guess you can argue that cone is one of your better zone defenders, but I highly doubt that's the case)

These aren't bad judgment calls. They are just objectively wrong decisions, period. One of madsen's assistants needs to get in his ear and tell him such in real time

I suppose all these late game decisions are kinda small details. But it's also one of the few things 100% within the coaches control. So he needs to get every small detail right end of game.

---

Cone is our best free throw shooter. It would be idiotic to take him off the court when protecting an end-of-game lead.

ducky23 said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

I didn't watch the last possession, but I don't have a problem with going zone up 1. The problem was going zone up 4 with 30 seconds, where you have to play a "no threes" defense. It's just crazy that was madsen's decision.

And again, I didn't watch the last possession but I also find it curious that cone was on the court. Shouldn't we be playing our best defenders? (I guess you can argue that cone is one of your better zone defenders, but I highly doubt that's the case)

These aren't bad judgment calls. They are just objectively wrong decisions, period. One of madsen's assistants needs to get in his ear and tell him such in real time

I suppose all these late game decisions are kinda small details. But it's also one of the few things 100% within the coaches control. So he needs to get every small detail right end of game.

---

Cone is our best free throw shooter. It would be idiotic to take him off the court when protecting an end-of-game lead.

---

Huh? I'm talking about the last defensive possession up 1? Why would you need cone to shoot free throws. UW is taking the last shot.

---

Got it. I misread your post and thought you were still referencing up 4 with 30 seconds. They could've taken Cone out. But we weren't looking to defend the three there at the end (up only 1), we were trying to stay in front without fouling. And with Kennedy unavailable, and Celestine also apparently unavailable, I'm not sure there were any better options available. Who would you rather have seen in there?

Did we have any time outs?

I know Kennedy was cramping, but was Celestine hurt?

At one point in second half he didn't play

I would not have had a freshmen inbound that play

The problem with only a 1 point lead is even a two would beat us. If we made some of our FTs and made it a 3 point lead it would have made it much easier to defend the last play

Hate to say it, but UW out hustled us. Besides the time Tyson somehow got the ball after two players were scrambling for it, UW got every 50-50 ball and we fumbled so many rebounds

Worst play of the game is UW missed shot, we drop rebound and the ball is between our feet, while the only UW player who wasn't running back for defense picks it up and scores a rebound

That (and missing FTs lose games

Bright side is we only had 7 TO and Aimaq had an efficient double double

drizzlybear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

drizzlybear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

I didn't watch the last possession, but I don't have a problem with going zone up 1. The problem was going zone up 4 with 30 seconds, where you have to play a "no threes" defense. It's just crazy that was madsen's decision.

And again, I didn't watch the last possession but I also find it curious that cone was on the court. Shouldn't we be playing our best defenders? (I guess you can argue that cone is one of your better zone defenders, but I highly doubt that's the case)

These aren't bad judgment calls. They are just objectively wrong decisions, period. One of madsen's assistants needs to get in his ear and tell him such in real time

I suppose all these late game decisions are kinda small details. But it's also one of the few things 100% within the coaches control. So he needs to get every small detail right end of game.

---

Cone is our best free throw shooter. It would be idiotic to take him off the court when protecting an end-of-game lead.

---

Huh? I'm talking about the last defensive possession up 1? Why would you need cone to shoot free throws. UW is taking the last shot.

---

Got it. I misread your post and thought you were still referencing up 4 with 30 seconds. They could've taken Cone out. But we weren't looking to defend the three there at the end (up only 1), we were trying to stay in front without fouling. And with Kennedy unavailable, and Celestine also apparently unavailable, I'm not sure there were any better options available. Who would you rather have seen in there?

---

If Celestine was unavailable and you decide to play zone that last possession I would've played Larson instead. I would've had Tyson and brown at the top of the zone and Newell and Larson on the wings.

A zone is designed to prevent drives to the basket, so what you really need is length so your opponent doesn't simply shoot over you.

Again, I didn't see the last possession (nor will I) so I have no idea if playing cone effected the outcome. But just from a strategic standpoint, it was the wrong call.

I'm also surprised they ran the same football wide receiver play exactly the same two games in a row (worked both times to get inbound to Cone)

But yeah, that inbound play worked, but to absolutely the wrong guy

ncbears said:

---

barsad said:

---

2. Why is Aimaq, a 61% free throw shooter, on the floor at all for that last Cal inbound? Isn't it coaching 101 to have only your best FT shooters there in a must-foul situation for the other team?
3. Why isn't the inbounder running the baseline to get it to the two top FT shooters on the floor?
4. Why was the last Cal timeout never called (or did i miss it?)

Yes, we'll move on, but I think that was a test that Madsen did not pass this time around. Let's go Mad Dog, no more of these finishes the rest of the year!

---

I do not recall seeing Madsen substitute offense for defense/defense for offense in the closing minutes. Aimaq was not needed on the floor for the last possession where he was fouled. Madsen should be asked about his last minute strategies.
As it happened, when Aimaq missed, he was on the floor for defense and made a good defensive play to block a shot. If Aimaq had been substituted out and a different player missed, there would have been no opportunity to get him back on the floor. (yes, I know people think he is not a great (or maybe even good) defender). Maybe that was what Madsen was thinking? But, Brown as the inbounder has to know to get the ball to Cone or Tyson - even with the five out baseline play. In other words, Madsen needs to work on better inbounds play (which has been an issue for several games).

---

WSU is really good. They got Myles Rice who dropped 35 last night and an interesting big Isaac Jones. Started off his career at JUCO then went to Idaho. Now he's at WSU and looks great. Averaging 16 and 7.

Also, WSU has a LOT of height. All but one player in their starting five is 6'8 and above (Myles Rice). Will Madsen counter that?

They will have a TON of momentum coming into this game riding a 3 game win streak. Beat USC on the road, #8 Arizona at home, and Stanford on the road.

Hopefully we will be able to get this one.

ducky23 said:

---

I turned off the TV once the ball was inbounded to aimaq. I knew how that story was going to end

Look I think madsen is great, the team has improved but holy Christ his late game management is atrocious

Up 4 with like 30 seconds and we're playing a zone???? A zone????? Are you f'ing kidding me????

And then we inbound it to aimaq?

Remember when Montgomery was coach? Do you remember anyone other than randle taking a late game FT???

---

Bingo

SFCityBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

I turned off the TV once the ball was inbounded to aimaq. I knew how that story was going to end

Look I think madsen is great, the team has improved but holy Christ his late game management is atrocious

Up 4 with like 30 seconds and we're playing a zone???? A zone????? Are you f'ing kidding me????

And then we inbound it to aimaq?

Remember when Montgomery was coach? Do you remember anyone other than randle taking a late game FT???

---

Ducky, you nailed it.

If you had left the TV on, you'd have seen, first of all, Aimaq having a one and one FT, and his first almost completely missed the front of the rim, it was so weak. There went the game, because he needed to make both FTs to give Cal a 3 point lead and the worst that could happen was to end regulation in a tie.

Then you would have seen with 4 seconds to play, Cal go into a zone again, with all the UW shooters widely spaced beyond the 3PT line, and one player inbounding the ball from the endline right under the basket. Cal goes into a zone again, with Newell under the basket, defending the passer, Aimaq in the paint about 7 or 8 feet from the basket, Tyson a couple of inches from the paint on the right side, about 3-4 feet from Aimaq, and guarding no one. Brown was also in the paint near the free throw line. but too far away from any man to intercept a pass. Wood and another shooter were about 15-20 feet apart behind the 3PT line, with Cone in between them, trying to guess which one to guard. Except for Newell, Cal was in a freaking zone! Trying to defend what obviously was going to be a 3PT shot!

As soon as he inbounded the ball deep to a perimeter player, the passer ran to the corner on the right side to become a 5th possible 3 point shooter, and Newell ran to chase him. No Cal defender except maybe Cone, who was guarding the wrong shooter, was close enough to any of the 5 shooters to defend a shot. The player who caught the inbound pass, took a dribble or two to the paint, and rifled a pass to wide open Wood in the left corner. Cone had two shooters in his zone, and he had moved to guard the one closest to the passer. He made the wrong choice, as the pass went to Wood in the left corner. Newell made a heroic run almost from the right corner, the entire width of the court to the left corner to try and deflect Wood's shot. He failed to make it in time.

Maybe Madsen needs to get a refresher course on end-of-game management, from his old coach, Montgomery, as you mentioned. Everybody knew UW was going to take a three point shot, and we are in a zone. Baffling.

---

I learn a lot about b-ball by reading yoru posts, so thank you.

That said, "first of all", Tyson missed the front end of a 1-and-1. If he knocks down one, it's a different game before Aimac is fed the ball instead of a shooter. Yeah, sure, Aimac missed badly, with a flat shot -- dead legs -- but a miss is a miss. His miss is no more important than Tyson's.

bearister said:

---

"Look I think madsen is great, the team has improved but holy Christ his late game management is atrocious."

That makes 4 Cal coaches in a row where the odds of winning a close game in the last two minutes greatly favor the Bears' opponent. Granted, Wyking Jones and Mark Fox may have only been in that situation once or twice.

*Coach needs to take Monty out for coffee or a beer once a week.

---

to be fair, the odds of winning any game coached by Fox greatly favored teh Bears' opponent.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Tough game to be at.
Bottom line, depsite all the coaching questions, these basic things stood out:

Lack of energy in the first half.
Kennedy missing 4 consecutive free throws shouldn't happen.
Bogus charging call on Tyson near the end.
Aimaq and Tyson played good games but they both missed front ends of one on ones. If they convert, we win, and all of the coaching strategy and ref calls are forgotten.

---

It should not have come down to a coupe free throws. This team came out of the gate looking like kids whose toys just got stolen. They played like crap and should have won this thing easily. Madsen looks like he's a motivator but whatever recipe he's using isn't working. This team has serious issues and needs an overhaul.

Someone else on BI has probably already raised this in a comment:

In an age where headless horsemen are driving Waymos all over the City, and ChatGPT appears to have limitless potential, how far away are we (or are we there?) from coaches simply feeding game tapes into AI and the AI spits out offensive and defensive strategies and inbound plays custom tailored to your team's talent and that of the opponent?

I know, just make Hymie coach and skip all the above.



Then replace all the players with AI and finally just stay home in the Metaverse 24/7 with the only risk being p@issing off Zuckerberg's avatar.

bearsandgiants said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Tough game to be at.
Bottom line, depsite all the coaching questions, these basic things stood out:

Lack of energy in the first half.
Kennedy missing 4 consecutive free throws shouldn't happen.
Bogus charging call on Tyson near the end.
Aimaq and Tyson played good games but they both missed front ends of one on ones. If they convert, we win, and all of the coaching strategy and ref calls are forgotten.

---

It should not have come down to a coupe free throws. This team came out of the gate looking like kids whose toys just got stolen. They played like crap and should have won this thing easily. Madsen looks like he's a motivator but whatever recipe he's using isn't working. This team has serious issues and needs an overhaul.

---

People are ignoring how many wide open threes Washington missed in the second half. They hit a few of those and the outcome was probably a more comfortable win for UW.

HKBear97! said:

---

People are ignoring how many wide open threes Washington missed in the second half. They hit a few of those and the outcome was probably a more comfortable win for UW.

---

That makes our last defensive call look better.

bearister said:

---

"Look I think madsen is great, the team has improved but holy Christ his late game management is atrocious."

That makes 4 Cal coaches in a row where the odds of winning a close game in the last two minutes greatly favor the Bears' opponent. Granted, Wyking Jones and Mark Fox may have only been in that situation once or twice.

*Coach needs to take Monty out for coffee or a beer once a week.

---

Heck, Madsen should contract with Monty $1000/week for twice-weekly one-hour zoom calls. One weekly meeting to discuss the previous game's results and one to game-plan for next week.

HearstMining said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Look I think madsen is great, the team has improved but holy Christ his late game management is atrocious."

That makes 4 Cal coaches in a row where the odds of winning a close game in the last two minutes greatly favor the Bears' opponent. Granted, Wyking Jones and Mark Fox may have only been in that situation once or twice.

*Coach needs to take Monty out for coffee or a beer once a week.

---

Heck, Madsen should contract with Monty $1000/week for twice-weekly one-hour zoom calls. One weekly meeting to discuss the previous game's results and one to game-plan for next week.

---

Maybe Coach should just drink a 6 pack right before the game.

stu said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

People are ignoring how many wide open threes Washington missed in the second half. They hit a few of those and the outcome was probably a more comfortable win for UW.

---

That makes our last defensive call look better.

---

The call that left a career 39% three point shooter wide open? They were due. The entire game I thought Cal was incredibly lucky UW was missing so many uncontested threes. Their luck ran out in the end.

HKBear97! said:

---

stu said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

People are ignoring how many wide open threes Washington missed in the second half. They hit a few of those and the outcome was probably a more comfortable win for UW.

---

That makes our last defensive call look better.

---

The call that left a career 39% three point shooter wide open? They were due. The entire game I thought Cal was incredibly lucky UW was missing so many uncontested threes. Their luck ran out in the end.

---

TBH, we also got away with a similar situation against Colorado. That wasn't a set defense situation (and I don't recall whether that shot would have won it for Colorado or just tied it and sent it into OT), but it's another situation where we're lucky a good shooter missed a wide open shot.

I laud your efforts to consider alternative explanations. (Seriously. There's not nearly enough of that, especially on the interwebs.)

drizzlybear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

stu said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

People are ignoring how many wide open threes Washington missed in the second half. They hit a few of those and the outcome was probably a more comfortable win for UW.

---

That makes our last defensive call look better.

---

The call that left a career 39% three point shooter wide open? They were due. The entire game I thought Cal was incredibly lucky UW was missing so many uncontested threes. Their luck ran out in the end.

---

TBH, we also got away with a similar situation against Colorado. That wasn't a set defense situation (and I don't recall whether that shot would have won it for Colorado or just tied it and sent it into OT), but it's another situation where we're lucky a good shooter missed a wide open shot.

---

Would have won it. The defense was disorganized but got lucky.

"He knows more about basketball than this entire board combined (and then some). So why does he keep making...let's call them "unconventional" decisions late in games?"

I disagree. He knows how to get decent players quickly and is probably a good recruiter and I think he is a great motivator. Until I see more evidence, I think probably you and SFCB individually, and absolutely jointly, have more X's and O's knowledge than he does(unless the players are refusing to follow his directives…which would be a big problem). Granted, you might not get the players to buy into your scheme as easily as Madsen could if he were armed with your info.

I don't buy the nonsense the coaching fraternity tries to sell us about how experienced and good this coach or that coach is. How many times did you hear PAC 12 broadcast analysts opine what a good coach Mark Fox was? Hogwash!

Good hoop strategy, in my opinion, is very mathematical. It is difficult, but these experienced coaches aren't exactly NASA scientists and there are a lot of layman out there like you that have never coached at high school or above (unless you have) that are better at X's and O's than a lot of college coaches and their assistants. Never sell yourself short.

This discussion brings to mind the Nathan Shelley storyline in Ted Lasso.

ducky23 said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Look I think madsen is great, the team has improved but holy Christ his late game management is atrocious."

That makes 4 Cal coaches in a row where the odds of winning a close game in the last two minutes greatly favor the Bears' opponent. Granted, Wyking Jones and Mark Fox may have only been in that situation once or twice.

*Coach needs to take Monty out for coffee or a beer once a week.

---

Heck, Madsen should contract with Monty $1000/week for twice-weekly one-hour zoom calls. One weekly meeting to discuss the previous game's results and one to game-plan for next week.

---

So I've had the day to think about this. Because I just dont understand why Madsen is making the late game decisions he is making. He's obviously very intelligent. He played for some amazing HOF coaches. He knows more about basketball than this entire board combined (and then some). So why does he keep making...lets call them "unconventional" decisions late in games?

This is my theory (and I could be 100% wrong, but its the only explanation I have).

If Monty were coaching that final minute, he would have micromanaged it to death. He would have had the exact personnel on the court that he wanted, he would have told his players exactly where to be on the court, it would have been completely orchestrated to EXACTLY how HE wanted it.

Madsen was a player, at a pretty high level, so I think he may coach from a player's perspective. I believe (and again I may be wrong), but I don't think he wants to micromanage. He doesn't want to sub offense for defense. He just wants to put HIS GUYS on the court and let them make decisions for themselves.

I think short term, I think its probably not super effective, because Monty wins that game. But I can see an argument where longterm, you get better buy in from your players and you know that your coach trusts you by allowing your players some leeway. Some freedom late in games.

That's all I've got. Cause the only other explanation I have for his late game decision making doesn't reflect too kindly on Madsen and I desperately want to believe in him

---

I got to go with you on this Ducky. Also I think one of the reasons he's chosen the "allowing players leeway" this season is that so many of these guys won't be here next year. If next season our roster is comprised of more players expected to be here in the year following it, my guess is you will see more "micro managing" from MM.

How about lots of leeway except at the end of close games? I think at the end of that game if Madsen had the choice of lots of leeway and lose or I'm running the show so run this inbound defense strategy and win, we know what box he checks. Problem is, he didn't have the inbound defense strategy. It is only recently we figured out how to get the ball up against a full court press. I am still all in on Madsen, however.

ducky23 said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Look I think madsen is great, the team has improved but holy Christ his late game management is atrocious."

That makes 4 Cal coaches in a row where the odds of winning a close game in the last two minutes greatly favor the Bears' opponent. Granted, Wyking Jones and Mark Fox may have only been in that situation once or twice.

*Coach needs to take Monty out for coffee or a beer once a week.

---

Heck, Madsen should contract with Monty $1000/week for twice-weekly one-hour zoom calls. One weekly meeting to discuss the previous game's results and one to game-plan for next week.

---

So I've had the day to think about this. Because I just dont understand why Madsen is making the late game decisions he is making. He's obviously very intelligent. He played for some amazing HOF coaches. He knows more about basketball than this entire board combined (and then some). So why does he keep making...lets call them "unconventional" decisions late in games?

This is my theory (and I could be 100% wrong, but its the only explanation I have).

If Monty were coaching that final minute, he would have micromanaged it to death. He would have had the exact personnel on the court that he wanted, he would have told his players exactly where to be on the court, it would have been completely orchestrated to EXACTLY how HE wanted it.

Madsen was a player, at a pretty high level, so I think he may coach from a player's perspective. I believe (and again I may be wrong), but I don't think he wants to micromanage. He doesn't want to sub offense for defense. He just wants to put HIS GUYS on the court and let them make decisions for themselves.

I think short term, I think its probably not super effective, because Monty wins that game. But I can see an argument where longterm, you get better buy in from your players and you know that your coach trusts you by allowing your players some leeway. Some freedom late in games.

That's all I've got. Cause the only other explanation I have for his late game decision making doesn't reflect too kindly on Madsen and I desperately want to believe in him

---

Great post; I had been thinking that exact thought myself: This must be an overall coaching/educational philosophy of Madsen's, to not micromanage and, rather, let the players figure it out for themselves. Wasn't it John Wooden who didn't do much coaching in the game, because that is what practice is for? (If it wasn't Wooden, I know it was somebody, dammit!)

The only thing about that is that Madsen spends most of the game on his feet, yelling stuff to the players... I assume he's yelling instructions, basically "micromanaging".

So now I'm not really sure what to think, except I'm glad we're better than we were last year.

Big C said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Look I think madsen is great, the team has improved but holy Christ his late game management is atrocious."

That makes 4 Cal coaches in a row where the odds of winning a close game in the last two minutes greatly favor the Bears' opponent. Granted, Wyking Jones and Mark Fox may have only been in that situation once or twice.

*Coach needs to take Monty out for coffee or a beer once a week.

---

Heck, Madsen should contract with Monty $1000/week for twice-weekly one-hour zoom calls. One weekly meeting to discuss the previous game's results and one to game-plan for next week.

---

So I've had the day to think about this. Because I just dont understand why Madsen is making the late game decisions he is making. He's obviously very intelligent. He played for some amazing HOF coaches. He knows more about basketball than this entire board combined (and then some). So why does he keep making...lets call them "unconventional" decisions late in games?

This is my theory (and I could be 100% wrong, but its the only explanation I have).

If Monty were coaching that final minute, he would have micromanaged it to death. He would have had the exact personnel on the court that he wanted, he would have told his players exactly where to be on the court, it would have been completely orchestrated to EXACTLY how HE wanted it.

Madsen was a player, at a pretty high level, so I think he may coach from a player's perspective. I believe (and again I may be wrong), but I don't think he wants to micromanage. He doesn't want to sub offense for defense. He just wants to put HIS GUYS on the court and let them make decisions for themselves.

I think short term, I think its probably not super effective, because Monty wins that game. But I can see an argument where longterm, you get better buy in from your players and you know that your coach trusts you by allowing your players some leeway. Some freedom late in games.

That's all I've got. Cause the only other explanation I have for his late game decision making doesn't reflect too kindly on Madsen and I desperately want to believe in him

---

Great post; I had been thinking that exact thought myself: This must be an overall coaching/educational philosophy of Madsen's, to not micromanage and, rather, let the players figure it out for themselves. Wasn't it John Wooden who didn't do much coaching in the game, because that is what practice is for? (If it wasn't Wooden, I know it was somebody, dammit!)

The only thing about that is that Madsen spends most of the game on his feet, yelling stuff to the players... I assume he's yelling instructions, basically "micromanaging".

So now I'm not really sure what to think, except I'm glad we're better than we were last year.

---

There are many coaches who don't have to say much to their players in a game, but at Cal, Newell comes first to mind, because he had his team so well prepared that he didn't need to say much. He had many games where he never called a timeout, and there were few commercial breaks for TV. There were plenty of moments when he would have liked to say something, but he wanted his players to be able to handle every situation themselves. So he took a towel and chewed on it whenever he needed calm his nerves. He internalized all of his emotions and temper, and the result was insomnia, an addiction to chain smoking, and so much severe GI or stomach trouble that he had to retire at an early age for a coach. Coaching is a rough sport.

I'm not sure we are better. We are better to watch, more exciting, at least. Last year we had very few good players, and those we had were injured and missed most or all of the season. This year we have better players. Last year, and the last few years, we did not play good offense, but the defense was serviceable. This year, the offense is decent, at least we can stay in some games and have a chance to win, but the defense is poor in comparison to most of the Fox years, IMHO.

Big C said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Look I think madsen is great, the team has improved but holy Christ his late game management is atrocious."

That makes 4 Cal coaches in a row where the odds of winning a close game in the last two minutes greatly favor the Bears' opponent. Granted, Wyking Jones and Mark Fox may have only been in that situation once or twice.

*Coach needs to take Monty out for coffee or a beer once a week.

---

Heck, Madsen should contract with Monty $1000/week for twice-weekly one-hour zoom calls. One weekly meeting to discuss the previous game's results and one to game-plan for next week.

---

So I've had the day to think about this. Because I just dont understand why Madsen is making the late game decisions he is making. He's obviously very intelligent. He played for some amazing HOF coaches. He knows more about basketball than this entire board combined (and then some). So why does he keep making...lets call them "unconventional" decisions late in games?

This is my theory (and I could be 100% wrong, but its the only explanation I have).

If Monty were coaching that final minute, he would have micromanaged it to death. He would have had the exact personnel on the court that he wanted, he would have told his players exactly where to be on the court, it would have been completely orchestrated to EXACTLY how HE wanted it.

Madsen was a player, at a pretty high level, so I think he may coach from a player's perspective. I believe (and again I may be wrong), but I don't think he wants to micromanage. He doesn't want to sub offense for defense. He just wants to put HIS GUYS on the court and let them make decisions for themselves.

I think short term, I think its probably not super effective, because Monty wins that game. But I can see an argument where longterm, you get better buy in from your players and you know that your coach trusts you by allowing your players some leeway. Some freedom late in games.

That's all I've got. Cause the only other explanation I have for his late game decision making doesn't reflect too kindly on Madsen and I desperately want to believe in him

---

Great post; I had been thinking that exact thought myself: This must be an overall coaching/educational philosophy of Madsen's, to not micromanage and, rather, let the players figure it out for themselves. Wasn't it John Wooden who didn't do much coaching in the game, because that is what practice is for? (If it wasn't Wooden, I know it was somebody, dammit!)

The only thing about that is that Madsen spends most of the game on his feet, yelling stuff to the players... I assume he's yelling instructions, basically "micromanaging".

So now I'm not really sure what to think, except I'm glad we're better than we were last year.

---

Yes it was John Wooden. But with players so much better than anyone else, whatever strategy he used was going to work.

It is one of the classic BI posts where a Cal coach does something inexplicable but posters explain the logic behind it. It is like stars don't matter in recruiting posts, other teams win but with less class than Cal loses posts, and Cal is not even trying to win posts. Yes, but no.