I started the season saying I'd be happy with double digit wins in the first post-Fox-hangover season. But we can do better than just getting two more Ws, right?
Can we get 19 or fewer losses this season? That means going at least 4-6 in the last 10 regular season games. Yes, we've already beaten a few teams (UCLA, Furd, etc) that we'll face again. But if we keep playing like we did against Zona, going 4-6 starts to look iffy.
What do we think? Which games are the:
Should wins
Would like to wins
Mission Impossible wins

Serious about asking which games we can win the rest of the way? Yes, dead serious, why do you ask?
I'm not sure how you can read a straightforward question and then answer as if I'd said, "Madsen's no good."

barsad said:

---

Serious about asking which games we can win the rest of the way? Yes, dead serious, why do you ask?
I'm not sure how you can read a straightforward question and then answer as if I'd said, "Madsen's no good."

---

It depends if the threes go in.. all remaining games are winnable. Most winnable is OSU, oregon, ucla,usc,wsu washington,Stanford, Colorado and utah..in that order. Altitude will bother us with a short bench.

barsad said:

---

Serious about asking which games we can win the rest of the way? Yes, dead serious, why do you ask?
I'm not sure how you can read a straightforward question and then answer as if I'd said, "Madsen's no good."

---

Maybe THIS is why cal83 was wondering if you're serious. It's from December 9th.

RedlessWardrobe said:

Well based on what everyone is saying, and I know the goal is to win every game, the practical PAC 12 goal is to finish in the top 4, reducing the wins required in Vegas in order to keep playing.

barsad:

4th in the PAC-12 is practical? OooooK, I love a homer fan base but a few reality checks for the Wishful Bears Club, courtesy of KenPom.com
Out of 362 D1 teams Cal is…
167th overall, right behind Radford and Oral Roberts.
Offense: 114
Defense: 249
Nonconference Strength of Schedule (for those of you saying we've been playing tough teams): 268
KenPom projects Cal to finish 11th out of 12 in the conference standings.

These are not the numbers of a team about to bust out or compete with the top of the conference.
My "practical" top expectation was a .500 season, but starting to genuinely doubt that goal now.

We can have a team that's fun to watch but still loses a lot, we don't need to break with reality to root for the Bears. We've got some big holes, they'll get filled as long as we trust in the Mad Dog, but it could take a few recruiting classes

I do think Cal has advanced from the "not a snowball's chance in hell" category to the "on any given night, they can beat anybody in the conference", which was not the case for the last . . . six years? Admittedly, part of this is a somewhat weak conference but:

• Cal has won several conference games where Cone underachieved. Against ASU, we saw what he can do if he gets hot. What if he goes on a six game run?
• Also, Kennedy is shooting better these last few games than I expected.
• Amaiq seems to now have a good sense of what works against conference big men and while not a great defender, he has been avoiding foul trouble.
• Overall defense has certainly improved the last few games.

This season, I've gone from intrigued to frankly disappointed to hopeful and now to kind of excited.

I agree the conference is weak at the top but I think the mid level teams rank decently with the rest of the country's mid level teams.

We're 5-6 in the conference right now, and you can make a case that we should have won the first ASU game and the Washington game, and should have lost to WSU. So 5-6 or 6-5, take your pick. Things have become so unpredictable at this point that anywhere from 2nd to 11th might happen. If Arizona holds on to win the conference, I have to admit that I would prefer we finish 2,3,6,7,10,11, just to stay on the other side of the bracket in Vegas. Going to the tournament, the less I have to deal with Arizona and their fans, the better.

I can understand your point. But unlike the WSU game when we were down by 7 with just under 2 minutes left, at least in the Colorado game the comeback occurred over a full twenty minutes when there was time to do it. The Colorado game was a little bit like our game up in Oregon, in reverse.

Going 5-4 is very doable, 6-3 would be great and put us in a position to win a few games in our tournament and get us to .500 and nit bid.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Think about this -- and I know we still have many more games to play -- but had we beaten UW and ASU (the first time) we would be 7-4 and tied for 2nd in the Pac-12 standings. Pretty remarkable.

---

Yep, though we'd be 11-11 overall. Losing all those winnable OOC games meant that we would in the spoiler role for this final PAC-12 season no matter what. Which is fine. Schadenfurd. I think we have a good shot at the NIT and a puncher's chance of winning the PAC-12 tournament.

calumnus said:

---

Schadenfurd.

---

Love it!

Here's my prediction:
Should wins: USC, UCLA, Ore St
Would like to wins: Furd, Wash St, Oregon
Mission Impossible: Washington, Colorado, Utah
KenPom (we are now 110th) predicts a 3-6 finish with a Stanford loss, I'm saying we sweep the Cardinal and go 4-5 to finish.

barsad said:

---

Here's my prediction:
Should wins: USC, UCLA, Ore St
Would like to wins: Furd, Wash St, Oregon
Mission Impossible: Washington, Colorado, Utah
KenPom (we are now 110th) predicts a 3-6 finish with a Stanford loss, I'm saying we sweep the Cardinal and go 4-5 to finish.

---

I think the Huskies are the more likely win on that trip, but both will be tough. I'd take a split on that trip.

or those who watched ASU - did Cone give himself that extra quarter of a second to let the ball get centered with his body.

Watching him shoot at the Furd game, you'd think the ball was on fire how quickly he would get rid of it, even when he had time, even when they ran a play for him towards the end of the game, it just seems like he is playing too fast to make the shots.

rkt88edmo said:

---

or those who watched ASU - did Cone give himself that extra quarter of a second to let the ball get centered with his body.

Watching him shoot at the Furd game, you'd think the ball was on fire how quickly he would get rid of it, even when he had time, even when they ran a play for him towards the end of the game, it just seems like he is playing too fast to make the shots.

---

Here we go again with Cone's shot selection. Is it slightly possible that in the ASU game the defense he was facing was just possibly a quarter of a second slower than Stanfurd's, thus allowing Cone to center his body more effectively? Might have been.

barsad said:

---

I started the season saying I'd be happy with double digit wins in the first post-Fox-hangover season. But we can do better than just getting two more Ws, right?
Can we get 19 or fewer losses this season? That means going at least 4-6 in the last 10 regular season games. Yes, we've already beaten a few teams (UCLA, Furd, etc) that we'll face again. But if we keep playing like we did against Zona, going 4-6 starts to look iffy.
What do we think? Which games are the:
Should wins
Would like to wins
Mission Impossible wins

---

At the beginning of the season, the discussion was whether Madsen could get to 20 or more wins. Now it's about 20 or less losses. Mercifully, this is the weakest Pac-12 in years, so Madsen might, just might, equal Fox's phenomenal 14 wins total his first year. What a bonanza!

HKBear97! said:

---

barsad said:

---

I started the season saying I'd be happy with double digit wins in the first post-Fox-hangover season. But we can do better than just getting two more Ws, right?
Can we get 19 or fewer losses this season? That means going at least 4-6 in the last 10 regular season games. Yes, we've already beaten a few teams (UCLA, Furd, etc) that we'll face again. But if we keep playing like we did against Zona, going 4-6 starts to look iffy.
What do we think? Which games are the:
Should wins
Would like to wins
Mission Impossible wins

---

At the beginning of the season, the discussion was whether Madsen could get to 20 or more wins. Now it's about 20 or less losses. Mercifully, this is the weakest Pac-12 in years, so Madsen might, just might, equal Fox's phenomenal 14 wins total his first year. What a bonanza!

---

I wish someone believed in me as much as whoever it was believed that we could get 20 wins this year.

HKBear97! said:

---

barsad said:

---

I started the season saying I'd be happy with double digit wins in the first post-Fox-hangover season. But we can do better than just getting two more Ws, right?
Can we get 19 or fewer losses this season? That means going at least 4-6 in the last 10 regular season games. Yes, we've already beaten a few teams (UCLA, Furd, etc) that we'll face again. But if we keep playing like we did against Zona, going 4-6 starts to look iffy.
What do we think? Which games are the:
Should wins
Would like to wins
Mission Impossible wins

---

At the beginning of the season, the discussion was whether Madsen could get to 20 or more wins. Now it's about 20 or less losses. Mercifully, this is the weakest Pac-12 in years, so Madsen might, just might, equal Fox's phenomenal 14 wins total his first year. What a bonanza!

---

Ah yes, the good 'ol days of Cal hoops.

This team had the players to get to 20 wins

Needed to be a little healthier early and aliittle better defensively earlier

All's well that ends well.

HoopDreams said:

---

This team had the players to get to 20 wins

Needed to be a little healthier early and aliittle better defensively earlier

---

The NCAA's delay in granting Tyson's eligibility was the single biggest factor.

HoopDreams said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

This team had the players to get to 20 wins

Needed to be a little healthier early and aliittle better defensively earlier

---

The NCAA's delay in granting Tyson's eligibility was the single biggest factor.

---

Tyson only missed first game

Kennedy missed 7 games including 4 one possession games

I think we win all 4 with Kennedy

---

Yes, my bad. Kennedy and Celestine