Anyone have an injury update about him?

Read somewhere that they plan to appeal for a medical blueshirt year.

I didn't see a "ND Okafor Enters the Transfer Portal" thread -- I don't think there was one, at least in this forum -- so I'm providing an update here:

TP Commit: Cal transfer ND Okafor has committed to Washington State, he tells @TP4PT.

The 6’9” 235 pound forward appeared in 39 games for the Golden Bears spanning over two seasons.#TP4PT #TransferPortal pic.twitter.com/ZbyhCjChfw

— Transfer Portal for Playing Time (@TP4PT) May 13, 2024

There's a 247 Sports article pointing out that one of Okafor's 2 career starts came against Washington State. It also said the following:

Quote:

---

Okafor did not post about any transfer portal offers after he entered on March 18. In coming out of the NBA Academy in Latin America, he held offers from Arizona, Creighton, Baylor, Georgia, Rutgers, TCU, Robert Morris, and Iona with Kentucky and Kansas State showing interest.

---

I hope he does well there. I liked him. He looked in amazing shape before he got hurt and I thought he had a lot of potential, though a little slow

He has some tools. Needs to get some good developmental coaching and work hard at some of the less glamorous aspects of the game. Best of luck to him.

oskidunker said:

---

I hope he does well there. I liked him. He looked in amazing shape before he got hurt and I thought he had a lot of potential, though a little slow

---

I think you are right. Kyle Smith is a good, proven coach. He knows talent, and good at getting results from the talent he has. Sorry to see ND go. You can never have enough big men. I wish him well.

SFCityBear said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I hope he does well there. I liked him. He looked in amazing shape before he got hurt and I thought he had a lot of potential, though a little slow

---

I think you are right. Kyle Smith is a good, proven coach. He knows talent, and good at getting results from the talent he has. Sorry to see ND go. You can never have enough big men. I wish him well.

---

Agreed on all that but Kyle Smith is at Stanfurd now

---

Thanks for this. I'm even more out of touch than I thought I was. (Actually, I remember reading about Kyle Smith moving to Stanford, but forgot about it.) In either case, I need to go soak my head.

---

Who is their new coach? Some Kyle Smith nepo-baby? That seems to be the way things work on that coaching tree...

OTOH, I kinda don't care. Need to get into the ACC mindset.

Wazzu hired David Riley, who was at EWU. He's actually a pretty solid hire for the Cougs, given their precarious situation. Think they'll be solid in the WCC.

OTOH, Oregon State is in a bad spot...stuck with Tinkle due to their dire financial situation. They'll be very bad, even playing against weaker competition.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I hope he does well there. I liked him. He looked in amazing shape before he got hurt and I thought he had a lot of potential, though a little slow

---

I think you are right. Kyle Smith is a good, proven coach. He knows talent, and good at getting results from the talent he has. Sorry to see ND go. You can never have enough big men. I wish him well.

---

Agreed on all that but Kyle Smith is at Stanfurd now

---

Thanks for this. I'm even more out of touch than I thought I was. (Actually, I remember reading about Kyle Smith moving to Stanford, but forgot about it.) In either case, I need to go soak my head.

---

Who is their new coach? Some Kyle Smith nepo-baby? That seems to be the way things work on that coaching tree...

OTOH, I kinda don't care. Need to get into the ACC mindset.

---

Stanford will be in the ACC. And Cal will play Stanford home-and-home every year. I would bet on that.

Stanford will be tough for Cal to beat, with Kyle Smith at the helm. They lost some of their talent (including one kid to Cal), but replacing Haase with Smith will make up for that, IMO. Smith should be able to land recruits well enough with the Stanford name a big drawing card, but can he attract portal transfer players to Stanford?

---

With all due respect, no reason to think that Cal won't be tough for Stanford to beat either. The situational change for the two schools is basically equal, and historically in the long run this has been an even deal. At least from the initial results, Madsen is doing a good job of attracting portal players, especially if one of those actually came from Stanfurd, thus moving forward you've got to think the competition between the two schools will stay where its always been.

---

I can agree with you that Cal can be tough for Stanford to beat on any given night. However, the coaches change for either team every few years, and often a team's results then show a big improvement, or take a step backwards. Cal's relationship with Stanford has done this many times over the years. For either team, this is not the relation with UCLA, who was dominant for many years over both schools. If you look at the head-to-head wins since 1949, Stanford has the edge over Cal, 95 wins to 79 wins for Cal. If you look at the era from 1999 to the present, it is 33 wins for Stanford, and 20 wins for Cal. Based on records alone, either team might be tough to beat on a given night, but a little more often, Stanford has been the tougher one to beat.

My point about Kyle Smith is that he has more of record of success than Madsen, prior to landing in their present jobs. Madsen had a decent year at Cal, with much improvement, but now he has to start all over again with almost all new personnel. Both coaches came after having been named Coach of the Year in their conferences. Smith, however, won his award in a major P5 conference. He has more successful head coaching experience than Madsen.

If you look at Kyle Smith's record at WSU, especially defense, in his first year, he took over a team from Ernie Kent which had given up 79 points per game (331st in the nation), and his 2020 team lowered that to 70 points per game (187th in the nation). In 2021, WSU gave up 67 ppg (94th in the nation), and in 2022, WSU gave up 65 ppg (45th in the nation). In 2023, WSU gave up 66 ppg (53rd), and in 2024, WSU gave up 67 ppg (44th). These are the kind of numbers I'd like to see from Madsen at Cal. Fox had a horrible year in 2023, made worse by all the injuries to starters, but his team still managed to hold opponents to 70 ppg (178th in the nation). If Madsen can get our defense to that level by this season or the next, I would be pleased.

I like Madsen. I like his positive attitude, I like his demeanor on the court. I liked the players he brought in. The only criticism I'd have is that he never signed a point guard, and while the big man he brought in was very good offensively and rebounding, he was not a good man defender or rim protector, to use the modern parlance. The only plus defender he did sign was Kennedy. To my mind, shooters are a dime a dozen, but Madsen needs defenders and he needs to coach defense from day one. At least he has given some thought to finding a point guard this time, so we shall see what happens.

SFCityBear said:

---

... To my mind, shooters are a dime a dozen ...

---

NIL changed dimes to bags.

SFCityBear said:

---

... Madsen needs defenders and he needs to coach defense from day one. ..

---

Absolutely! FWIW Charmin Smith has added 2 grad transfer defensive specialists to our women's team.

Ken Pom Adjusted Defense rankings (place out of all D1 schools, these are not PPG numbers)
2022
Cal - 84
Stanford - 108

2023
Cal - 195
Stanford - 157

2024
Cal - 139
Stanford - 128

KenPom's stat is points allowed per 100 possessions, more accurate than PPG.

According to this we need to roll back the team to 2022, we miss you Andre Kelly and Anticevich.

Totally agree that a defensive improvement is essential for '24-'25, though I'm not sure how much of it can be coached. Yes, you can practice a half dozen floor setups, but good D ultimately comes down to effort and mental attitude… the idea that a block or steal is worth just as much to you as a sweet 3-pointer, so you're going to bust your a- - on the defensive side. I don't think many players have that mentality, it's something we lacked last year.

SFCityBear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I hope he does well there. I liked him. He looked in amazing shape before he got hurt and I thought he had a lot of potential, though a little slow

---

I think you are right. Kyle Smith is a good, proven coach. He knows talent, and good at getting results from the talent he has. Sorry to see ND go. You can never have enough big men. I wish him well.

---

Agreed on all that but Kyle Smith is at Stanfurd now

---

Thanks for this. I'm even more out of touch than I thought I was. (Actually, I remember reading about Kyle Smith moving to Stanford, but forgot about it.) In either case, I need to go soak my head.

---

Who is their new coach? Some Kyle Smith nepo-baby? That seems to be the way things work on that coaching tree...

OTOH, I kinda don't care. Need to get into the ACC mindset.

---

Stanford will be in the ACC. And Cal will play Stanford home-and-home every year. I would bet on that.

Stanford will be tough for Cal to beat, with Kyle Smith at the helm. They lost some of their talent (including one kid to Cal), but replacing Haase with Smith will make up for that, IMO. Smith should be able to land recruits well enough with the Stanford name a big drawing card, but can he attract portal transfer players to Stanford?

---

With all due respect, no reason to think that Cal won't be tough for Stanford to beat either. The situational change for the two schools is basically equal, and historically in the long run this has been an even deal. At least from the initial results, Madsen is doing a good job of attracting portal players, especially if one of those actually came from Stanfurd, thus moving forward you've got to think the competition between the two schools will stay where its always been.

---

I can agree with you that Cal can be tough for Stanford to beat on any given night. However, the coaches change for either team every few years, and often a team's results then show a big improvement, or take a step backwards. Cal's relationship with Stanford has done this many times over the years. For either team, this is not the relation with UCLA, who was dominant for many years over both schools. If you look at the head-to-head wins since 1949, Stanford has the edge over Cal, 95 wins to 79 wins for Cal. If you look at the era from 1999 to the present, it is 33 wins for Stanford, and 20 wins for Cal. Based on records alone, either team might be tough to beat on a given night, but a little more often, Stanford has been the tougher one to beat.

My point about Kyle Smith is that he has more of record of success than Madsen, prior to landing in their present jobs. Madsen had a decent year at Cal, with much improvement, but now he has to start all over again with almost all new personnel. Both coaches came after having been named Coach of the Year in their conferences. Smith, however, won his award in a major P5 conference. He has more successful head coaching experience than Madsen.

If you look at Kyle Smith's record at WSU, especially defense, in his first year, he took over a team from Ernie Kent which had given up 79 points per game (331st in the nation), and his 2020 team lowered that to 70 points per game (187th in the nation). In 2021, WSU gave up 67 ppg (94th in the nation), and in 2022, WSU gave up 65 ppg (45th in the nation). In 2023, WSU gave up 66 ppg (53rd), and in 2024, WSU gave up 67 ppg (44th). These are the kind of numbers I'd like to see from Madsen at Cal. Fox had a horrible year in 2023, made worse by all the injuries to starters, but his team still managed to hold opponents to 70 ppg (178th in the nation). If Madsen can get our defense to that level by this season or the next, I would be pleased.

I like Madsen. I like his positive attitude, I like his demeanor on the court. I liked the players he brought in. The only criticism I'd have is that he never signed a point guard, and while the big man he brought in was very good offensively and rebounding, he was not a good man defender or rim protector, to use the modern parlance. The only plus defender he did sign was Kennedy. To my mind, shooters are a dime a dozen, but Madsen needs defenders and he needs to coach defense from day one. At least he has given some thought to finding a point guard this time, so we shall see what happens.

---

Good post. Seems like the comparisons to the past, even the recent past, may need to come with an asterisk. The portal and NIL situation has really changed the dynamics around building a team. It seems to me that rebuilds with entirely new core players are going to be the norm moving forward. Teaching defense may be a logical desire, but if players hit the portal so does your teaching investment. How would John Wooden have done in today's game?

SFCB, agree this past season defense was lacking but I kind of have to give Madsen a pass since he came in relatively late and had to scramble.

This year I'm hoping Sissoko gives Cal some defense and Tucker provides some effective point guard play. And I know it's getting late, but there are still two more schollies to fill....

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

SFCB, agree this past season defense was lacking but I kind of have to give Madsen a pass since he came in relatively late and had to scramble.

This year I'm hoping Sissoko gives Cal some defense and Tucker provides some effective point guard play. And I know it's getting late, but there are still two more schollies to fill....

---

Several people praised Fox's defense - except maybe his final season, pointing at the average points surrendered per game. But a big part of Fox's defensive strategy was to burn the entire shooting clock on each offensive possession, so the opponent just didn't have the ball in their hands. I realize this is supposed to be a good strategy for overmatched teams, but in Cal's case, it meant

• Skipping or not even trying to create good shooting opportunities for the first 20 seconds of the clock, only to take a bad shot as the clock ran down
• NEVER going backdoor in the face of overplaying defenders
• Allowing opposition defenders to at least relax their concentration (if not effort) for the first half of each Cal possession because they knew it was just random motion - nobody was going to shoot.

I couldn't find a defensive points-per-minute stat (# of opponent points scored per minute that the ball was in their possession), but I think that would reveal a much less effective Fox defense.

Look for points per possession.

stu said:

---

Look for points per possession.

---

Use Ken Pomeroy

Here are our national ranking in Offense (points per position), Defense (points surrendered per possession) and Tempo (possessions per game):

2023 O#320 D#195 T#343

2024 O#126 D#139 T#116

So Madsen's defense was significantly better than Fox's but the team played at a much faster pace so there were more possessions per game for both teams and we surrendered more points per game.

However, In 2023, Cal under Fox was the lowest scoring team in the country with the #320 offense playing at the #343 pace so once opposing teams got a lead they did not need their best offensive effort to beat us and many gave their starters a lot of rest. If anything, #195 probably understates how bad we were on defense. It is how we ended up with the worst record in the country and in our history: bad offense combined with bad defense.

The numbers we had last year were very mediocre. We were a very average team out of hundreds, we just seemed to be so much improved relative to the increasingly disastrous Mark Fox teams.

HearstMining said:

---

Thanks! I wasn't familiar with KenPom and so didn't search it appropriately. But seeing your results, I took another crack and found the 2021-2022 numbers I was looking for. I wanted to look at that season because I thought I recalled some people saying that Cal team played good defense. While Cal finished 82nd (and 4th in the Pac12) in pts allowed per game, they finished 93rd (6th in the Pac12) in pts allowed per 100 possessions.

So one could argue that Fox's "burn the clock" offense did result in giving up fewer points, But really, when it came to actually playing defense, as opposed to just keeping the ball out of the opponents hands, Cal wasn't very good. So maybe Fox emphasized defense, but the results weren't there. And the cost of this strategy was that good players didn't want to come to Cal and fans didn't want to come to games.

---

Yes, 93rd in defense is kind of meh, especially if defense is your strength. The object is to be (roughly) Top 50 overall if you want to be in the NCAA Tournament or Top 100 if you want to be in the NIT or CIT. 93rd in defense combined with being in the 100s or worse 200s or 300s in offense isn't going to get it done.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I hope he does well there. I liked him. He looked in amazing shape before he got hurt and I thought he had a lot of potential, though a little slow

---

I think you are right. Kyle Smith is a good, proven coach. He knows talent, and good at getting results from the talent he has. Sorry to see ND go. You can never have enough big men. I wish him well.

---

Agreed on all that but Kyle Smith is at Stanfurd now

---

Thanks for this. I'm even more out of touch than I thought I was. (Actually, I remember reading about Kyle Smith moving to Stanford, but forgot about it.) In either case, I need to go soak my head.

---

Who is their new coach? Some Kyle Smith nepo-baby? That seems to be the way things work on that coaching tree...

OTOH, I kinda don't care. Need to get into the ACC mindset.

---

Stanford will be in the ACC. And Cal will play Stanford home-and-home every year. I would bet on that.

Stanford will be tough for Cal to beat, with Kyle Smith at the helm. They lost some of their talent (including one kid to Cal), but replacing Haase with Smith will make up for that, IMO. Smith should be able to land recruits well enough with the Stanford name a big drawing card, but can he attract portal transfer players to Stanford?

---

With all due respect, no reason to think that Cal won't be tough for Stanford to beat either. The situational change for the two schools is basically equal, and historically in the long run this has been an even deal. At least from the initial results, Madsen is doing a good job of attracting portal players, especially if one of those actually came from Stanfurd, thus moving forward you've got to think the competition between the two schools will stay where its always been.

---

I can agree with you that Cal can be tough for Stanford to beat on any given night. However, the coaches change for either team every few years, and often a team's results then show a big improvement, or take a step backwards. Cal's relationship with Stanford has done this many times over the years. For either team, this is not the relation with UCLA, who was dominant for many years over both schools. If you look at the head-to-head wins since 1949, Stanford has the edge over Cal, 95 wins to 79 wins for Cal. If you look at the era from 1999 to the present, it is 33 wins for Stanford, and 20 wins for Cal. Based on records alone, either team might be tough to beat on a given night, but a little more often, Stanford has been the tougher one to beat.

My point about Kyle Smith is that he has more of record of success than Madsen, prior to landing in their present jobs. Madsen had a decent year at Cal, with much improvement, but now he has to start all over again with almost all new personnel. Both coaches came after having been named Coach of the Year in their conferences. Smith, however, won his award in a major P5 conference. He has more successful head coaching experience than Madsen.

If you look at Kyle Smith's record at WSU, especially defense, in his first year, he took over a team from Ernie Kent which had given up 79 points per game (331st in the nation), and his 2020 team lowered that to 70 points per game (187th in the nation). In 2021, WSU gave up 67 ppg (94th in the nation), and in 2022, WSU gave up 65 ppg (45th in the nation). In 2023, WSU gave up 66 ppg (53rd), and in 2024, WSU gave up 67 ppg (44th). These are the kind of numbers I'd like to see from Madsen at Cal. Fox had a horrible year in 2023, made worse by all the injuries to starters, but his team still managed to hold opponents to 70 ppg (178th in the nation). If Madsen can get our defense to that level by this season or the next, I would be pleased.

I like Madsen. I like his positive attitude, I like his demeanor on the court. I liked the players he brought in. The only criticism I'd have is that he never signed a point guard, and while the big man he brought in was very good offensively and rebounding, he was not a good man defender or rim protector, to use the modern parlance. The only plus defender he did sign was Kennedy. To my mind, shooters are a dime a dozen, but Madsen needs defenders and he needs to coach defense from day one. At least he has given some thought to finding a point guard this time, so we shall see what happens.

---

1 NCAA appearance in a 14-year coaching career does not put fear in my heart.

---

I was not writing about invitations to a dance. That is not an accomplishment. It is what we do in the dance that counts. Invitations and seeds are just subjective judgments by a committee of humans. Winning a basketball game or a tournament is an accomplishment.

I was writing about beating Stanford in a basketball game, something which Cal has not done well, or well enough, over the years.

Kyle Smith's record against Cal: 10-3. Here it is:

2018: USF one win (79-60) to none for Cal.

2020-2023: WSU 8 wins to 2 wins for Cal. On 2/18/2021, it was WSU 82, Cal 51, a 31 point debacle.

2024: Cal won in OT 81-75 at Haas, and lost 84-65 in the rubber match in the Palouse.

So it has usually been Kyle Smith over Cal. Stanford will likely be better under Smith than under Jerod Haase (who also had a winning record against Cal). Even if Kyle Smith doesn't put fear in your heart, he certainly gives me at least a little indigestion.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I hope he does well there. I liked him. He looked in amazing shape before he got hurt and I thought he had a lot of potential, though a little slow

---

I think you are right. Kyle Smith is a good, proven coach. He knows talent, and good at getting results from the talent he has. Sorry to see ND go. You can never have enough big men. I wish him well.

---

Agreed on all that but Kyle Smith is at Stanfurd now

---

Thanks for this. I'm even more out of touch than I thought I was. (Actually, I remember reading about Kyle Smith moving to Stanford, but forgot about it.) In either case, I need to go soak my head.

---

Who is their new coach? Some Kyle Smith nepo-baby? That seems to be the way things work on that coaching tree...

OTOH, I kinda don't care. Need to get into the ACC mindset.

---

Stanford will be in the ACC. And Cal will play Stanford home-and-home every year. I would bet on that.

Stanford will be tough for Cal to beat, with Kyle Smith at the helm. They lost some of their talent (including one kid to Cal), but replacing Haase with Smith will make up for that, IMO. Smith should be able to land recruits well enough with the Stanford name a big drawing card, but can he attract portal transfer players to Stanford?

---

With all due respect, no reason to think that Cal won't be tough for Stanford to beat either. The situational change for the two schools is basically equal, and historically in the long run this has been an even deal. At least from the initial results, Madsen is doing a good job of attracting portal players, especially if one of those actually came from Stanfurd, thus moving forward you've got to think the competition between the two schools will stay where its always been.

---

I can agree with you that Cal can be tough for Stanford to beat on any given night. However, the coaches change for either team every few years, and often a team's results then show a big improvement, or take a step backwards. Cal's relationship with Stanford has done this many times over the years. For either team, this is not the relation with UCLA, who was dominant for many years over both schools. If you look at the head-to-head wins since 1949, Stanford has the edge over Cal, 95 wins to 79 wins for Cal. If you look at the era from 1999 to the present, it is 33 wins for Stanford, and 20 wins for Cal. Based on records alone, either team might be tough to beat on a given night, but a little more often, Stanford has been the tougher one to beat.

My point about Kyle Smith is that he has more of record of success than Madsen, prior to landing in their present jobs. Madsen had a decent year at Cal, with much improvement, but now he has to start all over again with almost all new personnel. Both coaches came after having been named Coach of the Year in their conferences. Smith, however, won his award in a major P5 conference. He has more successful head coaching experience than Madsen.

If you look at Kyle Smith's record at WSU, especially defense, in his first year, he took over a team from Ernie Kent which had given up 79 points per game (331st in the nation), and his 2020 team lowered that to 70 points per game (187th in the nation). In 2021, WSU gave up 67 ppg (94th in the nation), and in 2022, WSU gave up 65 ppg (45th in the nation). In 2023, WSU gave up 66 ppg (53rd), and in 2024, WSU gave up 67 ppg (44th). These are the kind of numbers I'd like to see from Madsen at Cal. Fox had a horrible year in 2023, made worse by all the injuries to starters, but his team still managed to hold opponents to 70 ppg (178th in the nation). If Madsen can get our defense to that level by this season or the next, I would be pleased.

I like Madsen. I like his positive attitude, I like his demeanor on the court. I liked the players he brought in. The only criticism I'd have is that he never signed a point guard, and while the big man he brought in was very good offensively and rebounding, he was not a good man defender or rim protector, to use the modern parlance. The only plus defender he did sign was Kennedy. To my mind, shooters are a dime a dozen, but Madsen needs defenders and he needs to coach defense from day one. At least he has given some thought to finding a point guard this time, so we shall see what happens.

---

Good post. Seems like the comparisons to the past, even the recent past, may need to come with an asterisk. The portal and NIL situation has really changed the dynamics around building a team. It seems to me that rebuilds with entirely new core players are going to be the norm moving forward. Teaching defense may be a logical desire, but if players hit the portal so does your teaching investment. How would John Wooden have done in today's game?

---

I'd agree. The strategy has changed, and is still evolving.

Wooden and Newell were great innovators, creative coaches. I think they would be able to adapt to the times, and sometimes be a step ahead of them. Wooden, in an age where a tall dominant center was a must have, won his first NCAA title with 6-5 center Fred Slaughter and great defense. Newell, whose teams played deliberately, was always pushing for a shot clock, and for raising the height of the basket. He wanted to try the crosscourt pass, while it was a no-no for all coaches. He and Bob Knight concocted the original modern motion offense. The great coaches adapt and create, as far I can tell.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

SFCB, agree this past season defense was lacking but I kind of have to give Madsen a pass since he came in relatively late and had to scramble.

This year I'm hoping Sissoko gives Cal some defense and Tucker provides some effective point guard play. And I know it's getting late, but there are still two more schollies to fill....

---

I didn't mean to be critical of Madsen. Every incoming new coach has the same problem, some worse than others. Too many slots to fill and so little time to find and sign the players. I think Madsen did a great job finding some interesting and exciting players so quickly. He was recruiting for 5 positions, essentially, and I was very happy to see what he did get. The sad part for him and Cal fans is that now he has to go out and it again. At least this year he has more time to do it. The hardest to find are a center who can do it all, and a point guard who can do the same. If he gets one out of the two, we could be better this season, and if he gets both of them, and can get all his players to play together at both ends, we could be very good. Unfortunately, most of the other coaches will be looking for the same pieces.

SFCityBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I hope he does well there. I liked him. He looked in amazing shape before he got hurt and I thought he had a lot of potential, though a little slow

---

I think you are right. Kyle Smith is a good, proven coach. He knows talent, and good at getting results from the talent he has. Sorry to see ND go. You can never have enough big men. I wish him well.

---

Agreed on all that but Kyle Smith is at Stanfurd now

---

Thanks for this. I'm even more out of touch than I thought I was. (Actually, I remember reading about Kyle Smith moving to Stanford, but forgot about it.) In either case, I need to go soak my head.

---

Who is their new coach? Some Kyle Smith nepo-baby? That seems to be the way things work on that coaching tree...

OTOH, I kinda don't care. Need to get into the ACC mindset.

---

Stanford will be in the ACC. And Cal will play Stanford home-and-home every year. I would bet on that.

Stanford will be tough for Cal to beat, with Kyle Smith at the helm. They lost some of their talent (including one kid to Cal), but replacing Haase with Smith will make up for that, IMO. Smith should be able to land recruits well enough with the Stanford name a big drawing card, but can he attract portal transfer players to Stanford?

---

With all due respect, no reason to think that Cal won't be tough for Stanford to beat either. The situational change for the two schools is basically equal, and historically in the long run this has been an even deal. At least from the initial results, Madsen is doing a good job of attracting portal players, especially if one of those actually came from Stanfurd, thus moving forward you've got to think the competition between the two schools will stay where its always been.

---

I can agree with you that Cal can be tough for Stanford to beat on any given night. However, the coaches change for either team every few years, and often a team's results then show a big improvement, or take a step backwards. Cal's relationship with Stanford has done this many times over the years. For either team, this is not the relation with UCLA, who was dominant for many years over both schools. If you look at the head-to-head wins since 1949, Stanford has the edge over Cal, 95 wins to 79 wins for Cal. If you look at the era from 1999 to the present, it is 33 wins for Stanford, and 20 wins for Cal. Based on records alone, either team might be tough to beat on a given night, but a little more often, Stanford has been the tougher one to beat.

My point about Kyle Smith is that he has more of record of success than Madsen, prior to landing in their present jobs. Madsen had a decent year at Cal, with much improvement, but now he has to start all over again with almost all new personnel. Both coaches came after having been named Coach of the Year in their conferences. Smith, however, won his award in a major P5 conference. He has more successful head coaching experience than Madsen.

If you look at Kyle Smith's record at WSU, especially defense, in his first year, he took over a team from Ernie Kent which had given up 79 points per game (331st in the nation), and his 2020 team lowered that to 70 points per game (187th in the nation). In 2021, WSU gave up 67 ppg (94th in the nation), and in 2022, WSU gave up 65 ppg (45th in the nation). In 2023, WSU gave up 66 ppg (53rd), and in 2024, WSU gave up 67 ppg (44th). These are the kind of numbers I'd like to see from Madsen at Cal. Fox had a horrible year in 2023, made worse by all the injuries to starters, but his team still managed to hold opponents to 70 ppg (178th in the nation). If Madsen can get our defense to that level by this season or the next, I would be pleased.

I like Madsen. I like his positive attitude, I like his demeanor on the court. I liked the players he brought in. The only criticism I'd have is that he never signed a point guard, and while the big man he brought in was very good offensively and rebounding, he was not a good man defender or rim protector, to use the modern parlance. The only plus defender he did sign was Kennedy. To my mind, shooters are a dime a dozen, but Madsen needs defenders and he needs to coach defense from day one. At least he has given some thought to finding a point guard this time, so we shall see what happens.

---

1 NCAA appearance in a 14-year coaching career does not put fear in my heart.

---

I was not writing about invitations to a dance. That is not an accomplishment. It is what we do in the dance that counts. Invitations and seeds are just subjective judgments by a committee of humans. Winning a basketball game or a tournament is an accomplishment.

I was writing about beating Stanford in a basketball game, something which Cal has not done well, or well enough, over the years.

Kyle Smith's record against Cal: 10-3. Here it is:

2018: USF one win (79-60) to none for Cal.

2020-2023: WSU 8 wins to 2 wins for Cal. On 2/18/2021, it was WSU 82, Cal 51, a 31 point debacle.

2024: Cal won in OT 81-75 at Haas, and lost 84-65 in the rubber match in the Palouse.

So it has usually been Kyle Smith over Cal. Stanford will likely be better under Smith than under Jerod Haase (who also had a winning record against Cal). Even if Kyle Smith doesn't put fear in your heart, he certainly gives me at least a little indigestion.

---

Win enough games and you make it to post season tournaments. Is there a season of his where you think he got cheated out of the NCAA tournament?

How many games he won against two of the worst coaches in Cal history says nothing about how he will fair against Madsen.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

I hope he does well there. I liked him. He looked in amazing shape before he got hurt and I thought he had a lot of potential, though a little slow

---

I think you are right. Kyle Smith is a good, proven coach. He knows talent, and good at getting results from the talent he has. Sorry to see ND go. You can never have enough big men. I wish him well.

---

Agreed on all that but Kyle Smith is at Stanfurd now

---

Thanks for this. I'm even more out of touch than I thought I was. (Actually, I remember reading about Kyle Smith moving to Stanford, but forgot about it.) In either case, I need to go soak my head.

---

Who is their new coach? Some Kyle Smith nepo-baby? That seems to be the way things work on that coaching tree...

OTOH, I kinda don't care. Need to get into the ACC mindset.

---

Stanford will be in the ACC. And Cal will play Stanford home-and-home every year. I would bet on that.

Stanford will be tough for Cal to beat, with Kyle Smith at the helm. They lost some of their talent (including one kid to Cal), but replacing Haase with Smith will make up for that, IMO. Smith should be able to land recruits well enough with the Stanford name a big drawing card, but can he attract portal transfer players to Stanford?

---

With all due respect, no reason to think that Cal won't be tough for Stanford to beat either. The situational change for the two schools is basically equal, and historically in the long run this has been an even deal. At least from the initial results, Madsen is doing a good job of attracting portal players, especially if one of those actually came from Stanfurd, thus moving forward you've got to think the competition between the two schools will stay where its always been.

---

I can agree with you that Cal can be tough for Stanford to beat on any given night. However, the coaches change for either team every few years, and often a team's results then show a big improvement, or take a step backwards. Cal's relationship with Stanford has done this many times over the years. For either team, this is not the relation with UCLA, who was dominant for many years over both schools. If you look at the head-to-head wins since 1949, Stanford has the edge over Cal, 95 wins to 79 wins for Cal. If you look at the era from 1999 to the present, it is 33 wins for Stanford, and 20 wins for Cal. Based on records alone, either team might be tough to beat on a given night, but a little more often, Stanford has been the tougher one to beat.

My point about Kyle Smith is that he has more of record of success than Madsen, prior to landing in their present jobs. Madsen had a decent year at Cal, with much improvement, but now he has to start all over again with almost all new personnel. Both coaches came after having been named Coach of the Year in their conferences. Smith, however, won his award in a major P5 conference. He has more successful head coaching experience than Madsen.

If you look at Kyle Smith's record at WSU, especially defense, in his first year, he took over a team from Ernie Kent which had given up 79 points per game (331st in the nation), and his 2020 team lowered that to 70 points per game (187th in the nation). In 2021, WSU gave up 67 ppg (94th in the nation), and in 2022, WSU gave up 65 ppg (45th in the nation). In 2023, WSU gave up 66 ppg (53rd), and in 2024, WSU gave up 67 ppg (44th). These are the kind of numbers I'd like to see from Madsen at Cal. Fox had a horrible year in 2023, made worse by all the injuries to starters, but his team still managed to hold opponents to 70 ppg (178th in the nation). If Madsen can get our defense to that level by this season or the next, I would be pleased.

I like Madsen. I like his positive attitude, I like his demeanor on the court. I liked the players he brought in. The only criticism I'd have is that he never signed a point guard, and while the big man he brought in was very good offensively and rebounding, he was not a good man defender or rim protector, to use the modern parlance. The only plus defender he did sign was Kennedy. To my mind, shooters are a dime a dozen, but Madsen needs defenders and he needs to coach defense from day one. At least he has given some thought to finding a point guard this time, so we shall see what happens.

---

1 NCAA appearance in a 14-year coaching career does not put fear in my heart.

---

I was not writing about invitations to a dance. That is not an accomplishment. It is what we do in the dance that counts. Invitations and seeds are just subjective judgments by a committee of humans. Winning a basketball game or a tournament is an accomplishment.

I was writing about beating Stanford in a basketball game, something which Cal has not done well, or well enough, over the years.

Kyle Smith's record against Cal: 10-3. Here it is:

2018: USF one win (79-60) to none for Cal.

2020-2023: WSU 8 wins to 2 wins for Cal. On 2/18/2021, it was WSU 82, Cal 51, a 31 point debacle.

2024: Cal won in OT 81-75 at Haas, and lost 84-65 in the rubber match in the Palouse.

So it has usually been Kyle Smith over Cal. Stanford will likely be better under Smith than under Jerod Haase (who also had a winning record against Cal). Even if Kyle Smith doesn't put fear in your heart, he certainly gives me at least a little indigestion.

---

Win enough games and you make it to post season tournaments. Is there a season of his where you think he got cheated out of the NCAA tournament?

How many games he won against two of the worst coaches in Cal history says nothing about how he will fair against Madsen.

---

How many games is "enough"? In a conference where say, 5 teams get invitations, 17 or 18 wins might be enough (in fact there have been a couple of years where teams with losing records got invitations) In other conferences, you might have to win your conference to get an invitation. In some conferences, a team must only win their conference tournament to get an invitation, and that means winning just the 3 or 4 games it takes to win that tournament to get an invitation to the NCAA tourney.

The NCAA committee decides how many teams in each conference will get invitations, and these decisions are all subjective, IMO. I think they pick the teams which are the most popular, most exciting, the ones who will draw the most fans, either to buy a ticket or tune in on TV.

No, I don't think Kyle Smith was ever "cheated" out of the NCAA tournament. If any one was "cheated", one of those might be Mark Madsen himself. In his four years at Utah Valley in the WAC, his Utah Valley teams won the WAC regular season championship two of those years, but were not given invitations to the NCAA. The WAC was given one invitation to the NCAA each year, and in both of those years, the invitation was given to the team which won the WAC conference tournament, and the tournament both years was won by Grand Canyon.

I don't fault Kyle Smith for winning games vs coaches like Wyking and Fox. What was he supposed do, go easy on them? Fox was having a bad time of it at Cal. His poor recruiting, attitude and demeanor, plus injuries added up to disaster. But back when the WAC was a little better conference, Mark Fox's Nevada teams owned it. In his 5 years in the WAC, Fox won the regular season championship five times (once in a tie), and his teams won the WAC conference tournament twice. So Smith probably took games against Fox seriously and prepared for them. Maybe not so seriously against Wyking, as Wyking had no track record or style, never having been a head coach, even at grade school level.

Finally, Fox's teams received 4 invitations to the NCAA tournament, two for Nevada, and two for Georgia. That should be one example of a criteria that is not worth much when evaluating a coach. It may be a feather in his hat, but it does not tell us that the person can coach well. Fox and his 4 invites are no longer coaching basketball as head of a program, while Kyle and his mediocre one invite has been promoted to a more desirable head coaching job at Stanford.

SFCityBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

1 NCAA appearance in a 14-year coaching career does not put fear in my heart.

---

I was not writing about invitations to a dance. That is not an accomplishment. It is what we do in the dance that counts. Invitations and seeds are just subjective judgments by a committee of humans. Winning a basketball game or a tournament is an accomplishment.

I was writing about beating Stanford in a basketball game, something which Cal has not done well, or well enough, over the years.

Kyle Smith's record against Cal: 10-3. Here it is:

2018: USF one win (79-60) to none for Cal.

2020-2023: WSU 8 wins to 2 wins for Cal. On 2/18/2021, it was WSU 82, Cal 51, a 31 point debacle.

2024: Cal won in OT 81-75 at Haas, and lost 84-65 in the rubber match in the Palouse.

So it has usually been Kyle Smith over Cal. Stanford will likely be better under Smith than under Jerod Haase (who also had a winning record against Cal). Even if Kyle Smith doesn't put fear in your heart, he certainly gives me at least a little indigestion.

---

Win enough games and you make it to post season tournaments. Is there a season of his where you think he got cheated out of the NCAA tournament?

How many games he won against two of the worst coaches in Cal history says nothing about how he will fair against Madsen.

---

How many games is "enough"? In a conference where say, 5 teams get invitations, 17 or 18 wins might be enough (in fact there have been a couple of years where teams with losing records got invitations) In other conferences, you might have to win your conference to get an invitation. In some conferences, a team must only win their conference tournament to get an invitation, and that means winning just the 3 or 4 games it takes to win that tournament to get an invitation to the NCAA tourney.

The NCAA committee decides how many teams in each conference will get invitations, and these decisions are all subjective, IMO. I think they pick the teams which are the most popular, most exciting, the ones who will draw the most fans, either to buy a ticket or tune in on TV.

No, I don't think Kyle Smith was ever "cheated" out of the NCAA tournament. If any one was "cheated", one of those might be Mark Madsen himself. In his four years at Utah Valley in the WAC, his Utah Valley teams won the WAC regular season championship two of those years, but were not given invitations to the NCAA. The WAC was given one invitation to the NCAA each year, and in both of those years, the invitation was given to the team which won the WAC conference tournament, and the tournament both years was won by Grand Canyon.

I don't fault Kyle Smith for winning games vs coaches like Wyking and Fox. What was he supposed do, go easy on them? Fox was having a bad time of it at Cal. His poor recruiting, attitude and demeanor, plus injuries added up to disaster. But back when the WAC was a little better conference, Mark Fox's Nevada teams owned it. In his 5 years in the WAC, Fox won the regular season championship five times (once in a tie), and his teams won the WAC conference tournament twice. So Smith probably took games against Fox seriously and prepared for them. Maybe not so seriously against Wyking, as Wyking had no track record or style, never having been a head coach, even at grade school level.

Finally, Fox's teams received 4 invitations to the NCAA tournament, two for Nevada, and two for Georgia. That should be one example of a criteria that is not worth much when evaluating a coach. It may be a feather in his hat, but it does not tell us that the person can coach well. Fox and his 4 invites are no longer coaching basketball as head of a program, while Kyle and his mediocre one invite has been promoted to a more desirable head coaching job at Stanford.

---

Oh boy, I'm getting flashbacks.

I'm sorry, I should have said "Win enough quality games and you make it to post-season tournaments" but I thought that was obvious. You like to spend time mining Google to help bolster your arguments, so I'm sure you must have checked out the NCAA selection process. In the end, there is some subjectivity, but the Committee tries to be as objective as possible by using computer-generated algorithms like RPI, SOS, and NET to place teams on an S-curve. It's when teams are grouped closely together where the selection can get somewhat subjective. It would be there where teams can sometimes feel slighted. I don't believe Smith has ever been in that position since he hadn't challenged to even be in a position to sniff the tourney until this last year.

Why would anyone fault Smith for winning games against Wyking and Fox? I'm (kind of) amazed you even feel the need to say that. What one should not do, however, is to use those wins as a measuring stick to inflate his value. Will Kyle Smith end up being all that at Stanfurd? Maybe. But there is nothing in his resume other than catching a bit of fire last season that would make me worry about it, which is the point I was trying to make. Heck, as you said, even Fox had a better resume when he came to Cal.

Please don't take the above as an attempt to change your mind. If you want to value Smith more than me please go ahead. I won't try to stop you.

Seriously? You are indexing using Smith's record against Fox and Wyking? He's 1-1 against MadDog. And he had more pieces last year. I do agree Kyle Smith is a good coach and a good pick up for Furd.