LOL. I forgot about them since they are dead to me ;-)sycasey said:
Is USC not in the Power 4 anymore?
Bit unfair. Furd has 2 NBA possibles on their roster.Econ141 said:
Madsen is not the answer. Stanford coach is much better .
Stanford beats Cal 89-81. Convincing win for Stanford. Cal’s only meaningful scorer is Stojakovic who transferred from Stanford. I foresee him back on The Farm next season. https://t.co/w91Xd7CDn5
— Stanford Athletics (@WeFixThings2024) December 7, 2024
This is the biggest issue I'm seeing with the team. They drive and draw a double-team but then don't have their heads up to find the open man, not quickly enough anyway.75bear said:
- We had way too much 1-on-1 hero ball play on offense. Plenty of our guys were able to easily penetrate, but then the Furd D collapsed on the ball handler around the rim, and blocked our shots or forced us into off balance looks. We should have been looking for teammates after driving - there was very little teamwork today.
Madsen is not the answer. Started out optimistic, but last year and this year show me he's another poor choice.socaltownie said:
Thoughts? 2 of them uncompetitive. I think, as with the Pac12, winning requires that you have at least 1 guys (ideally 2) that are NBA possibles. Of course none of the Bears fit that category. It is all lack of NIL for hoop (and I guess that raises the question of why Cal has just not been able to attract that kind of donor group. Time to earmark my NIL $$$)
HoopDreams said:
We sometimes get lost on defense and we don't have height making defense that much tougher
But the one defensive problem that was glaring to me was letting their center spot up at the top of the key and shoot 4 completely uncontested 3s
ncbears said:
Does Madsen not talk to Montgomery?
oskidunker said:ncbears said:
Does Madsen not talk to Montgomery?
I dont think montgomery lives in the area anymore.
Proof that Mizzou is not a pushover.HoopDreams said:
Missouri just beat no. 1 Kansas
sandiegobears said:Proof that Mizzou is not a pushover.HoopDreams said:
Missouri just beat no. 1 Kansas
And further proof that right now, while teams figure out how to integrate new players, you can't be assured of really who is better...maybe Kansas should fire Self? I don't think so, but the temperature here is that Madsen doesn't know what he's doing and I'm skeptical of that. I don't think Madsen is any different than many other coaches right now, he was down 3 starters and is still trying to get them back into the fold and also figure out all of the pieces. SDSU cleaned out Creighton, only to lose to Oregon and Gonzaga. Gonzaga lost to West Virginia and Kentucky. Oregon is losing to UCLA right now. Creighton beat Kansas, but lost to Nebraska. Duke has two losses now. It's a time of uncertainty due to all of the transfers, I've heard more than one NCAA wag mention this
So, while I'd certainly like to see more assists and better integrated offense, and certainly a better defensive posture, I don't see how you can add nearly a full team of new players together and figure anything out without real playing time. If they don't start to gel and figure out things by mid-January, that's gonna be a bigger issue. It feels like this team, especially with a lack of height, is just gonna struggle against teams like Furd, and they are probably a .500 type of team, but maybe they'll surprise us. But it's possible that only Blaksher and Sissoko will be gone next year and then we'll really see what type of coach Madsen is, when he has guys for longer periods and can challenge them to improve. I'm sure a few may transfer, but I'd hope we can get some consistency and tenure, that's where things change. If it's a new team of bodies every year, it's gonna be a slog.
sandiegobears said:Proof that Mizzou is not a pushoverHoopDreams said:
Missouri just beat no. 1 Kansas
Actually, the crowds came back last year. We had almost 9000 for Stanford last year. Sold out USC. Over 9000 for UCLA.polarbear said:
We can't expect crowds to come back immediately after quite a few years of being utter pathetic doormats ever since that NCAA tournament that we lost to U of Hawaii. It will take some time and the team has to prove that it can be successful.
TheFiatLux said:Actually, the crowds came back last year. We had almost 9000 for Stanford last year. Sold out USC. Over 9000 for UCLA.polarbear said:
We can't expect crowds to come back immediately after quite a few years of being utter pathetic doormats ever since that NCAA tournament that we lost to U of Hawaii. It will take some time and the team has to prove that it can be successful.
I was very disappointed with the crowd on Saturday but that is almost ALL on our incompetent marketing. I know many people who follow Cal sports who had NO IDEA that we were playing Stanford on Saturday. I could be wrong, but I don't think we have every played Stanford this early in the season. People just weren't ready for / thinking about it. Marketing should have done an all-out push but once again (and this is a movie we have seen before) marketing was asleep at the wheel.
We need to purge the incompetent leadership. They're (she) are costing us a lot of lost money.
HoopDreams said:
Marketing relies Almost home 100% on social media and emails (and I still can't get emails for sports I follow despite signing up for them multiple ways)TheFiatLux said:Actually, the crowds came back last year. We had almost 9000 for Stanford last year. Sold out USC. Over 9000 for UCLA.polarbear said:
We can't expect crowds to come back immediately after quite a few years of being utter pathetic doormats ever since that NCAA tournament that we lost to U of Hawaii. It will take some time and the team has to prove that it can be successful.
I was very disappointed with the crowd on Saturday but that is almost ALL on our incompetent marketing. I know many people who follow Cal sports who had NO IDEA that we were playing Stanford on Saturday. I could be wrong, but I don't think we have every played Stanford this early in the season. People just weren't ready for / thinking about it. Marketing should have done an all-out push but once again (and this is a movie we have seen before) marketing was asleep at the wheel.
We need to purge the incompetent leadership. They're (she) are costing us a lot of lost money.
I know its just not us, but again we have a completely new set of players. You could almost categorize this season as Madsen's "second first year." Also, things might have gone better in our last two games if we had a healthy DJ and BJ. Not trying to avoid realism, but I still think its too early to start ragging on MM.HKBear97! said:sandiegobears said:Proof that Mizzou is not a pushover.HoopDreams said:
Missouri just beat no. 1 Kansas
And further proof that right now, while teams figure out how to integrate new players, you can't be assured of really who is better...maybe Kansas should fire Self? I don't think so, but the temperature here is that Madsen doesn't know what he's doing and I'm skeptical of that. I don't think Madsen is any different than many other coaches right now, he was down 3 starters and is still trying to get them back into the fold and also figure out all of the pieces. SDSU cleaned out Creighton, only to lose to Oregon and Gonzaga. Gonzaga lost to West Virginia and Kentucky. Oregon is losing to UCLA right now. Creighton beat Kansas, but lost to Nebraska. Duke has two losses now. It's a time of uncertainty due to all of the transfers, I've heard more than one NCAA wag mention this
So, while I'd certainly like to see more assists and better integrated offense, and certainly a better defensive posture, I don't see how you can add nearly a full team of new players together and figure anything out without real playing time. If they don't start to gel and figure out things by mid-January, that's gonna be a bigger issue. It feels like this team, especially with a lack of height, is just gonna struggle against teams like Furd, and they are probably a .500 type of team, but maybe they'll surprise us. But it's possible that only Blaksher and Sissoko will be gone next year and then we'll really see what type of coach Madsen is, when he has guys for longer periods and can challenge them to improve. I'm sure a few may transfer, but I'd hope we can get some consistency and tenure, that's where things change. If it's a new team of bodies every year, it's gonna be a slog.
If this was Madsen's first year, I might agree with you. Unfortunately last year the team took awhile to gel and then seemed to fall apart at the end with some reports of a bad locker room. That makes me question if Madsen is equipped to deal with this new old order.
And a key difference between us and the teams you mention is they all have some really good wins among those losses listed. Cal hasn't beaten anyone of the caliber those teams have. Not to mention getting destroyed by Vanderbilt who had more new players than Cal has!
Why are we so bad at defending the 3 -- seems like it stems back to the Braun days. Remember last year this lame UOP came in and had like the best shooting night of their existence? Let's stop that first.3146gabby said:
Notes from the game:
turnovers; poor shooting, particularly around the rim....Stanford was stunning from 3 point range
Team played hard, with heart and there is talent. To now conclude that Madsen can't coach is absurd. BI seems filled w/zero sum folks: either fantastic or terrible...
it is going to take time and i saw my first Cal game in 1963 - BB is about a flow and communication that requires a lot playing together. NIL-built teams are going take time.
That's fair and certainly there are a lot of games left for the team to improve. Time will tell, but based on last year and the start of this year, I'm not nearly as optimistic about Madsen as some folks here.RedlessWardrobe said:I know its just not us, but again we have a completely new set of players. You could almost categorize this season as Madsen's "second first year." Also, things might have gone better in our last two games if we had a healthy DJ and BJ. Not trying to avoid realism, but I still think its too early to start ragging on MM.HKBear97! said:sandiegobears said:Proof that Mizzou is not a pushover.HoopDreams said:
Missouri just beat no. 1 Kansas
And further proof that right now, while teams figure out how to integrate new players, you can't be assured of really who is better...maybe Kansas should fire Self? I don't think so, but the temperature here is that Madsen doesn't know what he's doing and I'm skeptical of that. I don't think Madsen is any different than many other coaches right now, he was down 3 starters and is still trying to get them back into the fold and also figure out all of the pieces. SDSU cleaned out Creighton, only to lose to Oregon and Gonzaga. Gonzaga lost to West Virginia and Kentucky. Oregon is losing to UCLA right now. Creighton beat Kansas, but lost to Nebraska. Duke has two losses now. It's a time of uncertainty due to all of the transfers, I've heard more than one NCAA wag mention this
So, while I'd certainly like to see more assists and better integrated offense, and certainly a better defensive posture, I don't see how you can add nearly a full team of new players together and figure anything out without real playing time. If they don't start to gel and figure out things by mid-January, that's gonna be a bigger issue. It feels like this team, especially with a lack of height, is just gonna struggle against teams like Furd, and they are probably a .500 type of team, but maybe they'll surprise us. But it's possible that only Blaksher and Sissoko will be gone next year and then we'll really see what type of coach Madsen is, when he has guys for longer periods and can challenge them to improve. I'm sure a few may transfer, but I'd hope we can get some consistency and tenure, that's where things change. If it's a new team of bodies every year, it's gonna be a slog.
If this was Madsen's first year, I might agree with you. Unfortunately last year the team took awhile to gel and then seemed to fall apart at the end with some reports of a bad locker room. That makes me question if Madsen is equipped to deal with this new old order.
And a key difference between us and the teams you mention is they all have some really good wins among those losses listed. Cal hasn't beaten anyone of the caliber those teams have. Not to mention getting destroyed by Vanderbilt who had more new players than Cal has!
Cal currently ranks 328 out of 355 teams in assists per game. Compare that to Vanderbilt and USC who have more new players than Call and they are ranked 132 and 113, respectively. Definitely an area that needs improving.DaveT said:
This looks like what you'd probably expect given the reliance on portal players. A bunch of guys all trying to get their shots off to earn playing time and pad stats in case they need to hit the portal again. It looks a lot like a pick-up game.
Hard to know how much is on MM and how much is just a function of the new portal world where scorers get paid. Probably some of both. MM is everything you could ask for in a coach, except for the coaching part. I hope he figures it out.
