bearister said:

---

"Where do we find these teams?"

Do you remember Athletes in Action? They were as close as Cal could get to booking the Washington Generals. However, one year they had a little guard whose nickname was Mr. Something or other* and he dropped close to 40 on us in Harmon. He ended up making a slot on the Warriors for a short stint.

*I was particularly fond of the half time "entertainment" at those games: A 15 minute anti drug lecture by one of their players holding a mic at center court and delivered in a monotone. My wife had to wipe the drool off me and slap me awake for the 2nd half.

*I think he played for Tennessee or Tennessee State in college.

---

I remember AIA. They were not very good. Today their teams are all high school players.

HearstMining said:

---

Madsen is roughly on my schedule, at least with respect to bringing in players. Given that Cal basketball was a toxic 5hit-hole when he arrived, I thought the scenario may play out like this:

• Year 1 - Can only attract players who are desperate to play due to previous injury, buried on lower level teams, probably in their last year of eligibility. May not attract good candidates for all positions. Too late to attract any HS recruits.
• Year 2 - Having gotten Tyson to the NBA, Cal now attractive to better players. Those either in their last year from a Power 5 school, or rotation players with multiple years of eligibility left. May attract a good HS recruit or two.
• Year 3 - Keep your best players to establish a real culture and style of play. Attract a couple of more starters/rotation players from competitive programs with >1 year of eligibility, get another HS or overseas recruit.

For this path to work, Madsen has to implement a scheme that works with players strengths and build a reputation for winning games against good, maybe not great opponents (yet). This is what's not happening yet, this season.

---

I don't agree about year 1

we had 4 legit transfers in Madsen's first season

HearstMining said:

---

Madsen is roughly on my schedule, at least with respect to bringing in players. Given that Cal basketball was a toxic 5hit-hole when he arrived, I thought the scenario may play out like this:

• Year 1 - Can only attract players who are desperate to play due to previous injury, buried on lower level teams, probably in their last year of eligibility. May not attract good candidates for all positions. Too late to attract any HS recruits.
• Year 2 - Having gotten Tyson to the NBA, Cal now attractive to better players. Those either in their last year from a Power 5 school, or rotation players with multiple years of eligibility left. May attract a good HS recruit or two.
• Year 3 - Keep your best players to establish a real culture and style of play. Attract a couple of more starters/rotation players from competitive programs with >1 year of eligibility, get another HS or overseas recruit.

For this path to work, Madsen has to implement a scheme that works with players strengths and build a reputation for winning games against good, maybe not great opponents (yet). This is what's not happening yet, this season.

---

I would add that this was Madsen's first full season of being able to recruit high schoolers, and also sign players from the portal. And as I expected, the overall talent on the roster this year is better than last year. Last year, he had an NBA ready player, but no true point guard, and no inside depth behind Aimaq. He improved the roster in point guard play and added better backup bigs, which is some of what he needed to do. He did what I expected him to try and do.

This team needs better defenders, starters and rotation. And Madsen will need to replace the good talent which leaves. He will earn his money, or he won't, and that will be true until he establishes a good program, which I hope he does.

As I wrote in the OP, we need more assists and fewer turnovers. Against San Diego State, we had only 4 assists, and made a whopping 18 turnovers! Reverse that, 18 assists and 4 turnovers, and we win.

If we continue to play at this pace, it will not be easy to improve our teamwork and assists. But reducing turnovers should not be as hard. We should be able to cut down on TOs by some simple discipline. Back in the Stone Age, if players made turnovers, coaches often replaced them on the floor with another player. If a starter made a turnover, he usually stayed in the game. If he made a second or 3rd turnover, the coach might send him to the bench to sit and think about it for a while. If a player from the bench was sent into the game, the coach might have a shorter leash, and yank him if he made one turnover (or took an ill-advised shot), and send him to the bench. Today teams play so fast, turnovers more likely to be forgiven.

I think players should be drilled on taking care of the basketball. From what I see, it doesn't look like they are drilled very often, if at all. Back in the Stone Age, a single turnover could cost your team a game. I once asked my High School Coach, "Who was the best player you ever coached against?" He replied, "Hank Luisetti", the great Stanford All-American. The scores in those games were much lower than today, but when my coach's team played against Luisetti, the scores were even lower. They used to pass the ball around, and not take a shot, unless it was an easy wide open layup. I asked my coach why he coached that way, and he replied, "Because if the ball ever got loose on the floor, Luisetti would always somehow be there to grab it and quickly score at the other end."

Today we have marvelous athletes. Why can't they take care of the basketball, and not turn it over? You don't need to have a high IQ to master this skill, taking care of the ball.

I had another coach, one who had played in the pros. He was demonstrating the art of rebounding. He always came down with the ball held tightly in both hands, close to his body, elbows out, protecting it with his life, or so it seemed. He said, "In those days we were paid very little money to play. I was paid by how many points I made and how many rebounds I got. It was my job. I thought of that basketball as my bread and butter, and I made sure no one was ever going to take it away from me."

Today's players get paid just for showing up to a practice or a game, so most of what I ever respected about basketball is gone. But Cal's coach needs to find a way to motivate his players to not lose the ball to an opponent, and give them extra chances to score.

SFCityBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Madsen is roughly on my schedule, at least with respect to bringing in players. Given that Cal basketball was a toxic 5hit-hole when he arrived, I thought the scenario may play out like this:

• Year 1 - Can only attract players who are desperate to play due to previous injury, buried on lower level teams, probably in their last year of eligibility. May not attract good candidates for all positions. Too late to attract any HS recruits.
• Year 2 - Having gotten Tyson to the NBA, Cal now attractive to better players. Those either in their last year from a Power 5 school, or rotation players with multiple years of eligibility left. May attract a good HS recruit or two.
• Year 3 - Keep your best players to establish a real culture and style of play. Attract a couple of more starters/rotation players from competitive programs with >1 year of eligibility, get another HS or overseas recruit.

For this path to work, Madsen has to implement a scheme that works with players strengths and build a reputation for winning games against good, maybe not great opponents (yet). This is what's not happening yet, this season.

---

I would add that this was Madsen's first full season of being able to recruit high schoolers, and also sign players from the portal. And as I expected, the overall talent on the roster this year is better than last year. Last year, he had an NBA ready player, but no true point guard, and no inside depth behind Aimaq. He improved the roster in point guard play and added better backup bigs, which is some of what he needed to do. He did what I expected him to try and do.

---

agree, no inside depth behind Aimaq, and that cost us games. However he played a lot of minutes and provided a lot of offense. Also we started the season with sophomore Okafor who got injured early in the season. He would have helped us although he's not putting up many stats at WSU this year...

HoopDreams said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Madsen is roughly on my schedule, at least with respect to bringing in players. Given that Cal basketball was a toxic 5hit-hole when he arrived, I thought the scenario may play out like this:

• Year 1 - Can only attract players who are desperate to play due to previous injury, buried on lower level teams, probably in their last year of eligibility. May not attract good candidates for all positions. Too late to attract any HS recruits.
• Year 2 - Having gotten Tyson to the NBA, Cal now attractive to better players. Those either in their last year from a Power 5 school, or rotation players with multiple years of eligibility left. May attract a good HS recruit or two.
• Year 3 - Keep your best players to establish a real culture and style of play. Attract a couple of more starters/rotation players from competitive programs with >1 year of eligibility, get another HS or overseas recruit.

For this path to work, Madsen has to implement a scheme that works with players strengths and build a reputation for winning games against good, maybe not great opponents (yet). This is what's not happening yet, this season.

---

I don't agree about year 1

we had 4 legit transfers in Madsen's first season

---

I didn't mean to imply that Madsen's year 1 transfers were stiffs. I assume the four you refer to were Cone, Aimaq, Kennedy, and Tyson. They were competitive players but except for Tyson, all those guys spent most of their careers at lower tier schools, were in their final year, and had obvious weaknesses in their games.

I don't consider Texas Tech and Memphis lower level basketball schools

HearstMining said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Madsen is roughly on my schedule, at least with respect to bringing in players. Given that Cal basketball was a toxic 5hit-hole when he arrived, I thought the scenario may play out like this:

• Year 1 - Can only attract players who are desperate to play due to previous injury, buried on lower level teams, probably in their last year of eligibility. May not attract good candidates for all positions. Too late to attract any HS recruits.
• Year 2 - Having gotten Tyson to the NBA, Cal now attractive to better players. Those either in their last year from a Power 5 school, or rotation players with multiple years of eligibility left. May attract a good HS recruit or two.
• Year 3 - Keep your best players to establish a real culture and style of play. Attract a couple of more starters/rotation players from competitive programs with >1 year of eligibility, get another HS or overseas recruit.

For this path to work, Madsen has to implement a scheme that works with players strengths and build a reputation for winning games against good, maybe not great opponents (yet). This is what's not happening yet, this season.

---

I don't agree about year 1

we had 4 legit transfers in Madsen's first season

---

I didn't mean to imply that Madsen's year 1 transfers were stiffs. I assume the four you refer to were Cone, Aimaq, Kennedy, and Tyson. They were competitive players but except for Tyson, all those guys spent most of their careers at lower tier schools, were in their final year, and had obvious weaknesses in their games.

---

SFCityBear said:

---

As I wrote in the OP, we need more assists and fewer turnovers. Against San Diego State, we had only 4 assists, and made a whopping 18 turnovers! Reverse that, 18 assists and 4 turnovers, and we win.

If we continue to play at this pace, it will not be easy to improve our teamwork and assists. But reducing turnovers should not be as hard. We should be able to cut down on TOs by some simple discipline. Back in the Stone Age, if players made turnovers, coaches often replaced them on the floor with another player. If a starter made a turnover, he usually stayed in the game. If he made a second or 3rd turnover, the coach might send him to the bench to sit and think about it for a while. If a player from the bench was sent into the game, the coach might have a shorter leash, and yank him if he made one turnover (or took an ill-advised shot), and send him to the bench. Today teams play so fast, turnovers more likely to be forgiven.

I think players should be drilled on taking care of the basketball. From what I see, it doesn't look like they are drilled very often, if at all. Back in the Stone Age, a single turnover could cost your team a game. I once asked my High School Coach, "Who was the best player you ever coached against?" He replied, "Hank Luisetti", the great Stanford All-American. The scores in those games were much lower than today, but when my coach's team played against Luisetti, the scores were even lower. They used to pass the ball around, and not take a shot, unless it was an easy wide open layup. I asked my coach why he coached that way, and he replied, "Because if the ball ever got loose on the floor, Luisetti would always somehow be there to grab it and quickly score at the other end."

Today we have marvelous athletes. Why can't they take care of the basketball, and not turn it over? You don't need to have a high IQ to master this skill, taking care of the ball.

I had another coach, one who had played in the pros. He was demonstrating the art of rebounding. He always came down with the ball held tightly in both hands, close to his body, elbows out, protecting it with his life, or so it seemed. He said, "In those days we were paid very little money to play. I was paid by how many points I made and how many rebounds I got. It was my job. I thought of that basketball as my bread and butter, and I made sure no one was ever going to take it away from me."

Today's players get paid just for showing up to a practice or a game, so most of what I ever respected about basketball is gone. But Cal's coach needs to find a way to motivate his players to not lose the ball to an opponent, and give them extra chances to score.

---

As usual SFCB, you make some excellent points. My only comment on your turnover statement is that to a certain degree - for every marvelous athlete possesing the ball, there is a marvelous athlete playing defense on him, or in certain cases in a zone (which most coaches will choose to use if they feel it can be effective), so the turnover issue over time kind of "evens out" and its why we still see them. Still, I agree that on this team turnover reduction needs to be highly emphasized. So many of them this year have resulted in the classic 4 point turnaround, sometimes even 5 points. It will be interesting to see if there are better results moving forward.

calbear:

I saw this and thought it was a good example of the PnR offense by a hall of famer

Larry Bird demonstrates how to perfectly execute the Pick & Roll. pic.twitter.com/GW5T5Hju8r

— Fastbreak Hoops (@FastbreakHoops5) December 28, 2024

^ Bird, McHale, Parrish and Ainge? What do those four know about the game of basketball?!?

Thanks for sharing this. While it's a demonstration, I still see several differences with today's game:

• McHale makes an actual jump-stop when setting the pick which pretty much eliminates the chance of the ref calling a moving screen. Today's players shuffle which makes it less clear when/if they actually stop.
• Why do today's players shuffle? I think it's because the ball-handler starts trying to use the screen before it's set and he doesn't take a good angle or cut close enough to the screener so the screener keeps resetting his feet so his screen is effective.
• Today's screener sometimes rolls to the hoop too soon, before the ball-handler has run the defender into him, reducing the effectiveness of the screen.
• McHale sets the screen about a foot away from the defender. In today's game, I've seen that called a foul numerous times. Referees seem to expect that the screen is set no closer than 2-3 feet from the defender providing more space for the defender to go over or under the screen.

Times change, and so has basketball.

HearstMining said:

---

Thanks for sharing this. While it's a demonstration, I still see several differences with today's game:

• McHale makes an actual jump-stop when setting the pick which pretty much eliminates the chance of the ref calling a moving screen. Today's players shuffle which makes it less clear when/if they actually stop.
• Why do today's players shuffle? I think it's because the ball-handler starts trying to use the screen before it's set and he doesn't take a good angle or cut close enough to the screener so the screener keeps resetting his feet so his screen is effective.
• Today's screener sometimes rolls to the hoop too soon, before the ball-handler has run the defender into him, reducing the effectiveness of the screen.
• McHale sets the screen about a foot away from the defender. In today's game, I've seen that called a foul numerous times. Referees seem to expect that the screen is set no closer than 2-3 feet from the defender providing more space for the defender to go over or under the screen.

Times change, and so has basketball.

---

all true, and there are more combos than what they show

I posted because of an earlier question about PnR and it came up on my twitter feed. I didn't take the time to find a better video

HearstMining said:

---

Thanks for sharing this. While it's a demonstration, I still see several differences with today's game:

• McHale makes an actual jump-stop when setting the pick which pretty much eliminates the chance of the ref calling a moving screen. Today's players shuffle which makes it less clear when/if they actually stop.
• Why do today's players shuffle? I think it's because the ball-handler starts trying to use the screen before it's set and he doesn't take a good angle or cut close enough to the screener so the screener keeps resetting his feet so his screen is effective.
• Today's screener sometimes rolls to the hoop too soon, before the ball-handler has run the defender into him, reducing the effectiveness of the screen.
• McHale sets the screen about a foot away from the defender. In today's game, I've seen that called a foul numerous times. Referees seem to expect that the screen is set no closer than 2-3 feet from the defender providing more space for the defender to go over or under the screen.

Times change, and so has basketball.

---

It has become a game with basically no rules. The rules, or lack of them, or lack of their enforcement, which have tilted the scales in favor of the offense. More scoring, and especially exciting to the eye scoring sells tickets, seats and viewers. In the pros, it is greedy owners, coaches and players, and today in the colleges, it is greedy administrations, athletic directors, coaches, and many players. Money, or the idea of it, has ruined our game for the moment.

As to the pick and roll, it is one of several time-honored basketball plays, along with the give-and-go, the back door, etc. Pete Newell said that the two man play was the foundation of basketball. His practices usually consisted of various drills on individual fundamentals, like footwork, positioning, but there was also considerable time working on the two man play. The players would split up into groups of two men, working on say, a pick and roll, first alone by themselves and then later with two defenders. First, they would walk through the play a few times, and then run through it at game speed, and then at game speed with defenders, until they could work it to perfection. They practiced most days of the week, and on the last day, as the final event of a practice session, there would be a scrimmage. Newell usually left the gym for the scrimmage, which was run by his assistant coaches. I was often in the gallery for the practice, and as someone who aspired to make the team, I focused on watching the individual footwork drills, and the two-man plays. I didn't pay much attention to the scrimmage part of practice. I figured that if Newell wasn't interested in seeing it, then I wouldn't be either. And it gave me an extra 45 minutes to study for classes. The plays were the thing. The only play I remember where more players were involved was the weave, where 3-5 players were involved. It was all great fun to watch and play, especially the precision and timing that the Cal players achieved. Plays like these were one reason why the Cal players could easily execute a play resulting in an open high percentage shot, like a layup, in 10 seconds or less.

SFCityBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Thanks for sharing this. While it's a demonstration, I still see several differences with today's game:

• McHale makes an actual jump-stop when setting the pick which pretty much eliminates the chance of the ref calling a moving screen. Today's players shuffle which makes it less clear when/if they actually stop.
• Why do today's players shuffle? I think it's because the ball-handler starts trying to use the screen before it's set and he doesn't take a good angle or cut close enough to the screener so the screener keeps resetting his feet so his screen is effective.
• Today's screener sometimes rolls to the hoop too soon, before the ball-handler has run the defender into him, reducing the effectiveness of the screen.
• McHale sets the screen about a foot away from the defender. In today's game, I've seen that called a foul numerous times. Referees seem to expect that the screen is set no closer than 2-3 feet from the defender providing more space for the defender to go over or under the screen.

Times change, and so has basketball.

---

It has become a game with basically no rules. The rules, or lack of them, or lack of their enforcement, which have tilted the scales in favor of the offense. More scoring, and especially exciting to the eye scoring sells tickets, seats and viewers. In the pros, it is greedy owners, coaches and players, and today in the colleges, it is greedy administrations, athletic directors, coaches, and many players. Money, or the idea of it, has ruined our game for the moment.

As to the pick and roll, it is one of several time-honored basketball plays, along with the give-and-go, the back door, etc. Pete Newell said that the two man play was the foundation of basketball. His practices usually consisted of various drills on individual fundamentals, like footwork, positioning, but there was also considerable time working on the two man play. The players would split up into groups of two men, working on say, a pick and roll, first alone by themselves and then later with two defenders. First, they would walk through the play a few times, and then run through it at game speed, and then at game speed with defenders, until they could work it to perfection. They practiced most days of the week, and on the last day, as the final event of a practice session, there would be a scrimmage. Newell usually left the gym for the scrimmage, which was run by his assistant coaches. I was often in the gallery for the practice, and as someone who aspired to make the team, I focused on watching the individual footwork drills, and the two-man plays. I didn't pay much attention to the scrimmage part of practice. I figured that if Newell wasn't interested in seeing it, then I wouldn't be either. And it gave me an extra 45 minutes to study for classes. The plays were the thing. The only play I remember where more players were involved was the weave, where 3-5 players were involved. It was all great fun to watch and play, especially the precision and timing that the Cal players achieved. Plays like these were one reason why the Cal players could easily execute a play resulting in an open high percentage shot, like a layup, in 10 seconds or less.

---

All that, plus you threw in a variation of a Shakespeare quote. Nice!

SFCityBear said:

---

As to the pick and roll, it is one of several time-honored basketball plays, along with the give-and-go, the back door, etc.

---

a ton of PnR in pros and college, and I see a lot of back door in college (including with this Madsen team), but I rarely see the give and go in college, or at least I don't spot it.

UNTIL the recent Cal WBB game where Williams passed to (I think) Anastasia who immediately passed it back to Williams who went to the basket.

Usually a post defender to stop that play but in this case Williams had an easy layup

Now if you ever want to score the winning bucket in a pick up game, you can run the play and it never fails!

The other thing I'd like to see more often are weakside (AKA off-ball) screens. When you do see them it's invariably out of a time-out where the coach actually diagrammed it. More complex as it involves three offensive players, but when done correctly . . . the only word I can think of to describe it is "elegant".

HearstMining said:

---

The other thing I'd like to see more often are weakside (AKA off-ball) screens. When you do see them it's invariably out of a time-out where the coach actually diagrammed it. More complex as it involves three offensive players, but when done correctly . . . the only word I can think of to describe it is "elegant".

---

agree

Big C said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Thanks for sharing this. While it's a demonstration, I still see several differences with today's game:

• McHale makes an actual jump-stop when setting the pick which pretty much eliminates the chance of the ref calling a moving screen. Today's players shuffle which makes it less clear when/if they actually stop.
• Why do today's players shuffle? I think it's because the ball-handler starts trying to use the screen before it's set and he doesn't take a good angle or cut close enough to the screener so the screener keeps resetting his feet so his screen is effective.
• Today's screener sometimes rolls to the hoop too soon, before the ball-handler has run the defender into him, reducing the effectiveness of the screen.
• McHale sets the screen about a foot away from the defender. In today's game, I've seen that called a foul numerous times. Referees seem to expect that the screen is set no closer than 2-3 feet from the defender providing more space for the defender to go over or under the screen.

Times change, and so has basketball.

---

It has become a game with basically no rules. The rules, or lack of them, or lack of their enforcement, which have tilted the scales in favor of the offense. More scoring, and especially exciting to the eye scoring sells tickets, seats and viewers. In the pros, it is greedy owners, coaches and players, and today in the colleges, it is greedy administrations, athletic directors, coaches, and many players. Money, or the idea of it, has ruined our game for the moment.

As to the pick and roll, it is one of several time-honored basketball plays, along with the give-and-go, the back door, etc. Pete Newell said that the two man play was the foundation of basketball. His practices usually consisted of various drills on individual fundamentals, like footwork, positioning, but there was also considerable time working on the two man play. The players would split up into groups of two men, working on say, a pick and roll, first alone by themselves and then later with two defenders. First, they would walk through the play a few times, and then run through it at game speed, and then at game speed with defenders, until they could work it to perfection. They practiced most days of the week, and on the last day, as the final event of a practice session, there would be a scrimmage. Newell usually left the gym for the scrimmage, which was run by his assistant coaches. I was often in the gallery for the practice, and as someone who aspired to make the team, I focused on watching the individual footwork drills, and the two-man plays. I didn't pay much attention to the scrimmage part of practice. I figured that if Newell wasn't interested in seeing it, then I wouldn't be either. And it gave me an extra 45 minutes to study for classes. The plays were the thing. The only play I remember where more players were involved was the weave, where 3-5 players were involved. It was all great fun to watch and play, especially the precision and timing that the Cal players achieved. Plays like these were one reason why the Cal players could easily execute a play resulting in an open high percentage shot, like a layup, in 10 seconds or less.

---

All that, plus you threw in a variation of a Shakespeare quote. Nice!

---

Thanks Big C. I felt when I wrote that sentence that even though it sounded like it was a good fit, it did not seem to be mine. If one is to borrow a phrase, and hope to not get caught, it is probably not a good idea to take one from the works of a Master. Not in this forum, anyway. I will now go soak my head.

SFCB

SFCityBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Thanks for sharing this. While it's a demonstration, I still see several differences with today's game:

• McHale makes an actual jump-stop when setting the pick which pretty much eliminates the chance of the ref calling a moving screen. Today's players shuffle which makes it less clear when/if they actually stop.
• Why do today's players shuffle? I think it's because the ball-handler starts trying to use the screen before it's set and he doesn't take a good angle or cut close enough to the screener so the screener keeps resetting his feet so his screen is effective.
• Today's screener sometimes rolls to the hoop too soon, before the ball-handler has run the defender into him, reducing the effectiveness of the screen.
• McHale sets the screen about a foot away from the defender. In today's game, I've seen that called a foul numerous times. Referees seem to expect that the screen is set no closer than 2-3 feet from the defender providing more space for the defender to go over or under the screen.

Times change, and so has basketball.

---

It has become a game with basically no rules. The rules, or lack of them, or lack of their enforcement, which have tilted the scales in favor of the offense. More scoring, and especially exciting to the eye scoring sells tickets, seats and viewers. In the pros, it is greedy owners, coaches and players, and today in the colleges, it is greedy administrations, athletic directors, coaches, and many players. Money, or the idea of it, has ruined our game for the moment.

As to the pick and roll, it is one of several time-honored basketball plays, along with the give-and-go, the back door, etc. Pete Newell said that the two man play was the foundation of basketball. His practices usually consisted of various drills on individual fundamentals, like footwork, positioning, but there was also considerable time working on the two man play. The players would split up into groups of two men, working on say, a pick and roll, first alone by themselves and then later with two defenders. First, they would walk through the play a few times, and then run through it at game speed, and then at game speed with defenders, until they could work it to perfection. They practiced most days of the week, and on the last day, as the final event of a practice session, there would be a scrimmage. Newell usually left the gym for the scrimmage, which was run by his assistant coaches. I was often in the gallery for the practice, and as someone who aspired to make the team, I focused on watching the individual footwork drills, and the two-man plays. I didn't pay much attention to the scrimmage part of practice. I figured that if Newell wasn't interested in seeing it, then I wouldn't be either. And it gave me an extra 45 minutes to study for classes. The plays were the thing. The only play I remember where more players were involved was the weave, where 3-5 players were involved. It was all great fun to watch and play, especially the precision and timing that the Cal players achieved. Plays like these were one reason why the Cal players could easily execute a play resulting in an open high percentage shot, like a layup, in 10 seconds or less.

---

All that, plus you threw in a variation of a Shakespeare quote. Nice!

---

Thanks Big C. I felt when I wrote that sentence that even though it sounded like it was a good fit, it did not seem to be mine. If one is to borrow a phrase, and hope to not get caught, it is probably not a good idea to take one from the works of a Master. Not in this forum, anyway. I will now go soak my head.

SFCB

---

Rather, hope to get caught, because it was awesome.

My Shakesperean words to live by: assume a virtue, if you have it not, i.e. fake it till you make it... been trying to do that for well over half a century now (with limited success).

Happy New Year, everybody!