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.