Was hoping for nit. Depressing.

Hopefully, Mad Dog can get a couple big recruits for next year and start winning some more games.

The goal at this point should be to find someone rich to get Cal a coach who can attract top talent. We're not even on the radar now. He ain't the guy.

oskidunker said:

---

Was hoping for nit. Depressing.

---

NIT?! That's some optimism! After the off-season and reports on the pre-season scrimmages, I was skeptical they would exceed 13 wins this season. Just need three wins over the next nine games. Can they do it?

socaltownie said:

---

I think the negative bears should read the Bensen blog. Not sure that I agree with the strategy but it nicely points out what he is trying to do and the upside if he succeeds. Key to this honestly is getting Andre back and him having an NBA vaulting junior year.

---

I read that piece which was fantastic. However, it certainly did not inspire any confidence that it will succeed. As for Andre coming back and having an NBA level year, we had that last year with Tyson and what exactly did that do for Cal?

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the negative bears should read the Bensen blog. Not sure that I agree with the strategy but it nicely points out what he is trying to do and the upside if he succeeds. Key to this honestly is getting Andre back and him having an NBA vaulting junior year.

---

I read that piece which was fantastic. However, it certainly did not inspire any confidence that it will succeed. As for Andre coming back and having an NBA level year, we had that last year with Tyson and what exactly did that do for Cal?

---

Nothing

I don't agree. That team had talent and was exciting. They also had the upside to beat good teams.

early injuries and early season face plants as Madsen assembled a whole new team (and a late fade) resulted in a disappointing season but they were exciting to watch and soooo much better than the WK/Fox embarrassments

HoopDreams said:

---

I don't agree. That team had talent and was exciting. They also had the upside to beat good teams.

early injuries and early season face plants as Madsen assembled a whole new team (and a late fade) resulted in a disappointing season but they were exciting to watch and soooo much better than the WK/Fox embarrassments

---

Yeah, didn't Tyson help us more than quadruple our win total from the previous year?

If we had beaten pissant Cornell and managed to get by Syracuse last Saturday (entirely possible), folks on this board would be drooling over Madsen this week, saying how only he can rock the sweaty-shirt-tail-hanging-out-of-his-suit-coat look.

My two cents...

I think our biggest bang for the buck would be upgrading the staff. I don't know squat about the current bunch, but most of the complaints here about Madsen and players could be addressed by better assistants (scouting, execution, even X.s/Os).

Maybe they are all simply recruiters, since we need to reload every season?

Your lead assistant should be the X&O guru

BeachedBear said:

---

My two cents...

I think our biggest bang for the buck would be upgrading the staff. I don't know squat about the current bunch, but most of the complaints here about Madsen and players could be addressed by better assistants (scouting, execution, even X.s/Os).

Maybe they are all simply recruiters, since we need to reload every season?

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I don't agree. That team had talent and was exciting. They also had the upside to beat good teams.

early injuries and early season face plants as Madsen assembled a whole new team (and a late fade) resulted in a disappointing season but they were exciting to watch and soooo much better than the WK/Fox embarrassments

---

Did we beat any good teams though? I don't recall that happening.

As for exciting to watch, I did find last year's team more interesting to watch - although that may have been because the Wyking/Fox years had really lowered the bar. This season I find the one-on-one ball, lack of any movement along with an atrocious defense pretty hard to watch. I've been hoping to see some progress, but we're now 22 games in and it hasn't really gotten any better.

Madsen is better than Wyking Jones or Mark Fox, yes. And it does seem like the each year's team has been better than the last (granted so far that has been clearing a low bar). That's the positive case to be made for him.

I can see this all plateauing at a level below "regular tourney team" if the in-game coaching doesn't get better, though. The Syracuse game was a prime example of us getting caught with our pants down against a defense the team wasn't prepared for and not being able to adjust quickly enough.

Big C said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

The goal at this point should be to find someone rich to get Cal a coach who can attract top talent. We're not even on the radar now. He ain't the guy.

---

With respect, I feel like your assessment of Madsen (especially with regards to recruiting) is overly negative:

1. The program was in total shambles when he took over. He has made significant inroads, in terms of the roster.
2. A newer coach usually needs a period of time to establish himself with targeted recruits, in targeted areas/programs.
3. It's as much about the NIL nowadays as anything... and our hoops NIL could be better.


Indeed, there are legitimate Madsen questions right now about X's and O's and player development, but I am reasonably optimistic about Madsen's future at Cal. Note that I am a long-time season ticket holder who has followed the program closely for 40+ years (though I know that doesn't automatically make me right on this... just my take).

---

I agree with you BC,

This criticism is way over the top. I'm not saying that Madsen is the end all be all for our program and agree that he has a way to go as he develops as a coach. That said, he's done a great job of getting the program headed in the right direction after being left for dead by Mark Fox.

He's proven he can recruit as he's had to recruit a whole new team two years straight and one of those players turned into a first round draft pick. If not for Stojakovic's injury I believe the Bears would have ended the year at 16-15 and 9-11 in the ACC. My hope was to make the ACC tournment, but without consistent outside shooting, not sure that goal is viable at this point.

Still, with as many as 9 players returning and 2 new 4-star recruits Madsen has laid a foundation for future success. And I'm sure he will add 1 - 3 players through the portal who can help grow this team. Unlike in football, we are seeing player growth and development and the team was holding it's own prior to the injuries to Maddy and Andrej.

Go Bears!

Calbear73 said:

---

Big C said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

The goal at this point should be to find someone rich to get Cal a coach who can attract top talent. We're not even on the radar now. He ain't the guy.

---

With respect, I feel like your assessment of Madsen (especially with regards to recruiting) is overly negative:

1. The program was in total shambles when he took over. He has made significant inroads, in terms of the roster.
2. A newer coach usually needs a period of time to establish himself with targeted recruits, in targeted areas/programs.
3. It's as much about the NIL nowadays as anything... and our hoops NIL could be better.


Indeed, there are legitimate Madsen questions right now about X's and O's and player development, but I am reasonably optimistic about Madsen's future at Cal. Note that I am a long-time season ticket holder who has followed the program closely for 40+ years (though I know that doesn't automatically make me right on this... just my take).

---

I agree with you BC,

This criticism is way over the top. I'm not saying that Madsen is the end all be all for our program and agree that he has a way to go as he develops as a coach. That said, he's done a great job of getting the program headed in the right direction after being left for dead by Mark Fox.

He's proven he can recruit as he's had to recruit a whole new team two years straight and one of those players turned into a first round draft pick. If not for Stojakovic's injury I believe the Bears would have ended the year at 16-15 and 9-11 in the ACC. My hope was to make the ACC tournment, but without consistent outside shooting, not sure that goal is viable at this point.

Still, with as many as 9 players returning and 2 new 4-star recruits Madsen has laid a foundation for future success. And I'm sure he will add 1 - 3 players through the portal who can help grow this team. Unlike in football, we are seeing player growth and development and the team was holding it's own prior to the injuries to Maddy and Andrej.

Go Bears!

---

This is his sixth season as a head coach, plus another six seasons as an assistant coach before that. Exactly how long does it take to develop?

As for players returning, let's wait until this off-season before we count on any returning players. It's a new era, so year-over-year continuity is a thing of the past.

HKBear97! said:

---

Calbear73 said:

---

Big C said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

The goal at this point should be to find someone rich to get Cal a coach who can attract top talent. We're not even on the radar now. He ain't the guy.

---

With respect, I feel like your assessment of Madsen (especially with regards to recruiting) is overly negative:

1. The program was in total shambles when he took over. He has made significant inroads, in terms of the roster.
2. A newer coach usually needs a period of time to establish himself with targeted recruits, in targeted areas/programs.
3. It's as much about the NIL nowadays as anything... and our hoops NIL could be better.


Indeed, there are legitimate Madsen questions right now about X's and O's and player development, but I am reasonably optimistic about Madsen's future at Cal. Note that I am a long-time season ticket holder who has followed the program closely for 40+ years (though I know that doesn't automatically make me right on this... just my take).

---

I agree with you BC,

This criticism is way over the top. I'm not saying that Madsen is the end all be all for our program and agree that he has a way to go as he develops as a coach. That said, he's done a great job of getting the program headed in the right direction after being left for dead by Mark Fox.

He's proven he can recruit as he's had to recruit a whole new team two years straight and one of those players turned into a first round draft pick. If not for Stojakovic's injury I believe the Bears would have ended the year at 16-15 and 9-11 in the ACC. My hope was to make the ACC tournment, but without consistent outside shooting, not sure that goal is viable at this point.

Still, with as many as 9 players returning and 2 new 4-star recruits Madsen has laid a foundation for future success. And I'm sure he will add 1 - 3 players through the portal who can help grow this team. Unlike in football, we are seeing player growth and development and the team was holding it's own prior to the injuries to Maddy and Andrej.

Go Bears!

---

This is his sixth season as a head coach, plus another six seasons as an assistant coach before that. Exactly how long does it take to develop?

As for players returning, let's wait until this off-season before we count on any returning players. It's a new era, so year-over-year continuity is a thing of the past.

---

Well, Madsen is a Stanfurd grad. They're not always the sharpest knives in the drawer. 8^)

HKBear97! said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I don't agree. That team had talent and was exciting. They also had the upside to beat good teams.

early injuries and early season face plants as Madsen assembled a whole new team (and a late fade) resulted in a disappointing season but they were exciting to watch and soooo much better than the WK/Fox embarrassments

---

Did we beat any good teams though? I don't recall that happening.

As for exciting to watch, I did find last year's team more interesting to watch - although that may have been because the Wyking/Fox years had really lowered the bar. This season I find the one-on-one ball, lack of any movement along with an atrocious defense pretty hard to watch. I've been hoping to see some progress, but we're now 22 games in and it hasn't really gotten any better.

---

Yes, we beat UCLA, USC, Colorado, Washington State, Stanford, ASU, UW, Oregon State, Oregon
(only Pac12 teams we didn't beat was AZ and Utah who we only played once at Utah)

We also had 5 OT games. 3 losses (to SDSU, Butler and Stanford) and 2 wins.

I'd say we had some high qualify wins and OT losses to two other high quality teams

HoopDreams said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I don't agree. That team had talent and was exciting. They also had the upside to beat good teams.

early injuries and early season face plants as Madsen assembled a whole new team (and a late fade) resulted in a disappointing season but they were exciting to watch and soooo much better than the WK/Fox embarrassments

---

Did we beat any good teams though? I don't recall that happening.

As for exciting to watch, I did find last year's team more interesting to watch - although that may have been because the Wyking/Fox years had really lowered the bar. This season I find the one-on-one ball, lack of any movement along with an atrocious defense pretty hard to watch. I've been hoping to see some progress, but we're now 22 games in and it hasn't really gotten any better.

---

Yes, we beat UCLA, USC, Colorado, Washington State, Stanford, ASU, UW, Oregon State, Oregon
(only Pac12 teams we didn't beat was AZ and Utah who we only played once at Utah)

We also had 5 OT games. 3 losses (to SDSU, Butler and Stanford) and 2 wins.

I'd say we had some high qualify wins and OT losses to two other high quality teams

---

Difference of opinion on what constitutes a good team or a high quality win. Of those, WSU ended up ranked and Colorado and Oregon (along with WSU) at least won a game or two in the tournament, so sure, decent wins. I think it was like two Quadrant 1 wins. I guess I forgot Cal beat WSU and Colorado in some close wins earlier in the season since we get blown out by both teams later on.

HoopDreams said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I don't agree. That team had talent and was exciting. They also had the upside to beat good teams.

early injuries and early season face plants as Madsen assembled a whole new team (and a late fade) resulted in a disappointing season but they were exciting to watch and soooo much better than the WK/Fox embarrassments

---

Did we beat any good teams though? I don't recall that happening.

As for exciting to watch, I did find last year's team more interesting to watch - although that may have been because the Wyking/Fox years had really lowered the bar. This season I find the one-on-one ball, lack of any movement along with an atrocious defense pretty hard to watch. I've been hoping to see some progress, but we're now 22 games in and it hasn't really gotten any better.

---

Yes, we beat UCLA, USC, Colorado, Washington State, Stanford, ASU, UW, Oregon State, Oregon
(only Pac12 teams we didn't beat was AZ and Utah who we only played once at Utah)

We also had 5 OT games. 3 losses (to SDSU, Butler and Stanford) and 2 wins.

I'd say we had some high qualify wins and OT losses to two other high quality teams

---

1. Thank you for reminding us that we did have some highlights (Colorado, Oregon, WSU).

2. You have named every Pac-12 win as a high quality win, including against 5 teams with an overall losing records and a sixth with a barely overall winning record and a losing record in conference. You've named two OT losses as high quality one that was against a terrible Stanford team and one that was against a Butler team that has a losing record in conference and barely an overall winning record. None of these can be argued as high quality opponents. They were opponents that were at our general below average level that I would expect us to compete, win some, and lose some. Which is what we did.

Quote:

---

I don't agree. That team had talent and was exciting. They also had the upside to beat good teams.

early injuries and early season face plants as Madsen assembled a whole new team (and a late fade) resulted in a disappointing season but they were exciting to watch and soooo much better than the WK/Fox embarrassments

---

This is about like saying if it weren't for all the losses we would have been undefeated.

The early season face plants were disappointing and frankly inexcusable.

The early injuries were also disappointing and certainly impacted us. We still underperformed in the first half even accounting for that.

Assembling a whole new team - welcome to the new era of college basketball.

Pac-12 season - really, really nice development. 9 wins in conference was more than I would have expected. A real source for optimism, and honestly, for me would have made me excuse the struggles at the beginning if not for

the late fade. I think that is an understatement. Crash and burn would be an overstatement but would be a lot closer than "fade". It does not wipe out the nice stretch we had there, but along with the early season struggles, it certainly throws cold water on it.

Exciting? I think a lot of that is relative to Fox. They were watchable. I don't think they were particularly talented. I don't think they were disciplined or played together as a team. I don't think they were particularly athletic or high flying. I don't think someone dropped onto this earth in 2023-2024 would have gone to a game and said "Man, this team is exciting". And frankly, 90% of the excitement was Jaylon. You could go to a game and hope to enjoy yourself which is certainly more than you could have said the past few years.

I say this because we have to stop judging by comparison to the unacceptable place we were and start considering more where we want to go. I frankly don't care that we quadrupled our wins from Fox. It is really difficult to be 3 win bad. I would say that if you told me a coach was going to actively try and win 3 or fewer games, I wouldn't put money on him succeeding in that goal. On the flip side, it is simply not amazing for a mediocre coach given 8 mediocre players from a standing start to win 13 games. Don't get me wrong. It was a solid first year. It was solid progress. I know some were disappointed that we didn't get a miracle turnaround, but that was unrealistic and impatient. I give Madsen a "meets expectations" for year 1. Wasn't spectacular. At the end did I know we were on the right path? No. Did I know we were on the wrong path? No. I'd say, it was a transition year that virtually any good coach would have to go through, but virtually any mediocre coach would put up as well.

Emotionally, yes, any win last year should be savored. However, it is dangerous to our future aspirations to start redefining standards as better than Fox and Wyking, or frankly using them as a comparison in any way. At this point we should have a realistic view of our road ahead, but forget that Fox and Wyking ever existed. It is dangerous to our future aspirations to define any power conference team, even those in abject last place, as a high quality win.

When I came of age in Cal basketball, we hadn't gone to post season in decades. Dick Kuchen was an absolute joke who spent much of his last year running a four corner stall in an era with no shot clock. If the attitude post-Kuchen was "better than Kuchen", we wouldn't have had two NIT's, then our first NCAA with a win over Indiana, Jason Kidd, beating Duke, two sweet sixteens, a conference championship and 3 decades where we were spent most of the time in the top half of the conference. That all started with an attitude shift. There are a lot of negative things to say about Campanelli, but one thing that he got right (and it wasn't rocket science, so I'm not exactly lauding him) was he knew that was job one. He came in with "The streak stops here" and changed Harmon Gym to Harmon Arena and understood that we needed to stop thinking of ourselves as inconsequential and define ourselves on what we wanted to be instead of where we had been.

Bottom line, we need to flush the past or it is absolutely going to be an anchor on the future.

barsad said:

---

News flash about Cornell (and yes, I'm pointing this out because I'm an alum of both schools mentioned below):
Cornell record: 13-6, 2nd in Ivy League
Cal record: 11-11, 14th in ACC

Cornell KenPom rank: 123
Cal KenPom rank: 129

Number of NIT bids in last three years
Cornell: 1
Cal: 0

Number of Sweet Sixteen berths in the last 20 years:
Cornell: 1 (2010)
Cal: 0

So can we stop saying that Cornell is the pushover team that tipped the scales when they beat us? It's a solid team that played well at Haas and took advantage of Cal weaknesses.
WE'RE the pushover team people expect to beat, not Cornell.

As I've said elsewhere, we need to focus on how to get to 14 wins (still very possible if we take care of NC State, BC and Notre Dame). The Madsen bashing is pointless, he IS the guy for at least two more seasons.

---

My suggestion was that the loss at home to Cornell revealed where our true level was, and it was below the level of a postseason team. This confirms that.

I didn't say anything about Madsen's future or what that entails. You added that on your own.

The Syracuse loss to me was worse than the Cornell loss. Why? We assembled a totally new squad that realistically takes time to gel successfully. As an example, last year's squad had a rough start but then towards the end of the season was a decent and competitive team. I hoped that the same would be true this season, with the team being coached up and performing much better as the season progressed. Unfortunately that has not happened. Injuries certainly are a reason (we miss BJ and Andrej badly last Saturday) but not sufficient to explain why we took it in the butt by 'Cuse whose zone D just flummoxed our team with little adjustments seemingly made during the game to stem the bleeding.

I'm curious if Peja is the reason Andrej is sitting out so long.

bearsandgiants said:

---

I'm curious if Peja is the reason Andrej is sitting out so long.

---

And what would that reason be? Protecting his health? Wanting him to move on and not risk injury here? What is your implication?

barsad said:

---

News flash about Cornell (and yes, I'm pointing this out because I'm an alum of both schools mentioned below):
Cornell record: 13-6, 2nd in Ivy League
Cal record: 11-11, 14th in ACC

Cornell KenPom rank: 123
Cal KenPom rank: 129

Number of NIT bids in last three years
Cornell: 1
Cal: 0

Number of Sweet Sixteen berths in the last 20 years:
Cornell: 1 (2010)
Cal: 0

So can we stop saying that Cornell is the pushover team that tipped the scales when they beat us? It's a solid team that played well at Haas and took advantage of Cal weaknesses.
WE'RE the pushover team people expect to beat, not Cornell.

As I've said elsewhere, we need to focus on how to get to 14 wins (still very possible if we take care of NC State, BC and Notre Dame). The Madsen bashing is pointless, he IS the guy for at least two more seasons.

---

Why the hell would a record of 14-17 overall and 7-13 in conference ever be what we need to focus on? (other than you don't think we can do better). That is a poor season by any definition and it is frankly a worse season than last year. I don't know how you could argue that is progress. 14 wins is not a goal.

Every win we have is against a team that is at our level or below. Every loss is against a team that is at our level or above (yes, sorry, folks, that includes Syracuse). We have no stretch wins. We have no "bad" losses. We are exactly what our record says. Cal has got to have some positive surprises if it wants to develop into a contender. We are running out of opportunities. I would say to have any positive vibe, Cal has to run the table against the "at or below" teams, NC State, BC, ND, Georgia Tech AND pull off another victory somewhere, most likely against Stanford. (We were literally at least equal to them last year). No I'm not going to expect wins against Duke or Wake or Louisville, but we are where we are because we did not win any difficult but winnable games against Stanford, UNC, Syracuse, Cornell, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech or Pitt. We can't go into every season and say "well, if we beat 90% of the crappy opponents, we'll win X games and that will be progress", which is what a goal of 14 wins says. I don't think I'm unreasonable. I think reasonable progress would be 17 or 18 wins which is still possible even if unlikely. If we had won 2-3 of those 7 games against a solid Ivy, Stanford (I refuse to believe they have outclassed us in a year) one team that is one game above .500 in conference, and 4 teams that have losing conference records (even with wins against us), we'd be in a position to hit that target by winning 4 games against teams with losing overall records and significantly below .500 conference records. A very achievable goal

I'm sorry, but a team that made progress this year expects to beat Cornell. As Sycasey said, it set the level. You are absolutely right that it is not who we are. But it needs to be. Had we gone through Cornell, Syracuse, VaTech, and Pitt and only lost to Cornell, I'd say tough loss, but hey, they are a quality Ivy team. The problem isn't losing to Cornell. It is not beating anyone at Cornell's level or above. There are games that are tough but winnable opponents that you got to go in believing you are going to win, but you know you are going to win some and lose some. Cornell is one of those games. We haven't won any so far.

On the court, this season isn't over. At this stage, I don't think you could call the results progress vs. holding the line. It is okay to hold the line in some years. I like some of the (hopefully) returning talent and I like some of the recruiting. Hopefully next year is progress (and no 14 wins next year will not be that - I'd say we have to look for 20). In golf, they say you miss 100% of the putts you aim short. You ain't gettin to 18, 20, 23 wins by aiming for 14. This season is not a calamity by any stretch, but you damn us with low expectations.

I don't see that there has been "Madsen bashing". At most "Madsen questioning", which is healthy.

I think at least one question (and it is the nugget I took away from the Rod Benson post) is whether playing a more NBA style may not translate IMMEDIATELY to wins but it does set us up for more success than a coach who plays a lot of NCAA style hoop that isn't really a great prep for the next level. As Rod pointed out, the challenge is that you really need (I think on both ends of the court) guys who are next level ready in terms of PHYSICAL skills.

You can find tons of anecdotal data for both cases. Lets see who he retains and recruits for class number 4.

And PS - to get into the upper 1/3 of the ACC you GOTTA be able to recruit NBA-capable guys.

JimSox said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I'm curious if Peja is the reason Andrej is sitting out so long.

---

And what would that reason be? Protecting his health? Wanting him to move on and not risk injury here? What is your implication?

---

Don't risk your nba career/draft stock unless you're 100 percent, even if it might help the team.

bearsandgiants said:

---

JimSox said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

I'm curious if Peja is the reason Andrej is sitting out so long.

---

And what would that reason be? Protecting his health? Wanting him to move on and not risk injury here? What is your implication?

---

Don't risk your nba career/draft stock unless you're 100 percent, even if it might help the team.

---

Sounds right

Our goal realistically now is to make the ACC tournament and to recruit key players to return next year