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!

sycasey said:

---

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.

---

I thought the Madsen progression, at least from a recruiting perspective, would work something like this:

• YEAR 1: Cal takes any decent players they can get - mostly transfers with single year eligibility who want playing time. May also get guys with multiple years of eligibility but are buried on their previous team's bench and/or injured. No chance of good HS recruits due to lack of previous relationships.
• YEAR 2: Year 1 results and ACC connection means Cal attracts transfers with 2-3 years of eligibility. Less reliance on 1-year eligibility players. Also should be able to land 1 or 2 good HS recruits. Staff learns from YEAR 1 how to quickly install offense & defense schemes. Record improves.
• YEAR 3: Able to be more selective in portal recruiting for position. More player carryover means not starting from scratch so team matures more quickly. Recruit 1-3 HS players of progressively higher quality. Again, record should improve.

I think recruiting is following this path, however actual coaching is not. Defense is not materially improved over last year. The offensive scheme, while it may be appealing to players (per Rod Benson's thoughts) as it showcases NBA skills, doesn't work if those players don't have NBA skills.