"It's a unicorn league right now," Greg Sankey, SEC commissioner, said. "We're not going to change our name, but we stand alone historically."

So far Texas, Georgia, and Missouri are out. Arkansas, Texas A&M, Tennessee, and Auburn advance. How will the unicorn fare tomorrow?

PenBear said:

---

Drake with 4 ex-D2 players beats missouri with a well executed game plan and offensive sets that produced open shots.

---

We hould have beaten Mo.

The SEC was definitely overrated… but then again, maybe the ACC was, too, only Duke and UNC remain, Clemson and Louisville stunk up the joint.

barsad said:

---

The SEC was definitely overrated… but then again, maybe the ACC was, too, only Duke and UNC remain, Clemson and Louisville stunk up the joint.

---

Two games in and Miss. St. goes down and Alabama struggling with Robert Morris (and honestly benefiting from some interesting calls so far).

UNC is getting smashed by Ole Miss. Duke will be the only ACC team to make it to the round of 32.

BearSD said:

---

UNC is getting smashed by Ole Miss. Duke will be the only ACC team to make it to the round of 32.

---

Yes, Ole Miss looks pretty good. Haven't seen them play this year. Saint Mary's/Vanderbilt is an amazing game!

Duke and dookie.

HKBear97! said:

---

BearSD said:

---

UNC is getting smashed by Ole Miss. Duke will be the only ACC team to make it to the round of 32.

---

Yes, Ole Miss looks pretty good. Haven't seen them play this year. Saint Mary's/Vanderbilt is an amazing game!

---

Prior to that game, I had not watched St. Mary's play all year, because of jealously. I was impressed. They had less than 30 points 3 minutes into the 2nd half, they eventually got 12 points behind…..and they never panicked, they played with discipline, and they grinded it out. They looked well coached.

Vandy looked like they were performing under the "Let'em Play Doctrine." Horrific shot selection and panic. Their scorer, Edwards, chronically over dribbled and was 2-9 from the arc (most misses simply a turnover to the Gaels Bigs).

With about 7 or 8 minutes left I texted my nephew, a St. Mary's alum, and told him that if the Gaels could keep it close in the last 2 minutes, Gaels would win. I made the same prediction in every Bears' game coached by Cuonzo Martin, except it was that the opponent would win. I believe a team is at a distinct disadvantage at the end of a close game unless they are running a disciplined offense….unless you have at least one offensive player no one can stop.


*I have no recollection of Mark Fox ever coaching in a game close in the last couple of minutes. The games were over by half time.

Vandy was getting into the lane by pulling Saxon out of the block with high ball screens. Coach bennett put in both centers to form twin towers and controlled the lower block. If vandy got past Saxon they encountered Wessel and this shutted down vandy's penetration.

On offense, with both centers in, they crashed the offensive glass and got second chances. Great coaching.

bearister said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BearSD said:

---

UNC is getting smashed by Ole Miss. Duke will be the only ACC team to make it to the round of 32.

---

Yes, Ole Miss looks pretty good. Haven't seen them play this year. Saint Mary's/Vanderbilt is an amazing game!

---

Prior to that game, I had not watched St. Mary's play all year, because of jealously. I was impressed. They had less than 30 points 3 minutes into the 2nd half, they eventually got 12 points behind…..and they never panicked, they played with discipline, and they grinded it out. They looked well coached.

Vandy looked like they were performing under the "Let'em Play Doctrine." Horrific shot selection and panic. Their scorer, Edwards, chronically over dribbled and was 2-9 from the arc (most misses simply a turnover to the Gaels Bigs).

With about 7 or 8 minutes left I texted my nephew, a St. Mary's alum, and told him that if the Gaels could keep it close in the last 2 minutes, Gaels would win. I made the same prediction in every Bears' game coached by Cuonzo Martin, except it was that the opponent would win. I believe a team is at a distinct disadvantage at the end of a close game unless they are running a disciplined offense….unless you have at least one offensive player no one can stop.


*I have no recollection of Mark Fox ever coaching in a game close in the last couple of minutes. The games were over by half time.

---

Interesting analysis. But it didn't quite work out that way at Haas back in 2015 when Martin's Bears beat Bennett's Gaels in a close game, 63-59. Guess you would have been wrong twice on that one.

A twofer!

At least Martin made good use of Jaylen Brown. Let him dribble straight down the center of the key knocking players over like bowling pins so that he can sit on the bench early in the 2nd half with 3 offensive fouls .

Martin left a trail of broken hearts while making maximum pay.

Cuonzo wasn't perfect. But when he was our coach we had winning records. That was kind of nice.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Cuonzo wasn't perfect. But when he was our coach we had winning records. That was kind of nice.

---

I never said he wasn't a good recruiter. He wouldn't get and keep those players at Cal in today's college sports environment. Madsen would have had just as much success with those players. I'm not convinced, however, that Madsen is any more of an X's and O's guy than Martin is.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Cuonzo wasn't perfect. But when he was our coach we had winning records. That was kind of nice.

---

This is the age-old question of, "Do wins come from the coaching talent or the players' talent?" For me it's 80 percent players, 20 percent coach, but if you listen to the majority of the posts this season the disappointing 14-19 record is 80 percent Madsen, 20 percent players.
Cuonzo was 62-39 in 3 seasons, an excellent record. But what's his record if he doesn't have Bird, Rabb and Brown, three NBA players? It's not 62 wins, that's for sure, trim about 20 of those off and put them in the L column. When he has only Bird on the roster (2014-15) he's 18-15.
Madsen is a better coach than Martin. Give Madsen a few high-caliber players like we had 10 years ago and we're going places. I don't know how that's possible in this NIL era, but we must find a way.

I was unimpressed by Randy Bennett when he first hit Moraga when I attended a Fathers Day Weekend Hoop Camp with my then young son. I was very impressed with his young assistant, Kyle Smith.

….but I'll tell you what, the Gaels looked very well coached up vs Vandy.

Then you have players like Jason Kidd that coached Cal while he was playing.

I'm not competent to give Madsen a report card. When Monty was interviewed by the ACC broadcasters at Maples during our game there, he said words to the effect, "Mark just let's them play like in the NBA, but I'm not sure they have NBA talent." I didn't interpret that as a compliment and I assume they are friends….but Monty has no filter…like Johnny Miller as a golf analyst…just the truth.

HKBear97! said:

---

"It's a unicorn league right now," Greg Sankey, SEC commissioner, said. "We're not going to change our name, but we stand alone historically."

So far Texas, Georgia, and Missouri are out. Arkansas, Texas A&M, Tennessee, and Auburn advance. How will the unicorn fare tomorrow?

---

barsad said:

---

The SEC was definitely overrated… but then again, maybe the ACC was, too, only Duke and UNC remain, Clemson and Louisville stunk up the joint.

---

4 in the Elite 8, one already through to Final 4... pretty good for the SEC

mbBear said:

---

barsad said:

---

The SEC was definitely overrated… but then again, maybe the ACC was, too, only Duke and UNC remain, Clemson and Louisville stunk up the joint.

---

4 in the Elite 8, one already through to Final 4... pretty good for the SEC

---

1-2
1-2
1-2
1-3

nothing but the top teams -- heavy SEC

no cinderellas to the sweet 16

NIL and the transfer portal with zero guard rails is killing the best sporting event in America

HoopDreams said:

---

mbBear said:

---

barsad said:

---

The SEC was definitely overrated… but then again, maybe the ACC was, too, only Duke and UNC remain, Clemson and Louisville stunk up the joint.

---

4 in the Elite 8, one already through to Final 4... pretty good for the SEC

---

1-2
1-2
1-2
1-3

nothing but the top teams -- heavy SEC

no cinderellas to the sweet 16

NIL and the transfer portal with zero guard rails is killing the best sporting event in America

---

A lot of great games. I appreciate that many folks love the 'cinderella" teams advancing. I think the games are pretty high level. It is no longer "college" basketball really but the games are mostly good and entertaining. It is what it is. I actually expect the tournament to expand in the next few years.

Or have the P4 leagues breakaway and force higher payouts.

The prospects of a final 4 with all 1 seeds sorta is "meh" to me and probably will not get as good of ratings as if there was an underdog. Flagg vs. the field will get hyped bu I doubt I watch if I can get up to the mountains next weekend.

socaltownie said:

---

The prospects of a final 4 with all 1 seeds sorta is "meh" to me and probably will not get as good of ratings as if there was an underdog. Flagg vs. the field will get hyped bu I doubt I watch if I can get up to the mountains next weekend.

---

The ratings have not reflected that so far. The "traditional powerhouse" schools have built-in alums, and "subway" alums, and also get some "appointment TV" folks. Do some folks want to see the "Davids" take on the "Goliaths", there is no doubt some of that.
The reality is, it's probably a win win for people making the dollars. I think if it were to be the same core teams over and over,(meaning it's just always the SEC tournament on steroids) a bit more of the "meh" kicks in....

socaltownie said:

---

The prospects of a final 4 with all 1 seeds sorta is "meh" to me and probably will not get as good of ratings as if there was an underdog. Flagg vs. the field will get hyped bu I doubt I watch if I can get up to the mountains next weekend.

---

Disagree that watching the best college players in the country play for the big trophy isn't worth watching. It always has been.
But I agree that NIL might kill the Cinderella stories (or most of them) in the next 20 years.
So what do we do? Look to European soccer. As has been suggested elsewhere, we need to organize at least the top 5 conferences with 12 teams each as "promotion-demotion leagues" where the top three and bottom three teams switch places every year.
That doesn't mess with the networks' precious TV money, and keeps it interesting during the regular season (every game matters if you're trying to jump up a league).
The tourney selection is easier: the top four conferences are auto bids, 48 teams, because they earned it by winning their way to those conferences.
The other 20 bids go to the champions of lower tier conferences or at large as they do now.
This way, if Cal wants to remain a mid-tier team, they play other mid-tiers instead of the Dukes (which as we see now from watching Duke play, they are literally in a league of their own skill wise, it's laughable that Cal has to play them).
If Cal wants to progress or add more NIL, we do it over time and eventually make it to an auto-bid conference through WINNING, not grousing about how NIL poor we are every year, woe is us.

barsad said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The prospects of a final 4 with all 1 seeds sorta is "meh" to me and probably will not get as good of ratings as if there was an underdog. Flagg vs. the field will get hyped bu I doubt I watch if I can get up to the mountains next weekend.

---

Disagree that watching the best college players in the country play for the big trophy isn't worth watching. It always has been.
But I agree that NIL might kill the Cinderella stories (or most of them) in the next 20 years.
So what do we do? Look to European soccer. As has been suggested elsewhere, we need to organize at least the top 5 conferences with 12 teams each as "promotion-demotion leagues" where the top three and bottom three teams switch places every year.
That doesn't mess with the networks' precious TV money, and keeps it interesting during the regular season (every game matters if you're trying to jump up a league).
The tourney selection is easier: the top four conferences are auto bids, 48 teams, because they earned it by winning their way to those conferences.
The other 20 bids go to the champions of lower tier conferences or at large as they do now.
This way, if Cal wants to remain a mid-tier team, they play other mid-tiers instead of the Dukes (which as we see now from watching Duke play, they are literally in a league of their own skill wise, it's laughable that Cal has to play them).
If Cal wants to progress or add more NIL, we do it over time and eventually make it to an auto-bid conference through WINNING, not grousing about how NIL poor we are every year, woe is us.

---

20 years? How about 20 months, and even that's being generous.
As pointed out in a few articles, so definitely not my original thought: most of the best Cinderella stories were experienced teams, held together over several years, and really learning how to play with a team. Maybe a player or two, not recruited out of HS, grew a few inches, did great in the weight room, or putting up 100 3-pointers a day in practice paid off. So it is evolving, and fast, for those teams to be perfect feeder/minor league programs.

mbBear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The prospects of a final 4 with all 1 seeds sorta is "meh" to me and probably will not get as good of ratings as if there was an underdog. Flagg vs. the field will get hyped bu I doubt I watch if I can get up to the mountains next weekend.

---

The ratings have not reflected that so far. The "traditional powerhouse" schools have built-in alums, and "subway" alums, and also get some "appointment TV" folks. Do some folks want to see the "Davids" take on the "Goliaths", there is no doubt some of that.
The reality is, it's probably a win win for people making the dollars. I think if it were to be the same core teams over and over,(meaning it's just always the SEC tournament on steroids) a bit more of the "meh" kicks in....

---

This. A lot of folks love the underdogs. But the money folks like the name brands. And so do most of the fans. There is a danger if it becomes too much of one league dominating. But until then I expect the ratings to still be good.

There was a lot of outrage when UNC and Texas got selected for the first four. I think both are among the top teams and a strong case could be made for them. But they are big names. UNC is an absolute blueblood. There was no way they were not going to be included.

So I expect the tourney may expand by 8 more teams and have 4 more "first four" games. The P4 will likely demand it. Fill those slots with at large P4 teams. Let Alcorn St and UMBC be the sacrificial lambs as 15 and 16 seeds. But by the weekend of the first week most if not all the "little guys" are out.

It takes a lot of money to build these powerhouse programs and the House settlement allows for athletes to get a large share of direct revenues. The P4 programs will demand a bigger share at some point. If they do not get it they may very well look to breakaway.

I expect the power conferences to continue to dominate the tournament. Anyone is free to watch or not.

barsad said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The prospects of a final 4 with all 1 seeds sorta is "meh" to me and probably will not get as good of ratings as if there was an underdog. Flagg vs. the field will get hyped bu I doubt I watch if I can get up to the mountains next weekend.

---

Disagree that watching the best college players in the country play for the big trophy isn't worth watching. It always has been.
But I agree that NIL might kill the Cinderella stories (or most of them) in the next 20 years.
So what do we do? Look to European soccer. As has been suggested elsewhere, we need to organize at least the top 5 conferences with 12 teams each as "promotion-demotion leagues" where the top three and bottom three teams switch places every year.
That doesn't mess with the networks' precious TV money, and keeps it interesting during the regular season (every game matters if you're trying to jump up a league).
The tourney selection is easier: the top four conferences are auto bids, 48 teams, because they earned it by winning their way to those conferences.
The other 20 bids go to the champions of lower tier conferences or at large as they do now.
This way, if Cal wants to remain a mid-tier team, they play other mid-tiers instead of the Dukes (which as we see now from watching Duke play, they are literally in a league of their own skill wise, it's laughable that Cal has to play them).
If Cal wants to progress or add more NIL, we do it over time and eventually make it to an auto-bid conference through WINNING, not grousing about how NIL poor we are every year, woe is us.

---

I advocated this for many years (decades). But talking with my European friends, they point out that the system does not work as well as desired. For those in England, the complaint is that promotion and delegation is such a financial hit - that teams require foreign oligarchs to save them. Not sure about the actual numbers, but definitely ALOT of Pub *****ing in this regard about the demise of English Football (also alot of kvetching about gambling money salvaging the sport). The familiar refrain of MONEY is ruining our traditions sounds... familiar!!

As for other Euro leagues (again, anecdotally), the complaint is the same few teams hover between the top 2 tiers, so its really like a level 1a and 1b of 25 teams. Yes there is a mechanism, but it doesn't really operate as well as it sounds.

I know we have some big soccer fans - would be interested to hear their side of this. Regardless - the Euro model is a professional sports model and [most] American Universities are not properly structured to run professional sports enterprises. Which is what this is all about - The existential question for Cal is do we want to and can we be a sports entertainment enterprise.

Who is blaming the athletes?

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

mbBear said:

---

barsad said:

---

The SEC was definitely overrated… but then again, maybe the ACC was, too, only Duke and UNC remain, Clemson and Louisville stunk up the joint.

---

4 in the Elite 8, one already through to Final 4... pretty good for the SEC

---

1-2
1-2
1-2
1-3

nothing but the top teams -- heavy SEC

no cinderellas to the sweet 16

NIL and the transfer portal with zero guard rails is killing the best sporting event in America

---

March Madness became what it was when there was almost no TV money and head coaches were paid like professors and not like movie stars. Don't blame the athletes who actually play the games you want to watch. The older adults got filthy rich long before the athletes made anything.

---

BeachedBear said:

---

barsad said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The prospects of a final 4 with all 1 seeds sorta is "meh" to me and probably will not get as good of ratings as if there was an underdog. Flagg vs. the field will get hyped bu I doubt I watch if I can get up to the mountains next weekend.

---

Disagree that watching the best college players in the country play for the big trophy isn't worth watching. It always has been.
But I agree that NIL might kill the Cinderella stories (or most of them) in the next 20 years.
So what do we do? Look to European soccer. As has been suggested elsewhere, we need to organize at least the top 5 conferences with 12 teams each as "promotion-demotion leagues" where the top three and bottom three teams switch places every year.
That doesn't mess with the networks' precious TV money, and keeps it interesting during the regular season (every game matters if you're trying to jump up a league).
The tourney selection is easier: the top four conferences are auto bids, 48 teams, because they earned it by winning their way to those conferences.
The other 20 bids go to the champions of lower tier conferences or at large as they do now.
This way, if Cal wants to remain a mid-tier team, they play other mid-tiers instead of the Dukes (which as we see now from watching Duke play, they are literally in a league of their own skill wise, it's laughable that Cal has to play them).
If Cal wants to progress or add more NIL, we do it over time and eventually make it to an auto-bid conference through WINNING, not grousing about how NIL poor we are every year, woe is us.

---

I advocated this for many years (decades). But talking with my European friends, they point out that the system does not work as well as desired. For those in England, the complaint is that promotion and delegation is such a financial hit - that teams require foreign oligarchs to save them. Not sure about the actual numbers, but definitely ALOT of Pub *****ing in this regard about the demise of English Football (also alot of kvetching about gambling money salvaging the sport). The familiar refrain of MONEY is ruining our traditions sounds... familiar!!

As for other Euro leagues (again, anecdotally), the complaint is the same few teams hover between the top 2 tiers, so its really like a level 1a and 1b of 25 teams. Yes there is a mechanism, but it doesn't really operate as well as it sounds.

I know we have some big soccer fans - would be interested to hear their side of this. Regardless - the Euro model is a professional sports model and [most] American Universities are not properly structured to run professional sports enterprises. Which is what this is all about - The existential question for Cal is do we want to and can we be a sports entertainment enterprise.

---

The financial hit on delegation would not apply here. These aren't true pro teams that lose TV contracts and lose endorsements, or have to pay out a $100 million to some prima donna international star.
A delegation (say Cal gets knocked from Conference C to D) would just motivate donors and boosters and the athletic dept (let's pretend we have a competent one) to try harder and give more.
It would work a lot better than this random assemblage of historic artifacts we call a conference system in 2025.

BeachedBear said:

---

barsad said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

---

---

I advocated this for many years (decades). But talking with my European friends, they point out that the system does not work as well as desired. For those in England, the complaint is that promotion and delegation is such a financial hit - that teams require foreign oligarchs to save them. Not sure about the actual numbers, but definitely ALOT of Pub *****ing in this regard about the demise of English Football (also alot of kvetching about gambling money salvaging the sport). The familiar refrain of MONEY is ruining our traditions sounds... familiar!!

As for other Euro leagues (again, anecdotally), the complaint is the same few teams hover between the top 2 tiers, so its really like a level 1a and 1b of 25 teams. Yes there is a mechanism, but it doesn't really operate as well as it sounds.

I know we have some big soccer fans - would be interested to hear their side of this. Regardless - the Euro model is a professional sports model and [most] American Universities are not properly structured to run professional sports enterprises. Which is what this is all about - The existential question for Cal is do we want to and can we be a sports entertainment enterprise.

---

Promotion and relegation doesn't help anyone except the teams at the very top of the pyramid with so much money that they will never be threatened by relegation. There are clubs that have gone bankrupt spending far more money than they make while trying to stay in the top division.

Also, as you noted, the top European leagues all have a churn in which the same handful of teams are good enough to regularly get promoted out of the second division but not well financed enough to become a permanent member of the first division. Think of how outmatched Vanderbilt football is in the SEC, and then imagine promotion and relegation with half a dozen Vanderbilts rotating in and out of the SEC every year.

BearSD said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

barsad said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

---

---

I advocated this for many years (decades). But talking with my European friends, they point out that the system does not work as well as desired. For those in England, the complaint is that promotion and delegation is such a financial hit - that teams require foreign oligarchs to save them. Not sure about the actual numbers, but definitely ALOT of Pub *****ing in this regard about the demise of English Football (also alot of kvetching about gambling money salvaging the sport). The familiar refrain of MONEY is ruining our traditions sounds... familiar!!

As for other Euro leagues (again, anecdotally), the complaint is the same few teams hover between the top 2 tiers, so its really like a level 1a and 1b of 25 teams. Yes there is a mechanism, but it doesn't really operate as well as it sounds.

I know we have some big soccer fans - would be interested to hear their side of this. Regardless - the Euro model is a professional sports model and [most] American Universities are not properly structured to run professional sports enterprises. Which is what this is all about - The existential question for Cal is do we want to and can we be a sports entertainment enterprise.

---

Promotion and relegation doesn't help anyone except the teams at the very top of the pyramid with so much money that they will never be threatened by relegation. There are clubs that have gone bankrupt spending far more money than they make while trying to stay in the top division.

Also, as you noted, the top European leagues all have a churn in which the same handful of teams are good enough to regularly get promoted out of the second division but not well financed enough to become a permanent member of the first division. Think of how outmatched Vanderbilt football is in the SEC, and then imagine promotion and relegation with half a dozen Vanderbilts rotating in and out of the SEC every year.

---

I don't get how you don't get that pro clubs funded by billionaires are not good analogs for universities that rely on capped NIL funds and private donors. But whatever, we can leave that to common sense.
I would love to have better Vanderbilts rotating in to challenge the top 5 SEC teams, same in the ACC, it will make things a lot more interesting.
Cal would likely not be in those conferences, we would start against our peers, UCSD, Colorado St (if we're lucky), just take a look at the low seeds in this year's NIT, that's where we're at on a good day.
Then if Madsen really does get a chance to "build a program" (though I have no idea what that means in the modern context), we earn our way to an auto-bid conference through promotion. And we say Go Bears! the whole way, as long as it takes.

https://instagr.am/p/DH13_JLsSrs