Cal basketball coach Mark Madsen provides updates on the Bears' 11 newcomers: https://t.co/Q9SlSsNRxm

— Jeff Faraudo (@JeffFaraudo) August 25, 2025

That's a lot of coach speak!

ncbears said:

---

That's a lot of coach speak!

---

The proof will be in the pudding. Talk means nothing. We have heard it before.

That was a great little preseason review / refresher on our mostly-all-new-roster!

" ... the ball's going to be flying around the court... " LOL Anyway, I expect more passing and better shooting.

Sounds like MM really wants a GM. I wonder if he wants one to whom he reports (like in football).

Big C said:

---

That was a great little preseason review / refresher on our mostly-all-new-roster!

" ... the ball's going to be flying around the court... " LOL Anyway, I expect more passing and better shooting.

Sounds like MM really wants a GM. I wonder if he wants one to whom he reports (like in football).

---

Abdul Rahim

oskidunker said:

---

Big C said:

---

That was a great little preseason review / refresher on our mostly-all-new-roster!

" ... the ball's going to be flying around the court... " LOL Anyway, I expect more passing and better shooting.

Sounds like MM really wants a GM. I wonder if he wants one to whom he reports (like in football).

---

Abdul Rahim

---

I'm sure you meant Abdur Rahim. Or as George Raveling used to say when broadcasting a Cal game, "RAHEEEEEEEM!!!"

oskidunker said:

---

Big C said:

---

That was a great little preseason review / refresher on our mostly-all-new-roster!

" ... the ball's going to be flying around the court... " LOL Anyway, I expect more passing and better shooting.

Sounds like MM really wants a GM. I wonder if he wants one to whom he reports (like in football).

---

Abdul Rahim

---

He has a stronger career opportunity in the NBA.

Alkiadt said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Big C said:

---

That was a great little preseason review / refresher on our mostly-all-new-roster!

" ... the ball's going to be flying around the court... " LOL Anyway, I expect more passing and better shooting.

Sounds like MM really wants a GM. I wonder if he wants one to whom he reports (like in football).

---

Abdul Rahim

---

He has a stronger career opportunity in the NBA.

---

MONEYNISNT EVERYTHING, ORNIS IT?

Create another multimillionaire position (GM) for someone who still has to deal with all the institutional and financial constraints at Cal? Then on top of that we're supposed to commit another $10 -$20 mil for a roster (those are Madsen's numbers in the interview, not mine)? No thanks, it's good money after bad. In 3 years we'll be griping about how that person did nothing for the program and got away with millions of dollars like Fox and JK did.
You can't just throw one basketball brain and a bunch of $$ at this, there is no panacea. Save the money and be content with being the scrappy underdog team in the ACC.

sluggo said:

---

The obvious solution to me is to make Madsen the GM. You are already paying him. Then spend some money on a coach with a proven track record of Xs and Os. These days recruiting is driven by cash, actual coaching and development ability is what is key.

---

hmmmm.... sluggo may be on to something. Madsen seems like a great FACE of Cal MBB.

Alkiadt said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Big C said:

---

That was a great little preseason review / refresher on our mostly-all-new-roster!

" ... the ball's going to be flying around the court... " LOL Anyway, I expect more passing and better shooting.

Sounds like MM really wants a GM. I wonder if he wants one to whom he reports (like in football).

---

Abdul Rahim

---

He has a stronger career opportunity in the NBA.

---

Absolutely. And it benefits us having him in the NBA. (Same with Marks and Kidd). There are tons of other smart Cal basketball alums (or just alums) who would be great and gladly do the GM job for a lot less. Rod Benson and Geoff McArthur were just talking about this in his latest podcast.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Cal basketball coach Mark Madsen provides updates on the Bears' 11 newcomers: https://t.co/Q9SlSsNRxm

— Jeff Faraudo (@JeffFaraudo) August 25, 2025

---

Key Point:

Quote:

---

Madsen wants to establish some roster continuity but said this past offseason was the "high-water mark" for player compensation through NIL payments.

'There's no cap right now. That's why there's a bunch of teams that spent between $10 and $20 million on their roster," Madsen said. "I'm happy for them. We're not there yet at Cal. We're not even close to that, but we're building it up

---

There has been an argument going around for the past couple of years that NIL is a great equalizer for Cal because we are competitive, sometimes represented as more than competitive in NIL. That never made sense to me as Cal has never been competitive in anything that required money. What Madsen says here goes completely against that concept and is in line with what I would have expected based on Cal's history. That is not to diminish any of the efforts and support from those providing NIL, but the fact is that it is an extremely competitive environment.

---

MM is referring to the high-water mark spurred on by the pending House Settlement. Schools with built-up NIL war chests emptied their coffers before being curtailed. Cal, due to the previous years of ineptitude, had no such coffers and never implied they did.

Football is another story, where it appears Cal is in great shape. Not all ACC schools will be able to match Cal, which is an advantage. The interesting thing is the ACC is more of a basketball conference, so I am guessing many of those schools will allocate a higher percentage of the House Settlement money to hoops, thereby still keeping Cal (hoops) at a disadvantage.

Civil Bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Cal basketball coach Mark Madsen provides updates on the Bears' 11 newcomers: https://t.co/Q9SlSsNRxm

— Jeff Faraudo (@JeffFaraudo) August 25, 2025

---

Key Point:

Quote:

---

Madsen wants to establish some roster continuity but said this past offseason was the "high-water mark" for player compensation through NIL payments.

'There's no cap right now. That's why there's a bunch of teams that spent between $10 and $20 million on their roster," Madsen said. "I'm happy for them. We're not there yet at Cal. We're not even close to that, but we're building it up

---

There has been an argument going around for the past couple of years that NIL is a great equalizer for Cal because we are competitive, sometimes represented as more than competitive in NIL. That never made sense to me as Cal has never been competitive in anything that required money. What Madsen says here goes completely against that concept and is in line with what I would have expected based on Cal's history. That is not to diminish any of the efforts and support from those providing NIL, but the fact is that it is an extremely competitive environment.

---

MM is referring to the high-water mark spurred on by the pending House Settlement. Schools with built-up NIL war chests emptied their coffers before being curtailed. Cal, due to the previous years of ineptitude, had no such coffers and never implied they did.

Football is another story, where it appears Cal is in great shape. Not all ACC schools will be able to match Cal, which is an advantage. The interesting thing is the ACC is more of a basketball conference, so I am guessing many of those schools will allocate a higher percentage of the House Settlement money to hoops, thereby still keeping Cal (hoops) at a disadvantage.

---

I don't see how you can read it that way. First of all, he never said anything about the House settlement, but even if so, it was a high water mark because the House Settlement is (in theory, I doubt in practice) is set to be like a salary cap. But even if that was what he was referring to, building up your coffers is part of being competitive. But basically all he said was other teams spent $10M-$20M on their roster and that Cal was not even close to that. So, NIL was not an advantage to Cal. It was a big disadvantage.

And frankly, if Cal has at any point been competitive in basketball NIL, which again I don't believe and goes against what Madsen said, Madsen has used the money very poorly. Unless I just have a much different definition of competitive.

barsad said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

sluggo said:

---

The obvious solution to me is to make Madsen the GM. You are already paying him. Then spend some money on a coach with a proven track record of Xs and Os. These days recruiting is driven by cash, actual coaching and development ability is what is key.

---

hmmmm.... sluggo may be on to something. Madsen seems like a great FACE of Cal MBB.

---

Hadn't thought of this…. not a bad idea if Madsen likes the idea of being more detached from the floor, but my guess would be his preference is the opposite (esp. if he wants an NBA coaching job someday).

---

There is zero chance Madsen wants that job. He is a coach and a young one with his future ahead of him and much more fame and fortune coming his way if he succeeds in that profession than if he sits behind a desk and goes to alumni parties.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Cal basketball coach Mark Madsen provides updates on the Bears' 11 newcomers: https://t.co/Q9SlSsNRxm

— Jeff Faraudo (@JeffFaraudo) August 25, 2025

---

Key Point:

Quote:

---

Madsen wants to establish some roster continuity but said this past offseason was the "high-water mark" for player compensation through NIL payments.

'There's no cap right now. That's why there's a bunch of teams that spent between $10 and $20 million on their roster," Madsen said. "I'm happy for them. We're not there yet at Cal. We're not even close to that, but we're building it up

---

There has been an argument going around for the past couple of years that NIL is a great equalizer for Cal because we are competitive, sometimes represented as more than competitive in NIL. That never made sense to me as Cal has never been competitive in anything that required money. What Madsen says here goes completely against that concept and is in line with what I would have expected based on Cal's history. That is not to diminish any of the efforts and support from those providing NIL, but the fact is that it is an extremely competitive environment.

---

MM is referring to the high-water mark spurred on by the pending House Settlement. Schools with built-up NIL war chests emptied their coffers before being curtailed. Cal, due to the previous years of ineptitude, had no such coffers and never implied they did.

Football is another story, where it appears Cal is in great shape. Not all ACC schools will be able to match Cal, which is an advantage. The interesting thing is the ACC is more of a basketball conference, so I am guessing many of those schools will allocate a higher percentage of the House Settlement money to hoops, thereby still keeping Cal (hoops) at a disadvantage.

---

I don't see how you can read it that way. First of all, he never said anything about the House settlement, but even if so, it was a high water mark because the House Settlement is (in theory, I doubt in practice) is set to be like a salary cap. But even if that was what he was referring to, building up your coffers is part of being competitive. But basically all he said was other teams spent $10M-$20M on their roster and that Cal was not even close to that. So, NIL was not an advantage to Cal. It was a big disadvantage.

And frankly, if Cal has at any point been competitive in basketball NIL, which again I don't believe and goes against what Madsen said, Madsen has used the money very poorly. Unless I just have a much different definition of competitive.

---

He didn't need to say anything about the House Settlement. Last year was a "high-water mark" for player compensation through NIL payments. It was because programs felt they had to spend their NIL funds now, as they believed they wouldn't be able to do so once the House Settlement passed.MM was correct without saying why.

Cal basketball got severely outspent last year because it hasn't been able to build up its NIL coffers due to seasons of ineptitude. Other teams were able to spend more as a result. I think we agree on at least that much. Cal hasn't been competitive in basketball NIL because the program has sucked balls for longer than NIL has been around.

Where we disagree is on your argument that folks are wrong in suggesting NIL is an equalizer for Cal because we are competitive in that area, and you believe Cal has never been competitive in anything that required money. That's simply not true these days. Even with a mediocre football program and an abysmal basketball program, Cal has already maxed out the $20.5M House Settlement cap. That's something that some D4 programs won't be able to do. The potential issue, as it relates to basketball, is that I wouldn't be surprised if many of the ACC schools allocated a larger chunk of their caps to basketball than Cal.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

There is zero chance Madsen wants that job. He is a coach and a young one with his future ahead of him and much more fame and fortune coming his way if he succeeds in that profession than if he sits behind a desk and goes to alumni parties.

---

What do y'all think are the key characteristics of a possible new GM? They have to be able to activate donors. They must know the bureaucratic obstacles with the school. They should have a connection to the program and believe in it's potential. Important but not mandatory, they should be a 'name' that gets the public's attention.

In a simplistic way, who is the guy that can secure a whale donor to write a $10 million dollar check?

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Cal basketball coach Mark Madsen provides updates on the Bears' 11 newcomers: https://t.co/Q9SlSsNRxm

— Jeff Faraudo (@JeffFaraudo) August 25, 2025

---

Key Point:

Quote:

---

Madsen wants to establish some roster continuity but said this past offseason was the "high-water mark" for player compensation through NIL payments.

'There's no cap right now. That's why there's a bunch of teams that spent between $10 and $20 million on their roster," Madsen said. "I'm happy for them. We're not there yet at Cal. We're not even close to that, but we're building it up

---

There has been an argument going around for the past couple of years that NIL is a great equalizer for Cal because we are competitive, sometimes represented as more than competitive in NIL. That never made sense to me as Cal has never been competitive in anything that required money. What Madsen says here goes completely against that concept and is in line with what I would have expected based on Cal's history. That is not to diminish any of the efforts and support from those providing NIL, but the fact is that it is an extremely competitive environment.

---

MM is referring to the high-water mark spurred on by the pending House Settlement. Schools with built-up NIL war chests emptied their coffers before being curtailed. Cal, due to the previous years of ineptitude, had no such coffers and never implied they did.

Football is another story, where it appears Cal is in great shape. Not all ACC schools will be able to match Cal, which is an advantage. The interesting thing is the ACC is more of a basketball conference, so I am guessing many of those schools will allocate a higher percentage of the House Settlement money to hoops, thereby still keeping Cal (hoops) at a disadvantage.

---

I don't see how you can read it that way. First of all, he never said anything about the House settlement, but even if so, it was a high water mark because the House Settlement is (in theory, I doubt in practice) is set to be like a salary cap. But even if that was what he was referring to, building up your coffers is part of being competitive. But basically all he said was other teams spent $10M-$20M on their roster and that Cal was not even close to that. So, NIL was not an advantage to Cal. It was a big disadvantage.

And frankly, if Cal has at any point been competitive in basketball NIL, which again I don't believe and goes against what Madsen said, Madsen has used the money very poorly. Unless I just have a much different definition of competitive.

---

Rather than saying Madsen used his NIL $ poorly, I think he had to (and may still need to) overpay for players due to the huge hole that Mark Fox dug for the brand called "Cal basketball". The SF Giants are in a similar position with respect to signing power hitters; Oracle Park is a tough place to hit home runs, so they have to overpay, and even then can't attract the top free agents. This is not to let Madsen off the hook; there have been long discussions about his ineffective defense, his one-on-one offense, and the fact that he waited way too long before involving Sossoko in the offense, etc.

You forgot about playing Blacksher over Wilkinson for most of the year. Mad Dog seems unable to question his own pre-season conclusions, never a good thing.
All that said, he's what we have as a coach and I'm putting faith in his capacity to improve and get this team to a competitive level.
Why don't we know exactly how much we spent on NIL for basketball? The lack of transparency in this entire system is one of a series of F-yous to the fans in the last 5 years. A public university should supply public information on every penny spent in its name, I don't care if it's a "private contract" or whatever they're calling the NIL agreements. As alums we should know exactly what decisions administrators are making when it comes to athletic funds.

barsad said:

---

You forgot about playing Blacksher over Wilkinson for most of the year. Mad Dog seems unable to question his own pre-season conclusions, never a good thing.
All that said, he's what we have as a coach and I'm putting faith in his capacity to improve and get this team to a competitive level.
Why don't we know exactly how much we spent on NIL for basketball? The lack of transparency in this entire system is one of a series of F-yous to the fans in the last 5 years. A public university should supply public information on every penny spent in its name, I don't care if it's a "private contract" or whatever they're calling the NIL agreements. As alums we should know exactly what decisions administrators are making when it cones to athletic funds.

---

Fair point regarding Blacksher, etc. My intent wasn't to make a laundry list of Madsen's shortcomings, just to point out that the NIL he had to work with may not have been enough to attract better players given Cal's recent reputation.

Honestly, I don't need to know the details of how Madsen slices the NIL pie amongst the players, although I understand why others might. I can accept that it's an imprecise thing and rather than hear gripes about it on this board, I'd prefer discussion about game strategy, player performance, etc. But having said that, I would like to know the size of Cal's NIL pie, especially compared to our ACC and former Pac12 competitors.
EDIT - I guess it's not technically called NIL any more, but I mean the $ compensation provided to players by the university.

HearstMining said:

---

barsad said:

---

You forgot about playing Blacksher over Wilkinson for most of the year. Mad Dog seems unable to question his own pre-season conclusions, never a good thing.
All that said, he's what we have as a coach and I'm putting faith in his capacity to improve and get this team to a competitive level.
Why don't we know exactly how much we spent on NIL for basketball? The lack of transparency in this entire system is one of a series of F-yous to the fans in the last 5 years. A public university should supply public information on every penny spent in its name, I don't care if it's a "private contract" or whatever they're calling the NIL agreements. As alums we should know exactly what decisions administrators are making when it cones to athletic funds.

---

Fair point regarding Blacksher, etc. My intent wasn't to make a laundry list of Madsen's shortcomings, just to point out that the NIL he had to work with may not have been enough to attract better players given Cal's recent reputation.

Honestly, I don't need to know the details of how Madsen slices the NIL pie amongst the players, although I understand why others might. I can accept that it's an imprecise thing and rather than hear gripes about it on this board, I'd prefer discussion about game strategy, player performance, etc. But having said that, I would like to know the size of Cal's NIL pie, especially compared to our ACC and former Pac12 competitors.
EDIT - I guess it's not technically called NIL any more, but I mean the $ compensation provided to players by the university.

---

Duke, North Carolina, etc. undoubtedly still have large NIL programs, even if they are called "compensated spokesman contracts", or some other grey area designations. It's business, and they are in the business of winning basketball games.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

barsad said:

---

You forgot about playing Blacksher over Wilkinson for most of the year. Mad Dog seems unable to question his own pre-season conclusions, never a good thing.
All that said, he's what we have as a coach and I'm putting faith in his capacity to improve and get this team to a competitive level.
Why don't we know exactly how much we spent on NIL for basketball? The lack of transparency in this entire system is one of a series of F-yous to the fans in the last 5 years. A public university should supply public information on every penny spent in its name, I don't care if it's a "private contract" or whatever they're calling the NIL agreements. As alums we should know exactly what decisions administrators are making when it cones to athletic funds.

---

Fair point regarding Blacksher, etc. My intent wasn't to make a laundry list of Madsen's shortcomings, just to point out that the NIL he had to work with may not have been enough to attract better players given Cal's recent reputation.

Honestly, I don't need to know the details of how Madsen slices the NIL pie amongst the players, although I understand why others might. I can accept that it's an imprecise thing and rather than hear gripes about it on this board, I'd prefer discussion about game strategy, player performance, etc. But having said that, I would like to know the size of Cal's NIL pie, especially compared to our ACC and former Pac12 competitors.
EDIT - I guess it's not technically called NIL any more, but I mean the $ compensation provided to players by the university.

---

Duke, North Carolina, etc. undoubtedly still have large NIL programs, even if they are called "compensated spokesman contracts", or some other grey area designations. It's business, and they are in the business of winning basketball games.

---

Right you are, Ken!