Where does this program go? Concerned.

1,858 Views | 21 Replies | Last: 6 days ago by Big C
eastcoastcal
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:53p, 9/25/25
also posted on the other basketball board, wanted more discussion

After spending some time ruminating over the loss to SDSU, my mind wandered to our basketball program, where we now enter year 3 of Madsen. After 6 putrid years of Wyking / Fox, we now enter year Coach Madsen's third year.

I'll cut to the chase- I love Coach Madsen, I love his demeanor and the energy he's injected into the program. I do not think we can do much better than him in the coaching carousel, given Cal's frankly unenviable position and lack of program support (something I believe is different than football, where I believe we are attractive to coaches). We have no practice facility (and not close to getting one, either), our fan support is tepid after horrendous marketing efforts, middling gameday experiences, and 8 years of losing, and our AD has been more of an obstacle to success than a boon. All in all, we're not exactly in a position to play for a top coach and I'm grateful to have Madsen. I think he's a good recruiter, given all that's working against him, and an inexperienced yet improving game-day coach.

That being said, we are candidly looking at a quite poor roster that does not look to be that competitive. Coming off a 14 win season, we lost our three best players in Andrej, JW, and Mady (and potential in Omot). Our incoming portal class is not great. Sorry, it just isn't very good. None of these guys are alphas and we're hoping for a lot of potential to be realized to even get close to where we were (which wasn't that great to begin with). I love the theoretical "5 guys and a ball" trope but let's face it-- that isn't modern basketball. You need a go-to scorer, and ideally a great second option behind him, if not third. The ideal of 5 guys on the court who equally contribute has long been passed over, because it just doesn't work. On top of that, there's little chance the ACC will be as weak as it was last year (when we still only won 6 conference games).

I really don't know where we go from here. I hope with the new settlement, it puts us on a relatively even landscape to recruit, so Madsen's personality & ability to connect with recruits can manifest as increased talent, but I still worry that our lack of facility, 8+ years of losing, lack of momentum, and general fan apathy are just too much to overcome. I really don't know how this program gets out of the rut.

I'll just preempt one thing: I know someone's knee jerk reaction will be to comment "let's wait til the season plays out" or "it's too early to tell!!". That's not the point. I'm looking at the macro where this program is just clearly stuck, and I'm sorry to anyone out there if it bursts your bubble, but... this is not a tournament roster. Basketball, more than football, is just a total function of talent. All the scheming and x's/o's can marginally improve you but the modern game is just the best athletes & talent beating inferior ones. And as much as it pains me to say this, this is clearly not a tournament team or anything close. So please spare the "this is too early to post" comments because that is missing the point-- it's been 8 years of losing and it's not getting materially brighter.

I would love thoughts on where we go from here. I so badly want this program to be good and I believe Madsen is a great leader whom is capable of growing into a great coach. But the obstacles are monumental and I really don't know how we dig ourselves out.

Posted this on the other board, but I really do care about the program & want to have a wider discussion. Any thoughts?
Reply Quote
5
Shocky1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:48p, 9/25/25
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
75bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eastcoastcal • 9:55a, 9/26/25
You lay out some very real challenges.

The one thing I hang my hat on is that it only takes 1 player/recruit to vastly improve the team, since only 5 guys play on the court. Football is very different where 1 player won't have as big an impact because there are 22 positions to fill.

So although I don't have quick and easy answers, I do retain some hope we can turn things around quickly in basketball. Basketball teams look completely different year to year, many teams have complete roster overhauls. So if this year's results are disappointing, it doesn't mean next year can't be very different.
Reply Quote
4
Harky4
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:34p, 9/26/25
This season may provide some Fool's Gold, because out very easy non-conference schedule, featuring the likes of Dominican and Presbyterian, could have us at 10-3 entering the ACC games. If we can win 6 ACC games again, that means we look like we are making progress at 16 wins. But the truth will be that this year's team is not as good as our squad was last season.

FB has a nice NIL war chest for Wilcox to abuse. MBB's NIL resources are weak and hinder Mark's ability to recruit top flight talent consistently (Tyson, Andrej and Jeremiah, as well as Fardaws and Mady, seem to have been aberrations, as this year's starless team seems to indicate with no special bellwether player present. Lots of close games come down to crunch time when the studs take over, and I fear that this season we are going to be stud less.
Reply Quote
3
Bobodeluxe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:34p, 9/26/25
Flip the state sponsored salary pot with the moribund football business. Fifteen million would go a long way in buying a tourney team with more than a pulse. Five million is more than enough to have a successful farm team for top fifty programs in the Minor League Professional Football thingy.
Reply Quote
75bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bobodeluxe • 2:21p, 9/26/25
Bobodeluxe said:
Flip the state sponsored salary pot with the moribund football business. Fifteen million would go a long way in buying a tourney team with more than a pulse. Five million is more than enough to have a successful farm team for top fifty programs in the Minor League Professional Football thingy.
If we do this, we won't have any sports (including basketball). Football is the straw that stirs the drink.
Reply Quote
3
Bobodeluxe
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:37p, 9/26/25
A watered down, very expensive, bad tasting one, at that …
Reply Quote
1
wifeisafurd
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:06a, 9/27/25
If it is any consolation most bakstball programs face similar situations. Almost all the NIL money goes to football. Look how few top 100 high school players for the '26 year are committed. Going to be some real salary expectation adjustments as basketball takes a back seat at most P4 schools.
Reply Quote
1
Harky4
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:35a, 9/27/25
Schools without football programs but excellent MBB programs (Gonzaga, St Mary's, St John's) are going to be able to spend a lot more NIL $s on their rosters, if their donors step up to take advantage of the situation.
Reply Quote
5
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Harky4 • 12:20p, 9/27/25
Harky4 said:
Schools without football programs but excellent MBB programs (Gonzaga, St Mary's, St John's) are going to be able to spend a lot more NIL $s on their rosters, if their donors step up to take advantage of the situation.

theoretically, can they spend $20.5M on basketball?
Reply Quote
1 edit
barsad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eastcoastcal • 3:17p, 9/27/25
eastcoastcal said:
I'll just preempt one thing: I know someone's knee jerk reaction will be to comment "let's wait til the season plays out" or "it's too early to tell!!". That's not the point.

It really is the point, EastCoast.
I'll put up the hand of a 7-footer and swat your preemption in the paint.
I don't disagree with any of your analysis on the macro problems and system handicaps, but that does not preclude yearly improvement.
Anyone here who thinks they can look at our 2025-26 roster and instantly pronounce it "worse" (whatever that means) than last year is talking out of their you-know-whats. If you go back to all the other Septembers of the past few years, no one here saw the "stars" on the roster that a previous poster said were Madsen's successes (Tyson, Andrej, Mady, Fardaws, JW) with the possible exception of Tyson who is the only legitimate star on that list. Andrej was a maybe coming from Stanford, Fardaws and Mady I put in the category of "Decent Cal big men whose names we'll forget in a few years", and JW was a big question mark until he actually got off the bench to replace Blacksher. We won't even know if JW and Andrej are actual stars until they play this year, the jury's out.
I guess what I'm saying is, those guys were pleasant surprises, and there's no reason 1 or 2 current roster guys can't surprise us again this year. That's really all we're going to have, Cal fans, the surprises. If you're waiting for a conga line of 4- and 5-stars to come to Cal you'll be waiting a very long time. I like rooting for an underdog, and I'm looking forward to a 17 win season with 8 conference wins (I can dream, can't I?)
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
HearstMining
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoopDreams • 11:53a, 9/28/25
HoopDreams said:
Harky4 said:
Schools without football programs but excellent MBB programs (Gonzaga, St Mary's, St John's) are going to be able to spend a lot more NIL $s on their rosters, if their donors step up to take advantage of the situation.

theoretically, can they spend $20.5M on basketball?

And if you're little ol' St Mary's, exactly where does that $20.5M come from? I'd say Santa Clara U is more likely to come up with donors who could funnel $ through their Athletic Dept. Maybe not from tech company founders, but the volume of people in upper management at tech firms who got JDs and MBAs from Santa Clara via their evening programs must be substantial. And those are the types interested in bragging rights for the basketball program. Most engineers couldn't care less.
Reply Quote
eastcoastcal
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barsad • 12:08p, 9/28/25
Haha much respect for calling my preemption out! Let me dissect:

I largely disagree that we can't evaluate the talent. I think this is a worse roster by and large, and that the losses of Andrej, JW, Mady are all unaccounted for in the incoming talent. I do not agree that Daws and Mady are "decent"-- I think they were well above average and while not stars, will be sorely missed.

I do agree that a lot of prior talent wasn't a "known" (JW) and instead surprised. I really hope we have some pleasant surprises this year. However, I think we can loosely evaluate the roster as is and come away with a pretty confident take that this isn't a particularly talented team, and from reports it doesn't seem like there's any guy who has taken over practices. I do not believe in the "5 guys and a ball" construction, and am thus worried. I also believe our schedule will be considerably tougher this year, after an aberrant down year last season for the ACC.

Totally with you on rooting for a 17 win season! Would love an NIT bid and a way to show some real momentum.
Reply Quote
2
barsad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eastcoastcal • 3:05p, 9/28/25
eastcoastcal said:
However, I think we can loosely evaluate the roster as is and come away with a pretty confident take that this isn't a particularly talented team, and from reports it doesn't seem like there's any guy who has taken over practices.


I'm disappointed in the on-paper talent level, too, but with maybe more optimism that we will outperform predictions (again, JW on paper in Sept. 2024 is not the JW of today).
Reply Quote
smokeyrover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eastcoastcal • 11:44a, 9/30/25
eastcoastcal said:

That being said, we are candidly looking at a quite poor roster that does not look to be that competitive. Coming off a 14 win season, we lost our three best players in Andrej, JW, and Mady (and potential in Omot). Our incoming portal class is not great. Sorry, it just isn't very good. None of these guys are alphas and we're hoping for a lot of potential to be realized to even get close to where we were (which wasn't that great to begin with). I love the theoretical "5 guys and a ball" trope but let's face it-- that isn't modern basketball. You need a go-to scorer, and ideally a great second option behind him, if not third. The ideal of 5 guys on the court who equally contribute has long been passed over, because it just doesn't work. On top of that, there's little chance the ACC will be as weak as it was last year (when we still only won 6 conference games).


I get this assessment and appreciate your post. Hard to find much sunshine. Not here to pump it. I do think that the biggest weakness of the last two rosters has been the point guard choices. I'm heartened by Madsen moving away from smaller sized mid-major highly-specialized PGs to 4-star guys with a bit more size and rounded games. Ames is proven at the ACC level and has experience. Pippen projects well too. Carr seems more complete than Cone or Blacksher Jr. He appears capable to contribute if needed and an upgrade over Tucker. So much flows from the PG position - defending point of attack, ability to contest the perimeter, orchestrating offense. Improved play there could make up for the loss of "go-to" production.

Defense remains a big question mark, but there are experienced pieces to work with. This needs to improve considerably for Cal to be more competitive.

Reply Quote
2
HearstMining
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to smokeyrover • 3:59p, 9/30/25
smokeyrover said:
eastcoastcal said:

That being said, we are candidly looking at a quite poor roster that does not look to be that competitive. Coming off a 14 win season, we lost our three best players in Andrej, JW, and Mady (and potential in Omot). Our incoming portal class is not great. Sorry, it just isn't very good. None of these guys are alphas and we're hoping for a lot of potential to be realized to even get close to where we were (which wasn't that great to begin with). I love the theoretical "5 guys and a ball" trope but let's face it-- that isn't modern basketball. You need a go-to scorer, and ideally a great second option behind him, if not third. The ideal of 5 guys on the court who equally contribute has long been passed over, because it just doesn't work. On top of that, there's little chance the ACC will be as weak as it was last year (when we still only won 6 conference games).


I get this assessment and appreciate your post. Hard to find much sunshine. Not here to pump it. I do think that the biggest weakness of the last two rosters has been the point guard choices. I'm heartened by Madsen moving away from smaller sized mid-major highly-specialized PGs to 4-star guys with a bit more size and rounded games. Ames is proven at the ACC level and has experience. Pippen projects well too. Carr seems more complete than Cone or Blacksher Jr. He appears capable to contribute if needed and an upgrade over Tucker. So much flows from the PG position - defending point of attack, ability to contest the perimeter, orchestrating offense. Improved play there could make up for the loss of "go-to" production.

Defense remains a big question mark, but there are experienced pieces to work with. This needs to improve considerably for Cal to be more competitive.


First of all, I agree with you about the previous inadequate PGs. Let's look at each of the PG duties you listed:
  • Defending point of attack - Cone & Blacksher very inconsistent although Cone did suddenly take defense seriously the last half of his season. Both guys consistently overmatched by taller opponents, though.
  • Contest the perimeter - same as above but additionally needs to fight through screens and/or switch assignments. Size matters here and again, the previous guys came up short (no pun intended)
  • Orchestrating the offense - What is there to orchestrate? Unless Madsen changes his philosophy, it's strictly one vs one. I honestly think any decent ballhandler will do here, as all they have to do is get the ball past half-court.
So really, it boils down to a PG who has the size, smarts, and willingness to play defense and on offense, hit enough outside shots to keep their defender honest. Being able to drive and dish would really be icing on the cake. It sounds like you know more about the candidates you listed than I do, but I'm hopeful.
Reply Quote
ac_green33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Harky4 • 4:22p, 9/30/25
Harky4 said:
Schools without football programs but excellent MBB programs (Gonzaga, St Mary's, St John's) are going to be able to spend a lot more NIL $s on their rosters, if their donors step up to take advantage of the situation.


G5 basketball programs are going to have to spend >90% of their athletic department revenue to have $1 million less (given the generally agreed upon 15% rev sharing for basketball) than an average P4 team. The donors are going to have to do insanely heavy lifting.
Reply Quote
2 edits
smokeyrover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HearstMining • 5:08p, 9/30/25
HearstMining said:

  • Orchestrating the offense - What is there to orchestrate? Unless Madsen changes his philosophy, it's strictly one vs one. I honestly think any decent ballhandler will do here, as all they have to do is get the ball past half-court.
    • So really, it boils down to a PG who has the size, smarts, and willingness to play defense and on offense, hit enough outside shots to keep their defender honest. Being able to drive and dish would really be icing on the cake. It sounds like you know more about the candidates you listed than I do, but I'm hopeful.

    This roster doesn't have a Tyson or a Stojakovic. Would be surprised if anyone on the current roster is gonna average 17-19 a game, put up 14 shots a game. I'm hopeful that Madsen will be tweaking his offensive philosophy. Doesn't appear to be a roster with which to run an NBA style. Last year was basically an 8-man rotation with Tucker and Mahoney sometimes getting spot minutes. This year there is more depth in terms of experience and production. Again, improvement on D is imperative. Coaching staff has their work cut out for them.
    Reply Quote
    3
    59bear
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Harky4 • 10:08a, 10/2/25
    Harky4 said:
    Schools without football programs but excellent MBB programs (Gonzaga, St Mary's, St John's) are going to be able to spend a lot more NIL $s on their rosters, if their donors step up to take advantage of the situation.

    The schools you mention have minuscule donor potential to add to their NIL $$ so that perceived advantage may be ephemeral.
    Reply Quote
    1
    ManBearLion123
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to 59bear • 10:30a, 10/2/25
    59bear said:
    Harky4 said:
    Schools without football programs but excellent MBB programs (Gonzaga, St Mary's, St John's) are going to be able to spend a lot more NIL $s on their rosters, if their donors step up to take advantage of the situation.

    The schools you mention have minuscule donor potential to add to their NIL $$ so that perceived advantage may be ephemeral.

    I'm not sure about the donor situations at Gonzaga and St. Mary's (though I'd imagine the former has some reasonably big donors), but one of my good friends is a St. John's superfan so I have some insight there. The Johnnies have a billionaire megadonor in Mike Repole, who gives a ton to their NIL.

    St. John's probably has a top 5-10 NIL situation in all of MBB.
    Reply Quote
    2 edits
    oskidunker
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to barsad • 2:06p, 10/2/25
    barsad said:
    eastcoastcal said:
    I'll just preempt one thing: I know someone's knee jerk reaction will be to comment "let's wait til the season plays out" or "it's too early to tell!!". That's not the point.

    It really is the point, EastCoast.
    I'll put up the hand of a 7-footer and swat your preemption in the paint.
    I don't disagree with any of your analysis on the macro problems and system handicaps, but that does not preclude yearly improvement.
    Anyone here who thinks they can look at our 2025-26 roster and instantly pronounce it "worse" (whatever that means) than last year is talking out of their you-know-whats. If you go back to all the other Septembers of the past few years, no one here saw the "stars" on the roster that a previous poster said were Madsen's successes (Tyson, Andrej, Mady, Fardaws, JW) with the possible exception of Tyson who is the only legitimate star on that list. Andrej was a maybe coming from Stanford, Fardaws and Mady I put in the category of "Decent Cal big men whose names we'll forget in a few years", and JW was a big question mark until he actually got off the bench to replace Blacksher. We won't even know if JW and Andrej are actual stars until they play this year, the jury's out.
    I guess what I'm saying is, those guys were pleasant surprises, and there's no reason 1 or 2 current roster guys can't surprise us again this year. That's really all we're going to have, Cal fans, the surprises. If you're waiting for a conga line of 4- and 5-stars to come to Cal you'll be waiting a very long time. I like rooting for an underdog, and I'm looking forward to a 17 win season with 8 conference wins (I can dream, can't I?)


    Babalooooo!
    Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
    Reply Quote
    Big C
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to ManBearLion123 • 2:10p, 10/2/25
    ManBearLion123 said:
    59bear said:
    Harky4 said:
    Schools without football programs but excellent MBB programs (Gonzaga, St Mary's, St John's) are going to be able to spend a lot more NIL $s on their rosters, if their donors step up to take advantage of the situation.

    The schools you mention have minuscule donor potential to add to their NIL $$ so that perceived advantage may be ephemeral.

    I'm not sure about the donor situations at Gonzaga and St. Mary's (though I'd imagine the former has some reasonably big donors), but one of my good friends is a St. John's superfan so I have some insight there. The Johnnies have a billionaire megadonor in Mike Repole, who gives a ton to their NIL.

    St. John's probably has a top 5-10 NIL situation in all of MBB.

    Bing Crosby is long gone (unfortunately for the Zags).
    Reply Quote
    Refresh
    Page 1 of 1
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.