BeachedBear said:

---

1. Yup

2. Yup Yup

3. Yup Yup Yup

4. Agreed - i think its a combination of the staff and the players. Sounds like there was some cultural hangover from FOX that didn't follow him quickly out the door. Anyone who simply isn't having more fun following this year's team is just missing out.

5 & 6 While I don't think your take is THAT controversial, I also don't think Cal can separate MBB from FB (like most of the WCC or older Big East) and even the non revenue sports. It needs to follow the big college sports model (which is admittedly changing). My [controversial] take is that Cal's college sports environment needs reform. The priorities NEED to be Infrastructure, Football, MBB, everything else in that order:

Infrastructure: Replacing impediment personnel (Knowlton, Everett, Christ, etc) and installing top level people including GMs for revenue sports. We still need an Athletic Director and MBB GM, but a lot has been done on this front.

Football: I don't need to explain why FB comes before MBB and much has already been done on this front. I agree a nice gamble has been made on Tosh and FB, but NOT taking a gamble would have been suicide for the Athletic Department.

MBB: Madsen is NOT the greatest college coach today, but he is a GREAT fit for where Cal MBB is today (much better FIT than even Cuonzo or Montgomery, IMHO). And he can be an even better fit when Cal gets a GM and big NIL budget. The question is how long will it take for MBB to catch up. I'm OK waiting to see if we make more progress on #1 & #2 above or for big donations to come into MBB. So - I can agree with your point #5 outside of the context of Cal - but not in the context of where we are and need to be. Perhaps if priorities #1 & #2 don't pan out and Cal gets relegated, THEN we could consider your take and move to the WCC or Great West. Until then, I would rather try and fail at the big time, instead of taking a simpler route.

Everything else: Primarily Olympic sports. Basically, these probably do not have the huge needs that FB and MBB have/had and already function pretty well at Cal - so their priority should be lower.

---

socaltownie said:

---

1) This year has exceeded all expectations. You could not look at the incoming guys and foresee this many wins (absent the wonderguy Rod Benson)

2) It is also a MUCH harder league. We really never faced a conference with THREE bluest of bluebloods in NC, Duke, and Louisville. Arguably 'cuse should be in there as well.

3) The criticism of MM's "Xs and Os" feels misplaced. Ditto frankly ALL the X and O talk from sports fans. We helicopter in to watch a bit of game. Usually just once. Not with rewinds and tape. THese coaches spend 24 7 thinking about hoops. I trust them to understand that part of their job. Where they often fail is on the management side (see Wilcox) but there is no sign of that with MM.

4) The individual player development is out of this world. One thing that the Great Phil Jackson once said is that NBA coaching is about mentally getting your guys to play to 100% because they know the game and have all the skills. I see that in MM - getting for example John Camden to do things I am not sure even HE saw himself doing or turning Justin Pippen into a likely NBA draft choice.

5) <controversial take> I have long believed that MBB better aligns with Cal and its geographic location than FB. If you look at things the Bay Area (and especially the East Bay) has a LOOOOONNNNGGGG history of BB excellence and, of course, Cal's only revenue sports championship in the semi-modern era came in hoops. More teams both as a percentage and raw numbers make the tournament. I know that FB is the $$$$$ maker but I truly believe that MBB is a better fit for modern Cal if the TV $$$ wasn't driving everything.

6) But he needs $$$. The Tosh investment is a gamble. A good one. Well thought out. Best option that was on the table and as good as odds as we could get. But investing in MM feels like a no brainer given that our success in MBB is more recent, we can demonstrate that it can be done (as we know, we have not been to a Rosebowl since before MANY on this board were alive). We need to retain the core and go out and get a solid power forward and ideally 1 or 2 more shooters which will really make next years team a force.

---

Quote:

---

5) <controversial take> I have long believed that MBB better aligns with Cal and its geographic location than FB. If you look at things the Bay Area (and especially the East Bay) has a LOOOOONNNNGGGG history of BB excellence and, of course, Cal's only revenue sports championship in the semi-modern era came in hoops. More teams both as a percentage and raw numbers make the tournament. I know that FB is the $$$$$ maker but I truly believe that MBB is a better fit for modern Cal if the TV $$$ wasn't driving everything.

---

Big C said:

---

My "controversial take" is that the ACC is not way, way better than the Pac 10/12 has been. IMO, Arizona has been "bluer" than Louisville. ACC has had Carolina and Duke; Pac had (F)UCLA and Arizona. For all the rest of the teams, it depended on the year, even the decade, and the coach.

---

concernedparent said:

---

Big C said:

---

My "controversial take" is that the ACC is not way, way better than the Pac 10/12 has been. IMO, Arizona has been "bluer" than Louisville. ACC has had Carolina and Duke; Pac had (F)UCLA and Arizona. For all the rest of the teams, it depended on the year, even the decade, and the coach.

---

The Pac has been down for awhile. Looking at the last 20 years, Arizona has been the best team in the Pac 12 in that timespan. Zero final four appearances. Louisville (Big East then) has a national championship and a final four. UCLA has had the most success in the tournament in that span and they don't even have UVA's resume, let alone UNC or Duke. The Pac has had multiple 2 bid years and probably an average of around 4 teams every year... ACC probably averages 6-7 bids.

---