oskidunker said:

---

Dort couldn't finish . We can do better and will.

---

Yeah. I actually think he is at about 85% thdn he was preinjury. Who knows what the market will be but one holes we can upgrade

chazzed said:

---

What a disgrace. Did Madsen not pull the right strings?

---

It wasn't a "disgrace". It was a pissant NIT game. Definitely sucked, though. I was there.

Only 73 posts for an NIT game?
We used to get 250-400, no?

concordtom said:

---

Only 73 posts for an NIT game?
We used to get 250-400, no?

---

We had 250-400 for that NIT game against Bakersfield eight years ago... talkin' attendance, right?

ncbears said:

---

Is this perhaps the shortest game thread in BI history? I think even some of the early non-conference game threads might have been longer.
Especially if you ignore much of the post-game commentary?

---

It couldn't be the laundry?

oskidunker said:

---

Good game until the end. The loss of Camden was profound

---

I mean, what? We blow a 16-point lead and it was a good game? It took many minutes to squander what we built up, so it wasn't just a bad last two minutes.
I watched it in person, and there were no feel-good vibes about the game or ending the season on that kind of defensive performance. This was a bitter pill, I know there are plenty of good things we can say about the season, but you want to at least say you made your best effort in the last game you'll ever play at Haas (for some of those guys, anyway). This was not their best effort.

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Only 73 posts for an NIT game?
We used to get 250-400, no?

---

We had 250-400 for that NIT game against Bakersfield eight years ago... talkin' attendance, right?

---

Yeah, that's another good point.
I was gonna go, but then my daughter said it was spring break and she went elsewhere. I thought about tickets and sales on short notice. Then I saw nobody in the stands and felt bad for the players. That was like community college feels.

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

If the program plateaus at this level then that may be true. It's way too early to know that though.

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

Wilcox could only wish he could win 2/3 of his games like Madsen did this season.

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

Oiy. I don't. Wilcox was, over the last 2-3 years given UNPRECEDENTED level of support (for Cal). He STILL couldn't get it done. There are a litany of sins but chief among them is the inability to navigate the part of his job involving hiring and firing assistant coaches (instead of fishing and hunting buddies).

And during blowing of the lead I saw some rushed shots. I also saw a bunch of shots we normally make not made..

Is Mark Madsen the second coming of coach K (understanding that it was a few years before Duke really started rolling under coach K)? I don't think so but time will tell. I _KNOW_ that what he has expressed makes TOTAL strategic sense to me for Cal. I don';t know if he can execute it - because it requires a fine calibration between developing players individual skill and still winning games through team BB.

And what I know in my gut. Clearer than day is that losing MM would be 99% sure to end in disaster. With limited resources and pressure to go "all in" on FB while being cost focused on the overall AD budget we will get a flyer. That means either an unproven guy, an assistant, or damaged goods like Fox. NIL building will (except if we hire the kicker) go back to square 1. We will once again have to rebuild the entire roster. All the while playing in one of the best conferences in the country.

Now I get that very much on the surface this SEEMS like Wilcox but it decidedly is not. FB had/has a deep structural level of support that means that if Tosh crushes it and moves on we will still be "OK". We should have done a similar analysis when supposedly Oregon was a threat to Wilcox. That doesn't exist with BB and it is on Lyons/others to build it so we never again have to retain a coach out of "fear" when they haven't exactly proven themselves.

Golden One said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

Wilcox could only wish he could win 2/3 of his games like Madsen did this season.

---

This is not a commentary on Madsen but a commentary on Cal and Cal fans and how we keep making the same mistakes.

Wilcox never won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

Madsen has not won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

After year 3, Wilcox had shown incremental improvement every year, went 8-5, and went 4-5 in conference.

After year 3, Madsen has shown incremental improvement every year, went 21-11, and went 9-9 in conference.

Madsen's year 3 is very slightly better than Wilcox's. I'd submit that we are in virtually exactly the same position with Madsen in Year 3 that we were in with Wilcox Year 3. I think most people have guarded optimism now and most people had guarded optimism after Year 3 of Wilcox. I think there is/was acknowledgment of progress. I think there is/was acknowledgement that we hadn't "arrived" where we want to be, and is/was some optimism that we are/were on the path to getting there.

I am in no way saying that Madsen is Wilcox. There have been many coaches who have had exactly this trajectory and have gone on to great success. And there have been many coaches who have gone on to, well, be Wilcox. Madsen is ahead of Bruce Snyder's trajectory and essentially at the same place Snyder was at in Year 4. I think we'd all be happy if Madsen had Snyder's Year 5. I don't think it is helpful to declare him Wilcox, or Snyder, or to anoint him an obvious success or an obvious failure.

What he is is a guy who has met reasonable expectations. He hasn't exceeded expectations. He hasn't proven he can be very successful. He has shown he can put a competent team on the floor. I have elsewhere said I'm not convinced he is good or bad, but I am convinced that he has earned the chance to see what he can do with reasonable NIL and other support from the university and university community.

My view of Wilcox is that I would have moved on from him after he showed regression in 2021. (he showed regression in 2020, but Covid year was a mess). My view is that Madsen has done enough to see more, but not enough to protect him from significant regression and if we were looking at something like 15-15, 6-12 next year I would move on.

However, when Wilcox did regress, we had extended him for the long term and were stuck. This came with a lot of Cal fans (who will never admit it now) indicating we were screwed and back to square one if Wilcox left.

Similarly, we have already extended Madsen for the long term and are probably not in a position to respond if things go south. Similarly, with even rumors that Madsen might be up for the ASU job, a lot of Cal fans indicated we would be screwed and back to square one if Madsen left.

We continue to make the same mistakes on the same time frames. We can sit here and say that Madsen is not Wilcox because we went through the last 6 years of Wilcox. We wouldn't have (and didn't) said that after year 3 of Wilcox.

I have hope for Madsen. He has not been extraordinary. I'm not convinced we have our guy. I'm not convinced we don't.

Madsen is not Wilcox. Whether he will meet or exceed, or heaven forbid fail to meet that standard is yet to be seen.

However, Cal is still Cal. If things unravel next year, we will be looking at 3 years of buyout and wondering how bad things have to be to pay it.

socaltownie said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

Oiy. I don't. Wilcox was, over the last 2-3 years given UNPRECEDENTED level of support (for Cal). He STILL couldn't get it done. There are a litany of sins but chief among them is the inability to navigate the part of his job involving hiring and firing assistant coaches (instead of fishing and hunting buddies).

And during blowing of the lead I saw some rushed shots. I also saw a bunch of shots we normally make not made..

Is Mark Madsen the second coming of coach K (understanding that it was a few years before Duke really started rolling under coach K)? I don't think so but time will tell. I _KNOW_ that what he has expressed makes TOTAL strategic sense to me for Cal. I don';t know if he can execute it - because it requires a fine calibration between developing players individual skill and still winning games through team BB.

And what I know in my gut. Clearer than day is that losing MM would be 99% sure to end in disaster. With limited resources and pressure to go "all in" on FB while being cost focused on the overall AD budget we will get a flyer. That means either an unproven guy, an assistant, or damaged goods like Fox. NIL building will (except if we hire the kicker) go back to square 1. We will once again have to rebuild the entire roster. All the while playing in one of the best conferences in the country.

Now I get that very much on the surface this SEEMS like Wilcox but it decidedly is not. FB had/has a deep structural level of support that means that if Tosh crushes it and moves on we will still be "OK". We should have done a similar analysis when supposedly Oregon was a threat to Wilcox. That doesn't exist with BB and it is on Lyons/others to build it so we never again have to retain a coach out of "fear" when they haven't exactly proven themselves.

---

What makes him Wilcox or not won't be what is in your or my guts. It will be wins and losses. I don't care what strategy a coach professes or whether he can talk you into running through a brick wall, or whether he "does things the right way" or any of the other litany of irrelevant things that have been said about past coaches. There is an actual measuring stick every year and that is the only measuring stick that matters.

People said the exact same things about Wilcox after 3 years. My opinion is we should provide the institutional support to give Madsen a chance, but no, it is not a disaster if he happens to leave and we should not be doing brainless things to keep him like we did for Wilcox. Precisely because we don't know what will happen from here.

It seems like Year 3 of Wilcox because it DECIDEDLY IS. The fallacy here is that we can guess that means Years 4-9 would be the same as Wilcox. But making the same decisions with the same arguments and making up reasons why it is different is decidedly disappointing.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

Oiy. I don't. Wilcox was, over the last 2-3 years given UNPRECEDENTED level of support (for Cal). He STILL couldn't get it done. There are a litany of sins but chief among them is the inability to navigate the part of his job involving hiring and firing assistant coaches (instead of fishing and hunting buddies).

And during blowing of the lead I saw some rushed shots. I also saw a bunch of shots we normally make not made..

Is Mark Madsen the second coming of coach K (understanding that it was a few years before Duke really started rolling under coach K)? I don't think so but time will tell. I _KNOW_ that what he has expressed makes TOTAL strategic sense to me for Cal. I don';t know if he can execute it - because it requires a fine calibration between developing players individual skill and still winning games through team BB.

And what I know in my gut. Clearer than day is that losing MM would be 99% sure to end in disaster. With limited resources and pressure to go "all in" on FB while being cost focused on the overall AD budget we will get a flyer. That means either an unproven guy, an assistant, or damaged goods like Fox. NIL building will (except if we hire the kicker) go back to square 1. We will once again have to rebuild the entire roster. All the while playing in one of the best conferences in the country.

Now I get that very much on the surface this SEEMS like Wilcox but it decidedly is not. FB had/has a deep structural level of support that means that if Tosh crushes it and moves on we will still be "OK". We should have done a similar analysis when supposedly Oregon was a threat to Wilcox. That doesn't exist with BB and it is on Lyons/others to build it so we never again have to retain a coach out of "fear" when they haven't exactly proven themselves.

---

What makes him Wilcox or not won't be what is in your or my guts. It will be wins and losses. I don't care what strategy a coach professes or whether he can talk you into running through a brick wall, or whether he "does things the right way" or any of the other litany of irrelevant things that have been said about past coaches. There is an actual measuring stick every year and that is the only measuring stick that matters.

People said the exact same things about Wilcox after 3 years. My opinion is we should provide the institutional support to give Madsen a chance, but no, it is not a disaster if he happens to leave and we should not be doing brainless things to keep him like we did for Wilcox. Precisely because we don't know what will happen from here.

It seems like Year 3 of Wilcox because it DECIDEDLY IS. The fallacy here is that we can guess that means Years 4-9 would be the same as Wilcox. But making the same decisions with the same arguments and making up reasons why it is different is decidedly disappointing.

---

I gotta say BS because you are trying to say that BB and FB are in the same meta-situation. They are not. Wilcox should not have been extended. But even though their winning percentage is near the same Madsen absolutely should.

Why? Because Cal's structural support for FB is lightyears beyond what it is for BB.

Consider. There is actually a quasi-formal club for major SoCal located donors to FB. The Coach makes regular treks to the sort of donor event which is part and parcel for a good fundraising system. There are similar clubs on the Peninsula and I assume the east bay.

Where is the same infrastructure for hoops? It isn't present. Why? Well you have to go back over 30-40 years of AD malfeasance to answer that one Batman but those are the facts on the ground.

That is why you retain/extend Madsen. Because you really are looking at Fox/Jones redux. Because NO ONE that has a better job (even at their existing employer) will take that on unless they like the infrastructure building. Meanwhile I (personally) think we jumped too quickly at Tosh because Cal _IS_ an attractive job - and a huge kudos to SB leveraging the existing infrastructure and building upon it (though to be chicken and egg likely a bunch of that was that donors personally knew Tosh and were much more willing to support with him inbound)

Sometimes it is important to step back and look at more than wins and losses. At least we are not actively undermining coaches. But it is clear we have work to do to do the other things required in the NIL age to be anything better than one of the worst P4 jobs there is.

PS. And here is how you know that even without being an "insider". IF Cal had a kid that was a Naismith candidate in 2026-27 in what possible universe could we come up with the money to retain? Meanwhile Cal held onto a Legit Heisman candidate.

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

Oiy. I don't. Wilcox was, over the last 2-3 years given UNPRECEDENTED level of support (for Cal). He STILL couldn't get it done. There are a litany of sins but chief among them is the inability to navigate the part of his job involving hiring and firing assistant coaches (instead of fishing and hunting buddies).

And during blowing of the lead I saw some rushed shots. I also saw a bunch of shots we normally make not made..

Is Mark Madsen the second coming of coach K (understanding that it was a few years before Duke really started rolling under coach K)? I don't think so but time will tell. I _KNOW_ that what he has expressed makes TOTAL strategic sense to me for Cal. I don';t know if he can execute it - because it requires a fine calibration between developing players individual skill and still winning games through team BB.

And what I know in my gut. Clearer than day is that losing MM would be 99% sure to end in disaster. With limited resources and pressure to go "all in" on FB while being cost focused on the overall AD budget we will get a flyer. That means either an unproven guy, an assistant, or damaged goods like Fox. NIL building will (except if we hire the kicker) go back to square 1. We will once again have to rebuild the entire roster. All the while playing in one of the best conferences in the country.

Now I get that very much on the surface this SEEMS like Wilcox but it decidedly is not. FB had/has a deep structural level of support that means that if Tosh crushes it and moves on we will still be "OK". We should have done a similar analysis when supposedly Oregon was a threat to Wilcox. That doesn't exist with BB and it is on Lyons/others to build it so we never again have to retain a coach out of "fear" when they haven't exactly proven themselves.

---

What makes him Wilcox or not won't be what is in your or my guts. It will be wins and losses. I don't care what strategy a coach professes or whether he can talk you into running through a brick wall, or whether he "does things the right way" or any of the other litany of irrelevant things that have been said about past coaches. There is an actual measuring stick every year and that is the only measuring stick that matters.

People said the exact same things about Wilcox after 3 years. My opinion is we should provide the institutional support to give Madsen a chance, but no, it is not a disaster if he happens to leave and we should not be doing brainless things to keep him like we did for Wilcox. Precisely because we don't know what will happen from here.

It seems like Year 3 of Wilcox because it DECIDEDLY IS. The fallacy here is that we can guess that means Years 4-9 would be the same as Wilcox. But making the same decisions with the same arguments and making up reasons why it is different is decidedly disappointing.

---

I gotta say BS because you are trying to say that BB and FB are in the same meta-situation. They are not. Wilcox should not have been extended. But even though their winning percentage is near the same Madsen absolutely should.

Why? Because Cal's structural support for FB is lightyears beyond what it is for BB.

Consider. There is actually a quasi-formal club for major SoCal located donors to FB. The Coach makes regular treks to the sort of donor event which is part and parcel for a good fundraising system. There are similar clubs on the Peninsula and I assume the east bay.

Where is the same infrastructure for hoops? It isn't present. Why? Well you have to go back over 30-40 years of AD malfeasance to answer that one Batman but those are the facts on the ground.

That is why you retain/extend Madsen. Because you really are looking at Fox/Jones redux. Because NO ONE that has a better job (even at their existing employer) will take that on unless they like the infrastructure building. Meanwhile I (personally) think we jumped too quickly at Tosh because Cal _IS_ an attractive job - and a huge kudos to SB leveraging the existing infrastructure and building upon it (though to be chicken and egg likely a bunch of that was that donors personally knew Tosh and were much more willing to support with him inbound)

Sometimes it is important to step back and look at more than wins and losses. At least we are not actively undermining coaches. But it is clear we have work to do to do the other things required in the NIL age to be anything better than one of the worst P4 jobs there is.

PS. And here is how you know that even without being an "insider". IF Cal had a kid that was a Naismith candidate in 2026-27 in what possible universe could we come up with the money to retain? Meanwhile Cal held onto a Legit Heisman candidate.

---

What you are ignoring is that Cal is no different than 90% of the schools that have significantly higher structural support for football than basketball. That Cal's support for basketball in relation to its peers has been pretty much equivalent to football. That Cal has had at least as much success in basketball and has probably been more consistently competitive in basketball. And that somehow Cal was able to hire Madsen 3 years ago over some other pretty decent candidates and somehow we are supposed to believe we not only can't hire another Madsen level coach but will be doomed to hire Fox or jones, two guys hired with basically zero effort and total apathy from the Cal administration.

Extending Madsen 6 years out on the basis of going 13-19 was maddeningly unnecessary and stupid. And wetting our pants over the concept that he might go to ASU sends the signal to keep doing this stuff.

One of the old football coaches said it's not the recruits you don't get that hurt you. It's the ones you get that fail. That is true tenfold for coaches. As I've said over and over, he has met expectations. No more or less. Give him the support to succeed. Don't keep making the mistake of agreeing to bad terms to keep guys because you think you are screwed if you don't. It is a lot easier at Cal to hire comparable coaches than to get rid of coaches if things turn south.

glutton said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Golden One said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

Wilcox could only wish he could win 2/3 of his games like Madsen did this season.

---

This is not a commentary on Madsen but a commentary on Cal and Cal fans and how we keep making the same mistakes.

Wilcox never won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

Madsen has not won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

After year 3, Wilcox had shown incremental improvement every year, went 8-5, and went 4-5 in conference.

After year 3, Madsen has shown incremental improvement every year, went 21-11, and went 9-9 in conference.

Madsen's year 3 is very slightly better than Wilcox's. I'd submit that we are in virtually exactly the same position with Madsen in Year 3 that we were in with Wilcox Year 3. I think most people have guarded optimism now and most people had guarded optimism after Year 3 of Wilcox. I think there is/was acknowledgment of progress. I think there is/was acknowledgement that we hadn't "arrived" where we want to be, and is/was some optimism that we are/were on the path to getting there.

I am in no way saying that Madsen is Wilcox. There have been many coaches who have had exactly this trajectory and have gone on to great success. And there have been many coaches who have gone on to, well, be Wilcox. Madsen is ahead of Bruce Snyder's trajectory and essentially at the same place Snyder was at in Year 4. I think we'd all be happy if Madsen had Snyder's Year 5. I don't think it is helpful to declare him Wilcox, or Snyder, or to anoint him an obvious success or an obvious failure.

What he is is a guy who has met reasonable expectations. He hasn't exceeded expectations. He hasn't proven he can be very successful. He has shown he can put a competent team on the floor. I have elsewhere said I'm not convinced he is good or bad, but I am convinced that he has earned the chance to see what he can do with reasonable NIL and other support from the university and university community.

My view of Wilcox is that I would have moved on from him after he showed regression in 2021. (he showed regression in 2020, but Covid year was a mess). My view is that Madsen has done enough to see more, but not enough to protect him from significant regression and if we were looking at something like 15-15, 6-12 next year I would move on.

However, when Wilcox did regress, we had extended him for the long term and were stuck. This came with a lot of Cal fans (who will never admit it now) indicating we were screwed and back to square one if Wilcox left.

Similarly, we have already extended Madsen for the long term and are probably not in a position to respond if things go south. Similarly, with even rumors that Madsen might be up for the ASU job, a lot of Cal fans indicated we would be screwed and back to square one if Madsen left.

We continue to make the same mistakes on the same time frames. We can sit here and say that Madsen is not Wilcox because we went through the last 6 years of Wilcox. We wouldn't have (and didn't) said that after year 3 of Wilcox.

I have hope for Madsen. He has not been extraordinary. I'm not convinced we have our guy. I'm not convinced we don't.

Madsen is not Wilcox. Whether he will meet or exceed, or heaven forbid fail to meet that standard is yet to be seen.

However, Cal is still Cal. If things unravel next year, we will be looking at 3 years of buyout and wondering how bad things have to be to pay it.

---

The biggest difference that you seemto be ignoring is that Wilcox inherited a 5-7 team, while Madsen inherited a 3-29 team and had to basically start with nothing due to the NIL era. He has quickly made Cal competitive again.

---

He has at least another season to prove something but Madsen took over the worst situation ever in P5 and has us trending upward (although taking longer than expected), next year will be big though

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

glutton said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Golden One said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

Wilcox could only wish he could win 2/3 of his games like Madsen did this season.

---

This is not a commentary on Madsen but a commentary on Cal and Cal fans and how we keep making the same mistakes.

Wilcox never won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

Madsen has not won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

After year 3, Wilcox had shown incremental improvement every year, went 8-5, and went 4-5 in conference.

After year 3, Madsen has shown incremental improvement every year, went 21-11, and went 9-9 in conference.

Madsen's year 3 is very slightly better than Wilcox's. I'd submit that we are in virtually exactly the same position with Madsen in Year 3 that we were in with Wilcox Year 3. I think most people have guarded optimism now and most people had guarded optimism after Year 3 of Wilcox. I think there is/was acknowledgment of progress. I think there is/was acknowledgement that we hadn't "arrived" where we want to be, and is/was some optimism that we are/were on the path to getting there.

I am in no way saying that Madsen is Wilcox. There have been many coaches who have had exactly this trajectory and have gone on to great success. And there have been many coaches who have gone on to, well, be Wilcox. Madsen is ahead of Bruce Snyder's trajectory and essentially at the same place Snyder was at in Year 4. I think we'd all be happy if Madsen had Snyder's Year 5. I don't think it is helpful to declare him Wilcox, or Snyder, or to anoint him an obvious success or an obvious failure.

What he is is a guy who has met reasonable expectations. He hasn't exceeded expectations. He hasn't proven he can be very successful. He has shown he can put a competent team on the floor. I have elsewhere said I'm not convinced he is good or bad, but I am convinced that he has earned the chance to see what he can do with reasonable NIL and other support from the university and university community.

My view of Wilcox is that I would have moved on from him after he showed regression in 2021. (he showed regression in 2020, but Covid year was a mess). My view is that Madsen has done enough to see more, but not enough to protect him from significant regression and if we were looking at something like 15-15, 6-12 next year I would move on.

However, when Wilcox did regress, we had extended him for the long term and were stuck. This came with a lot of Cal fans (who will never admit it now) indicating we were screwed and back to square one if Wilcox left.

Similarly, we have already extended Madsen for the long term and are probably not in a position to respond if things go south. Similarly, with even rumors that Madsen might be up for the ASU job, a lot of Cal fans indicated we would be screwed and back to square one if Madsen left.

We continue to make the same mistakes on the same time frames. We can sit here and say that Madsen is not Wilcox because we went through the last 6 years of Wilcox. We wouldn't have (and didn't) said that after year 3 of Wilcox.

I have hope for Madsen. He has not been extraordinary. I'm not convinced we have our guy. I'm not convinced we don't.

Madsen is not Wilcox. Whether he will meet or exceed, or heaven forbid fail to meet that standard is yet to be seen.

However, Cal is still Cal. If things unravel next year, we will be looking at 3 years of buyout and wondering how bad things have to be to pay it.

---

The biggest difference that you seemto be ignoring is that Wilcox inherited a 5-7 team, while Madsen inherited a 3-29 team and had to basically start with nothing due to the NIL era. He has quickly made Cal competitive again.

---

He has at least another season to prove something but Madsen took over the worst situation ever in P5 and has us trending upward (although taking longer than expected), next year will be big though

---

As BCAM pointed out above, "trend" doesn't really matter in college basketball in 2026. He has had essentially three completely new teams each year. He built the team he built. To the extent it matters it is just his own growth. Last year we were a terrible three point shooting team, this year we were very good.
Overall, I really liked this year's team and if we had Petraitis, Dort, Yeanay all year, or Bell and Camden hadn't both had shooting slump's simultaneously, we win a few more and make the dance, which would have been huge.

We will see what team he assembles next year. Maybe with Bennett headed to ASU we can grab some St Mary's players?

However, given the contract extension Knowlton gave him, he will be our coach at least two more years. So there is not much reason to debate that question at this point.

---

IMO, Madsen's recruiting strategy was light years better this year than last. Overall, our recruits were probably no more sought after than last year. But they had a higher basketball IQ, better attitude and skills that meshed much better. this is why I anticipated improvement this year and they exceeded my expectations.

IMO, Andrej, our "best" recruit from last year was a hopeless chucker, entitled, nepo baby who put up stats while making everyone around him worse. Looks great when you sign guys ranked that high, but you don't win on signing day.

We aren't getting higher ranked recruits year over year, but hopefully we continue to have more intelligently put together recruiting classes, and yes, it would be nice to get more sought after players who still fit this year's profile.

Golden One said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

Wilcox could only wish he could win 2/3 of his games like Madsen did this season.

---

I was having the same thought, home game, favored, up big and then lose it .. seemed like poor coaching at the end of the game .. hope it is more of a one-off

Of course, we had our own "nepo baby" on the team this year, but Justin Pippen was a lot more of a team player.

sycasey said:

---

Of course, we had our own "nepo baby" on the team this year, but Justin Pippen was a lot more of a team player.

---

Nothing against kids of accomplished players. A lot against kids of accomplished players who are significantly overrated and come in with an entitled attitude and maintain it throughout. I don't see that in Pippin at all.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

glutton said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Golden One said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

Wilcox could only wish he could win 2/3 of his games like Madsen did this season.

---

This is not a commentary on Madsen but a commentary on Cal and Cal fans and how we keep making the same mistakes.

Wilcox never won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

Madsen has not won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

After year 3, Wilcox had shown incremental improvement every year, went 8-5, and went 4-5 in conference.

After year 3, Madsen has shown incremental improvement every year, went 21-11, and went 9-9 in conference.

Madsen's year 3 is very slightly better than Wilcox's. I'd submit that we are in virtually exactly the same position with Madsen in Year 3 that we were in with Wilcox Year 3. I think most people have guarded optimism now and most people had guarded optimism after Year 3 of Wilcox. I think there is/was acknowledgment of progress. I think there is/was acknowledgement that we hadn't "arrived" where we want to be, and is/was some optimism that we are/were on the path to getting there.

I am in no way saying that Madsen is Wilcox. There have been many coaches who have had exactly this trajectory and have gone on to great success. And there have been many coaches who have gone on to, well, be Wilcox. Madsen is ahead of Bruce Snyder's trajectory and essentially at the same place Snyder was at in Year 4. I think we'd all be happy if Madsen had Snyder's Year 5. I don't think it is helpful to declare him Wilcox, or Snyder, or to anoint him an obvious success or an obvious failure.

What he is is a guy who has met reasonable expectations. He hasn't exceeded expectations. He hasn't proven he can be very successful. He has shown he can put a competent team on the floor. I have elsewhere said I'm not convinced he is good or bad, but I am convinced that he has earned the chance to see what he can do with reasonable NIL and other support from the university and university community.

My view of Wilcox is that I would have moved on from him after he showed regression in 2021. (he showed regression in 2020, but Covid year was a mess). My view is that Madsen has done enough to see more, but not enough to protect him from significant regression and if we were looking at something like 15-15, 6-12 next year I would move on.

However, when Wilcox did regress, we had extended him for the long term and were stuck. This came with a lot of Cal fans (who will never admit it now) indicating we were screwed and back to square one if Wilcox left.

Similarly, we have already extended Madsen for the long term and are probably not in a position to respond if things go south. Similarly, with even rumors that Madsen might be up for the ASU job, a lot of Cal fans indicated we would be screwed and back to square one if Madsen left.

We continue to make the same mistakes on the same time frames. We can sit here and say that Madsen is not Wilcox because we went through the last 6 years of Wilcox. We wouldn't have (and didn't) said that after year 3 of Wilcox.

I have hope for Madsen. He has not been extraordinary. I'm not convinced we have our guy. I'm not convinced we don't.

Madsen is not Wilcox. Whether he will meet or exceed, or heaven forbid fail to meet that standard is yet to be seen.

However, Cal is still Cal. If things unravel next year, we will be looking at 3 years of buyout and wondering how bad things have to be to pay it.

---

The biggest difference that you seemto be ignoring is that Wilcox inherited a 5-7 team, while Madsen inherited a 3-29 team and had to basically start with nothing due to the NIL era. He has quickly made Cal competitive again.

---

He has at least another season to prove something but Madsen took over the worst situation ever in P5 and has us trending upward (although taking longer than expected), next year will be big though

---

As BCAM pointed out above, "trend" doesn't really matter in college basketball in 2026. He has had essentially three completely new teams each year. He built the team he built. To the extent it matters it is just his own growth. Last year we were a terrible three point shooting team, this year we were very good.
Overall, I really liked this year's team and if we had Petraitis, Dort, Yeanay all year, or Bell and Camden hadn't both had shooting slump's simultaneously, we win a few more and make the dance, which would have been huge.

We will see what team he assembles next year. Maybe with Bennett headed to ASU we can grab some St Mary's players?

However, given the contract extension Knowlton gave him, he will be our coach at least two more years. So there is not much reason to debate that question at this point.

---

IMO, Madsen's recruiting strategy was light years better this year than last. Overall, our recruits were probably no more sought after than last year. But they had a higher basketball IQ, better attitude and skills that meshed much better. this is why I anticipated improvement this year and they exceeded my expectations.

IMO, Andrej, our "best" recruit from last year was a hopeless chucker, entitled, nepo baby who put up stats while making everyone around him worse. Looks great when you sign guys ranked that high, but you don't win on signing day.

We aren't getting higher ranked recruits year over year, but hopefully we continue to have more intelligently put together recruiting classes, and yes, it would be nice to get more sought after players who still fit this year's profile.

---

If there's a trend, it's that Madsen is learning:

• What type of players to recruit both skillwise and mentality
• How to emphasize defense
• How to install a real offense
• Point guard is critical, both offensively and defensively

I'm encouraged (even though the only game I saw live was against Pitt, which was awful)

Well, New Mexico weathered the St Joe's comeback and won by 15.

calumnus said:

---

However, given the contract extension Knowlton gave him, he will be our coach at least two more years. So there is not much reason to debate that question at this point.

---

This.
My kingdom for a relevant topic.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

glutton said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Golden One said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

Wilcox could only wish he could win 2/3 of his games like Madsen did this season.

---

This is not a commentary on Madsen but a commentary on Cal and Cal fans and how we keep making the same mistakes.

Wilcox never won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

Madsen has not won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

After year 3, Wilcox had shown incremental improvement every year, went 8-5, and went 4-5 in conference.

After year 3, Madsen has shown incremental improvement every year, went 21-11, and went 9-9 in conference.

Madsen's year 3 is very slightly better than Wilcox's. I'd submit that we are in virtually exactly the same position with Madsen in Year 3 that we were in with Wilcox Year 3. I think most people have guarded optimism now and most people had guarded optimism after Year 3 of Wilcox. I think there is/was acknowledgment of progress. I think there is/was acknowledgement that we hadn't "arrived" where we want to be, and is/was some optimism that we are/were on the path to getting there.

I am in no way saying that Madsen is Wilcox. There have been many coaches who have had exactly this trajectory and have gone on to great success. And there have been many coaches who have gone on to, well, be Wilcox. Madsen is ahead of Bruce Snyder's trajectory and essentially at the same place Snyder was at in Year 4. I think we'd all be happy if Madsen had Snyder's Year 5. I don't think it is helpful to declare him Wilcox, or Snyder, or to anoint him an obvious success or an obvious failure.

What he is is a guy who has met reasonable expectations. He hasn't exceeded expectations. He hasn't proven he can be very successful. He has shown he can put a competent team on the floor. I have elsewhere said I'm not convinced he is good or bad, but I am convinced that he has earned the chance to see what he can do with reasonable NIL and other support from the university and university community.

My view of Wilcox is that I would have moved on from him after he showed regression in 2021. (he showed regression in 2020, but Covid year was a mess). My view is that Madsen has done enough to see more, but not enough to protect him from significant regression and if we were looking at something like 15-15, 6-12 next year I would move on.

However, when Wilcox did regress, we had extended him for the long term and were stuck. This came with a lot of Cal fans (who will never admit it now) indicating we were screwed and back to square one if Wilcox left.

Similarly, we have already extended Madsen for the long term and are probably not in a position to respond if things go south. Similarly, with even rumors that Madsen might be up for the ASU job, a lot of Cal fans indicated we would be screwed and back to square one if Madsen left.

We continue to make the same mistakes on the same time frames. We can sit here and say that Madsen is not Wilcox because we went through the last 6 years of Wilcox. We wouldn't have (and didn't) said that after year 3 of Wilcox.

I have hope for Madsen. He has not been extraordinary. I'm not convinced we have our guy. I'm not convinced we don't.

Madsen is not Wilcox. Whether he will meet or exceed, or heaven forbid fail to meet that standard is yet to be seen.

However, Cal is still Cal. If things unravel next year, we will be looking at 3 years of buyout and wondering how bad things have to be to pay it.

---

The biggest difference that you seemto be ignoring is that Wilcox inherited a 5-7 team, while Madsen inherited a 3-29 team and had to basically start with nothing due to the NIL era. He has quickly made Cal competitive again.

---

He has at least another season to prove something but Madsen took over the worst situation ever in P5 and has us trending upward (although taking longer than expected), next year will be big though

---

As BCAM pointed out above, "trend" doesn't really matter in college basketball in 2026. He has had essentially three completely new teams each year. He built the team he built. To the extent it matters it is just his own growth. Last year we were a terrible three point shooting team, this year we were very good.
Overall, I really liked this year's team and if we had Petraitis, Dort, Yeanay all year, or Bell and Camden hadn't both had shooting slump's simultaneously, we win a few more and make the dance, which would have been huge.

We will see what team he assembles next year. Maybe with Bennett headed to ASU we can grab some St Mary's players?

However, given the contract extension Knowlton gave him, he will be our coach at least two more years. So there is not much reason to debate that question at this point.

---

The point about a slow re-build not being as relevant in the NIL/portal era is real, however, I still think there is something to be said about progressive improvement because it positions the program as a whole more competitively to compete in the next offseason. The trend is still positive and relevant -- albeit maybe not as much as in the past.

baytobreakers said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

glutton said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Golden One said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

Wilcox could only wish he could win 2/3 of his games like Madsen did this season.

---

This is not a commentary on Madsen but a commentary on Cal and Cal fans and how we keep making the same mistakes.

Wilcox never won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

Madsen has not won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

After year 3, Wilcox had shown incremental improvement every year, went 8-5, and went 4-5 in conference.

After year 3, Madsen has shown incremental improvement every year, went 21-11, and went 9-9 in conference.

Madsen's year 3 is very slightly better than Wilcox's. I'd submit that we are in virtually exactly the same position with Madsen in Year 3 that we were in with Wilcox Year 3. I think most people have guarded optimism now and most people had guarded optimism after Year 3 of Wilcox. I think there is/was acknowledgment of progress. I think there is/was acknowledgement that we hadn't "arrived" where we want to be, and is/was some optimism that we are/were on the path to getting there.

I am in no way saying that Madsen is Wilcox. There have been many coaches who have had exactly this trajectory and have gone on to great success. And there have been many coaches who have gone on to, well, be Wilcox. Madsen is ahead of Bruce Snyder's trajectory and essentially at the same place Snyder was at in Year 4. I think we'd all be happy if Madsen had Snyder's Year 5. I don't think it is helpful to declare him Wilcox, or Snyder, or to anoint him an obvious success or an obvious failure.

What he is is a guy who has met reasonable expectations. He hasn't exceeded expectations. He hasn't proven he can be very successful. He has shown he can put a competent team on the floor. I have elsewhere said I'm not convinced he is good or bad, but I am convinced that he has earned the chance to see what he can do with reasonable NIL and other support from the university and university community.

My view of Wilcox is that I would have moved on from him after he showed regression in 2021. (he showed regression in 2020, but Covid year was a mess). My view is that Madsen has done enough to see more, but not enough to protect him from significant regression and if we were looking at something like 15-15, 6-12 next year I would move on.

However, when Wilcox did regress, we had extended him for the long term and were stuck. This came with a lot of Cal fans (who will never admit it now) indicating we were screwed and back to square one if Wilcox left.

Similarly, we have already extended Madsen for the long term and are probably not in a position to respond if things go south. Similarly, with even rumors that Madsen might be up for the ASU job, a lot of Cal fans indicated we would be screwed and back to square one if Madsen left.

We continue to make the same mistakes on the same time frames. We can sit here and say that Madsen is not Wilcox because we went through the last 6 years of Wilcox. We wouldn't have (and didn't) said that after year 3 of Wilcox.

I have hope for Madsen. He has not been extraordinary. I'm not convinced we have our guy. I'm not convinced we don't.

Madsen is not Wilcox. Whether he will meet or exceed, or heaven forbid fail to meet that standard is yet to be seen.

However, Cal is still Cal. If things unravel next year, we will be looking at 3 years of buyout and wondering how bad things have to be to pay it.

---

The biggest difference that you seemto be ignoring is that Wilcox inherited a 5-7 team, while Madsen inherited a 3-29 team and had to basically start with nothing due to the NIL era. He has quickly made Cal competitive again.

---

He has at least another season to prove something but Madsen took over the worst situation ever in P5 and has us trending upward (although taking longer than expected), next year will be big though

---

As BCAM pointed out above, "trend" doesn't really matter in college basketball in 2026. He has had essentially three completely new teams each year. He built the team he built. To the extent it matters it is just his own growth. Last year we were a terrible three point shooting team, this year we were very good.
Overall, I really liked this year's team and if we had Petraitis, Dort, Yeanay all year, or Bell and Camden hadn't both had shooting slump's simultaneously, we win a few more and make the dance, which would have been huge.

We will see what team he assembles next year. Maybe with Bennett headed to ASU we can grab some St Mary's players?

However, given the contract extension Knowlton gave him, he will be our coach at least two more years. So there is not much reason to debate that question at this point.

---

The point about a slow re-build not being as relevant in the NIL/portal era is real, however, I still think there is something to be said about progressive improvement because it positions the program as a whole more competitively to compete in the next offseason. The trend is still positive and relevant -- albeit maybe not as much as in the past.

---

I'll put it this way: it's probably a lot easier to attract decent players to a program that just made the NIT than one that just went 3-29.

sycasey said:

---

baytobreakers said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

glutton said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Golden One said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

This game was the entire season in a nutshell, and I feel like we have the basketball version of Wilcox.

---

Wilcox could only wish he could win 2/3 of his games like Madsen did this season.

---

This is not a commentary on Madsen but a commentary on Cal and Cal fans and how we keep making the same mistakes.

Wilcox never won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

Madsen has not won 2/3 of his games. He came very close in year 3.

After year 3, Wilcox had shown incremental improvement every year, went 8-5, and went 4-5 in conference.

After year 3, Madsen has shown incremental improvement every year, went 21-11, and went 9-9 in conference.

Madsen's year 3 is very slightly better than Wilcox's. I'd submit that we are in virtually exactly the same position with Madsen in Year 3 that we were in with Wilcox Year 3. I think most people have guarded optimism now and most people had guarded optimism after Year 3 of Wilcox. I think there is/was acknowledgment of progress. I think there is/was acknowledgement that we hadn't "arrived" where we want to be, and is/was some optimism that we are/were on the path to getting there.

I am in no way saying that Madsen is Wilcox. There have been many coaches who have had exactly this trajectory and have gone on to great success. And there have been many coaches who have gone on to, well, be Wilcox. Madsen is ahead of Bruce Snyder's trajectory and essentially at the same place Snyder was at in Year 4. I think we'd all be happy if Madsen had Snyder's Year 5. I don't think it is helpful to declare him Wilcox, or Snyder, or to anoint him an obvious success or an obvious failure.

What he is is a guy who has met reasonable expectations. He hasn't exceeded expectations. He hasn't proven he can be very successful. He has shown he can put a competent team on the floor. I have elsewhere said I'm not convinced he is good or bad, but I am convinced that he has earned the chance to see what he can do with reasonable NIL and other support from the university and university community.

My view of Wilcox is that I would have moved on from him after he showed regression in 2021. (he showed regression in 2020, but Covid year was a mess). My view is that Madsen has done enough to see more, but not enough to protect him from significant regression and if we were looking at something like 15-15, 6-12 next year I would move on.

However, when Wilcox did regress, we had extended him for the long term and were stuck. This came with a lot of Cal fans (who will never admit it now) indicating we were screwed and back to square one if Wilcox left.

Similarly, we have already extended Madsen for the long term and are probably not in a position to respond if things go south. Similarly, with even rumors that Madsen might be up for the ASU job, a lot of Cal fans indicated we would be screwed and back to square one if Madsen left.

We continue to make the same mistakes on the same time frames. We can sit here and say that Madsen is not Wilcox because we went through the last 6 years of Wilcox. We wouldn't have (and didn't) said that after year 3 of Wilcox.

I have hope for Madsen. He has not been extraordinary. I'm not convinced we have our guy. I'm not convinced we don't.

Madsen is not Wilcox. Whether he will meet or exceed, or heaven forbid fail to meet that standard is yet to be seen.

However, Cal is still Cal. If things unravel next year, we will be looking at 3 years of buyout and wondering how bad things have to be to pay it.

---

The biggest difference that you seemto be ignoring is that Wilcox inherited a 5-7 team, while Madsen inherited a 3-29 team and had to basically start with nothing due to the NIL era. He has quickly made Cal competitive again.

---

He has at least another season to prove something but Madsen took over the worst situation ever in P5 and has us trending upward (although taking longer than expected), next year will be big though

---

As BCAM pointed out above, "trend" doesn't really matter in college basketball in 2026. He has had essentially three completely new teams each year. He built the team he built. To the extent it matters it is just his own growth. Last year we were a terrible three point shooting team, this year we were very good.
Overall, I really liked this year's team and if we had Petraitis, Dort, Yeanay all year, or Bell and Camden hadn't both had shooting slump's simultaneously, we win a few more and make the dance, which would have been huge.

We will see what team he assembles next year. Maybe with Bennett headed to ASU we can grab some St Mary's players?

However, given the contract extension Knowlton gave him, he will be our coach at least two more years. So there is not much reason to debate that question at this point.

---

The point about a slow re-build not being as relevant in the NIL/portal era is real, however, I still think there is something to be said about progressive improvement because it positions the program as a whole more competitively to compete in the next offseason. The trend is still positive and relevant -- albeit maybe not as much as in the past.

---

I'll put it this way: it's probably a lot easier to attract decent players to a program that just made the NIT than one that just went 3-29.

---

Most definitely, but

If you are a new coach no one is holding you responsible for the 3-29. It absolutely is a weight dragging you down from your full potential, but you would expect to be able to recruit to a .500 range. That is why I was not impressed with year one and am dumbfounded as to why it merited an extension. I would say year one was not a positive wins above replacement for Madsen. Not a negative either, but I think any mediocre coach could have that result.

Year 2 recruiting was poor. It was both strategically poor and also did not demonstrate we could compete with programs we need to for sought after recruits. Year 3 was strategically good, so he is learning. Still did not show we could be competitive for sought after recruits.

My main point is that I don't think in this day you can baby step your way to the top. You have a window and you are going to plateau. I don't see that, without changes like more NIL support, next year we attract a team that goes to the tournament. Then the next year the Sweet Sixteen. Then Final Four. The improvement has been very incremental and I don't think top 20 recruits are going to think a team that is scrapping into the tournament year 5 is on the cusp because 6 years ago they were 3-29. They are going to think that if it was going to happen for you, it already would have.

Which is why I think the donors and university need to push all their chips in on Madsen now and let him succeed or fail. If they are just going to incrementally improve support as results incrementally improve, they are going to hit a wall.