BearlyGray said:

---

Well if you watch Coopers Wright State full game on YouTube against Cal he played point the whole game. He bought the ball up against the press, created for others and made few turnovers. Plus he was the leading scorer while being guarded by Pippen who he outplayed. Also our new Polish -American recruit has been playing point the last 2 years, including Internationally. He states Madsen recruited him as a point. Ross might be our third string point guard if he does not beat out the other two.

---

BG, I appreciate your comments and will be much more calm this summer!

Updated the OP to reflect TT Carr coming back. Ladies and gentlemen, we have our 15 for 2026-27.
Is this roster stronger or weaker than last year's?

barsad said:

---

Updated the OP to reflect TT Carr coming back. Ladies and gentlemen, we have our 15 for 2026-27.
Is this roster stronger or weaker than last year's?

---

I think it is really tough to say. This roster seems deeper, but what matters most is the starting 5. Right now my guess is it is a push, but last year's roster underperformed due to injuries and a couple of guys having ill-timed shooting slumps.

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

Updated the OP to reflect TT Carr coming back. Ladies and gentlemen, we have our 15 for 2026-27.
Is this roster stronger or weaker than last year's?

---

I think it is really tough to say. This roster seems deeper, but what matters most is the starting 5. Right now my guess is it is a push, but last year's roster underperformed due to injuries and a couple of guys having ill-timed shooting slumps.

---

On paper it looks like we'll be much deeper, better on defense, and worse at outside shooting.

I think depth will be important. In addition to reducing the impact of injuries it will allow us to match up better in more situations and to keep players fresh. The large number of players with upside will also increase the odds of a few developing to their full potential.

We should be better at rebounding too

Besides shooting, it will be important who can create their own shot at the end of the clock and must score situations at the end of tight games

stu said:

---

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

Updated the OP to reflect TT Carr coming back. Ladies and gentlemen, we have our 15 for 2026-27.
Is this roster stronger or weaker than last year's?

---

I think it is really tough to say. This roster seems deeper, but what matters most is the starting 5. Right now my guess is it is a push, but last year's roster underperformed due to injuries and a couple of guys having ill-timed shooting slumps.

---

On paper it looks like we'll be much deeper, better on defense, and worse at outside shooting.

I think depth will be important. In addition to reducing the impact of injuries it will allow us to match up better in more situations and to keep players fresh. The large number of players with upside will also increase the odds of a few developing to their full potential.

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

barsad said:

---

Updated the OP to reflect TT Carr coming back. Ladies and gentlemen, we have our 15 for 2026-27.
Is this roster stronger or weaker than last year's?

---

Our best players are less talented than last year, but we should be a lot deeper.

Worried about shooting.

---

Hoping Carr will develope in to a good shooter. We know about everyone else and there is no Bell or Camden.

oskidunker said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

barsad said:

---

Updated the OP to reflect TT Carr coming back. Ladies and gentlemen, we have our 15 for 2026-27.
Is this roster stronger or weaker than last year's?

---

Our best players are less talented than last year, but we should be a lot deeper.

Worried about shooting.

---

Hoping Carr will develope in to a good shooter. We know about everyone else and there is no Bell or Camden.

---

I'd prefer that one or two or three of our starters or at least key rotational players can be relied on dor shooting.

I dont expect Carr to be that player. It would be great and I hope he improves enough to be that player. But I'm not expecting that.

BeachedBear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

ManBearLion123 said:

---

barsad said:

---

Updated the OP to reflect TT Carr coming back. Ladies and gentlemen, we have our 15 for 2026-27.
Is this roster stronger or weaker than last year's?

---

Our best players are less talented than last year, but we should be a lot deeper.

Worried about shooting.

---

Hoping Carr will develope in to a good shooter. We know about everyone else and there is no Bell or Camden.

---

I'd prefer that one or two or three of our starters or at least key rotational players can be relied on dor shooting.

I dont expect Carr to be that player. It would be great and I hope he improves enough to be that player. But I'm not expecting that.

---

Agreed, we need shooting from the guys logging the big minutes.

Last year, despite shooting slumps mid season from our best shooters, Camden and Bell, Cal was still #36 nationally in 3 pt % but we were #112 in 3 pt attempts per game. I thought we needed to do a better job getting those guys shots. We can only hope one of our starters this year shoots as well and we get him a lot of looks.

We are still at the point where we seem to be correcting deficiencies from the prior year.

For several years, we couldn't shoot the ball. Then, last season, we shot quite well but couldn't defend (especially inside). So now we look better there but have given up some shooting.

Considering our W/L keeps improving, I'm fine with that until we eventually put it all together.

Big C said:

---

We are still at the point where we seem to be correcting deficiencies from the prior year.

For several years, we couldn't shoot the ball. Then, last season, we shot quite well but couldn't defend (especially inside). So now we look better there but have given up some shooting.

Considering our W/L keeps improving, I'm fine with that until we eventually put it all together.

---

I get your point overall, but I think Cal's defense improved last year. Comparing the most basic defensive statistic, Opposition Points Scored, Cal decreased that number in ACC play from 76.8 in 2025 to 73.3 in 2026.

HearstMining said:

---

Big C said:

---

We are still at the point where we seem to be correcting deficiencies from the prior year.

For several years, we couldn't shoot the ball. Then, last season, we shot quite well but couldn't defend (especially inside). So now we look better there but have given up some shooting.

Considering our W/L keeps improving, I'm fine with that until we eventually put it all together.

---

I get your point overall, but I think Cal's defense improved last year. Comparing the most basic defensive statistic, Opposition Points Scored, Cal decreased that number in ACC play from 76.8 in 2025 to 73.3 in 2026.

---

In Ken Pom our defensive rating was #68 last year (better than our offensive rating), the year before our defensive rating was #175. So the stats say we definitely improved on defense and were a good defensive team last year.

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Big C said:

---

We are still at the point where we seem to be correcting deficiencies from the prior year.

For several years, we couldn't shoot the ball. Then, last season, we shot quite well but couldn't defend (especially inside). So now we look better there but have given up some shooting.

Considering our W/L keeps improving, I'm fine with that until we eventually put it all together.

---

I get your point overall, but I think Cal's defense improved last year. Comparing the most basic defensive statistic, Opposition Points Scored, Cal decreased that number in ACC play from 76.8 in 2025 to 73.3 in 2026.

---

In Ken Pom our defensive rating was #68 last year (better than our offensive rating), the year before our defensive rating was #175. So the stats say we definitely improved on defense and were a good defensive team last year.

---

Okay, interior defense.

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Big C said:

---

We are still at the point where we seem to be correcting deficiencies from the prior year.

For several years, we couldn't shoot the ball. Then, last season, we shot quite well but couldn't defend (especially inside). So now we look better there but have given up some shooting.

Considering our W/L keeps improving, I'm fine with that until we eventually put it all together.

---

I get your point overall, but I think Cal's defense improved last year. Comparing the most basic defensive statistic, Opposition Points Scored, Cal decreased that number in ACC play from 76.8 in 2025 to 73.3 in 2026.

---

In Ken Pom our defensive rating was #68 last year (better than our offensive rating), the year before our defensive rating was #175. So the stats say we definitely improved on defense and were a good defensive team last year.

---

Okay, interior defense.

---

Ok, well yes, the big improvement was in 3pt FG% defense. We went from #356 the year before to #44 last year. We went from horrible, one of the very worst in the country, to elite, one of the best in the country.

To the extent there is a trade off between defending the 3 pt line and defending the paint we made the right choice. You cannot give 3 pt shooters open looks even if it leaves you vulnerable inside. I do think that if we had a more solid backup for Dort it would have helped inside as he often played in foul trouble and had to play more tentatively. I think we will have that this year. Hopefully we continue to defend the 3 as well.

^ Totally agree. When I made my comment on "defense" without specifying interior defense, I was thinking about February, when teams were taking it inside against us with impunity. We did close out on 3-pt shooters much better last season.

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

Updated the OP to reflect TT Carr coming back. Ladies and gentlemen, we have our 15 for 2026-27.
Is this roster stronger or weaker than last year's?

---

I think it is really tough to say. This roster seems deeper, but what matters most is the starting 5. Right now my guess is it is a push, but last year's roster underperformed due to injuries and a couple of guys having ill-timed shooting slumps.

---

Underperformed? Only in hindsight. We were picked like 15th in the ACC. The roster and players on it were way better than anyone expected going into the season.

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

Updated the OP to reflect TT Carr coming back. Ladies and gentlemen, we have our 15 for 2026-27.
Is this roster stronger or weaker than last year's?

---

I think it is really tough to say. This roster seems deeper, but what matters most is the starting 5. Right now my guess is it is a push, but last year's roster underperformed due to injuries and a couple of guys having ill-timed shooting slumps.

---

Underperformed? Only in hindsight. We were picked like 15th in the ACC. The roster and players on it were way better than anyone expected going into the season.

---

Yes, I had no idea how good they would be last year so I mean based on our knowledge today of how good last year's team was capable of playing. The games with Dort out, then back but not at full strength, Camden and Bell's simultaneous shooting slumps at the start of ACC play. That is the starters, so not even counting Petraitis going out in game 7. I think our 22 wins was on the low side of what that team generally would do if the season were played multiple times. It is the type of team that I wish we had coming back.

However, right now, the team coming in seems deeper than last year but overall I'm guessing a similar result: 21 or 22 wins and bubble territory. Hopefully once I see the starting 5 on the court I will revise that guess upward.

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

Updated the OP to reflect TT Carr coming back. Ladies and gentlemen, we have our 15 for 2026-27.
Is this roster stronger or weaker than last year's?

---

I think it is really tough to say. This roster seems deeper, but what matters most is the starting 5. Right now my guess is it is a push, but last year's roster underperformed due to injuries and a couple of guys having ill-timed shooting slumps.

---

Underperformed? Only in hindsight. We were picked like 15th in the ACC. The roster and players on it were way better than anyone expected going into the season.

---

Yes, I had no idea how good they would be last year so I mean based on our knowledge today of how good last year's team was capable of playing. The games with Dort out, then back but not at full strength, Camden and Bell's simultaneous shooting slumps at the start of ACC play. That is the starters, so not even counting Petraitis going out in game 7. I think our 22 wins was on the low side of what that team generally would do if the season were played multiple times. It is the type of team that I wish we had coming back.

However, right now, the team coming in seems deeper than last year but overall I'm guessing a similar result: 21 or 22 wins and bubble territory. Hopefully once I see the starting 5 on the court I will revise that guess upward.

---

I really thought last year's team was going to be deeper than it ended up being. I figured we'd have Petraitis, that Illic was going to be a bit better, and that Ruff as a 4 star was going to be ready to contribute. This year's team has so many question marks because there isn't really the baseline level of production to predict off of. We can only trust and hope that Madsen's ability to scout overlooked talent continues.

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

Updated the OP to reflect TT Carr coming back. Ladies and gentlemen, we have our 15 for 2026-27.
Is this roster stronger or weaker than last year's?

---

I think it is really tough to say. This roster seems deeper, but what matters most is the starting 5. Right now my guess is it is a push, but last year's roster underperformed due to injuries and a couple of guys having ill-timed shooting slumps.

---

Underperformed? Only in hindsight. We were picked like 15th in the ACC. The roster and players on it were way better than anyone expected going into the season.

---

Yes, I had no idea how good they would be last year so I mean based on our knowledge today of how good last year's team was capable of playing. The games with Dort out, then back but not at full strength, Camden and Bell's simultaneous shooting slumps at the start of ACC play. That is the starters, so not even counting Petraitis going out in game 7. I think our 22 wins was on the low side of what that team generally would do if the season were played multiple times. It is the type of team that I wish we had coming back.

However, right now, the team coming in seems deeper than last year but overall I'm guessing a similar result: 21 or 22 wins and bubble territory. Hopefully once I see the starting 5 on the court I will revise that guess upward.

---

I think those shooting slumps were largely caused by weak pre-ACC competition. ACC defenders were bigger and closed more quickly on shooters, greatly contributing (IMO) to Bell and Camden's poor shooting. I'm pretty sure Camden said that he credited the staff and some extra practice with helping him speed up his release. I'm sure it's difficult for Madsen to fine-tune his pre-ACC schedule to gradually ramp up the quality of opponents, but we've now seen the impact of scheduling all cream-puffs. Cal's increased depth should result in more competitive practices and this should also better prepare the starters for game competition.

Beating UCLA and UNC was BIG!

We also swept Stanford and that was the craziest win over ND I've ever seen in person!

Big C said:

---

Underperformed last season? Wow, I thought we performed pretty well, all things considered.

+ beat (F)UCLA and Carolina
+ 20+ wins, way more than in the previous eight seasons
+ finished in the middle of the ACC
+ a win away from being right on the NCAA Tournament bubble; 2 wins away from being in
+ the staff more or less passed the "eye test" to show they can coach (there had been doubts, IMO)

Now we need to take that up another level and we'll be right in the thick of things.

---

Big C said:

---

Underperformed last season? Wow, I thought we performed pretty well, all things considered.

+ beat (F)UCLA and Carolina
+ 20+ wins, way more than in the previous eight seasons
+ finished in the middle of the ACC
+ a win away from being right on the NCAA Tournament bubble; 2 wins away from being in
+ the staff more or less passed the "eye test" to show they can coach (there had been doubts, IMO)

Now we need to take that up another level and we'll be right in the thick of things.

---

You are misunderstanding me. Beating UCLA and North Carolina was not a fluke, it was what we were capable of. Last years's team turned out to be really good, easily Tournament worthy, Yes, it was a pretty good season, but that team was easily capable of winning 25 if things broke better for us.

I count zero scholarships remaining. If Chris Bell gets a 5th year, how are they going to get around the full roster problem?
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/49501415/judge-grants-injunction-class-22-athletes-seeking-play-5th-ncaa-season

barsad said:

---

I count zero scholarships remaining. If Chris Bell gets a 5th year, how are they going to get around the full roster problem?
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/49501415/judge-grants-injunction-class-22-athletes-seeking-play-5th-ncaa-season

---

Could he not be a walk on and get nil

Oakbear said:

---

barsad said:

---

I count zero scholarships remaining. If Chris Bell gets a 5th year, how are they going to get around the full roster problem?
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/49501415/judge-grants-injunction-class-22-athletes-seeking-play-5th-ncaa-season

---

Could he not be a walk on and get nil

---

The NCAA adopted a roster limit of 15 equal to the number of scholarships. The only walkons allowed now are those who were already walkons last year. I'm not sure if we have 15 scholarship players and 3 walkons, or we have 4 walkons and an open position.

That said, I'd think that a court injunction to give the 2022 players a 5th year could be followed up with a court injunction to give them a guaranteed roster spot, even if as a walkon. It is a one-year deal in any case.

calumnus said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

barsad said:

---

I count zero scholarships remaining. If Chris Bell gets a 5th year, how are they going to get around the full roster problem?
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/49501415/judge-grants-injunction-class-22-athletes-seeking-play-5th-ncaa-season

---

Could he not be a walk on and get nil

---

The NCAA adopted a roster limit of 15 equal to the number of scholarships. The only walkons allowed now are those who were already walkons last year. I'm not sure if we have 15 scholarship players and 3 walkons, or we have 4 walkons and an open position.

That said, I'd think that a court injunction to give the 2022 players a 5th year could be followed up with a court injunction to give them a guaranteed roster spot, even if as a walkon. It is a one-year deal in any case.

---

I don't get what you mean by "open position, " which of the following 15 names are you saying does not have a scholarship/locked in roster spot?
Amier Ali - F - 6'8" 210 lbs Jr. from Mississippi St.
Jordan Ross - G - 6'3" 195 lbs Sr. from Georgia
Nojus Indrusaitis - G - 6'5" 200 lbs Jr. from Pitt
Michael Cooper - G - 6'3" 185 lbs So. from Wright St.
Jake Wilkins - SF - 6'9" 185 lbs So. from Georgia
Incoming Freshmen
Gabriel Sularski - SG - 6'6" 205 lbs Fr from Poland
Dominykas Daubaris - PF - 6' 10" Fr. (2 years Euro pro)
Nicolas Mitrovic - PF/C - 7'0" 210 lbs Fr.
Dionycius Bakare - F - 6' 5" 190 lbs. Fr.
From last year's roster:
Semetri (TT) Carr - G - 6'1" So.
Lee Dort - F - 6'10" 235 lbs Gr.
Jovani Ruff - G - 6'5" 205 lbs So.
Dhiaukuei Manyiel Dut - F - 7'0" 210 lbs Jr.
Mantas Kocanas - C - 6'11" 240 lbs Jr.
Sammie Yeanay - F - 6'9" 240 lbs Jr.

A court ordered 16th roster spot (that's really what it is, these 5th years aren't "walkon quality," they're starters) for some teams and not others seems highly unlikely, it would be a competitive advantage and courts are not in the business of tipping the scales in sports.

barsad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

barsad said:

---

I count zero scholarships remaining. If Chris Bell gets a 5th year, how are they going to get around the full roster problem?
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/49501415/judge-grants-injunction-class-22-athletes-seeking-play-5th-ncaa-season

---

Could he not be a walk on and get nil

---

The NCAA adopted a roster limit of 15 equal to the number of scholarships. The only walkons allowed now are those who were already walkons last year. I'm not sure if we have 15 scholarship players and 3 walkons, or we have 4 walkons and an open position.

That said, I'd think that a court injunction to give the 2022 players a 5th year could be followed up with a court injunction to give them a guaranteed roster spot, even if as a walkon. It is a one-year deal in any case.

---

I don't get what you mean by "open position, " which of the following 15 names are you saying does not have a scholarship/locked in roster spot?
Amier Ali - F - 6'8" 210 lbs Jr. from Mississippi St.
Jordan Ross - G - 6'3" 195 lbs Sr. from Georgia
Nojus Indrusaitis - G - 6'5" 200 lbs Jr. from Pitt
Michael Cooper - G - 6'3" 185 lbs So. from Wright St.
Jake Wilkins - SF - 6'9" 185 lbs So. from Georgia
Incoming Freshmen
Gabriel Sularski - SG - 6'6" 205 lbs Fr from Poland
Dominykas Daubaris - PF - 6' 10" Fr. (2 years Euro pro)
Nicolas Mitrovic - PF/C - 7'0" 210 lbs Fr.
Dionycius Bakare - F - 6' 5" 190 lbs. Fr.
From last year's roster:
Semetri (TT) Carr - G - 6'1" So.
Lee Dort - F - 6'10" 235 lbs Gr.
Jovani Ruff - G - 6'5" 205 lbs So.
Dhiaukuei Manyiel Dut - F - 7'0" 210 lbs Jr.
Mantas Kocanas - C - 6'11" 240 lbs Jr.
Sammie Yeanay - F - 6'9" 240 lbs Jr.

A court ordered 16th roster spot (that's really what it is, these 5th years aren't "walkon quality," they're starters) for some teams and not others seems highly unlikely, it would be a competitive advantage and courts are not in the business of tipping the scales in sports.

---

I think those 15 are the 15 scholarship players. Maybe we held a spot open for Carr? However, I don't personally know who has a scholarship and who doesn't, I just know the roster limit is 15, equal to the number of scholarships, but an exception is made for last year's walkons (no one is getting kicked off the team by the NCAA rule, it just eliminates future walkons).

Courts don't care about "competitive advantage" they care about equity for the litigants. The court ruled that it was unfair to the 2022 class to exclude them from the NCAA's new 5 year rule.

The problem is the court ruling came in July, when you can bet that most teams had already filled their rosters. Thus, the new NCAA limit would effectively nullify the court ruling. The "unfairness" for the 2022 class players would continue unless there is a further injunction allowing the 2022 class players to return to their teams (or new teams?) as a further exception to the new 15 player roster limit. That is just a logical conclusion from the first. We will see if that is the way it plays out. Who knows, maybe the NCAA will prevail in their appeal?

It's a competitive advantage to have 16 players instead of 15, no question. If the court grants that, it's just inviting more lawsuits from the teams that play with only 15.
I love that college sports offseason stories are more about legal BS and $$ than they are about basketball.

barsad said:

---

It's a competitive advantage to have 16 players instead of 15, no question. If the court grants that, it's just inviting more lawsuits from the teams that play with only 15.
I love that college sports offseason stories are more about legal BS and $$ than they are about basketball.

---

Who are the teams with "only" 15 going to sue? The court? The judge? If they sue the conference or the NCAA they both have the easy defense that they opposed this and their hand was forced by a court injunction.

Moreover, 2022 players who used 4 years of eligibility would most likely be grad transfers, so just let everyone bid for their services before school starts which is as "fair" as the current market based system.

Moot point for Chris Bell, with this latest clarification from the NCAA.
https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/ncaa-legal-issues-clarification-on-athlete-eligibility-after-recent-injunction-promises-appeal-222858834.html
Bell has already "pursued professional opportunities," so he is ineligible no matter what happens in court.
The NCAA seems to be playing hardball with this 2022 cohort, they really want them to go away. I would think any player with some game has pursued professional opportunities in the last 3 months.

barsad said:

---

Moot point for Chris Bell, with this latest clarification from the NCAA.
https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/ncaa-legal-issues-clarification-on-athlete-eligibility-after-recent-injunction-promises-appeal-222858834.html
Bell has already "pursued professional opportunities," so he is ineligible no matter what happens in court.
The NCAA seems to be playing hardball with this 2022 cohort, they really want them to go away. I would think any player with some game has pursued professional opportunities in the last 3 months.

---

Reading that article, with the NCAA pushing policies like the penalty on coaches for accepting transfers outside of the Portal (after eliminating one of the Portals) the NCAA is just asking for another beat down in court. How is that not the NCAA exerting monopoly or cartel power to restrain trade and limit players' reasonable (end of the school year) desire to transfer to a new school?