Furds disastrous portal season.

19,244 Views | 97 Replies | Last: 24 days ago by calumnus
wifeisafurd
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 Calfan92 • 8:55a, 8/6/26
Calfan92 said:
247 has Furd's recruiting class ranked 17th nationally. Cal sitting at 107 today.

As of today, Furd had no recruits for 2027 according to 247, and in 2026, Stanford had the composite 34th ranked class per 247 used on 5 forth and 2 transfers.. They had five players that also left in the Portal. One transferred to UConn, one toLouisville, and one to Pacific. Nothing so far on the other two. They also loss their star point guard to the NBA. Cal's 2026 class is ranked 65th, but two of the transfer are unranked, and Cal probably starts off with somewhat better returning players

Seems like Smith is playing the same reload game as everyone else. Looks like somewhere from 9th to 12th in the 2026 ACC for the Furdies. I know a lot of folks thought Smith was the second coming, but he seems to be in the same boat as Madsen. Madsen has relied on transfers a little more than Smith, but I think the have a similar projection in the 2026 ACC.
Reply Quote
BeachedBear
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 wifeisafurd • 9:29a, 8/6/26
wifeisafurd said:
Calfan92 said:
247 has Furd's recruiting class ranked 17th nationally. Cal sitting at 107 today.

As of today, Furd had no recruits for 2027 according to 247, and in 2026, Stanford had the composite 34th ranked class per 247 used on 5 forth and 2 transfers.. They had five players that also left in the Portal. One transferred to UConn, one toLouisville, and one to Pacific. Nothing so far on the other two. They also loss their star point guard to the NBA. Cal's 2026 class is ranked 65th, but two of the transfer are unranked, and Cal probably starts off with somewhat better returning players

Seems like Smith is playing the same reload game as everyone else. Looks like somewhere from 9th to 12th in the 2026 ACC for the Furdies. I know a lot of folks thought Smith was the second coming, but he seems to be in the same boat as Madsen. Madsen has relied on transfers a little more than Smith, but I think the have a similar projection in the 2026 ACC.

This reminded me of one of the last conversations I had with Knowlton about basketball coaches (he was clueless about coaches and the game and how it had already changed and was changing before his eyes).

Part of the conversation was about FOX vs Smith (who at the time was heading from USF to WSU). I pointed out how Smith was about 10th on my list of Fox replacements, but even #50 on the list would be a dramatic upgrade (I seriously sent him a list of 100 coaching candidates to replace FOX).

I told him that Smith's replacement at USF might be even better (Todd Golden?).

Anyway, Smith may be one of those coaches who would have been great, but may not adapt to upcoming changes as well as Madsen.

If I had a team of scrappy Juniors and Seniors competing in the WCC - I'd rather have Smith, then Madsen. But for Cal, I feel Madsen it currently a better fit. Who knows what it will be like in 2 years. LOL
Reply Quote
1
stu
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 BeachedBear • 10:46a, 8/6/26
To put it in player terms, I think Madsen has more upside.
Reply Quote
2
AlbanyCard
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 wifeisafurd • 11:35a, 8/6/26
A few responses...

I don't know about second coming, but I do think he's a big upgrade over Stanford's last few coaches. He's very good at finding diamonds in the rough and evaluating talent more generally. I like his quant. system, too.

You mention losing his star PG, but it's also worth mentioning that he got this guy on the Farm in the first place and lost him only to the NBA first round, which has turned heads among recruits. I'd also mention that he has more top-100 recruits visiting this fall than in the first two years.

I don't think a Stanford player transferred to Louisville. Loyola, you mean? Giltay hurt some, but the other guys were encouraged to move on, from what I've heard.

Money's been tight for the MBB program, or so we've heard. Apparently that's going to improve in the coming year and going forward. We'll see, that's a big if, given Stanford's reluctance to join the fray.
Reply Quote
5
calumnus
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 stu • 8:26p, 8/6/26
stu said:
To put it in player terms, I think Madsen has more upside.


I don't think Madsen has more upside over Kyle Smith, but I definitely think Cal has more upside over Stanford, especially in the current environment.

Kyle Smith's great differentiating skill is "Moneyball" for college basketball, finding diamonds in the rough, but that is best applied when you can data mine the 4,949 players in the transfer portal. Still, being the Stanford coach in the current environment takes very strategic thinking, and that's is where Kyle Smith excels. If Madsen did better at Stanford than Smith, it would only be because, as a Stanford alum and beloved former star, he would probably do a great job fundraising for NIL there.

I am happy enough with Madsen at Cal, and really appreciate how he has embraced the school, but I still really think Knowlton missed the ball when he hired Fox instead of Smith and by not at least calling Smith on the last hire. Water under the bridge. Madsen is the guy and I really appreciated the team he put together last year. I think in most years they win 25. Hopefully this year's team is as good or better.
Reply Quote
6
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 calumnus • 2:07p, 8/7/26
calumnus said:
stu said:
To put it in player terms, I think Madsen has more upside.


I don't think Madsen has more upside over Kyle Smith, but I definitely think Cal has more upside over Stanford, especially in the current environment.

Kyle Smith's great differentiating skill is "Moneyball" for college basketball, finding diamonds in the rough, but that is best applied when you can data mine the 4,949 players in the transfer portal. Still, being the Stanford coach in the current environment takes very strategic thinking, and that's is where Kyle Smith excels. If Madsen did better at Stanford than Smith, it would only be because, as a Stanford alum and beloved former star, he would probably do a great job fundraising for NIL there.

I am happy enough with Madsen at Cal, and really appreciate how he has embraced the school, but I still really think Knowlton missed the ball when he hired Fox instead of Smith and by not at least calling Smith on the last hire. Water under the bridge. Madsen is the guy and I really appreciated the team he put together last year. I think in most years they win 25. Hopefully this year's team is as good or better.

I do think Madsen has more upside. As a head coach, Smith is a finished product, and a good one. I think Madsen is still a work-in-progress, but he learns from his mistakes; recruiting, scheme, in-game strategy, etc have all gradually improved. I give Madsen some "diamond in the rough" credit for Dort's development (still an unfinished product, for sure), and for that matter, helping Pippen jump-start his college career. Cal is finally giving Madsen a bit more institutional support and he's now pursuing some European players, so like you, I'm pretty upbeat.
Reply Quote
5
calumnus
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 • 4:38p, 8/8/26
HearstMining said:
calumnus said:
stu said:
To put it in player terms, I think Madsen has more upside.


I don't think Madsen has more upside over Kyle Smith, but I definitely think Cal has more upside over Stanford, especially in the current environment.

Kyle Smith's great differentiating skill is "Moneyball" for college basketball, finding diamonds in the rough, but that is best applied when you can data mine the 4,949 players in the transfer portal. Still, being the Stanford coach in the current environment takes very strategic thinking, and that's is where Kyle Smith excels. If Madsen did better at Stanford than Smith, it would only be because, as a Stanford alum and beloved former star, he would probably do a great job fundraising for NIL there.

I am happy enough with Madsen at Cal, and really appreciate how he has embraced the school, but I still really think Knowlton missed the ball when he hired Fox instead of Smith and by not at least calling Smith on the last hire. Water under the bridge. Madsen is the guy and I really appreciated the team he put together last year. I think in most years they win 25. Hopefully this year's team is as good or better.

I do think Madsen has more upside. As a head coach, Smith is a finished product, and a good one. I think Madsen is still a work-in-progress, but he learns from his mistakes; recruiting, scheme, in-game strategy, etc have all gradually improved. I give Madsen some "diamond in the rough" credit for Dort's development (still an unfinished product, for sure), and for that matter, helping Pippen jump-start his college career. Cal is finally giving Madsen a bit more institutional support and he's now pursuing some European players, so like you, I'm pretty upbeat.

Ok, I get your meaning, and yes in the abstract, Madsen has "more growth" potential as a coach. He has shown a lot of improvement in just three years at Cal.

I was thinking more in terms of output, as in which coach gives his school more upside potential? I think Smith has done that consistently at St. Mary's, Columbia, USF, WSU and now Stanford. I was also thinking of it in terms of "which coach might get his team from current bubble territory to the NCAA Tournament or a Sweet 16." I just think Stanford is a tougher spot than Cal to succeed in the current environment and Cal/Madsen has more "upside potential" than "Stanford/Smith."
Reply Quote
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 calumnus • 9:29a, 8/9/26
I don't count Stanford out

All it takes is a few of their mega donors to supercharge that program under Smith as he is a great coach.

I wouldn't be surprised if the donation was for a new basketball facility instead of purely for NIL as their area is very old and unimpressive

Smith signed a top freshman class. With NIL he could launch them

However I could say the same thing about Cal under Madsen. We need a couple mega donors.
Reply Quote
2
AlbanyCard
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 • 11:55a, 8/9/26
Agreed on the one hand. Between Lacob (MBA grad), who reportedly plays pickup hoops on the Farm twice a week, and Arillaga, Jr., who reportedly offered to pay Okorie's salary if he'd deferred entering the draft, there are deep-pocket benefactors waiting in the wings.

But on the other, it's not so easy or simple at Stanford, which has apparently refused to play the game (everyone else is) when it comes to revenue sharing and NIL. I've heard from boosters that there's a contingent at Stanford, led by the likes of Condi Rice, who are either in denial or overly righteous for this moment.

At some point, Stanford'll need to reconcile this, either adapting or contracting. I think for now they're waiting for this circus to be regulated and reined in, but in the meantime?
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
calumnus
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 AlbanyCard • 3:24p, 8/9/26
AlbanyCard said:
Agreed on the one hand. Between Lacob (MBA grad), who reportedly plays pickup hoops on the Farm twice a week, and Arillaga, Jr., who reportedly offered to pay Okorie's salary if he'd deferred entering the draft, there are deep-pocket benefactors waiting in the wings.

But on the other, it's not so easy or simple at Stanford, which has apparently refused to play the game (everyone else is) when it comes to revenue sharing and NIL. I've heard from boosters that there's a contingent at Stanford, led by the likes of Condi Rice, who are either in denial or overly righteous for this moment.

At some point, Stanford'll need to reconcile this, either adapting or contracting. I think for now they're waiting for this circus to be regulated and reined in, but in the meantime?

So Stanford has chosen to "opt out" of the House Settlement? Does Stanford have an NIL collective? Or is it individuals making NIL deals?
Reply Quote
AlbanyCard
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 calumnus • 4:40p, 8/9/26
My understanding, from having spoken with a few folks I trust, is that Stanford has been playing by the House Settlement "rules" at a moment when most everyone else sees these "rules" for what they are, a very loose set of guidelines and a free-for-all without much oversight (that can and might as well be exploited until they can no longer be). An NIL collective or two sprang up, but then the uni disallowed them to pay the players directly and/or to contrive NIL pretext, or so I've heard. Kinda laughable, given the times we're in, and so Stanford.

Meanwhile in comes Kyle Smith, finally a great coach we can build around, and he's working with one arm tied behind his back. If he didn't happen to have a personal affinity to the Bay Area and, in particular, for Stanford's autism clinic that provides key services to his son and family, I'm not sure he'd stick around much longer. Even so, who knows. But, there've been rumors that something's about to give and should free things up in the coming year. We'll see how the 2027 portal and retention efforts go -- they will tell us a lot.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
calumnus
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 AlbanyCard • 5:49p, 8/9/26
AlbanyCard said:
My understanding, from having spoken with a few folks I trust, is that Stanford has been playing by the House Settlement "rules" at a moment when most everyone else sees these "rules" for what they are, a very loose set of guidelines and a free-for-all without much oversight (that can and might as well be exploited until they can no longer be). An NIL collective or two sprang up, but then the uni disallowed them to pay the players directly and/or to contrive NIL pretext, or so I've heard. Kinda laughable, given the times we're in, and so Stanford.

Meanwhile in comes Kyle Smith, finally a great coach we can build around, and he's working with one arm tied behind his back. If he didn't happen to have a personal affinity to the Bay Area and, in particular, for Stanford's autism clinic that provides key services to his son and family, I'm not sure he'd stick around much longer. Even so, who knows. But, there've been rumors that something's about to give and should free things up in the coming year. We'll see how the 2027 portal and retention efforts go -- they will tell us a lot.

It is crazy the number of people on this board who defended Knowlton and his hirings by repeatedly stating as an absolute fact that Kyle would not have taken the Cal job and then would never move back to the Bay Area because Eastern Washington was his dream location and WSU was his dream school.

I am happy enough with Madsen, but Kyle Smith should have been contacted and interviewed for our last two hirings, he wasn't and people on this board lied to defend that. So glad Knowlton and Fox (and Wilcox) are finally gone.
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 calumnus • 10:39p, 8/9/26
calumnus said:
AlbanyCard said:
My understanding, from having spoken with a few folks I trust, is that Stanford has been playing by the House Settlement "rules" at a moment when most everyone else sees these "rules" for what they are, a very loose set of guidelines and a free-for-all without much oversight (that can and might as well be exploited until they can no longer be). An NIL collective or two sprang up, but then the uni disallowed them to pay the players directly and/or to contrive NIL pretext, or so I've heard. Kinda laughable, given the times we're in, and so Stanford.

Meanwhile in comes Kyle Smith, finally a great coach we can build around, and he's working with one arm tied behind his back. If he didn't happen to have a personal affinity to the Bay Area and, in particular, for Stanford's autism clinic that provides key services to his son and family, I'm not sure he'd stick around much longer. Even so, who knows. But, there've been rumors that something's about to give and should free things up in the coming year. We'll see how the 2027 portal and retention efforts go -- they will tell us a lot.

It is crazy the number of people on this board who defended Knowlton and his hirings by repeatedly stating as an absolute fact that Kyle would not have taken the Cal job and then would never move back to the Bay Area because Eastern Washington was his dream location and WSU was his dream school.

I am happy enough with Madsen, but Kyle Smith should have been contacted and interviewed for our last two hirings, he wasn't and people on this board lied to defend that. So glad Knowlton and Fox (and Wilcox) are finally gone.

It's unfortunate that a statement by one poster (I'm not implying anybody in particular), with no corroborating evidence, is repeated by others until it suddenly becomes "fact". Another example is/are the various claims around Mendoza's departure: who said what to whom and when did they say it. When it comes right down to it, if you didn't hear it at Boston Market, it just aint so.
Reply Quote
4
wifeisafurd
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 AlbanyCard • 9:31a, 8/10/26
AlbanyCard said:
A few responses...

I don't know about second coming, but I do think he's a big upgrade over Stanford's last few coaches. He's very good at finding diamonds in the rough and evaluating talent more generally. I like his quant. system, too.

You mention losing his star PG, but it's also worth mentioning that he got this guy on the Farm in the first place and lost him only to the NBA first round, which has turned heads among recruits. I'd also mention that he has more top-100 recruits visiting this fall than in the first two years.

I don't think a Stanford player transferred to Louisville. Loyola, you mean? Giltay hurt some, but the other guys were encouraged to move on, from what I've heard.

Money's been tight for the MBB program, or so we've heard. Apparently that's going to improve in the coming year and going forward. We'll see, that's a big if, given Stanford's reluctance to join the fray.

Smith is a good coach. Same thing is apparent with Madsen. Problem is they are in a basketball heavyweight conference, and they don't have the funding to compete money wise and the fact that a both schools, there are academic requirements that are different that most other schools. So the question is are they such good coaches, that doesn't matter. Monty was, but he had stable rosters, but that isn't the enviroment now. The fact that Smith and Madsen have some guys in the NBA should help, and at both schools there will be an announcement that will be meaningful.

But at both schools right now, I look at the rosters and see middle to back half of the conference talent, and churning rosters.
Reply Quote
5
Bobodeluxe
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 wifeisafurd • 8:37p, 8/10/26
wifeisafurd said:
AlbanyCard said:
A few responses...

I don't know about second coming, but I do think he's a big upgrade over Stanford's last few coaches. He's very good at finding diamonds in the rough and evaluating talent more generally. I like his quant. system, too.

You mention losing his star PG, but it's also worth mentioning that he got this guy on the Farm in the first place and lost him only to the NBA first round, which has turned heads among recruits. I'd also mention that he has more top-100 recruits visiting this fall than in the first two years.

I don't think a Stanford player transferred to Louisville. Loyola, you mean? Giltay hurt some, but the other guys were encouraged to move on, from what I've heard.

Money's been tight for the MBB program, or so we've heard. Apparently that's going to improve in the coming year and going forward. We'll see, that's a big if, given Stanford's reluctance to join the fray.

Smith is a good coach. Same thing is apparent with Madsen. Problem is they are in a basketball heavyweight conference, and they don't have the funding to compete money wise and the fact that a both schools, there are academic requirements that are different that most other schools. So the question is are they such good coaches, that doesn't matter. Monty was, but he had stable rosters, but that isn't the enviroment now. The fact that Smith and Madsen have some guys in the NBA should help, and at both schools there will be an announcement that will be meaningful.

But at both schools right now, I look at the rosters and see middle to back half of the conference talent, and churning rosters.

And don't forget, empty arenas with stupidly priced tickets.
Reply Quote
1
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 wifeisafurd • 4:22p, 8/11/26
wifeisafurd said:
The fact that Smith and Madsen have some guys in the NBA should help, and at both schools there will be an announcement that will be meaningful.

But at both schools right now, I look at the rosters and see middle to back half of the conference talent, and churning rosters.

Madsen has "some guys" in the NBA? Does Jaylon have multiple personalities?
Totally agree that "coaching prowess," however that's defined, is lost as a factor when the systemic disadvantages you describe are so great.
Cal has never been known as a launching pad to the NBA, our 21st century average rate is like 1 player every four years (do the math). Madsen can't change that with a lucky Jaylon spin of the portal roulette wheel, though of course I hope he hits his number every year.
Reply Quote
1 edit
wifeisafurd
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 • 11:26p, 8/12/26
barsad said:
wifeisafurd said:
The fact that Smith and Madsen have some guys in the NBA should help, and at both schools there will be an announcement that will be meaningful.

But at both schools right now, I look at the rosters and see middle to back half of the conference talent, and churning rosters.

Madsen has "some guys" in the NBA? Does Jaylon have multiple personalities?

Let me repeat what I wrote: "[t]he fact that Smith and Madsen have some guys in the NBA should help."

Raynaud, Jones and Tyson would qualify as some under the common definition of some.

I'm assuming Okrie makes a roster this year, and that if he keeps improving Dort does as well in the following year
Reply Quote
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 wifeisafurd • 9:36a, 8/13/26
wifeisafurd said:
barsad said:
wifeisafurd said:
The fact that Smith and Madsen have some guys in the NBA should help, and at both schools there will be an announcement that will be meaningful.

But at both schools right now, I look at the rosters and see middle to back half of the conference talent, and churning rosters.

Madsen has "some guys" in the NBA? Does Jaylon have multiple personalities?

Let me repeat what I wrote: "[t]he fact that Smith and Madsen have some guys in the NBA should help."

Raynaud, Jones and Tyson would qualify as some under the common definition of some.

I'm assuming Okrie makes a roster this year, and that if he keeps improving Dort does as well in the following year

The "some" comment was there for laughs, but I guess I bombed.
I was nodding yes until you got to Dort. Unfortunately he will never see the inside of an NBA arena unless he buys a ticket.
Reply Quote
2 edits
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 barsad • 10:17a, 8/15/26
barsad said:
wifeisafurd said:
barsad said:
wifeisafurd said:
The fact that Smith and Madsen have some guys in the NBA should help, and at both schools there will be an announcement that will be meaningful.

But at both schools right now, I look at the rosters and see middle to back half of the conference talent, and churning rosters.

Madsen has "some guys" in the NBA? Does Jaylon have multiple personalities?

Let me repeat what I wrote: "[t]he fact that Smith and Madsen have some guys in the NBA should help."

Raynaud, Jones and Tyson would qualify as some under the common definition of some.

I'm assuming Okrie makes a roster this year, and that if he keeps improving Dort does as well in the following year

The "some" comment was there for laughs, but I guess I bombed.
I was nodding yes until you got to Dort. Unfortunately he will never see the inside of an NBA arena unless he buys a ticket.

You're probably right about Dort. But I'll be Mr. Sunshine and say, REMEMBER FRANCISCO ELSON!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Elson
Reply Quote
wifeisafurd
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 • 1:20p, 8/20/26
barsad said:
wifeisafurd said:
barsad said:
wifeisafurd said:
The fact that Smith and Madsen have some guys in the NBA should help, and at both schools there will be an announcement that will be meaningful.

But at both schools right now, I look at the rosters and see middle to back half of the conference talent, and churning rosters.

Madsen has "some guys" in the NBA? Does Jaylon have multiple personalities?

Let me repeat what I wrote: "[t]he fact that Smith and Madsen have some guys in the NBA should help."

Raynaud, Jones and Tyson would qualify as some under the common definition of some.

I'm assuming Okrie makes a roster this year, and that if he keeps improving Dort does as well in the following year

The "some" comment was there for laughs, but I guess I bombed.
I was nodding yes until you got to Dort. Unfortunately he will never see the inside of an NBA arena unless he buys a ticket.

I hope you are wrong on Dort, but you could be right. There are some parts to his game that need refinement.
Reply Quote
calumnus
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 • 5:49p, 8/20/26
barsad said:
wifeisafurd said:
barsad said:
wifeisafurd said:
The fact that Smith and Madsen have some guys in the NBA should help, and at both schools there will be an announcement that will be meaningful.

But at both schools right now, I look at the rosters and see middle to back half of the conference talent, and churning rosters.

Madsen has "some guys" in the NBA? Does Jaylon have multiple personalities?

Let me repeat what I wrote: "[t]he fact that Smith and Madsen have some guys in the NBA should help."

Raynaud, Jones and Tyson would qualify as some under the common definition of some.

I'm assuming Okrie makes a roster this year, and that if he keeps improving Dort does as well in the following year

The "some" comment was there for laughs, but I guess I bombed.
I was nodding yes until you got to Dort. Unfortunately he will never see the inside of an NBA arena unless he buys a ticket.

I usually think you are WAY too hard on Dort and think you made your opinion about him his first year, because he improved dramatically last year to the point he was, statistically, our most valuable player per minute played. His defensive rebounding percentage (27.2%) was #1 in the ACC and he was #3 in the ACC in total rebound %. That makes him an extremely valuable college big man, especially on a good three point shooting team like we had last year.

However, while he is now a very good college big man, based on his rebounding, at 6'10 he is going to need to be a much better offensive player to make the NBA. Better offensive rebounder, more efficient scoring inside on put backs and dunks, probably even show he has a good 3 pt shot and since he has not even ever attempted one, I assume he doesn't.

For perspective, about 10 college PFs and 5 college Cs get drafted each year. There is no way he is close to being one of the 15 or 20 best big men in college. He is good for college, but there are 365 D1 men's basketball teams in the NCAA. Unless he develops substantially this year, his future at this point is D-League or overseas, but he has another year to develop, so anything is possible. I am rooting for him. Really glad to have him back and optimistic he can continue his growth as a player.
Reply Quote
5
3 edits
HoopDreams
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:36p, 8/20/26
we are VERY fortunate to have Dort

Reply Quote
8
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 HoopDreams • 12:31a, 8/25/26
This just in from AI, who I never fact check, after 10 seconds of research"
"No, Lee Dort does not rank in the top 100 nationally when looking at holistic career stats or player rankings for NCAA centers. However, his placement depends heavily on which specific metric you look at:
Individual Statistical CategoriesRebounding: This is his highest-ranking stat. For the 202526 season, his 7.8 rebounds per game ranked 79th overall in the entire nation.
Defensive Rebounding: He excelled here, with his 5.7 defensive rebounds per game ranking 61st in the country.
Points and Assists: He falls well outside the top 100 (and top 150+) nationally, averaging 8.1 points and 0.9 assists per game.

I'm not sure why I get so much flack for being realistic on Dort… a lot of homers here, I guess. Of course I'm rooting for Dort to take us to the tournament, just like every other Cal fan. Yes, technically anything can happen, and Dort could improve his natural ability by 25%, but I don't live life hoping for a miracle (learned that the hard way in the last presidential election).

I just want to, at some point in the near future, not SETTLE for a roster and a center where my rose-colored fan glasses tell me how fortunate we are to have the 100th best fill-in-the-blank.
Reply Quote
AlbanyCard
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:06a, 8/25/26
I wrote earlier how I was hoping Stanford would get Okpara or Rohosy back after the 5-in-5 injunction for class-of-'22 players, but Smith seems to have gotten someone better. Surprising news given that the Stanford admin. has reportedly been in agreement with the NCAA on this point (and many others, sadly). I dunno, this "disastrous" offseason is feeling like Smith's best since landing on the Farm.

https://instagr.am/p/DceBk7JN5-W
Reply Quote
2 edits
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 AlbanyCard • 11:59a, 8/25/26
Impressive stats, but of course Ivy stats come at a discount when you start to play with the Big Boys. The match up with Ali, Wilkins or maybe Yeanay/Indrusaitis on our side will be fun to watch when we ice the Furd in both Hardwood Big Games!
Reply Quote
1 edit
Civil Bear
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 • 12:40p, 8/25/26
barsad said:
I'm not sure why I get so much flack for being realistic on Dort… a lot of homers here, I guess. Of course I'm rooting for Dort to take us to the tournament, just like every other Cal fan. Yes, technically anything can happen, and Dort could improve his natural ability by 25%, but I don't live life hoping for a miracle (learned that the hard way in the last presidential election).

I just want to, at some point in the near future, not SETTLE for a roster and a center where my rose-colored fan glasses tell me how fortunate we are to have the 100th best fill-in-the-blank.

Probably because he plays hard, has markedly improved every year, and could have chosen to go elsewhere.

Despite his age, he still has more upside. Let's not forget he was very raw out of HS, and injuries have significantly curtailed his experience since then.
Reply Quote
AlbanyCard
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 • 1:34p, 8/25/26
Boo! You better not sweep us again.

You mentioned that Ivy discount, but Ivy League POY has translated well to P5 and even the League. His BPR (6.17) is through the roof for Stanford's standards. I mean, we've been happy to get half that. We'll see. Wake me up when it's November.
Reply Quote
calumnus
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 • 1:57p, 8/25/26
barsad said:
This just in from AI, who I never fact check, after 10 seconds of research"
"No, Lee Dort does not rank in the top 100 nationally when looking at holistic career stats or player rankings for NCAA centers. However, his placement depends heavily on which specific metric you look at:
Individual Statistical CategoriesRebounding: This is his highest-ranking stat. For the 202526 season, his 7.8 rebounds per game ranked 79th overall in the entire nation.
Defensive Rebounding: He excelled here, with his 5.7 defensive rebounds per game ranking 61st in the country.
Points and Assists: He falls well outside the top 100 (and top 150+) nationally, averaging 8.1 points and 0.9 assists per game.

I'm not sure why I get so much flack for being realistic on Dort… a lot of homers here, I guess. Of course I'm rooting for Dort to take us to the tournament, just like every other Cal fan. Yes, technically anything can happen, and Dort could improve his natural ability by 25%, but I don't live life hoping for a miracle (learned that the hard way in the last presidential election).

I just want to, at some point in the near future, not SETTLE for a roster and a center where my rose-colored fan glasses tell me how fortunate we are to have the 100th best fill-in-the-blank.

His per season and per game stats were reduced by his injury and then limited PT when back.

His most impressive stat is his 27.2 defensive rebounding percentage last year which was #1 in the ACC and just outside the Top 10 nationally.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.