Please answer one of these multiple choice options after reading the statement (maybe a moderator can start an actual poll):
After the 2026-27 season is over, the minimum acceptable outcome (not aspirational, the minimum) for me to say that Mark Madsen is succeeding and has this team on the right track will be:
A. Between 17 and 21 wins, no tournament bid
B. Same as last year, 22 Ws and no tournament.
C. 23 Ws or more and a tournament bid.
D. Don't care how many wins, but a tournament bid must be achieved.
E. I'll believe in Madsen even if the team tanks for whatever reason.

Madsen Career Stats
Season School Conf G W L W-L% SRS SOS
2019-20 Utah Valley WAC 30 11 19 .367 -7.47 -4.18
2020-21 Utah Valley WAC 22 11 11 .500 -3.41 -1.61
2021-22 Utah Valley WAC 32 20 12 .625 2.37 -1.60
2022-23 Utah Valley WAC 37 28 9 .757 8.48 1.83

2023-24 California Pac-12 32 13 19 .406 4.94 8.00
2024-25 California ACC 33 14 19 .424 5.48 6.69
2025-26 California ACC 34 22 12 .647 11.15 6.82
Career Overall 220 119 101 .541 3.08 2.28
Utah Valley Men's 121 70 51 .579 -0.01 -1.39
California Men's 99 49 50 .495 7.19 7.17
SRS -- Simple Rating System
A rating that takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average. Non-Division I games are excluded from the ratings.
SOS -- Strength of Schedule
A rating of strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average. Non-Division I games are excluded from the ratings.

barsad said:

---

Please answer one of these multiple choice options after reading the statement (maybe a moderator can start an actual poll):
After the 2026-27 is over, the minimum acceptable outcome (not aspirational, the minimum) for me to say that Mark Madsen is succeeding and has this team on the right track will be:
A. Between 17 and 21 wins, no tournament bid
B. Same as last year, 22 Ws and no tournament.
C. 23 Ws or more and a tournament bid.
D. Don't care how many wins, but a tournament bid must be achieved.
E. I'll believe in Madsen even if the team tanks for whatever reason.

Madsen Career Stats
Season School Conf G W L W-L% SRS SOS
2019-20 Utah Valley WAC 30 11 19 .367 -7.47 -4.18
2020-21 Utah Valley WAC 22 11 11 .500 -3.41 -1.61
2021-22 Utah Valley WAC 32 20 12 .625 2.37 -1.60
2022-23 Utah Valley WAC 37 28 9 .757 8.48 1.83

2023-24 California Pac-12 32 13 19 .406 4.94 8.00
2024-25 California ACC 33 14 19 .424 5.48 6.69
2025-26 California ACC 34 22 12 .647 11.15 6.82
Career Overall 220 119 101 .541 3.08 2.28
Utah Valley Men's 121 70 51 .579 -0.01 -1.39
California Men's 99 49 50 .495 7.19 7.17
SRS -- Simple Rating System
A rating that takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average. Non-Division I games are excluded from the ratings.
SOS -- Strength of Schedule
A rating of strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average. Non-Division I games are excluded from the ratings.

---

The thing that stands out is his constant improvement in SRS (team strength independent of schedule and record) every year at both schools. Last year's team was his best ever, and I believe it underperformed due to injuries, untimely shooting slumps and a few games against terrible teams dragging down our SRS. I really wish we had that team coming back for another run.

If this year's team can be as good or better, finish above .500 in the ACC and keep us hoping for the post season until the end of the season (at least in the bubble watch), I will be satisfied. Better, in the Tournament, I'd be ecstatic. Worse, I'd be disappointed.

I'll call that a "B" vote. I'm probably the same (but in my heart of hearts I'm a D, the tourney drought must end) … Madsen is a victim of his own success, 22Ws is a high bar to reach every season (at least by 2016-2026 Cal standards), so I worry that any less and the torches and pitchforks gang will come out.

Maybe the mods could make this a fan poll. The current one hasn't changed for months.

barsad said:

---

I'll call that a "B" vote. I'm probably the same (but in my heart of hearts I'm a D, the tourney drought must end) … Madsen is a victim of his own success, 22Ws is a high bar to reach every season (at least by 2016-2026 Cal standards), so I worry that any less and the torches and pitchforks gang will come out.

---

Yeah, probably B. At least don't take a step back and then let's see what he does in 2027-28.

As a reminder, after his initial 5 year contract, Knowlton extended him through 2028-2029.

I think he needs to make the Tournament in the next two years or we should start thinking about other options.

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

I'll call that a "B" vote. I'm probably the same (but in my heart of hearts I'm a D, the tourney drought must end) … Madsen is a victim of his own success, 22Ws is a high bar to reach every season (at least by 2016-2026 Cal standards), so I worry that any less and the torches and pitchforks gang will come out.

---

Yeah, probably B. At least don't take a step back and then let's see what he does in 2027-28.

As a reminder, after his initial 5 year contract, Knowlton extended him through 2028-2029.

I think he needs to make the Tournament in the next two years or we should start thinking about other options.

---

Hes handicapped due to pay for play so its hard to have any expectations Justcwin all the home games.

I find the wording of the OP a bit absurd. Great discussion for the GM and AD to have with Madsen. Not sure I would have worded it that way. "Minimum"?

But I think I get your point. Maybe at what level, does a concerned fan escalate to the GM/AD or stop buying tickets etc. Or maybe what are your expectations for the upcoming season.

My expectation/hope is probably D. A,B and C really depend on the context of the season and new players.

No one should have the mindset of E - that is for the religious.

Sure, choices A,B, and C are dependent on players, but Madsen has to own a large portion of that since he selected them (limited somewhat by the size of his "payroll" budget). I'd probably choose option B as acceptable, but disappointing. I think a realistic goal is a conference record of something like 12-6. That would probably get them in the tournament, right? As in football, Cal has to beat the teams in their conference.

barsad said:

---

Please answer one of these multiple choice options after reading the statement (maybe a moderator can start an actual poll):
After the 2026-27 season is over, the minimum acceptable outcome (not aspirational, the minimum) for me to say that Mark Madsen is succeeding and has this team on the right track will be:
A. Between 17 and 21 wins, no tournament bid
B. Same as last year, 22 Ws and no tournament.
C. 23 Ws or more and a tournament bid.
D. Don't care how many wins, but a tournament bid must be achieved.
E. I'll believe in Madsen even if the team tanks for whatever reason.

Madsen Career Stats
Season School Conf G W L W-L% SRS SOS
2019-20 Utah Valley WAC 30 11 19 .367 -7.47 -4.18
2020-21 Utah Valley WAC 22 11 11 .500 -3.41 -1.61
2021-22 Utah Valley WAC 32 20 12 .625 2.37 -1.60
2022-23 Utah Valley WAC 37 28 9 .757 8.48 1.83

2023-24 California Pac-12 32 13 19 .406 4.94 8.00
2024-25 California ACC 33 14 19 .424 5.48 6.69
2025-26 California ACC 34 22 12 .647 11.15 6.82
Career Overall 220 119 101 .541 3.08 2.28
Utah Valley Men's 121 70 51 .579 -0.01 -1.39
California Men's 99 49 50 .495 7.19 7.17
SRS -- Simple Rating System
A rating that takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average. Non-Division I games are excluded from the ratings.
SOS -- Strength of Schedule
A rating of strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average. Non-Division I games are excluded from the ratings.

---

Good question, but tough to answer before the season starts. Winning 22 games last year seems like progress, but exactly how much progress when you consider the OOC schedule strength and questionable ACC conference strength given its' poor showing in the tournament? Then you have level of play - the offensive sets were improved compared to the first two years (although teams seemed to figure out how to defend it better at the end of the year). What will the level of play look like this season? Overall, last year was an improvement, but not enough to convince me Madsen is the answer. We'll see how this year goes.

With that said and taking a step back, is it even reasonable to expect Cal to make the tournament given NIL constraints? It was reported Justin Pippen received $3 million from Ohio State. That's insane and Cal simply can't compete with that. Given NIL issues, should Madsen be graded on a curve?

HKBear97! said:

---

barsad said:

---

Please answer one of these multiple choice options after reading the statement (maybe a moderator can start an actual poll):
After the 2026-27 season is over, the minimum acceptable outcome (not aspirational, the minimum) for me to say that Mark Madsen is succeeding and has this team on the right track will be:
A. Between 17 and 21 wins, no tournament bid
B. Same as last year, 22 Ws and no tournament.
C. 23 Ws or more and a tournament bid.
D. Don't care how many wins, but a tournament bid must be achieved.
E. I'll believe in Madsen even if the team tanks for whatever reason.

Madsen Career Stats
Season School Conf G W L W-L% SRS SOS
2019-20 Utah Valley WAC 30 11 19 .367 -7.47 -4.18
2020-21 Utah Valley WAC 22 11 11 .500 -3.41 -1.61
2021-22 Utah Valley WAC 32 20 12 .625 2.37 -1.60
2022-23 Utah Valley WAC 37 28 9 .757 8.48 1.83

2023-24 California Pac-12 32 13 19 .406 4.94 8.00
2024-25 California ACC 33 14 19 .424 5.48 6.69
2025-26 California ACC 34 22 12 .647 11.15 6.82
Career Overall 220 119 101 .541 3.08 2.28
Utah Valley Men's 121 70 51 .579 -0.01 -1.39
California Men's 99 49 50 .495 7.19 7.17
SRS -- Simple Rating System
A rating that takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average. Non-Division I games are excluded from the ratings.
SOS -- Strength of Schedule
A rating of strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average. Non-Division I games are excluded from the ratings.

---

Good question, but tough to answer before the season starts. Winning 22 games last year seems like progress, but exactly how much progress when you consider the OOC schedule strength and questionable ACC conference strength given its' poor showing in the tournament? Then you have level of play - the offensive sets were improved compared to the first two years (although teams seemed to figure out how to defend it better at the end of the year). What will the level of play look like this season? Overall, last year was an improvement, but not enough to convince me Madsen is the answer. We'll see how this year goes.

With that said and taking a step back, is it even reasonable to expect Cal to make the tournament given NIL constraints? It was reported Justin Pippen received $3 million from Ohio State. That's insane and Cal simply can't compete with that. Given NIL issues, should Madsen be graded on a curve?

---

I think in basketball the HC needs to be the GM essentially. There needs to be a strategy that makes sense and then see if that strategy works. Maybe using Cal's academic reputation and location to get top international players that can't be paid? Maybe a Moneyball approach using data to mine the best under the radar players from a lower level?

However, ultimately, I think that the Cal head coach needs to be able to connect with Cal fans, East Bay (Warriors) basketball fans and especially the big Cal donors and find someone (or a group) who wants to "own the franchise." That was my main objection to Knowlton hiring a Stanford (and Lakers) star and not a Cal star or at least involving the big donors in the process. Madsen has exceeded my expectations in his embracing Cal and I think he is a good college basketball coach. He is a bit of a Ted Lasso in real life. I don't know how he is connecting with Cal donors, but I think it will be critical to get to being a regular Tournament team (the goal IMO). The next two years will determine if he is the right coach for Cal.

18 wins. We play in a VERY hard league and have to travel plus, the powers that be have decided that Basketball (and basketball donors) must pull their weight when Cal traditionally has underinvested/undervalued BB donor only funnels.

barsad said:

---

Please answer one of these multiple choice options after reading the statement (maybe a moderator can start an actual poll):
After the 2026-27 season is over, the minimum acceptable outcome (not aspirational, the minimum) for me to say that Mark Madsen is succeeding and has this team on the right track will be:
A. Between 17 and 21 wins, no tournament bid
B. Same as last year, 22 Ws and no tournament.
C. 23 Ws or more and a tournament bid.
D. Don't care how many wins, but a tournament bid must be achieved.
E. I'll believe in Madsen even if the team tanks for whatever reason.

Madsen Career Stats
Season School Conf G W L W-L% SRS SOS
2019-20 Utah Valley WAC 30 11 19 .367 -7.47 -4.18
2020-21 Utah Valley WAC 22 11 11 .500 -3.41 -1.61
2021-22 Utah Valley WAC 32 20 12 .625 2.37 -1.60
2022-23 Utah Valley WAC 37 28 9 .757 8.48 1.83

2023-24 California Pac-12 32 13 19 .406 4.94 8.00
2024-25 California ACC 33 14 19 .424 5.48 6.69
2025-26 California ACC 34 22 12 .647 11.15 6.82
Career Overall 220 119 101 .541 3.08 2.28
Utah Valley Men's 121 70 51 .579 -0.01 -1.39
California Men's 99 49 50 .495 7.19 7.17
SRS -- Simple Rating System
A rating that takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average. Non-Division I games are excluded from the ratings.
SOS -- Strength of Schedule
A rating of strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average. Non-Division I games are excluded from the ratings.

---

Here's the problem with how we do this. We look at this every year as what is reasonable to expect this team to accomplish. Well, that's heavily influenced by what we have done. If we were Sweet 16 last year, you'd say we need a Sweet Sixteen, but that isn't even a choice because we haven't made that progression. If we had won 10 last year, you probably don't even have tournament as an option. But this isn't how you determine if a program is succeeding.

Four years without a tournament bid is not a successful program. I don't see how it can be argued otherwise. If we were a successful program, we'd have progressed to a point where all of you would say D and there would be better options to choose from.

So I'm at D.

Does that mean i think Madsen specifically has done a bad job? No. Cal+Madsen = Result. Cal is certainly responsible for much of the result. Problem is, Cal is not a variable in this equation. Frankly, I think the question is whether the program is a success. Characterizing it as whether Madsen is a success is too personal. Bottom line, Madsen can't be a success if Cal isn't a success. His performance may be reasonable, good, great under the circumstances, but not a success. A successful program makes a tournament in 4 years. It isn't one that is on track to maybe get a bid before 2032.

There is a big difference between a result being understandable and a result being a success. If a result is an actual success, you don't feel the need list a bunch of reasons why it wasn't better.

You might be right, BCA, but are you going to guide me to the stat sheet or publicly available financial reporting that would tell me whether Madsen is good or bad at that skill? Right, it doesn't exist… it's not measurable and has 100 confounding variables and contexts that are different at each school.
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer a coach excelling at game management, player recruiting and scouting, and knowing how to win close games. Kissing rich people's a$$es is way down on my list and should be left to the professional a$$-kissers who are known as the development team.
The reason Cal sucks at athletics dept. fundraising goes way beyond Madsen's glad-handing style, look to changing alumni demographics, a loss of student fandom, and a decade of pre-Madsen terribleness.

barsad said:

---

You might be right, BCA, but are you going to guide me to the stat sheet or publicly available financial reporting that would tell me whether Madsen is good or bad at that skill? Right, it doesn't exist… it's not measurable and has 100 confounding variables and contexts that are different at each school.
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer a coach excelling at game management, player recruiting and scouting, and knowing how to win close games. Kissiing rich people's a$$es is way down on my list and should be left to the professional a$$-kissers who are known as the development team.
The reason Cal sucks at athletics dept. fundraising goes way beyond Madsen's glad-handing style, look to changing alumni demographics, a loss of student fandom, and a decade of pre-Madsen terribleness.

---

It is not either/or is all those things in some combination that produces a consistent Tournament team. The problem with your "old fashioned " view is it ignores the importance of money in today's game. The athletic department development team is focused on getting donors for football, since that is key to our conference future.

Now an effective strategy for basketball might be bringing in foreign players, since their student VISAs do not allow them to receive income in the U.S. Cal's location and international educational reputation give us some advantages there. Madsen appears to be going that route this year.

Another strategy might be Moneyball, using stats to identify overlooked players (Kyle Smith is good at this). Or finding guys that can be developed. Madsen has shown himself to be good at this too.

Another strategy might be to draw in big crowds of East Bay fans drawn to the coach, or top local players, and use those revenues for NIL to get top players to build even more excitement and revenues. Madsen so far has not done much in this regard and I don't expect him to even though Danville is technically the East Bay. He is a Stanford/Lakers star. Jason Kidd would be the guy for this,

Similar to this last example, the coach might develop a whale donor to be the "owner" of Cal basketball. Be involved in the roster decisions, who to spend his NIL on. There were reports that the Haas family would put up big money to back Pasternak with NIL if he were chosen. However, they are not the only wealthy Cal grads that might be interested,

Of course, whatever talent he gets by whatever means, he has to coach up, but I think it is not realistic to expect any coach to finish in the top half of the ACC without talent. End of the day, what matters is the coach has a strategy and it works. Madsen has two years to show that he does at a level we are happy with.

barsad said:

---

You might be right, BCA, but are you going to guide me to the stat sheet or publicly available financial reporting that would tell me whether Madsen is good or bad at that skill? Right, it doesn't exist… it's not measurable and has 100 confounding variables and contexts that are different at each school.
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer a coach excelling at game management, player recruiting and scouting, and knowing how to win close games. Kissing rich people's a$$es is way down on my list and should be left to the professional a$$-kissers who are known as the development team.
The reason Cal sucks at athletics dept. fundraising goes way beyond Madsen's glad-handing style, look to changing alumni demographics, a loss of student fandom, and a decade of pre-Madsen terribleness.

---

Okay. You're old fashioned. And I'm sorry to say, old fashioned in a way that, if Cal doesn't figure out that it is way behind the times, dooms the program to mediocrity.

Of course I can't point to stats for something where no stats are kept. That doesn't mean there isn't overwhelming evidence. Insiders have flat out said we don't have the NIL money to recruit. Frankly, they have used it as an excuse for Madsen rather than a failing. It isn't Sebastabear's responsibility to get this program on track. It is Madsen's. No one said the job is easy. It is the job that must be done. There is also the evidence that can absolutely be tracked that our recruiting has been poor compared to our peers. And it simply has not improved since year 1. Either we don't have the money to recruit or Madsen isn't selling recruits. I think it is most likely the former. Where I part ways is with Cal administration and fans being stuck in 2020 thinking that isn't the coach's responsibility. It leaves us in this "Oh well, Mark's a great guy. What is to be done" mentality. Indiana went from literally one of the worst programs in football to top 10 in 1 year, champion in 2. They did that by bringing in a coach that got the alumni on board under extremely difficult circumstances. I don't expect a championship. I don't think expecting reaching the top 68 once in 4 years is a high bar. And I don't care about Mark Fox. Fact is that in today's game you can go from a standing start to success very quickly. You almost have to or the window closes.

I acknowledge that Cal was and is a tough environment. But as I said, Cal + Coach = Results and Cal is not a variable in this equation. Are we going to judge the results by some reasonable standard or are we going to be doomed to low expectations by continually saying, Yeah the results are good because Cal.

This is not an indictment of Madsen. It is an indictment of the expectations and a way of looking at this that I think is wrongheaded. Every response here was reasonable if we assume the Madsen regime started today and he's coaching a roster he inherited. But the program is approaching year four and is entirely the result, good or bad, of what this regime has built. Again, I argue that a program that doesn't make a tournament in 4 years is not healthy. I actually think if I reframed the question, most who said otherwise would agree with me. I think this annual ritual of setting expectations based on where we are and not where we should be is unhealthy for the program. It's that mindset that enables Cal to end up with a coach like Bob Milano for 20 seasons. If you asked me upon hire for a set of reasonable expectations for the program, I'd say Madsen's performance has been Year 1. Met expectations. Year 2 Did not meet expectations, Year 3 Met expectations. and Year 4 needs to be a tournament appearance to meet expectations.

I'm not saying Madsen is a bad coach. I wasn't even implying it. I'm quite sure he would have tremendous success in the right situation. Whether this program is where it needs to be is, I think, up in the air. I don't believe we have a roster to get past the round of 32 nor do I think we are making progress toward having that roster. Something needs to change and it isn't us praying real hard that a big donor magcially appears to fund better recruiting. Madsen needs to make it happen.

I get that you don't care if a coach can kiss ass and you prefer a guy who can develop player and implement schemes. But you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shyte. Recruiting is integral to the game and raising funds is integral to recruiting and every successful high major coach is successful in raising funds. I guarantee you Tosh was instrumental in raising funds to recruit.

Cal is just constantly letting itself get 20 years behind the times and then pats itself on the back when it makes improvements to get 10 years behind the times. The idea that a coach is delivered a budget by the athletic department is antiquated beyond belief. He's got to make his own budget.

I know you wanted to rally the troops around frankly a low set of expectations because we all like Mark, but I can't do that and I don't think it is fair to him either. This is not a criticism of Madsen. It is a criticism of what I think are a poor set of expectations. After all, we may very well get to the tournament this year.

To summarize, D. Minimum D. And if Mark Madsen doesn't agree with me on that, (and I'm quite sure he does) we have the wrong guy.

I think Madsen needs enough NIL to retain our best players and to recruit top players both from the portal and high school which are needed to be successful enough to make the tournament.

Quote:

---

...
There is also the evidence that can absolutely be tracked that our recruiting has been poor compared to our peers. And it simply has not improved since year 1.
...

---

I'm no expert but I think Madsen got better players in year 3 than in year 1. Too soon to say for year 4 but it looks like we'll at least have better depth.