BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

barsad said:

---

I can't compete with BCA's bloviating, nor would I ever want to.
But for those of you here who want to test his hypothesis that Cal is just the Ducks minus a billionaire donor (I guess he's referring to Phil Knight), please again just CHECK the timeline. The Ducks turned from joke to ain't-no-joke in 2000, at least a decade and a half before any of us were talking about this NIL cluster-truck. Since 2000 the Ducks have notched 17 double-digit W seasons, we've had 2. Yes, it's money. but it's also a dozen things you can't buy with money, like reputation, fanbase that cares and shows up to pack the stadium, a sharp development and management staff in the AD, executive buy-in from the Chancellor/President on down, and so on. We can build these things (except maybe the student and alumni interest, that has to be organic), it's just not going to be solved by Madsen finding a rich guy with deep pockets, so I've stopped putting that on my "reach-goals" Christmas list.

---

I think we are CLOSER in BB than we ever can be in FB.

Now I realize I am taking an extreme example. But I was JUST THERE 3 weeks ago on business

You know how many PRACTICE fields UT football has? THREE. Do you know that there are direction signs all over Austin directing people. Their Football dorm looks like a palace. They have about 100,000 square feet of floor space in their book store for FOOTBALL swag. It boggles the mind how quantumly different it is and I really think the powers that be don't really get the gap between "cal" and a "real" football school. That isn't saying we should become UT. But it is to say in a zero sum activity like sports it probably is important to benchmark ;-)

The good news is that in MBB we are closing. We finally solved the practice gym albatross. Made significant work on support that MM needs. Aligned the university. Working in an enviroment where most schools ALSO are emphasizing FB so we are not horrifically disadvantaged.

And I think the underappreciated secret sauce by the football crowd

The East bay is a FAR better place for youth BB than it it is FB. We have SEVERAL HOF and close to HOF kids that grew up playing hoop in the east bay. We have a dearth of the same in FB. A fair analysis of environmental advantage would place MBB higher than FB. But we are in a world of TV contracts and thus "all in".

---

I don't disagree with anything you say here, but it misses the big point that at Cal winning in basketball just doesn't bring in the dollars that winning in football does. If you asked which program was more likely to win I'd say basketball. If you asked me which was more likely to increase revenue by $20m I'd laugh because basketball has absolutely zero chance of doing that and football actually could realistically accomplish it. That is the primary reason Cal is throwing in with football

---

I get that. Like i said...they have the juice and lets hope they are right.

Big C said:

---

I'm not sure what is meant by "acceptable". Below that and we should change the coach? That's not going to happen yet, barring a disaster.

We made major progress last season. Hopefully we at least equal that, but if we slip back a bit, that will put pressure on MM to do even better in 2027-28. We need to make the tournament pretty soon. I see improvement but we need to see more. The makeshift practice facility is another solid step forward.

---

By "acceptable" I mean what will keep the anti-Madsenites at bay… we may not be changing coaches next year, but I believe that if the team can't win 20 games next year and we keep saying "someday" for the tournament he will not have a long-term future here. I'm a supporter, but for some reason he hasn't seemed to convince people here that he should stay. In this environment there is no "mulligan" year.

barsad said:

---

Big C said:

---

I'm not sure what is meant by "acceptable". Below that and we should change the coach? That's not going to happen yet, barring a disaster.

We made major progress last season. Hopefully we at least equal that, but if we slip back a bit, that will put pressure on MM to do even better in 2027-28. We need to make the tournament pretty soon. I see improvement but we need to see more. The makeshift practice facility is another solid step forward.

---

By "acceptable" I mean what will keep the anti-Madsenites at bay… we may not be changing coaches next year, but I believe that if the team can't win 20 games next year and we keep saying "someday" for the tournament he will not have a long-term future here. I'm a supporter, but for some reason he hasn't seemed to convince people here that he should stay. In this environment there is no "mulligan" year.

---

So we are back to "The Kicker"?

barsad said:

---

Big C said:

---

I'm not sure what is meant by "acceptable". Below that and we should change the coach? That's not going to happen yet, barring a disaster.

We made major progress last season. Hopefully we at least equal that, but if we slip back a bit, that will put pressure on MM to do even better in 2027-28. We need to make the tournament pretty soon. I see improvement but we need to see more. The makeshift practice facility is another solid step forward.

---

By "acceptable" I mean what will keep the anti-Madsenites at bay… we may not be changing coaches next year, but I believe that if the team can't win 20 games next year and we keep saying "someday" for the tournament he will not have a long-term future here. I'm a supporter, but for some reason he hasn't seemed to convince people here that he should stay. In this environment there is no "mulligan" year.

---

I think there is a range of opinions, with few real "anti-Madsenites" but many who are still in the "show me" phase. I don't know if there are any who don't want him to succeed and are not "supporters." They are just not in the convinced phase, those who would be happy if he plateaued at this (roughly .500) level. Most who are happy with him are happy with the trajectory.

As far as "zero criticism" the bar is probably making the Tournament.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

I don't disagree with anything you say here, but it misses the big point that at Cal winning in basketball just doesn't bring in the dollars that winning in football does. If you asked which program was more likely to win I'd say basketball. If you asked me which was more likely to increase revenue by $20m I'd laugh because basketball has absolutely zero chance of doing that and football actually could realistically accomplish it. That is the primary reason Cal is throwing in with football

---

Hope we see better football results this season. The UCLA game sold out, which is great, but getting blown out at the end isn't going to help future attendance.

There appears to be a lot of grumpy fans about the stadium experience, though the final score didn't help. I hope the Haas people focus on the fan experience (even just improving the concessions menu 25% would be something). They know us diehards will show up regardless of how bad things get… but maybe a little gratitude in the form of "extras" this year instead of always feeling like we're getting the coach class airplane middle seat experience?

barsad said:

---

There appears to be a lot of grumpy fans about the stadium experience, though the final score didn't help. I hope the Haas people focus on the fan experience (even just improving the concessions menu 25% would be something). They know us diehards will show up regardless of how bad things get… but maybe a little gratitude in the form of "extras" this year instead of always feeling like we're getting the coach class airplane middle seat experience?

---

Agreed. And improving the Haas experience is a lot easier considering the size and capacity of the venue as compared to CMS. Of course, a winning team always adds to the vibe.

It doesn't seem like the east bay hoops talent pool has been nearly as good over the last decade or so as it used to be, but it has been pivotal for Cal basketball for stretches and obviously Kidd and Powe were game changing recruits.

sonomabearz said:

---

It doesn't seem like the east bay hoops talent pool has been nearly as good over the last decade or so as it used to be, but it has been pivotal for Cal basketball for stretches and obviously Kidd and Powe were game changing recruits.

---

I'm old enough to remember watching Truitt and Chenier play.

sonomabearz said:

---

It doesn't seem like the east bay hoops talent pool has been nearly as good over the last decade or so as it used to be, but it has been pivotal for Cal basketball for stretches and obviously Kidd and Powe were game changing recruits.

---

4 or 5 Star Nor Cal HS recruits since 2020 (in 247);

2020
Marcus Bagley, 4 star SF (#31 US, #6 CA), Sacramento, ASU
Monty Bowser, 4 star SF (#161 US, #17 CA), Oakland, Cal
Dishon Jackson, 4 star C (#163 U.S., #19 CA), Vallejo, WSU
2021
Marsalis Roberson, 4 star SG (#106 U.S, #8 CA), Oakland, Cal
2022
Miles Byrd, 4 Star SG, (#57 U.S., #8 CA), Stockton, SDSU
Jaylen Thompson, 4 Star SF (#107 U.S., #15 CA), Oakland, Stanford
2023
Andrej Stojakovic 4 star SF (#19 U.S., #2 CA), Carmichael, Stanford
BJ Davis, 4 star PG (#129 U.S., #14 CA), Modesto, SDSU
2024
Jase Butler, 4 Star CG (#107 U.S., #13 CA), San Francisco, UW
2025
Alec Blair, 4 Star SF (#60 U.S., #5 CA), Concord, Oklahoma
Jasir Rencher, 4 Star SF (#91 U.S., #7 CA), San Francisco, UW
2026
Elias Obenyah, 4 star CG (#109 U.S., #9 CA), Richmond, Stanford
2027
Emmanuel Ahamefule, 4 star C (#105 U.S., #8 CA), San Francisco
2028
Boss Mhoon, 4 star SF, (#68 U.S., #8 CA), Sunnyvale

Looking at the California rankings, you can see how much of the state's most highly rated talent is in SoCal. Very few top players from Oakland. The top Bay Area recruiter these days is Stanford and UW.

calumnus said:

---

sonomabearz said:

---

It doesn't seem like the east bay hoops talent pool has been nearly as good over the last decade or so as it used to be, but it has been pivotal for Cal basketball for stretches and obviously Kidd and Powe were game changing recruits.

---

4 or 5 Star Nor Cal HS recruits since 2020 (in 247);

2020
Marcus Bagley, 4 star SF (#31 US, #6 CA), Sacramento, ASU
Monty Bowser, 4 star SF (#161 US, #17 CA), Oakland, Cal
Dishon Jackson, 4 star C (#163 U.S., #19 CA), Vallejo, WSU
2021
Marsalis Roberson, 4 star SG (#106 U.S, #8 CA), Oakland, Cal
2022
Miles Byrd, 4 Star SG, (#57 U.S., #8 CA), Stockton, SDSU
Jaylen Thompson, 4 Star SF (#107 U.S., #15 CA), Oakland, Stanford
2023
Andrej Stojakovic 4 star SF (#19 U.S., #2 CA), Carmichael, Stanford
BJ Davis, 4 star PG (#129 U.S., #14 CA), Modesto, SDSU
2024
Jase Butler, 4 Star CG (#107 U.S., #13 CA), San Francisco, UW
2025
Alec Blair, 4 Star SF (#60 U.S., #5 CA), Concord, Oklahoma
Jasir Rencher, 4 Star SF (#91 U.S., #7 CA), San Francisco, UW
2026
Elias Obenyah, 4 star CG (#109 U.S., #9 CA), Richmond, Stanford
2027
Emmanuel Ahamefule, 4 star C (#105 U.S., #8 CA), San Francisco
2028
Boss Mhoon, 4 star SF, (#68 U.S., #8 CA), Sunnyvale

Looking at the California rankings, you can see how much of the state's most highly rated talent is in SoCal. Very few top players from Oakland. The top Bay Area recruiter these days is Stanford and UW.

---

I really don't follow this much anymore, but in the past there was a BIG difference between a 4* and a 5*. Five stars meant D1 ready. Four stars meant D1 maybe. From the list above and how those players turned out, that seems to still hold true.

HearstMining said:

---

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.

---

I don't really see 12-6 in ACC play as a realistic goal.

The ACC will be very good this year, and we've lost a lot of talent. Our lack of shooting really worries me.

If we can finish .500 in conference, I'd be happy enough.

The real gauge of optimism, however, should actually be based upon how our GM hire progresses and how much NIL we can raise. That will determine how successful Madsen can be moving forward.

sonomabearz said:

---

It doesn't seem like the east bay hoops talent pool has been nearly as good over the last decade or so as it used to be, but it has been pivotal for Cal basketball for stretches and obviously Kidd and Powe were game changing recruits.

---

And thinking also about Gary Payton and Damian Lillard.

But it is also true that there is a stronger AAU circuit down in SoCal for hoops. And there are programs for FB in the bay area that are nationally elite.

1 -- the first round game in the Big Dance

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sonomabearz said:

---

It doesn't seem like the east bay hoops talent pool has been nearly as good over the last decade or so as it used to be, but it has been pivotal for Cal basketball for stretches and obviously Kidd and Powe were game changing recruits.

---

4 or 5 Star Nor Cal HS recruits since 2020 (in 247);

2020
Marcus Bagley, 4 star SF (#31 US, #6 CA), Sacramento, ASU
Monty Bowser, 4 star SF (#161 US, #17 CA), Oakland, Cal
Dishon Jackson, 4 star C (#163 U.S., #19 CA), Vallejo, WSU
2021
Marsalis Roberson, 4 star SG (#106 U.S, #8 CA), Oakland, Cal
2022
Miles Byrd, 4 Star SG, (#57 U.S., #8 CA), Stockton, SDSU
Jaylen Thompson, 4 Star SF (#107 U.S., #15 CA), Oakland, Stanford
2023
Andrej Stojakovic 4 star SF (#19 U.S., #2 CA), Carmichael, Stanford
BJ Davis, 4 star PG (#129 U.S., #14 CA), Modesto, SDSU
2024
Jase Butler, 4 Star CG (#107 U.S., #13 CA), San Francisco, UW
2025
Alec Blair, 4 Star SF (#60 U.S., #5 CA), Concord, Oklahoma
Jasir Rencher, 4 Star SF (#91 U.S., #7 CA), San Francisco, UW
2026
Elias Obenyah, 4 star CG (#109 U.S., #9 CA), Richmond, Stanford
2027
Emmanuel Ahamefule, 4 star C (#105 U.S., #8 CA), San Francisco
2028
Boss Mhoon, 4 star SF, (#68 U.S., #8 CA), Sunnyvale

Looking at the California rankings, you can see how much of the state's most highly rated talent is in SoCal. Very few top players from Oakland. The top Bay Area recruiter these days is Stanford and UW.

---

I really don't follow this much anymore, but in the past there was a BIG difference between a 4* and a 5*. Five stars meant D1 ready. Four stars meant D1 maybe. From the list above and how those players turned out, that seems to still hold true.

---

4 and 5 stars are expected to be better than that, 3 stars is a D1 player, but for a better idea, look at the national rankings: What I will say is to have a top 50 team (ie NCAA Tournament) you probably need to recruit some Top 50 players and there just are not that many in the Bay Area any more.

The floor for me is 9 conference wins. Madsen made a big jump for me this last season. I did not expect this team to be a bubble team at the start of the season. Was pleasantly surprised and excited at the end of the season until Dort went down and that seemed to suck the life out of us.

stu said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

I don't disagree with anything you say here, but it misses the big point that at Cal winning in basketball just doesn't bring in the dollars that winning in football does. If you asked which program was more likely to win I'd say basketball. If you asked me which was more likely to increase revenue by $20m I'd laugh because basketball has absolutely zero chance of doing that and football actually could realistically accomplish it. That is the primary reason Cal is throwing in with football

---

Hope we see better football results this season. The UCLA game sold out, which is great, but getting blown out at the end isn't going to help future attendance.

---

After watching the Bears' sad performance against Clemson yesterday I think it's safe to say we're in for another long season. So far, a "football-first" NIL strategy does not seem to be paying off.

barsad said:

---

stu said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

I don't disagree with anything you say here, but it misses the big point that at Cal winning in basketball just doesn't bring in the dollars that winning in football does. If you asked which program was more likely to win I'd say basketball. If you asked me which was more likely to increase revenue by $20m I'd laugh because basketball has absolutely zero chance of doing that and football actually could realistically accomplish it. That is the primary reason Cal is throwing in with football

---

Hope we see better football results this season. The UCLA game sold out, which is great, but getting blown out at the end isn't going to help future attendance.

---

After watching the Bears' sad performance against Clemson yesterday I think it's safe to say we're in for another long season. So far, a "football-first" NIL strategy does not seem to be paying off.

---

I'm afraid you're correct about football this year. The defense has been fine but the offense and special teams have been a disaster. I don't know much about football except it's too complex to expect a quick fix.

I'm also afraid a bad football season could drive off our fans and donors and best players, leaving us worse off than before.

On the bright side, I think our basketball team is likely to have a good enough season to continue progressing without a lot of money coming in from football.

It's pretty depressing to be looking at Cal basketball as a ray of hope after only four games of the football season!

Believe it