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.