Everyone is always comparing Cal to other programs they feel we should emulate.

Why not Wisconsin?

Not the most attractive school in the big10 MSU, UM OSU Indiana all more attractive to big time players, Cal is behind UA, UCLA and maybe Oregon as a BB location, face it with the facilities and academics at Cal we will never be attractive to top AAU studs.

We need a good fundamental coach(like Monty) who does it right and develop players over 4 years.

I feel this is a more realistic approach than hoping we get someone who is a great recruiter.
Even with a great recruiter how many of those kids will really fit at Cal?

diva1;842301214 said:

---

Everyone is always comparing Cal to other programs they feel we should emulate.

Why not Wisconsin?

Not the most attractive school in the big10 MSU, UM OSU Indiana all more attractive to big time players, Cal is behind UA, UCLA and maybe Oregon as a BB location, face it with the facilities and academics at Cal we will never be attractive to top AAU studs.

We need a good fundamental coach(like Monty) who does it right and develop players over 4 years.

I feel this is a more realistic approach than hoping we get someone who is a great recruiter.
Even with a great recruiter how many of those kids will really fit at Cal?

---

While I agree with you, I think the "great recruiter" factor does't necessarily mean a 5* magnet, but could mean, smart recruiter/great talent scout. Wisconsin doesn't out recruit its B10 bball "superiors" but they can sure spot and develop talent. That would make their staff great recruiters. That said, their bball facilities blow ours out of the water. The Kohl Center is top of the line and they have separate practice facilities i.e. not a converted gym in the rec center. Haas in comparison looks like a very large high school gym.

So if a school like Wisconsin is our model, you have to consider where we stand. Having the academic limitations that we do + being second tier to the top bball schools in the Pac + facilities which are bottom half of the conference (bleachers/no jumbotron/ no true practice facility), we are in a pretty tough spot, so a smart recruiter/talent scout is absolutely needed.

I'm all for it. Heck let's use Wisconsin as a model for football as well. The deck is a little stacked against them on that front too. Wisconsin has been to multiple rose bowls and final fours since 2000. By chance a bunch of relatives from Madison are visiting this weekend for my Mom's birthday. They're on fire for the badgers and rightfully so.

I've decided to make the best of it. I'm sharing my finest bottle of single malt with my uncle getting ready for the game. This will be fun.

Watching the beginning of this game reminds me of Hoosiers. There goes Jimmy Chitwood!

We did get Wisconsin's linebackers coach just over a year ago.....

This is one situation where I am cheering for red over blue. And... unclewasabadger

Cal Geek;842301232 said:

---

We did get Wisconsin's linebackers coach just over a year ago.....

---

we're on our way!

What everyone's leaving out is parity. Look whose in the championship game, an 8 and a 7 seed. Wisconsin hasn't gotten better they remained the same while everyone else is Helter Skelter with no continuity i.e. gotten worse.

If the model is to get some 2 and 3 star guys who stay for all four years (which is our model), possibly but if it fails its going to get ugly. I wondered how long before the 1 and gone rule would change college basketball forever. Look at Duke, look at Kentucky (Yeah I know they fail one game short), they can no longer dominate because the parts change too much (Look at Arizona, Aaron Gooden is gone already), meanwhile Wisconsin and others, who keep players for three and four years are going to be here for awhile.

What people forget is that those Wisconsin players are Mr. Wisconsin and Mr. Utah, they are not just some slugs and they really like each other and really play together well, i.e chemistry. Too bad they'd lost I would of loved to hear all the excuses and frowning faces if they won it all.

I am worried although about the fact that I keep hearing this word model, (I.e. smart players, mostly White). I heard that in football (Lets use the Ivy league model) now we're hearing it in Basketball ( a nearly all white Wisconsin team) not that I care it's just how the word is misused, the Wisconsin model. Heck 20 years ago, Cal was the Wisconsin model. Remember Doug True?

I like it like it is with the new guys, smart kids of every race and I think the Football team is on it's way to being that.
P.S.

That said I would of loved a mostly all white team versus a mostly all Black team for the national title. Man that would of been some ratings. People forget how bad Oregon (Mostly Black and not that good) was beating Wisconsin until the end where Wisconsin got four rebounds in a row and then made a three. That was a classic game of two different styles of Basketball.

P.S. #2
It's funny how we only see what we want to. Do you know how many teams out of necessity are using the Wisconsin model with no success, it's not like it's an ingenious thought that only Wisconsin has thought of. They made it work, a rarity.

Utah did it successfully for awhile. They were Wisconsin before Wisconsin became Wisconsin.

Bo is a great coach

He also had a player that could finally create this year

THey still lost (barely) to the more athletic team - one ESPECIALLY built for this tournament - where the refs shallow their whistler, where there is no such thing as an offensive foul, and when the bangers are allowed to throw people out of the paint.

Seriously - I HATE Kentucky. I really do.

socaltownie;842301275 said:

---

Bo is a great coach

He also had a player that could finally create this year

THey still lost (barely) to the more athletic team - one ESPECIALLY built for this tournament - where the refs shallow their whistler, where there is no such thing as an offensive foul, and when the bangers are allowed to throw people out of the paint.

Seriously - I HATE Kentucky. I really do.

---

+1.

I can't define my feelings but it feels unseemly that Kentucky is probably going to win it all.

socaltownie;842301275 said:

---

seriously - i hate kentucky. I really do.

---

x1000

MaximusArelliusDaBearius;842301265 said:

---

What everyone's leaving out is parity. Look whose in the championship game, an 8 and a 7 seed. Wisconsin hasn't gotten better they remained the same while everyone else is Helter Skelter with no continuity i.e. gotten worse.

If the model is to get some 2 and 3 star guys who stay for all four years (which is our model), possibly but if it fails its going to get ugly. I wondered how long before the 1 and gone rule would change college basketball forever. Look at Duke, look at Kentucky (Yeah I know they fail one game short), they can no longer dominate because the parts change too much (Look at Arizona, Aaron Gooden is gone already), meanwhile Wisconsin and others, who keep players for three and four years are going to be here for awhile.

What people forget is that those Wisconsin players are Mr. Wisconsin and Mr. Utah, they are not just some slugs and they really like each other and really play together well, i.e chemistry. Too bad they'd lost I would of loved to hear all the excuses and frowning faces if they won it all.

I am worried although about the fact that I keep hearing this word model, (I.e. smart players, mostly White). I heard that in football (Lets use the Ivy league model) now we're hearing it in Basketball ( a nearly all white Wisconsin team) not that I care it's just how the word is misused, the Wisconsin model. Heck 20 years ago, Cal was the Wisconsin model. Remember Doug True?

I like it like it is with the new guys, smart kids of every race and I think the Football team is on it's way to being that.
P.S.

That said I would of loved a mostly all white team versus a mostly all Black team for the national title. Man that would of been some ratings. People forget how bad Oregon (Mostly Black and not that good) was beating Wisconsin until the end where Wisconsin got four rebounds in a row and then made a three. That was a classic game of two different styles of Basketball.

P.S. #2
It's funny how we only see what we want to. Do you know how many teams out of necessity are using the Wisconsin model with no success, it's not like it's an ingenious thought that only Wisconsin has thought of. They made it work, a rarity.

Utah did it successfully for awhile. They were Wisconsin before Wisconsin became Wisconsin.

---

Well, as for the "model" thing, one could as easily use Michigan State as a model and you'd have a lot of the same points intact. Regional recruiting, not a ton of 5-star one and done types, blue collar approach, defense and teamwork. What you need to make that work is a great coach and recruiting to fit your style, guys who will buy in. It's not a white or black thing.

But you need a great coach. And that coach needs support from the administration. Facilities are good too, but the first two are much more important imo.

diva1;842301214 said:

---

Everyone is always comparing Cal to other programs they feel we should emulate.

Why not Wisconsin?

Not the most attractive school in the big10 MSU, UM OSU Indiana all more attractive to big time players, Cal is behind UA, UCLA and maybe Oregon as a BB location, face it with the facilities and academics at Cal we will never be attractive to top AAU studs.

We need a good fundamental coach(like Monty) who does it right and develop players over 4 years.

I feel this is a more realistic approach than hoping we get someone who is a great recruiter.
Even with a great recruiter how many of those kids will really fit at Cal?

---

Wisconsin has Kaminsky, a match up nightmare and a big man. What if the Bears recruited better and landed Welsh to go along with Bird? Welsh was a
good fit. Better recruiting can win the battles for the guys who are good fits and good players. Seems like TD and set up strong relationships with 2015 and 2016 kids. Might be interesting if a team of TD, Theo, and Justin could close the deals and set the program up for a good run...

I think you are right. Cal is never going to be Kentucky. Any school that makes more than a pretense of being an academic university can never match the Kentuckys of the world, season after season. Kentucky will do whatever it takes to win, including hiring the sleaziest coach around.

Kentucky is five-star recruits top almost to bottom. The starters are all fives, the rest of the rotation is mostly fives.

Enter Wisconsin. They start four 3-star players and one 5-star player, (Dekker) On paper, it feels a lot like the Cal bears, doesn't it? They played good defense pretty much until the very end. Kentucky was far superior, athletically. All Wisconsin had going for it was experience, good defense, and desire. In the end, they let it slip through their fingers by a hair.
How in the world did they compete against such superior talent?

I was particularly disgusted with the TV announcers, who over the last 10 minutes were openly rooting for Kentucky. They could not stop talking about what Kentucky had to do to get back in the game, or what they had to do to win the game, or what they had to do on defense to stop Wisconsin. They continually called out every Kentucky shooter, make or miss, every Kentucky rebounder, every Kentucky player who stole a ball. There was next to nothing said about Wisconsin and their players or their strategy. Kaminsky's name was called once that I remember, and Jackson's because he had the ball at the end of the game. Brust, Gasser, and Dekker were never mentioned once. It was 10 minutes of unabashed rooting by the announcers for Kentucky. How did Kentucky become the underdogs in this game?

SFCityBear;842301401 said:

---

I think you are right. Cal is never going to be Kentucky. Any school that makes more than a pretense of being an academic university can never match the Kentuckys of the world, season after season. Kentucky will do whatever it takes to win, including hiring the sleaziest coach around.

Kentucky is five-star recruits top almost to bottom. The starters are all fives, the rest of the rotation is mostly fives.

Enter Wisconsin. They start four 3-star players and one 5-star player, (Dekker) On paper, it feels a lot like the Cal bears, doesn't it? They played good defense pretty much until the very end. Kentucky was far superior, athletically. All Wisconsin had going for it was experience, good defense, and desire. In the end, they let it slip through their fingers by a hair.
How in the world did they compete against such superior talent?

I was particularly disgusted with the TV announcers, who over the last 10 minutes were openly rooting for Kentucky. They could not stop talking about what Kentucky had to do to get back in the game, or what they had to do to win the game, or what they had to do on defense to stop Wisconsin. They continually called out every Kentucky shooter, make or miss, every Kentucky rebounder, every Kentucky player who stole a ball. There was next to nothing said about Wisconsin and their players or their strategy. Kaminsky's name was called once that I remember, and Jackson's because he had the ball at the end of the game. Brust, Gasser, and Dekker were never mentioned once. It was 10 minutes of unabashed rooting by the announcers for Kentucky. How did Kentucky become the underdogs in this game?

---

Because they had a very mediocre season but gelled at the end once they remembered each others' names and realized they had to play harder.

socaltownie;842301275 said:

---

Bo is a great coach

He also had a player that could finally create this year

THey still lost (barely) to the more athletic team - one ESPECIALLY built for this tournament - where the refs shallow their whistler, where there is no such thing as an offensive foul, and when the bangers are allowed to throw people out of the paint.

Seriously - I HATE Kentucky. I really do.

---

I think Bo has a chance to join Monty as a Wooden Foundation Legends of Coaching honoree next year. Looking at the previous recipients, Ryan would seem like a good candidate of the coaches who have not yet been honored yet.

http://www.woodenaward.com/?page_id=20

I don't think you're right at all about that--the announcers
I do think it was ridiculous that one announcer thought that blow to the face was just "momentum"
That said, I thought the refs got that about right, with the T.

SFCityBear;842301401 said:

---

I think you are right. Cal is never going to be Kentucky. Any school that makes more than a pretense of being an academic university can never match the Kentuckys of the world, season after season. Kentucky will do whatever it takes to win, including hiring the sleaziest coach around.

Kentucky is five-star recruits top almost to bottom. The starters are all fives, the rest of the rotation is mostly fives.

Enter Wisconsin. They start four 3-star players and one 5-star player, (Dekker) On paper, it feels a lot like the Cal bears, doesn't it? They played good defense pretty much until the very end. Kentucky was far superior, athletically. All Wisconsin had going for it was experience, good defense, and desire. In the end, they let it slip through their fingers by a hair.
How in the world did they compete against such superior talent?

I was particularly disgusted with the TV announcers, who over the last 10 minutes were openly rooting for Kentucky. They could not stop talking about what Kentucky had to do to get back in the game, or what they had to do to win the game, or what they had to do on defense to stop Wisconsin. They continually called out every Kentucky shooter, make or miss, every Kentucky rebounder, every Kentucky player who stole a ball. There was next to nothing said about Wisconsin and their players or their strategy. Kaminsky's name was called once that I remember, and Jackson's because he had the ball at the end of the game. Brust, Gasser, and Dekker were never mentioned once. It was 10 minutes of unabashed rooting by the announcers for Kentucky. How did Kentucky become the underdogs in this game?

---

The game was broadcasted on several different stations. I think TBS had the Wildcat broadcast. If that is what you were watching, then the announcers definitely were openly rooting for Kentucky, on purpose. The scoreboard said "Wildcats" and "Wisconsin", which I thought was odd until I realized it was the Wildcat Network feed.

LOUMFSG2;842301435 said:

---

The game was broadcasted on several different stations. I think TBS had the Wildcat broadcast. If that is what you were watching, then the announcers definitely were openly rooting for Kentucky, on purpose. The scoreboard said "Wildcats" and "Wisconsin", which I thought was odd until I realized it was the Wildcat Network feed.

---

The announcers on TBS even said that it was a Kentucky based broadcast and if you want the balanced broadcast go to TNT. I did immediately. Do remember Kentucky is SEC too, and both channels showed a bias, one just more than the other.

The LA Times last week had an article about the Wisconsin players spending most of their off time in Anaheim studying, including a mammoth cramming session they had the day before the regional final.

I would be interested to know what kind of leeway athletes get at Wisconsin, not in terms of doing the work, but in terms of things like scheduling, being able to get lectures on line to make up for missed classes, etc.

It seems to me one of the things possibly missing in trying to model ourselves after anyone, is the supposed faculty and student bias against athletes at Cal that has been discussed in other threads. If no accommodation is going to be made for the time required for athletes to play their sports, particularly given the demands of the TV contracts for football and basketball, it's going to be hard to recruit, because it's going to be difficult for players to succeed academically, no matter how hard they try.

My guess is that there's more faculty support at Wisconsin than at Cal, because it's a more classic college town that is not in a major urban area, so college sports is much more part of the fabric their than it is at Cal.