We can lay Cal's low ranking entirely at the feet of departed coach Cuonzo Martin. I can't remember when the cupboard has been left this bare for an incoming coach as the one left by Martin for Wyking Jones.

Martin started his Cal tenure with Ricky Kreklow leaving for Creighton, and then losing the only true point guard on the roster, Ahmaad Rorie, who decommited, and apparently is now the star point guard of the Montana Grizzlies. Martin left himself with two combo guards, Wallace and Singer, trying to learn how to play point guard, and later he picked up a third combo guard, Don Coleman, to see if he could become a point guard. Point guard Charlie Moore left ostensibly to be close to family.

Martin's recruiting focused on future NBA players, Brown and Rabb. Brown was one and done, and Rabb was two and done, leaving two huge holes in the roster. Martin seemed to have no focus on developing a plan for after they left. Brown never did fit into a team concept, which is either the failure of Brown, or a failure of Martin to even have a workable team concept on offense. Rabb did not live up to expectations either, largely because his teammates and Martin could not get him in good spots to receive the ball. It was clear that Jordan Mathews was unhappy with Martin and he transferred to Gonzaga. Shooting guards and wings are a dime a dozen, but centers and point guards are the key to most good teams. Martin did bring in center Okoroh, but Cal lost Rooks when Martin left. Perhaps to his credit, Martin did land Grant Mullins and Marcus Lee, each for a season. But if what you have to show for three years of coaching is some players who stay for a year and are gone, you have to bring in a lot more of them every year to be successful in Division One.

And Martin gave us Yanni Hufnagel, who became a blight on the Cal program's reputation.

Cal can dig out of this hole, because unlike football, if you land a couple of good players, you can be competitive. But to be successful and win, you either need a lot of one season wonders, or you need to build a program around players who will play 3-4 years for you.

And you need a good coach. Cuonzo Martin was a good guy, I suppose, but he turned out to be overrated and in the end, overpaid.

The cupboard is bare. And it is Martin's fault for not addressing class imbalances, the attrition, and for gambling on a bunch of projects that haven't panned out. What I don't understand is why this is a criticism of getting NBA talent players, or the NBA talent players themselves (Jaylen doesn't fit into the team concept??) that we did get. That was 2 roster spots, and we should always strive to supplement our classes with them if we can.

If he had recruited one serviceable 4 year 6'7 plus guy and Moore hadn't transferred out, we would have completely different expectations for this team. Likely around middle of the Pac. I know that's 2 "if's", but Moore transferring isn't a matter of leaving the cupboard bare, but the cookie just falling out of the cupboard.

SFCityBear said:

---

We can lay Cal's low ranking entirely at the feet of departed coach Cuonzo Martin. I can't remember when the cupboard has been left this bare for an incoming coach as the one left by Martin for Wyking Jones.

Martin started his Cal tenure with Ricky Kreklow leaving for Creighton, and then losing the only true point guard on the roster, Ahmaad Rorie, who decommited, and apparently is now the star point guard of the Montana Grizzlies. Martin left himself with two combo guards, Wallace and Singer, trying to learn how to play point guard, and later he picked up a third combo guard, Don Coleman, to see if he could become a point guard. Point guard Charlie Moore left ostensibly to be close to family.

Martin's recruiting focused on future NBA players, Brown and Rabb. Brown was one and done, and Rabb was two and done, leaving two huge holes in the roster. Martin seemed to have no focus on developing a plan for after they left. Brown never did fit into a team concept, which is either the failure of Brown, or a failure of Martin to even have a workable team concept on offense. Rabb did not live up to expectations either, largely because his teammates and Martin could not get him in good spots to receive the ball. It was clear that Jordan Mathews was unhappy with Martin and he transferred to Gonzaga. Shooting guards and wings are a dime a dozen, but centers and point guards are the key to most good teams. Martin did bring in center Okoroh, but Cal lost Rooks when Martin left. Perhaps to his credit, Martin did land Grant Mullins and Marcus Lee, each for a season. But if what you have to show for three years of coaching is some players who stay for a year and are gone, you have to bring in a lot more of them every year to be successful in Division One.

And Martin gave us Yanni Hufnagel, who became a blight on the Cal program's reputation.

Cal can dig out of this hole, because unlike football, if you land a couple of good players, you can be competitive. But to be successful and win, you either need a lot of one season wonders, or you need to build a program around players who will play 3-4 years for you.

And you need a good coach. Cuonzo Martin was a good guy, I suppose, but he turned out to be overrated and in the end, overpaid.

---

If the point is learning for the future instead of just ranting about a coach no one particularly misses, if you are going to blame Martin for losing Kreklow (who was not a loss) and Rohrie, don't you have to blame Wyking for losing Rooks, Moore, and Our other commit whose name escapes me? If those three guys are in the team the cupboard isn't bare. Those three guys are a lot better than Kreklow and Rohrie.

Personally, I'm just going to acknowledge the cupboard is bare and let Wyking build from here.

I agree with you regarding the Cal future. But Cal fans shoot their wad over a five star, probable one-and-done. I frankly dont care if Brown comes, I would prefer someone like Brooks coming. I also don't care if we have a true center. Teams play without one and play well. I don't believe in cookie cutter rosters. There are teams who play with 3 PGs. You want the best guys on the floor.

Jaylen fits fine into a team concept. Watch him with the Celtics. The problem was we didn't have an offensive team concept that made any sense, and Martin's coaching staff wasn't able to put those guys in a position to succeed. The problem wasn't recruiting them, it was coaching them.

The cupboard was pretty bare when Montgomery left suddenly too, and imo the class balance problems we've had since then stem from him, not from Martin although Martin did little to address it. And as OTB pointed out, you go out of your way to lay all blame at Martin's feet.

We're understocked, no doubt. I'm looking forward to seeing what this staff does with this team, because I like their approach to recruiting and I'm hoping the product they have to sell will be of more interest to recruits than the slower paced systems their predecessors ran.

caltagjohnson said:

---

I agree with you regarding the Cal future. But Cal fans shoot their wad over a five star, probable one-and-done. I frankly dont care if Brown comes, I would prefer someone like Brooks coming. I also don't care if we have a true center. Teams play without one and play well. I don't believe in cookie cutter rosters. There are teams who play with 3 PGs. You want the best guys on the floor.

---

Agreed, although I think landing Brown would be huge even if he is one-and-done for the perception if nothing else. As you point out, having a true center is no longer a priority. Pop quiz: who's the all-star true center on the Warriors? Right. Or Oregon who made it to the Final Four? Stretch 4's are far more important these days.

Good point about Jaylen.

It is great fun to watch him develop in the NBA. I am rooting for him to continue to improve his shooting, both form and results. Clearly his shooting is the weakest part of his already pretty impressive game. I suppose he could be a better passer, also.

UrsaMajor said:

---

caltagjohnson said:

---

I agree with you regarding the Cal future. But Cal fans shoot their wad over a five star, probable one-and-done. I frankly dont care if Brown comes, I would prefer someone like Brooks coming. I also don't care if we have a true center. Teams play without one and play well. I don't believe in cookie cutter rosters. There are teams who play with 3 PGs. You want the best guys on the floor.

---

Agreed, although I think landing Brown would be huge even if he is one-and-done for the perception if nothing else. As you point out, having a true center is no longer a priority. Pop quiz: who's the all-star true center on the Warriors? Right. Or Oregon who made it to the Final Four? Stretch 4's are far more important these days.

---

If Cal ever gets to the point where they have one open schollie and are deciding between a Theo or a Jaylen, the question of whether to take the one and done might be relevant. Normally the last schollie is a flyer that we pretty much know won't pan out. Cal has never been hurt by a one and done because the other options were more like 4 and zero contribution.

I could see passing on a one and done if he is one of those extremely athletic, massively raw guys AND you have a solid player you could give the ride to. Bottom line, though. Very, very few teams win a national title without a McD.

Jordan Matthews and his father had Gonzo Cuonzo accurately assessed as the Super bantamweight that he is. His offensive cluelessness reduced Jaylen Brown to bull rushing through the key and getting called for offensive fouls. Martin cost Rabb millions talking him into staying one more year in a program that was rudderless on the offensive end. I'm still waiting for a refund for the cost of two tickets to the NIT game against Bakersfield that Martin managed to mail in while drinking two cases of bottled water on the sidelines. I'm just looking forward to a fresh start under Coach Jones. It makes you wonder how many broken hearts and millions paid out it will take for Missouri to figure out they've been had.

Missouri must be terminally stupid to take Martin and pay him a fortune with his history.

And let us learn from Cuonzo's mistakes. One and done does not help Cal except for a blink. And so often with one and done there is too much focus on the star. Yes, I would like Jordan Brown, but will he really help the program in the long run. It sure seemed like Jaylen and Ivan were in and out of here in a hurry, and their presence did not make recruiting better for right now (the near future).

CAL6371 said:

---

Missouri must be terminally stupid to take Martin and pay him a fortune with his history.

---

.....and the beauty of coming off a 2-16 Conference record is Martin can disguise his incompetence with the "rebuilding" excuse for a couple of years.

Much of the original poster's argument can be reduced to : That's the state of college BB today. Guys transfer, stars would rather get paid and coaches scramble to keep their high paying jobs. Monty tried to avoid one/dones and fans said he couldn't/wouldn't recruit. Everybody, except agents, hates the one/done but no coach is going to avoid taking one if available not matter that only a handful seem to be able to make it work. I don't fault Martin any more than I faulted Monty (who I thought did a pretty good job under difficult circumstances). To some degree, you can only work within the system as it exists and college BB is a broken model right now. And could get worse if, as some want, transfers become even easier.

Monty could coach, didn't have the horses. Martin had the horses, couldn't coach.

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

caltagjohnson said:

---

I agree with you regarding the Cal future. But Cal fans shoot their wad over a five star, probable one-and-done. I frankly dont care if Brown comes, I would prefer someone like Brooks coming. I also don't care if we have a true center. Teams play without one and play well. I don't believe in cookie cutter rosters. There are teams who play with 3 PGs. You want the best guys on the floor.

---

Agreed, although I think landing Brown would be huge even if he is one-and-done for the perception if nothing else. As you point out, having a true center is no longer a priority. Pop quiz: who's the all-star true center on the Warriors? Right. Or Oregon who made it to the Final Four? Stretch 4's are far more important these days.

---

If Cal ever gets to the point where they have one open schollie and are deciding between a Theo or a Jaylen, the question of whether to take the one and done might be relevant. Normally the last schollie is a flyer that we pretty much know won't pan out. Cal has never been hurt by a one and done because the other options were more like 4 and zero contribution.

I could see passing on a one and done if he is one of those extremely athletic, massively raw guys AND you have a solid player you could give the ride to. Bottom line, though. Very, very few teams win a national title without a McD.

---

We had three McD's on the floor at the same time in Rabb, Bird, and Brown, along with 4-stars Wallace and Mathews, and we were only a cut above average. Having a good coach is so, so very important, almost essential. If you don't have a good coach, then you better have a good point guard who can run the team and get the ball to the McDs in their favorite spots when they are open.

SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

caltagjohnson said:

---

I agree with you regarding the Cal future. But Cal fans shoot their wad over a five star, probable one-and-done. I frankly dont care if Brown comes, I would prefer someone like Brooks coming. I also don't care if we have a true center. Teams play without one and play well. I don't believe in cookie cutter rosters. There are teams who play with 3 PGs. You want the best guys on the floor.

---

Agreed, although I think landing Brown would be huge even if he is one-and-done for the perception if nothing else. As you point out, having a true center is no longer a priority. Pop quiz: who's the all-star true center on the Warriors? Right. Or Oregon who made it to the Final Four? Stretch 4's are far more important these days.

---

If Cal ever gets to the point where they have one open schollie and are deciding between a Theo or a Jaylen, the question of whether to take the one and done might be relevant. Normally the last schollie is a flyer that we pretty much know won't pan out. Cal has never been hurt by a one and done because the other options were more like 4 and zero contribution.

I could see passing on a one and done if he is one of those extremely athletic, massively raw guys AND you have a solid player you could give the ride to. Bottom line, though. Very, very few teams win a national title without a McD.

---

We had three McD's on the floor at the same time in Rabb, Bird, and Brown, along with 4-stars Wallace and Mathews, and we were only a cut above average. Having a good coach is so, so very important, almost essential. If you don't have a good coach, then you better have a good point guard who can run the team and get the ball to the McDs in their favorite spots when they are open.

---

Martin was obviously an offensively challenged coach, but we were not only a cut above average that year. We were a #4 seed in the NCAA tourney. So, in the eyes of the committee there were at most 15 teams better than us.

btsktr said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

caltagjohnson said:

---

I agree with you regarding the Cal future. But Cal fans shoot their wad over a five star, probable one-and-done. I frankly dont care if Brown comes, I would prefer someone like Brooks coming. I also don't care if we have a true center. Teams play without one and play well. I don't believe in cookie cutter rosters. There are teams who play with 3 PGs. You want the best guys on the floor.

---

Agreed, although I think landing Brown would be huge even if he is one-and-done for the perception if nothing else. As you point out, having a true center is no longer a priority. Pop quiz: who's the all-star true center on the Warriors? Right. Or Oregon who made it to the Final Four? Stretch 4's are far more important these days.

---

If Cal ever gets to the point where they have one open schollie and are deciding between a Theo or a Jaylen, the question of whether to take the one and done might be relevant. Normally the last schollie is a flyer that we pretty much know won't pan out. Cal has never been hurt by a one and done because the other options were more like 4 and zero contribution.

I could see passing on a one and done if he is one of those extremely athletic, massively raw guys AND you have a solid player you could give the ride to. Bottom line, though. Very, very few teams win a national title without a McD.

---

We had three McD's on the floor at the same time in Rabb, Bird, and Brown, along with 4-stars Wallace and Mathews, and we were only a cut above average. Having a good coach is so, so very important, almost essential. If you don't have a good coach, then you better have a good point guard who can run the team and get the ball to the McDs in their favorite spots when they are open.

---

Martin was obviously an offensively challenged coach, but we were not only a cut above average that year. We were a #4 seed in the NCAA tourney. So, in the eyes of the committee there were at most 15 teams better than us.

---

I think the fact that they exited the tourney early under really crappy circumstances clouds people's opinion of that team.
At the same time, I felt that they did underperform, partially because the chemistry just wasn't right.

Cuonzo was a product of Big10 sports - a style that says we're tougher and stronger than you. We play hard defense and take-it-to-the rack offense. Sounds great until your big men foul, your perimeter defense is leaky, and your point guard can't distribute or shoot from outside. Then, when the opposition blankets your main offensive threat, you can't adjust. That's where Cuonzo came up short. It's too bad, because I think Brown and Rabb were smart players who would have responded to better coaching. I will give Cuonzo credit for making Bird a better defensive player. But I'm looking forward to Wyking. He says he wants to run a full-court press and that can be really fun to watch when well executed. So, go get'um Bears!

HearstMining said:

---

Cuonzo was a product of Big10 sports - a style that says we're tougher and stronger than you. We play hard defense and take-it-to-the rack offense. Sounds great until your big men foul, your perimeter defense is leaky, and your point guard can't distribute or shoot from outside. Then, when the opposition blankets your main offensive threat, you can't adjust. That's where Cuonzo came up short. It's too bad, because I think Brown and Rabb were smart players who would have responded to better coaching. I will give Cuonzo credit for making Bird a better defensive player. But I'm looking forward to Wyking. He says he wants to run a full-court press and that can be really fun to watch when well executed. So, go get'um Bears!

---

Is it also part of Big 10 sports style to lose every game that was close in the last two minutes because even a 6th grade CYO coach could have run circles around you? I never once criticized Cuonzo on this board while he was the coach but the ungracious way in which he departed and his public humiliation of the University in the way he handled the NIT "mail it in" game opened up my floodgates of poison. I listened to a video of Coach Jones when he first got the job. He ran down a list of all the things he was going to focus on---which by the way, happened to be all of Cuonzo's weaknesses. I hope this means that Cuonzo accepted no input from Coach Jones. If that is the case, I have a lot of hope for this year. I am not worried about wins and losses. I just want Coach Jones to be a good coach like Coach Wilcox that has the team on the right course.

btsktr said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

caltagjohnson said:

---

I agree with you regarding the Cal future. But Cal fans shoot their wad over a five star, probable one-and-done. I frankly dont care if Brown comes, I would prefer someone like Brooks coming. I also don't care if we have a true center. Teams play without one and play well. I don't believe in cookie cutter rosters. There are teams who play with 3 PGs. You want the best guys on the floor.

---

Agreed, although I think landing Brown would be huge even if he is one-and-done for the perception if nothing else. As you point out, having a true center is no longer a priority. Pop quiz: who's the all-star true center on the Warriors? Right. Or Oregon who made it to the Final Four? Stretch 4's are far more important these days.

---

If Cal ever gets to the point where they have one open schollie and are deciding between a Theo or a Jaylen, the question of whether to take the one and done might be relevant. Normally the last schollie is a flyer that we pretty much know won't pan out. Cal has never been hurt by a one and done because the other options were more like 4 and zero contribution.

I could see passing on a one and done if he is one of those extremely athletic, massively raw guys AND you have a solid player you could give the ride to. Bottom line, though. Very, very few teams win a national title without a McD.

---

We had three McD's on the floor at the same time in Rabb, Bird, and Brown, along with 4-stars Wallace and Mathews, and we were only a cut above average. Having a good coach is so, so very important, almost essential. If you don't have a good coach, then you better have a good point guard who can run the team and get the ball to the McDs in their favorite spots when they are open.

---

Martin was obviously an offensively challenged coach, but we were not only a cut above average that year. We were a #4 seed in the NCAA tourney. So, in the eyes of the committee there were at most 15 teams better than us.

---

All of what you say is factual. I've always wondered about the selection process, as many times I've questioned some of the seedings. The NCAA selection committee consists of only10 members, all athletic directors at a cross-section of D1 Universities, who serve for 5 years. I wonder how much these ADs really know about basketball. Basketball is only one of their responsibilities in running an athletic department. The only name on the committee I recognized was Tom Holmoe, former 49er football player and college football coach who had a dismal record at Cal. He was a good player, and I would still call him qualified to rank football teams or vote to select bowl teams. But what experience does he have with basketball? Did he play it or coach it, so that he might have more knowledge than a fan like us?

In the Coaches poll, 32 D1 coaches do the voting for the best teams. Those coaches, I feel, are better equipped to determine the rankings, because they have spent years learning how to win games and how to scheme against good teams. They presumably know things that fans and talking heads may not know. Entering the NCAA tournament they ranked Cal #23, and after the tournament, Cal was dropped from the top 25 rankings.

Cal's pre-tournament poll ranking at 23 is not #16, but it was still pretty good, compared to where we had been since our last PAC10 title. When I said "a cut above average," that might have been a little harsh. Of 351 teams, Cal's record was 65th, points/game was 142nd, points allowed was 61st, offensive rating was 87th, and defensive rating was 50th. You can be the judge.

I think maybe the ADs who made the NCAA selections might have been looking more at the caliber of the player recruit rankings on Cal's team, when they made the seedings, rather than looking at the team as a unit, except that Cal made a very nice run down the stretch in the PAC12, so that may have influenced the seeding.

For me, rankings and seedings are all subjective, and don't mean much in determining how good a team is. Winning games is actual success, winning pressure games against good opponents is more so.

Here are our final Sagarin (predictor) rankings each year this century, which compares us to all of college basketball all year:

Braun
00-01 #31
01-02 #38
02-03 #44
03-04 #94
04-05 #154
05-06 #38
06-07 #79
07-08 #59

Monty
08-09 #32
09-10 #14
10-11 #78
11-12 #27
12-13 #55
13-14 #55

Martin
14-15 #114
15-16 #29
16-17 #52

SFCity:

You're right that the selection committee often makes puzzling decisions. However, I don't think the coaches' poll is any better. Coaches know nothing about teams outside of their own league (or their own OOC opponents) because they don't have the time to watch any games from elsewhere. In fact, most of the ballots are filled in by some random underling in the athletic departments. If anything, the AP poll is probably more accurate, since at least the reporters watch more games.

Thanks Calumnus! While I generally agree with SFCity about subjectivity of rankings (and to some degree seedings), I think end of year Sagarin ratings are as good a measure as any of how well a team did that season. Simple averages:

Martin: 65
Monty: 43.5
Braun: 67.125

That just about agrees with my eye-test and sense of the program under each of those coaches. Monty did better than Braun and Martin, but was not a top 20 program. I think that's a pretty fair reflection of the coaching chops and state of D1 basketball during those periods.

FWIW, I think Monty would have done better with Braun's talent during that time, and Cal probably would have been a consistent top 20 program or so. Not sure, that said talent would have come to Cal under Monty - so its all just havering.

There are coaches and there are recruiters...and when you strike the jackpot and get both in the same guy, then a program takes off.

UrsaMajor said:

---

There are coaches and there are recruiters...and when you strike the jackpot and get both in the same guy, then a program takes off.

---

Todd Bozeman was a recruiter (albeit one toting a briefcase).

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity:

You're right that the selection committee often makes puzzling decisions. However, I don't think the coaches' poll is any better. Coaches know nothing about teams outside of their own league (or their own OOC opponents) because they don't have the time to watch any games from elsewhere.

---

I have no idea whether what you say is right or wrong, because you have not provided any evidence or proof for your "facts". In your usual zeal to debate, this time I think you have made some big exaggerations and broad generalizations.

Back in 1949, when USF won the NIT, the recognized national championship, coach Pete Newell had a card file on every good team and every star player in the country. He knew the tendencies of all of his potential opponents, most of whom he did not ever face. I know this for a fact, because I had a good friend who was a player on that USF team, and he told me about that card file.

When Newell's Cal teams played in NCAA tournaments, Newell had that same card file. Plus assistant Rene Herrerias, a former Newell player, seldom attended Cal games, but was often busy during the season scouting in person different teams which they thought Cal might face in the NCAA tournament.

Pete Newell was ahead of his time in terms of knowing his opponents. Coaches today have studied Newell and studied the methods of many other coaches and they all realize that advance scouting is important. If you can't do it in person, then you get film or tape on an opponent. It is important to get as much information as you can, but coaches today are so skilled, and offenses so unsophisticated in terms of plays that coaches don't need to watch entire games to see the tendencies of other coaches, teams and players. I'll bet you that Coach K, or Bobby Kight, or Sean Miller, or Bill Self could watch 10-15 minutes of film on any team and know enough to roughly scheme for that team, let alone cast a Coaches Poll ballot. Even unsophisticated fans like myself can watch a quarter of a half of a basketball game, and learn a lot about the tendencies of a team. I watched a video of Cal's "dream team" play in Australia in 2015, and what I saw in the first half was a lot of one-on-one play and coast-to-coast, "take it to the rim" play, and I predicted that Cal would not have a very good offense that season, which turned out to be true. Cal was able to have a decent season, mostly because over the course of the season, the team improved its help defense. I think posters like Beached Bear, Hoop Dreams, and others could spot tendencies in much less time than I did. I had to replay the tape, rewinding a lot, to be sure before I posted my comments. But D1 coaches can do this in minutes, I'd guess. Plus coaches have friends at other schools and other progams. They get together. They talk. They all know who the top 50 teams are, maybe not their ranking, but they know these teams.

Quote:

---

In fact, most of the ballots are filled in by some random underling in the athletic departments.

---

Show me some proof. So you are saying MOST coaches have no input to their own vote? That is quite an accusation.

Quote:

---

If anything, the AP poll is probably more accurate, since at least the reporters watch more games.

---

As to the AP Poll, there are some good sports reporters, who are actual journalists, unlike the reporters in mainstream media today. I trust their facts, but I seldom trust their analyses. They are too often wrong, as is evidenced by their predictions. Many of those reporters never played the sport they are reporting on, so they have much to learn, and never will know what comes from actually playing that sport. So I don't place so much faith in their AP votes. Just like on the BI, the opinions of the posters who I trust the most, are the opinions of posters who are coaches or were former coaches.

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity:

You're right that the selection committee often makes puzzling decisions. However, I don't think the coaches' poll is any better. Coaches know nothing about teams outside of their own league (or their own OOC opponents) because they don't have the time to watch any games from elsewhere.

---

I have no idea whether what you say is right or wrong, because you have not provided any evidence or proof for your "facts". In your usual zeal to debate, this time I think you have made some big exaggerations and broad generalizations.

Back in 1949, when USF won the NIT, the recognized national championship, coach Pete Newell had a card file on every good team and every star player in the country. He knew the tendencies of all of his potential opponents, most of whom he did not ever face. I know this for a fact, because I had a good friend who was a player on that USF team, and he told me about that card file.

When Newell's Cal teams played in NCAA tournaments, Newell had that same card file. Plus assistant Rene Herrerias, a former Newell player, seldom attended Cal games, but was often busy during the season scouting in person different teams which they thought Cal might face in the NCAA tournament.

Pete Newell was ahead of his time in terms of knowing his opponents. Coaches today have studied Newell and studied the methods of many other coaches and they all realize that advance scouting is important. If you can't do it in person, then you get film or tape on an opponent. It is important to get as much information as you can, but coaches today are so skilled, and offenses so unsophisticated in terms of plays that coaches don't need to watch entire games to see the tendencies of other coaches, teams and players. I'll bet you that Coach K, or Bobby Kight, or Sean Miller, or Bill Self could watch 10-15 minutes of film on any team and know enough to roughly scheme for that team, let alone cast a Coaches Poll ballot. Even unsophisticated fans like myself can watch a quarter of a half of a basketball game, and learn a lot about the tendencies of a team. I watched a video of Cal's "dream team" play in Australia in 2015, and what I saw in the first half was a lot of one-on-one play and coast-to-coast, "take it to the rim" play, and I predicted that Cal would not have a very good offense that season, which turned out to be true. Cal was able to have a decent season, mostly because over the course of the season, the team improved its help defense. I think posters like Beached Bear, Hoop Dreams, and others could spot tendencies in much less time than I did. I had to replay the tape, rewinding a lot, to be sure before I posted my comments. But D1 coaches can do this in minutes, I'd guess. Plus coaches have friends at other schools and other progams. They get together. They talk. They all know who the top 50 teams are, maybe not their ranking, but they know these teams.

Quote:

---

In fact, most of the ballots are filled in by some random underling in the athletic departments.

---

Show me some proof. So you are saying MOST coaches have no input to their own vote? That is quite an accusation.

Quote:

---

If anything, the AP poll is probably more accurate, since at least the reporters watch more games.

---

As to the AP Poll, there are some good sports reporters, who are actual journalists, unlike the reporters in mainstream media today. I trust their facts, but I seldom trust their analyses. They are too often wrong, as is evidenced by their predictions. Many of those reporters never played the sport they are reporting on, so they have much to learn, and never will know what comes from actually playing that sport. So I don't place so much faith in their AP votes. Just like on the BI, the opinions of the posters who I trust the most, are the opinions of posters who are coaches or were former coaches.

---

My, we're testy today aren't we? Was this post so great that you really felt the need to post it twice?

As for my contention about the coaches' poll, this isn't my "opinion," there have been many articles about this over the years. Montgomery has said that he didn't necessarily fill out his own ballot (Coach K said the same thing). Since you don't trust me, I assume that unless I dig up the citations you won't believe it, but whatever. FWIW, I was agreeing with most of what you wrote, just not the point about the coaches poll.

I'm sure Newell did what you said (notice I didn't ask you for proof), but there are over 300 D-1 teams right now, and at least 70-100 that are important (i.e., with a legitimate shot at the tournament) unlike earlier.

UrsaMajor said:

---

There are coaches and there are recruiters...and when you strike the jackpot and get both in the same guy, then a program takes off.

---

Wrong.
When you get both in the same guy they move on to get paid at a bigger program.

concordtom said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There are coaches and there are recruiters...and when you strike the jackpot and get both in the same guy, then a program takes off.

---

Wrong.
When you get both in the same guy they move on to get paid at a bigger program.

---

How would we know? We've never had one at Cal.

And SFCityBear, don't even think of typing up your typical response to that.

concordtom said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

There are coaches and there are recruiters...and when you strike the jackpot and get both in the same guy, then a program takes off.

---

Wrong.
When you get both in the same guy they move on to get paid at a bigger program.

---

I thought we were done with the woe is Cal... Cal can't have nice things BS.

That unfortunately will never go away.