Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

sonofabear51 said:

---

Referees very anti-Cal. Especially tonight.

---

I find it so amusing that people on this board always whine that the refs are "anti Cal." Each game. Every game. Without fail.

Surely, you all are intelligent enough to understand your own strong pro-Cal bias, and how ridiculous it is to suggest that there is some grand conspiracy against Cal on the part of the referees, no matter who Cal is playing. Just stop it already, it is very tiresome.

---

Agreed.

That said, you didn't watch the game.

Yogi Bear said:

---

The steals stats are heavily inflated by the pressing. Washington's steals were much lower, showing that steals aren't an indicator of anything.

---

Where would we have been without them?

stu said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

The steals stats are heavily inflated by the pressing. Washington's steals were much lower, showing that steals aren't an indicator of anything.

---

Where would we have been without them?

---

You mean if we got back and played normal defense and didn't allow open layups and jumpers on all the times they beat the press?

I'll leave the math to you.

Yogi Bear said:

---

touchdownbears43 said:

---

Plenty of college coaches have done (A LOT) more with less. We as Cal fans just reflexively assume that "next year" will be better. Won't be tuning in (or caring for that matter) until an actually qualified, inventive head coach is hired.

---

We only have 3 good players on the team and two are freshmen. I don't think any coach has ever done great with that unless those freshmen were Top 10 recruits. That doesn't mean our coaching isn't poor (it is), but this team would never make the NCAA tournament if God himself came down to coach them.

---

It's not just the results it's how we continually play without any basketball smarts (ie my definition of "good basketball").

Exhibit 1 is how we ended the half taking a forced shot out of rhythm with like 8 seconds to play. UW goes the other way and drops an easy three ball look. That's a -5 (or -6) swing at the end of the half when it should be no worse than a 0 net swing.

I'd personally like to just see us make the correct plays the rest of the season whether we win or lose. But the problem is that we don't play good basketball for an entire game. That's not talent, that's something you can control. Let's just start with that.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

touchdownbears43 said:

---

Plenty of college coaches have done (A LOT) more with less. We as Cal fans just reflexively assume that "next year" will be better. Won't be tuning in (or caring for that matter) until an actually qualified, inventive head coach is hired.

---

We only have 3 good players on the team and two are freshmen. I don't think any coach has ever done great with that unless those freshmen were Top 10 recruits. That doesn't mean our coaching isn't poor (it is), but this team would never make the NCAA tournament if God himself came down to coach them.

---

It's not just the results it's how we continually play without any basketball smarts (ie my definition of "good basketball").

Exhibit 1 is how we ended the half taking a forced shot out of rhythm with like 8 seconds to play. UW goes the other way and drops an easy three ball look. That's a -5 (or -6) swing at the end of the half when it should be no worse than a 0 net swing.

I'd personally like to just see us make the correct plays the rest of the season whether we win or lose. But the problem is that we don't play good basketball for an entire game. That's not talent, that's something you can control. Let's just start with that.

---

I agree with that. It's when I read "lots of coaches have done a lot more with less" that I take issue. This team has few good players.

Lots of coaches have done more with less.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

touchdownbears43 said:

---

Plenty of college coaches have done (A LOT) more with less. We as Cal fans just reflexively assume that "next year" will be better. Won't be tuning in (or caring for that matter) until an actually qualified, inventive head coach is hired.

---

We only have 3 good players on the team and two are freshmen. I don't think any coach has ever done great with that unless those freshmen were Top 10 recruits. That doesn't mean our coaching isn't poor (it is), but this team would never make the NCAA tournament if God himself came down to coach them.

---

It's not just the results it's how we continually play without any basketball smarts (ie my definition of "good basketball").

Exhibit 1 is how we ended the half taking a forced shot out of rhythm with like 8 seconds to play. UW goes the other way and drops an easy three ball look. That's a -5 (or -6) swing at the end of the half when it should be no worse than a 0 net swing.

I'd personally like to just see us make the correct plays the rest of the season whether we win or lose. But the problem is that we don't play good basketball for an entire game. That's not talent, that's something you can control. Let's just start with that.

---

But this is pretty much what you get with inexperienced and young teams. By definition bad teams don't play good basketball an entire game. If they did they wouldn't be bad. This team needs next year to get here - we get a big 3 player talent upgrade and the few talented guys getting minutes this year will be more experienced and less error prone.

tequila4kapp said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

touchdownbears43 said:

---

Plenty of college coaches have done (A LOT) more with less. We as Cal fans just reflexively assume that "next year" will be better. Won't be tuning in (or caring for that matter) until an actually qualified, inventive head coach is hired.

---

We only have 3 good players on the team and two are freshmen. I don't think any coach has ever done great with that unless those freshmen were Top 10 recruits. That doesn't mean our coaching isn't poor (it is), but this team would never make the NCAA tournament if God himself came down to coach them.

---

It's not just the results it's how we continually play without any basketball smarts (ie my definition of "good basketball").

Exhibit 1 is how we ended the half taking a forced shot out of rhythm with like 8 seconds to play. UW goes the other way and drops an easy three ball look. That's a -5 (or -6) swing at the end of the half when it should be no worse than a 0 net swing.

I'd personally like to just see us make the correct plays the rest of the season whether we win or lose. But the problem is that we don't play good basketball for an entire game. That's not talent, that's something you can control. Let's just start with that.

---

But this is pretty much what you get with inexperienced and young teams. By definition bad teams don't play good basketball an entire game. If they did they wouldn't be bad. This team needs next year to get here - we get a big 3 player talent upgrade and the few talented guys getting minutes this year will be more experienced and less error prone.

---

Sure....but.....

With limited talent (and who knew it would be this bad until we got the eye test) PRESSING is a big problem. Ditto with Lee's importance and foul proneness when he is back as rim defender. Sure. We are forcing a FEW turnovers but we are also giving up breaks and picking up cheap ones with a SHORT (at least as far as talent) bench. No way it is a net positive.

Now we don't do TOO bad of a job with the zone. Washington's is better (coaching ability with respect to the ability to teach) but it isn't TOO bad.

And then offensively (we know) the twin towers is just awful. Clogs everything up. With big missing parts of their games it just isn't working.

So why in the WORLD are we not playing a 2-3 without the Press? Just fall back into it. Rotate Lee and Kingsly. And mix it up with Man to Man - the defense that produced the only win in conference play so far.

Yes. We are young, not very talented and waiting for next year. But some of this is simply ridiculously obvious. Unless this is a multi-year plan to get JS and McNeil experience in the press I don't see this working...

But hey, Jones had a powerpoint, a plan, and according to the shockster (god I miss him at times like this) knew the player's names so there is all that.

I am tired of recruiting Arhletic players who cant shoot ir dribble.

socaltownie said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

touchdownbears43 said:

---

Plenty of college coaches have done (A LOT) more with less. We as Cal fans just reflexively assume that "next year" will be better. Won't be tuning in (or caring for that matter) until an actually qualified, inventive head coach is hired.

---

We only have 3 good players on the team and two are freshmen. I don't think any coach has ever done great with that unless those freshmen were Top 10 recruits. That doesn't mean our coaching isn't poor (it is), but this team would never make the NCAA tournament if God himself came down to coach them.

---

It's not just the results it's how we continually play without any basketball smarts (ie my definition of "good basketball").

Exhibit 1 is how we ended the half taking a forced shot out of rhythm with like 8 seconds to play. UW goes the other way and drops an easy three ball look. That's a -5 (or -6) swing at the end of the half when it should be no worse than a 0 net swing.

I'd personally like to just see us make the correct plays the rest of the season whether we win or lose. But the problem is that we don't play good basketball for an entire game. That's not talent, that's something you can control. Let's just start with that.

---

But this is pretty much what you get with inexperienced and young teams. By definition bad teams don't play good basketball an entire game. If they did they wouldn't be bad. This team needs next year to get here - we get a big 3 player talent upgrade and the few talented guys getting minutes this year will be more experienced and less error prone.

---

Sure....but.....

With limited talent (and who knew it would be this bad until we got the eye test) PRESSING is a big problem. Ditto with Lee's importance and foul proneness when he is back as rim defender. Sure. We are forcing a FEW turnovers but we are also giving up breaks and picking up cheap ones with a SHORT (at least as far as talent) bench. No way it is a net positive.

Now we don't do TOO bad of a job with the zone. Washington's is better (coaching ability with respect to the ability to teach) but it isn't TOO bad.

And then offensively (we know) the twin towers is just awful. Clogs everything up. With big missing parts of their games it just isn't working.

So why in the WORLD are we not playing a 2-3 without the Press? Just fall back into it. Rotate Lee and Kingsly. And mix it up with Man to Man - the defense that produced the only win in conference play so far.

Yes. We are young, not very talented and waiting for next year. But some of this is simply ridiculously obvious. Unless this is a multi-year plan to get JS and McNeil experience in the press I don't see this working...

But hey, Jones had a powerpoint, a plan, and according to the shockster (god I miss him at times like this) knew the player's names so there is all that.

---

Some guesses:

Maybe he's seen the alternative lineups in practice and knows they are even worse.

Maybe he's trying to instill a style of play and has decided it is better to teach the style and take lumps with a roster that doesn't fit / isn't good than it would be to try to win with a roster that isn't good enough to win anyway then have to teach the style of play from scratch next year.

Maybe he knows this style of play - however poorly it is being executed now - helps with recruiting, so it pays long term dividends to stick with it.

oskidunker said:

---

I am tired of recruiting Arhletic players who cant shoot ir dribble.

---

or apparently play defense, though this is on the coaching staff.

Most of the frosh seem to have a decent offensive skill set. I'm not sure what to make from a team that plays worse defense than many high school teams, despite having two bigs who are good defensive players.

tequila4kapp said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

touchdownbears43 said:

---

Plenty of college coaches have done (A LOT) more with less. We as Cal fans just reflexively assume that "next year" will be better. Won't be tuning in (or caring for that matter) until an actually qualified, inventive head coach is hired.

---

We only have 3 good players on the team and two are freshmen. I don't think any coach has ever done great with that unless those freshmen were Top 10 recruits. That doesn't mean our coaching isn't poor (it is), but this team would never make the NCAA tournament if God himself came down to coach them.

---

It's not just the results it's how we continually play without any basketball smarts (ie my definition of "good basketball").

Exhibit 1 is how we ended the half taking a forced shot out of rhythm with like 8 seconds to play. UW goes the other way and drops an easy three ball look. That's a -5 (or -6) swing at the end of the half when it should be no worse than a 0 net swing.

I'd personally like to just see us make the correct plays the rest of the season whether we win or lose. But the problem is that we don't play good basketball for an entire game. That's not talent, that's something you can control. Let's just start with that.

---

But this is pretty much what you get with inexperienced and young teams. By definition bad teams don't play good basketball an entire game. If they did they wouldn't be bad. This team needs next year to get here - we get a big 3 player talent upgrade and the few talented guys getting minutes this year will be more experienced and less error prone.

---

Sure....but.....

With limited talent (and who knew it would be this bad until we got the eye test) PRESSING is a big problem. Ditto with Lee's importance and foul proneness when he is back as rim defender. Sure. We are forcing a FEW turnovers but we are also giving up breaks and picking up cheap ones with a SHORT (at least as far as talent) bench. No way it is a net positive.

Now we don't do TOO bad of a job with the zone. Washington's is better (coaching ability with respect to the ability to teach) but it isn't TOO bad.

And then offensively (we know) the twin towers is just awful. Clogs everything up. With big missing parts of their games it just isn't working.

So why in the WORLD are we not playing a 2-3 without the Press? Just fall back into it. Rotate Lee and Kingsly. And mix it up with Man to Man - the defense that produced the only win in conference play so far.

Yes. We are young, not very talented and waiting for next year. But some of this is simply ridiculously obvious. Unless this is a multi-year plan to get JS and McNeil experience in the press I don't see this working...

But hey, Jones had a powerpoint, a plan, and according to the shockster (god I miss him at times like this) knew the player's names so there is all that.

---

Some guesses:

Maybe he's seen the alternative lineups in practice and knows they are even worse.

Maybe he's trying to instill a style of play and has decided it is better to teach the style and take lumps with a roster that doesn't fit / isn't good than it would be to try to win with a roster that isn't good enough to win anyway then have to teach the style of play from scratch next year.

Maybe he knows this style of play - however poorly it is being executed now - helps with recruiting, so it pays long term dividends to stick with it.

---

This. The reality is that winning 15 games is not significantly different in terms of outcome than winning 10 game, especially if the guys being recruited know that this team is talent-challenged, and they are going to get plenty of playing time next year, and are coming to Cal on that basis. Therefore, it makes more sense to stick with the plan and try and install Wyking's system, and take our lumps now, rather than win a few more games, but ****** the learning curve on his system. That's why, regardless of what the statistics say, I'd play Okoroh less, since he's graduating, and doesn't fit this system anyway. You can't know whether the system works until he's got players he's recruited to play, and until he's taught it, which is why I don't see changing coaches for at least one more year.

In the end, the main effect of switching Martin for Jones is that we lost Jemarl Baker as our recruit at the point, ane ended up with Darius McNeill instead. McNeill hasn't been good, but Baker is not playing at all, and the speculation is that he might never play in college. My guess is that Rooks and Moore were transferring, no matter what. While watching this team is painful, I have to take the long view and at least see what happens with the recruiting class coming in next fall, and how this team develops in 18-19, before I would make a coaching change.

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

sonofabear51 said:

---

Referees very anti-Cal. Especially tonight.

---

I find it so amusing that people on this board always whine that the refs are "anti Cal." Each game. Every game. Without fail.

Surely, you all are intelligent enough to understand your own strong pro-Cal bias, and how ridiculous it is to suggest that there is some grand conspiracy against Cal on the part of the referees, no matter who Cal is playing. Just stop it already, it is very tiresome.

---

Agree. However, it is not incorrect to note that the officiating was horrendous--not biased, or rather biased against all 10 players on the court: inconsistent, ticky-tacky, and missing obvious calls.

Jeff82 said:

---

In the end, the main effect of switching Martin for Jones is that we lost Jemarl Baker as our recruit at the point, ane ended up with Darius McNeill instead. McNeill hasn't been good, but Baker is not playing at all, and the speculation is that he might never play in college. My guess is that Rooks and Moore were transferring, no matter what. While watching this team is painful, I have to take the long view and at least see what happens with the recruiting class coming in next fall, and how this team develops in 18-19, before I would make a coaching change.

---

I think Olivier Sarr was a casualty of the Cuonzo for Wyking move as well. Fortunately though, he's looked very unimpressive so far at Wake.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

I think Olivier Sarr was a casualty of the Cuonzo for Wyking move as well. Fortunately though, he's looked very unimpressive so far at Wake.

---

Aw, come on! This was a Shocky special!
You mean the self appointed head of recruiting not only
Can't actually recruit, technically, but also
Can't identify quality targets.

My view: the team played much better last night than in recent games. McNeil's end of half three attempt and DC's technical cost 5 points. If Cal would have avoided those two problems and made free throws they would have won. I see progress, albeit glacial.

My point is that the assumption in hiring Jones is that the goal was in part to keep the recruiting class together. In my view, that was substantially accomplished. The fact that the class didn't create instant success, mostly in my view because of the struggles at the point, is not something you can blame Jones for at this point. The best thing about these freshman is that they'll become sophomores, which is always the best thing, unless they're one-and-dones. You have to see what he can accomplish by grooming these guys, and adding next year's class, which looks good on paper, to them.

touchdownbears43 said:

---

Just back from the bars...have we fired our terrible coach yet? Or are we making excuses and 'atta boys

---

Coach still here. Excuses and atta boys can be found here, particularly in the comments section.
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2018/1/12/16882134/flashes-of-freshmen-growth-in-road-loss-to-washington

bearchamp said:

---

My view: the team played much better last night than in recent games. McNeil's end of half three attempt and DC's technical cost 5 points. If Cal would have avoided those two problems and made free throws they would have won. I see progress, albeit glacial.

---

Agreed. They looked a lot better against the zone with Seuing flashing to the middle. Unfortunately everyone else laid an egg offensively.

Jeff82 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

touchdownbears43 said:

---

Plenty of college coaches have done (A LOT) more with less. We as Cal fans just reflexively assume that "next year" will be better. Won't be tuning in (or caring for that matter) until an actually qualified, inventive head coach is hired.

---

We only have 3 good players on the team and two are freshmen. I don't think any coach has ever done great with that unless those freshmen were Top 10 recruits. That doesn't mean our coaching isn't poor (it is), but this team would never make the NCAA tournament if God himself came down to coach them.

---

It's not just the results it's how we continually play without any basketball smarts (ie my definition of "good basketball").

Exhibit 1 is how we ended the half taking a forced shot out of rhythm with like 8 seconds to play. UW goes the other way and drops an easy three ball look. That's a -5 (or -6) swing at the end of the half when it should be no worse than a 0 net swing.

I'd personally like to just see us make the correct plays the rest of the season whether we win or lose. But the problem is that we don't play good basketball for an entire game. That's not talent, that's something you can control. Let's just start with that.

---

But this is pretty much what you get with inexperienced and young teams. By definition bad teams don't play good basketball an entire game. If they did they wouldn't be bad. This team needs next year to get here - we get a big 3 player talent upgrade and the few talented guys getting minutes this year will be more experienced and less error prone.

---

Sure....but.....

With limited talent (and who knew it would be this bad until we got the eye test) PRESSING is a big problem. Ditto with Lee's importance and foul proneness when he is back as rim defender. Sure. We are forcing a FEW turnovers but we are also giving up breaks and picking up cheap ones with a SHORT (at least as far as talent) bench. No way it is a net positive.

Now we don't do TOO bad of a job with the zone. Washington's is better (coaching ability with respect to the ability to teach) but it isn't TOO bad.

And then offensively (we know) the twin towers is just awful. Clogs everything up. With big missing parts of their games it just isn't working.

So why in the WORLD are we not playing a 2-3 without the Press? Just fall back into it. Rotate Lee and Kingsly. And mix it up with Man to Man - the defense that produced the only win in conference play so far.

Yes. We are young, not very talented and waiting for next year. But some of this is simply ridiculously obvious. Unless this is a multi-year plan to get JS and McNeil experience in the press I don't see this working...

But hey, Jones had a powerpoint, a plan, and according to the shockster (god I miss him at times like this) knew the player's names so there is all that.

---

Some guesses:

Maybe he's seen the alternative lineups in practice and knows they are even worse.

Maybe he's trying to instill a style of play and has decided it is better to teach the style and take lumps with a roster that doesn't fit / isn't good than it would be to try to win with a roster that isn't good enough to win anyway then have to teach the style of play from scratch next year.

Maybe he knows this style of play - however poorly it is being executed now - helps with recruiting, so it pays long term dividends to stick with it.

---

This. The reality is that winning 15 games is not significantly different in terms of outcome than winning 10 game, especially if the guys being recruited know that this team is talent-challenged, and they are going to get plenty of playing time next year, and are coming to Cal on that basis. Therefore, it makes more sense to stick with the plan and try and install Wyking's system, and take our lumps now, rather than win a few more games, but ****** the learning curve on his system. That's why, regardless of what the statistics say, I'd play Okoroh less, since he's graduating, and doesn't fit this system anyway. You can't know whether the system works until he's got players he's recruited to play, and until he's taught it, which is why I don't see changing coaches for at least one more year.

---

I'd feel better if I knew Wyking Jones really has "a system" (and, of course, that it is a decent one).

I'd feel better if we had leadership in the Athletic Department that was capable of making this determination over the next two months and acting on that decision, as needed.

we held UW to their lowest points of the season

I'd feel better too, but the reality is, you're not going to know if your coach is a success until he succeeds. The old days of Newell's open practices (my dad used to cut class to go watch them), where he would fire basketballs at the heads of players who didn't pay attention, are over. Consequently, you never really know if the issue is that the coach can't coach, or the players can't execute. What I will say is that from what I've seen in the games, the players are still playing hard for him, which indicates he hasn't lost them. That suggests they understand what he's trying to teach them, but still can't execute it all the time under game conditions.