sycasey said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

That Ty broke his hand and Jabari's back acted up meant 40% of the starting lineup did not play (and 2 key players). Meaning that loss in the first round certainly was not Coach's fault.

---

Yeah, I was not a big fan of Martin's offensive system, but I definitely give him a mulligan for that NCAA loss. Trying to win without your starting PG and best outside shooter isn't easy.

---

Cuonzo still had Brown and Rabb, and Singer stepped up and played quite well. Even with Bird and Wallace out, Cal should have been able to roll over the Rainbows, a team with no highly ranked recruits, and even some unranked recruits, as I remember. I was very puzzled at the almost complete disappearance of Jaylen Brown in that game.

SFCityBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

That Ty broke his hand and Jabari's back acted up meant 40% of the starting lineup did not play (and 2 key players). Meaning that loss in the first round certainly was not Coach's fault.

---

Yeah, I was not a big fan of Martin's offensive system, but I definitely give him a mulligan for that NCAA loss. Trying to win without your starting PG and best outside shooter isn't easy.

---

Cuonzo still had Brown and Rabb, and Singer stepped up and played quite well. Even with Bird and Wallace out, Cal should have been able to roll over the Rainbows, a team with no highly ranked recruits, and even some unranked recruits, as I remember. I was very puzzled at the almost complete disappearance of Jaylen Brown in that game.

---

If he'd had more than an hour to prepare for the loss of Bird, maybe. But that was a pretty tough break, already being down a man. You could argue they should have won anyway, but to "roll" I think is unrealistic, given the circumstances.

MoragaBear said:

---

When your point guard's out and you lose your top perimeter shooter as a game time decision, compounded by the turmoil and firing of a coach just days before and add Jaylen playing horribly with 4 points and fouling out in 17 minutes, leaving you having to play RMB 26 minutes, Domingo 14 minutes and Chauca 8 minutes -that's a recipe for disaster, whether it's against Hawaii or some other 12 or 13 seed. Add that RMB, Domingo and Chauca combined to shoot 0-for-11 for 3 points in 48 minutes and you're screwed. That's really not on the coach.

---

And Jaylen playing poorly is in large part BECAUSE of those guys being out. The opponent's perimeter defenders don't have to focus on anyone else.

MoragaBear said:

---

When your point guard's out and you lose your top perimeter shooter as a game time decision, compounded by the turmoil and firing of a coach just days before and add Jaylen playing horribly with 4 points and fouling out in 17 minutes, leaving you having to play RMB 26 minutes, Domingo 14 minutes and Chauca 8 minutes -that's a recipe for disaster, whether it's against Hawaii or some other 12 or 13 seed. Add that RMB, Domingo and Chauca combined to shoot 0-for-11 for 3 points in 48 minutes and you're screwed. That's really not on the coach.

---

I think we would have won the game even without Wallace and Bird, but Singer got in early first half foul trouble, so we were down to Chauca (even Jaylen was given the chance to play the 1, but that didn't work out). He had a golden opportunity to prove himself, but couldn't handle being ruffed up by the Hawaii guards who forced him into bad turnovers.

Singer came back in the second half and was our best player.

I do give credit to the Hawaii stretch 4 who was legit

sycasey said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

When your point guard's out and you lose your top perimeter shooter as a game time decision, compounded by the turmoil and firing of a coach just days before and add Jaylen playing horribly with 4 points and fouling out in 17 minutes, leaving you having to play RMB 26 minutes, Domingo 14 minutes and Chauca 8 minutes -that's a recipe for disaster, whether it's against Hawaii or some other 12 or 13 seed. Add that RMB, Domingo and Chauca combined to shoot 0-for-11 for 3 points in 48 minutes and you're screwed. That's really not on the coach.

---

And Jaylen playing poorly is in large part BECAUSE of those guys being out. The opponent's perimeter defenders don't have to focus on anyone else.

---

I agree on the perimeter defenders having an easier time of it. But if you are a great player, and Brown was what, the #2 or #3 ranked recruit in the country, you need to step up and put the team on your back. Plus you had Ivan Rabb, another top 10 recruit to help you inside. Between the two of them, they should have been able to carry the team in that game. Ivan did step up, and he had a good game. Brown played like a freshman.

Brown had been dealing with double and triple-teams all season long, and so had Rabb, and when Wallace was in the lineup, teams did not guard him on the perimeter, often leaving a defender free to double Brown or Bird. Brown had to find a way to stay in that Hawaii game, stay on the floor, and he fouled out in 17 minutes. He was only a freshman, and he had foul trouble in earlier games, but over the season seemed to have learned to control himself, so I was surprised that he allowed himself to foul out.

Your description of players implies or refers primarily or only to offense, but Cal replaced Wallace and Bird with potentially better defenders, Singer, RMB, and Domingo were better defenders than Wallace, Bird, and later, Brown. On paper, at least we should have been better defensively in that Hawaii game. The real problem was lack of depth beyond 8 players with two rotation players out, Brown fouling out, and Singer having to sit with foul trouble.

I don't mean to blame Martin for the loss. But his coaching in all his seasons at Cal is partly what set Cal up for a fall in that game. He coached good defense, but his offense was little more than playground offense. Take it to the rim, or shoot a three. If there had been more structure, more plays, and all the team familiar with those plays, the players forced by circumstances to play vs Hawaii might have been more effective.

Finally, that game should show us more about recruit rankings. That top recruits are not heads and shoulders above the world as freshmen. They are still freshman and prone to freshman mistakes. And also that unranked and lower ranked players, if well coached and experienced, can defeat a team of highly ranked players on a given night.

SFCityBear said:

---

I don't mean to blame Martin for the loss. But his coaching in all his seasons at Cal is partly what set Cal up for a fall in that game. He coached good defense, but his offense was little more than playground offense. Take it to the rim, or shoot a three. If there had been more structure, more plays, and all the team familiar with those plays, the players forced by circumstances to play vs Hawaii might have been more effective.

---

I agree about that. Martin had no real offensive system, and that got exposed once some of the high-level talent was removed.

He left because he predicted the stock market crash.

Really? It didn't seem like it...

He also had a top 20 kenpom offense (and defense) his final year at Tenn.

All you had to do was play a zone against Martin's teams. We could never attack it successfully.

BearGreg said:

---

A couple of interesting data points:

Missouri 2017-18 Effective FG% ranks 35th out of 351 D1 schools. A top 10% offense

Cal 2015-16 Effective FG% ranked 65th nationally. A top 20% offense

---

I'd say lots of fast break points with Jaylen, Jabari, Ty and Ivan. Half court offense sucked, but of course with this talent, even Braun's half-court offense would not stop them. We won our share of games (remember the undefeated home season?), but we couldn't win the big games where good Xs and Os were required.

KoreAmBear said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

A couple of interesting data points:

Missouri 2017-18 Effective FG% ranks 35th out of 351 D1 schools. A top 10% offense

Cal 2015-16 Effective FG% ranked 65th nationally. A top 20% offense

---

I'd say lots of fast break points with Jaylen, Jabari, Ty and Ivan. Half court offense sucked, but of course with this talent, even Braun's half-court offense would not stop them. We won our share of games (remember the undefeated home season?), but we couldn't win the big games where good Xs and Os were required.

---

That was also my impression. When our offense was good it was because the talented starters could make something happen, not because of the scheme.

That said, if Cuonzo had stayed he might have been able to pull in more great recruits, so who knows?

smokeyrover said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

This is a very good summary. Add in Martin's challenges with Admissions and his growing recognition that the style of offense he wanted to play relied on a type of athlete that were not numerous enough relative to our academic requirements for him to be successful and you had a Coach looking for a reason to leave.

Two weeks prior to getting an offer from Missouri, Martin was 100% confident that Moore would be back and he was also confident about a graduate transfer big man being added to the Baker, JHD, Sueing and Anticevich class.

---

Interesting comment. Do you believe that Wyking wanting to press, zone, and change up defenses will run into the same recruiting challenges as Cuonzo's preferred offensive style did?

---

It's a really interesting comment. I still have no idea what style of offense it was that Martin wanted to play but it wasn't good with Jaylen, Jabari, Ty and Ivan on the team. Maybe he was looking for less talented guys who needed no coaching?

BearGreg said:

---

A couple of interesting data points:

Missouri 2017-18 Effective FG% ranks 35th out of 351 D1 schools. A top 10% offense

Cal 2015-16 Effective FG% ranked 65th nationally. A top 20% offense

---

Where is that data from and do they have a break down of out of conference vs conference games? Being 65th is not that good if the top teams in your conference are better and stats are propped up via buying 8 home games against small schools.

BearGreg said:

---

This a very good summary. Add in Martin's challenges with Admissions and his growing recognition that the style of offense he wanted to play relied on a type of athlete that were not numerous enough relative to our academic requirements for him to be successful and you had a Coach looking for a reason to leave. ....

---

I'm sorry but this statement seems to imply that smart kids are not athletic. Do we really want to go there?

One thing is clear, though: Cal's admission standards are tougher than most, and therefore rule out many players. If we were to assume that athletic ability and school smarts are not correlated (directly or inversely), the more limited pool of students available to Cal will certainly make it harder to assemble the best team. If we assume that twice the number of recruits overall meet Missouri's admission criteria versus ours (I have no idea if this is in the ballpark, but it seems plausible), we have a huge disadvantage. We are also known as an academically challenging university, which may discourage some student athletes who meet our entry requirements.

Still, UCLA is tough too, and they do just fine recruiting high end athletes. They succeed because they have the basketball rep that we (and Missouri) lack.

BearGreg said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

A couple of interesting data points:

Missouri 2017-18 Effective FG% ranks 35th out of 351 D1 schools. A top 10% offense

Cal 2015-16 Effective FG% ranked 65th nationally. A top 20% offense

---

Where is that data from and do they have a break down of out of conference vs conference games? Being 65th is not that good if the top teams in your conference are better and stats are propped up via buying 8 home games against small schools.

---

TeamRankings

I believe these stats are cumulative though it's hard to have them skewed too much by non conference play given you play 20+ games in conference in a season (inclusive of the P12 tournament)

In 2015-16, we were 4th in the Pac 12 behind Utah, Arizona and Oregon in effective FG%

Interestingly, we were 4th nationally and 1st in the Pac 12 in defensive effective FG% in 2015-16

And that was a strong year for the Pac 12 in terms of NCAA tourney performance

Defense

---

I don't doubt we were #1 in the conference in opponents eFG in 2015-2016. Everyone on the floor was a long athletic defender.

I did find this site with conference vs total breakdown on stats.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/california/2016.html#all_advanced_conf

Unfortunately, they don't have eFG even though it's a pretty simple calculation.

Doing eFG for Cal by hand, I get 55.7% overall, 51.5% for conference play and 58.1% for OOC play. Of course, I can't compare it to anything without running too many other teams. From eyeballing the stats, Cal was probably between 2-4 in offensive EFT, though. So about consistent with a top 20% P5 team.

Bearprof said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

This a very good summary. Add in Martin's challenges with Admissions and his growing recognition that the style of offense he wanted to play relied on a type of athlete that were not numerous enough relative to our academic requirements for him to be successful and you had a Coach looking for a reason to leave. ....

---

I'm sorry but this statement seems to imply that smart kids are not athletic. Do we really want to go there?

One thing is clear, though: Cal's admission standards are tougher than most, and therefore rule out many players. If we were to assume that athletic ability and school smarts are not correlated (directly or inversely), the more limited pool of students available to Cal will certainly make it harder to assemble the best team.

---

what if one were to say kids who were athletic enough to put in massive efforts training for a potential (or hopeful) pro career that might pay millions of dollars also might not put in the same effort hitting the books, thus not acquiring the academic resume that someone who is only trying to do that might attain?

ColoradoBear said:

---

Bearprof said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

This a very good summary. Add in Martin's challenges with Admissions and his growing recognition that the style of offense he wanted to play relied on a type of athlete that were not numerous enough relative to our academic requirements for him to be successful and you had a Coach looking for a reason to leave. ....

---

I'm sorry but this statement seems to imply that smart kids are not athletic. Do we really want to go there?

One thing is clear, though: Cal's admission standards are tougher than most, and therefore rule out many players. If we were to assume that athletic ability and school smarts are not correlated (directly or inversely), the more limited pool of students available to Cal will certainly make it harder to assemble the best team.

---

what if one were to say kids who were athletic enough to put in massive efforts training for a potential (or hopeful) pro career that might pay millions of dollars also might not put in the same effort hitting the books, thus not acquiring the academic resume that someone who is only trying to do that might attain?

---

One would have a point. However, what if one were to retort that kids who are athletic enough to put in massive efforts training for a pro career only need a 3.0 at Cal while kids who are only working on academics need higher than a 4.0 to get in, so that is already priced in.

I also think that many adults do not understand the grade inflation that has occurred at the high school level. 3.0 is like a 2.0 when we were in school. The difference between a 4.0+ and a 3.0 can be the difference between an excellent student and guy who signs with an X. I will make this assertion. If you don't manage a 3.0 it is not because you were tirelessly working on your athletics and didn't have time for school. (and by the way, the 4.0+ kids are working really hard on other stuff as well.) If you don't manage a 3.0 it is either you didn't care at all or your school system is an utter failure. I sympathize with the latter and if a kid has shown they are working hard in a school environment where they are set up to fail, I'm fine with providing an exception for them. If that is not the case, I have no sympathy. Get your butt in class and put in a modicum of work.

There was an article and chart a few years ago that showed how grades have been inflated over time at Cal. The chart showed the average GPA at Cal was something like 2.5 to 2.7 in the 80s. I felt sorta bad I only had a 3.0 at Cal during the 80s, until I saw that chart.

Another Bear said:

---

There was an article and chart a few years ago that showed how grades have been inflated over time at Cal. The chart showed the average GPA at Cal was something like 2.5 to 2.7 in the 80s. I felt sorta bad I only had a 3.0 at Cal during the 80s, until I saw that chart.

---

Quite a few years ago, I don't remember exactly when, the Daily Cal had an article on average GPAs in the various schools and colleges. The lowest was the College of Chemistry at 2.8 and the highest was the School of Education at 3.8. When asked why their grades were so high the School of Education said something like their teaching was so good everyone got it.

stu said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

There was an article and chart a few years ago that showed how grades have been inflated over time at Cal. The chart showed the average GPA at Cal was something like 2.5 to 2.7 in the 80s. I felt sorta bad I only had a 3.0 at Cal during the 80s, until I saw that chart.

---

Quite a few years ago, I don't remember exactly when, the Daily Cal had an article on average GPAs in the various schools and colleges. The lowest was the College of Chemistry at 2.8 and the highest was the School of Education at 3.8. When asked why their grades were so high the School of Education said something like their teaching was so good everyone got it.

---

School of Education is a grad only program. Apples to oranges. BTW, I had a 3.5 in Chemistry in the early '70's. Never used it.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

stu said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

There was an article and chart a few years ago that showed how grades have been inflated over time at Cal. The chart showed the average GPA at Cal was something like 2.5 to 2.7 in the 80s. I felt sorta bad I only had a 3.0 at Cal during the 80s, until I saw that chart.

---

Quite a few years ago, I don't remember exactly when, the Daily Cal had an article on average GPAs in the various schools and colleges. The lowest was the College of Chemistry at 2.8 and the highest was the School of Education at 3.8. When asked why their grades were so high the School of Education said something like their teaching was so good everyone got it.

---

School of Education is a grad only program. Apples to oranges. BTW, I had a 3.5 in Chemistry in the early '70's. Never used it.

---

Correct. I teach grad students (not in Ed School) and the grading scale is essentially A to B (with B+ being a very low grade and B being a failing grade). The reason is that most fellowships require an A average to keep the money.

Bearprof said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

This a very good summary. Add in Martin's challenges with Admissions and his growing recognition that the style of offense he wanted to play relied on a type of athlete that were not numerous enough relative to our academic requirements for him to be successful and you had a Coach looking for a reason to leave. ....

---

I'm sorry but this statement seems to imply that smart kids are not athletic. Do we really want to go there?
. . . .

---

In general, I appreciate (and agree) with your sentiment. However, if you consider D1 basketball recruiting today, what BearGreg is saying (I think), is that Martin wasn't focusing on simply the small pool of 4* and 5* eligible recruits, but also putting a significant effort on the ELITE recruits whose priority is (and has been) using the NCAA as a stepping stone to the NBA. This is a VERY small pool of EXTREMELY unique candidates. Honestly, in the P12, you are talking about Arizona, Oregon, UCLA and lately USC who are in that level (NOT Stanford).

Bobodeluxe said:

---

School of Education is a grad only program. Apples to oranges. BTW, I had a 3.5 in Chemistry in the early '70's. Never used it.

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Correct. I teach grad students (not in Ed School) and the grading scale is essentially A to B (with B+ being a very low grade and B being a failing grade). The reason is that most fellowships require an A average to keep the money.

---

The article I mentioned was maybe 20 years ago so current conditions may or may not be pertinent. Nevertheless I looked up enrollment in the College of Chemistry halfway down this page. Not counting Chem Bio majors (that program was added in the 21st Century) or Postdocs (do they even get grades?) I saw 564 undergrads and 457 grads. If the grads had an average GPA of 3.8 then for the entire college to average 2.8 the undergrads would have to average 2.0, a situation I consider unlikely.

A more recent Daily Cal article covering undergraduate grades showed Chemistry and Chemical Engineering average grades at 3.15 and 3.16 and Education at 3.68. The winners and losers (which is which left to the reader) were Biology at 2.80 and Filipino at 3.94. If you look at the delta between those numbers and 4.0 the departmental differences appear enormous.

OaktownBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Bearprof said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

This a very good summary. Add in Martin's challenges with Admissions and his growing recognition that the style of offense he wanted to play relied on a type of athlete that were not numerous enough relative to our academic requirements for him to be successful and you had a Coach looking for a reason to leave. ....

---

I'm sorry but this statement seems to imply that smart kids are not athletic. Do we really want to go there?

One thing is clear, though: Cal's admission standards are tougher than most, and therefore rule out many players. If we were to assume that athletic ability and school smarts are not correlated (directly or inversely), the more limited pool of students available to Cal will certainly make it harder to assemble the best team.

---

what if one were to say kids who were athletic enough to put in massive efforts training for a potential (or hopeful) pro career that might pay millions of dollars also might not put in the same effort hitting the books, thus not acquiring the academic resume that someone who is only trying to do that might attain?

---

One would have a point. However, what if one were to retort that kids who are athletic enough to put in massive efforts training for a pro career only need a 3.0 at Cal while kids who are only working on academics need higher than a 4.0 to get in, so that is already priced in.

I also think that many adults do not understand the grade inflation that has occurred at the high school level. 3.0 is like a 2.0 when we were in school. The difference between a 4.0+ and a 3.0 can be the difference between an excellent student and guy who signs with an X. I will make this assertion. If you don't manage a 3.0 it is not because you were tirelessly working on your athletics and didn't have time for school. (and by the way, the 4.0+ kids are working really hard on other stuff as well.) If you don't manage a 3.0 it is either you didn't care at all or your school system is an utter failure. I sympathize with the latter and if a kid has shown they are working hard in a school environment where they are set up to fail, I'm fine with providing an exception for them. If that is not the case, I have no sympathy. Get your butt in class and put in a modicum of work.

---

Everything you write is true. I would add that grading can be "hit or miss" in high school. A student can get, by chance, 2-3 "hard graders" in 10th/11th grade and it can have a significant impact on their GPA.

There are always teachers on any staff who assign a lot of work and grade hard and think that is an important element in good teaching. Sure, the kids need to be stretched, but there is a limit.

Most schools avoid having a collective discussion about grading, because it arouses such strong opinions and emotions from many teachers. To me, that would be a reason why a staff SHOULD have that discussion, but that's just me.

One school had a strict rule: Over 90% is an "A", over 80% is a "B", etc. When I questioned this to the Principal, explaining how I could easily manipulate tests and assignments so that students would get the desired percentage, he sort of winked and said in a hushed voice not to worry about it. The rule was in place to placate the community with "objective grading standards".

In nineteen years at three public high schools, the only time I saw Principals counsel teachers about their grades was when they "gave" too many "F"s. Meanwhile, I saw other teachers (in academic subjects) award almost all "A"s and "B"s, including a ridiculous amount of "A+"s. I guess the Principal (and the parents!) thought these were the good teachers.