We now have a fairly complete roster for this next season.

13,392 Views | 106 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by puget sound cal fan
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So, SFC, you're saying you want to run your intrasquad scrimmage as thus?

PG: Austin - with JHD defending
SG: McNeill
SF: Bradley
PF: Sueing
C: Stockman or Vanover, whoever wins tips better.

Okay, I'll buy that!

Your remaining B squad would be

SG: Gordon - will he be ready to go this year?
SF: Davis
PF: Kelly
C: Stockman or Vanover

Sub: Anticevich

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:



2. Matt Bradley. CalBears.com roster lists him as a guard, but BI's Cal roster lists him as a forward. We know nothing about whether he would be a capable point guard foil for Austin. Cal lost most of their scoring from last season to transfer and graduation. McNeill and Sueing are the only proven scorers. We don't know if Austin can score against PAC12 guards. Bradley averaged 34 points in his junior year, scored 75 in one game. I don't think Bradley was recruited to play point. He was recruited to score the ball.
I feel I got burned by looking at gawky stats with Sam Singer, 36 ppg as HS junior.
I know he switched to a more difficult program in Utah for his senior year because of this. Good for him.
Hopefully even as a forward he's stretched his game considerably to include plenty of outside J's. We get that he can dominate lesser physical specimens in and around the paint. Let's see how he'll have expanded his game.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank you SFC for pointing out that the new walk ones are known and listed on this site. In addition to the returning Jacob Orender and Jules Erving, we have:

#35
James Zhao
Beijing, China,
G
6-3
205 pounds
FR

#40
David Serge
Newbury Park, CA
G
6-4
JR

#42
Blake Welle
Santa Cruz, CA
F
Welle is obviously the younger brother of Cole, who just graduated, and I found this on his Aptos High School Maxpreps page:
6'5"185 lbs Senior
Graduated in 2018
Games Played: 56
Points: 13.6
Rebounds: 6.3

They are also up on Cal bears.com
Mats Stockman is on neither site so far.

https://calbears.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=13442
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

All well said.
My problem is that the rules intentionally shut the players out.
I believe in the Invisible Hand and that we should let market forces have more of a play. The colleges want the money to subsidize other sports and as much as I like those other sports, I don't think that's how things should be handled.
You're getting close CT, but market forces only work when the market (consumer) is intelligent and properly informed. in the case of NCAA basketball, the money is still flowing in. Where does it ultimately come from? In no particular order: TV contracts, boosters and ticket sales.

I'm still not sure what you are hoping to accomplish with your "pay the players" credo. Is it to establish a minor league for those that are not ready for the NBA? Is it to further financially reward a select class of students at Cal? Is it to achieve some sense of better income distribution? Is it to financially curb the high salaries of coaching staffs? Is is something else?

Other than something else, there are probably better designs for all of those mentioned above than simply 'pay the players'.

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good questions, and you are stimulating more thought in me that is actually getting me a little excited at the prospects I'm dreaming up, though they'll never happen.

First answer, cause it's the right thing to do.

I was taught long ago in Econ classes that taxes, regulations, etc are always market inefficient disrupters. So, when you loosen the reigns on such things, good things happen. So, that's one thing. I know you could make all sorts of tangential arguments "but what about..."

In the case of colleges desire to attract talent, if they could make cash bids for high schoolers, they would.
So, why not allow that?
As a consortium, the NCAA has decided to ban together and disallow it in their rules to protect each other and themselves from paying money for something they can otherwise (and do) get at a discount. This feels wrong. It is not monopoly, but oligopoly. That is often illegal, when properly challenged. But I don't care to get into an legal argument. Economics is a better angle for me.

If I were to dream a dream...

The model of revenue sharing the pro leagues utilize is not a bad one. If universities were left to open bidding, the very strongest few would buy the best talent and dominate. This would not be great for the collective whole's earning power. It's already kinda like that, actually, and look how much money they make already.

What if...
-You took some of your tv contract money and spread it around to not just Top 20 (typical favorites: Duke, Michigan, Norte dame, ucla, etc) but to top (100 at least) for specific earmarking for player purchase/salaries.
-You allowed schools to bid this money on players, but only so much (salary cap) and then they had to make decisions on how much to spend on anyone player vs a collection of players.
- limit transfers via this type of contract.

I think you'd get even MORE competitiveness and even more viewership, boosting collective overall revenue.
And the players would benefit.

rkt88edmo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
At this point the logical disruptor seems like it would be for AAUs teams to forminstitutions and their own for profit leagues parallel to the NCAA? A D-League that isn't sponsored by the NBA teams or the NCAA, but by the shoecos?
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Good questions, and you are stimulating more thought in me that is actually getting me a little excited at the prospects I'm dreaming up, though they'll never happen.

First answer, cause it's the right thing to do.

I was taught long ago in Econ classes that taxes, regulations, etc are always market inefficient disrupters. So, when you loosen the reigns on such things, good things happen. So, that's one thing. I know you could make all sorts of tangential arguments "but what about..."

In the case of colleges desire to attract talent, if they could make cash bids for high schoolers, they would.
So, why not allow that?
As a consortium, the NCAA has decided to ban together and disallow it in their rules to protect each other and themselves from paying money for something they can otherwise (and do) get at a discount. This feels wrong. It is not monopoly, but oligopoly. That is often illegal, when properly challenged. But I don't care to get into an legal argument. Economics is a better angle for me.

If I were to dream a dream...

The model of revenue sharing the pro leagues utilize is not a bad one. If universities were left to open bidding, the very strongest few would buy the best talent and dominate. This would not be great for the collective whole's earning power. It's already kinda like that, actually, and look how much money they make already.

What if...
-You took some of your tv contract money and spread it around to not just Top 20 (typical favorites: Duke, Michigan, Norte dame, ucla, etc) but to top (100 at least) for specific earmarking for player purchase/salaries.
-You allowed schools to bid this money on players, but only so much (salary cap) and then they had to make decisions on how much to spend on anyone player vs a collection of players.
- limit transfers via this type of contract.

I think you'd get even MORE competitiveness and even more viewership, boosting collective overall revenue.
And the players would benefit.


taxes, regulations and that kind of interference are disruptive to the market so you don't like the current rules. So you are going to replace it with mandating that tv contract money be spread out AND used for a particular purpose. And there will be a salary cap and a limit on free agency. You call that the "invisible hand". That is far more intrusive than anything that happens now. Right now, the schools that invest wisely in their program and take basketball success seriously succeed and make more money. They invest that money in training facilities, coaches and also in a hell of a lot of luxury perks for their athletes. And with that they get the best athletes and the cycle continues. How is it invisible hand to make those schools that by their success can command top dollar in a television share that wealth with schools no one wants to see? How does that line up with your Econ class?

If you do this, a small handful of players will get paid. And that money will come directly out of the budget that is now used for facilities and expertise that directly improves the training and thus the development of skills by the whole team. You are missing the point that the vast majority of players are worth little to nothing on the open market. They are filler around a handful of stars. IMO, if those stars have a better deal elsewhere, they should go elsewhere.

They are supposed to be students. These are supposed to be colleges. If they want to play pro, there are professional leagues. If they don't value the education, that is where they should go. It isn't a monopoly or an oligopoly and most schools make little to no profit. It is not the NCAA's fault that no one runs a viable pro basketball league under the NBA in the US. But, hey. The Balls went to Lithuania. These guys can choose to do the same.

If you have a complaint, it is with the NBA who doesn't want to pay for their own viable minor league system. I suspect that as teams like the Warriors choose to own G-league affiliates, the league as a whole will decide it is worth the cost to get top players in their own development system rather than let the colleges do it. But that is where your problem lies. The NCAA runs the same way in baseball, and there is no issue because it competes with MLB for prospects and those that don't want to go to school or can command a high salary out of high school have that opportunity. The NCAA is for kids who want a college education. It is not for educational institutions to right the wrongs committed by professional leagues.

I wonder what you think about tennis academies or golf academies or dance academies or private coaches and teachers in a myriad of other fields who charge top dollar for a similar quality of training that universities provide athletes for free? The athletes are getting a lot of free stuff because somebody will pay a lot more to watch them if they wear a uniform that says Kentucky than a uniform that says Mudhens. They have their choice - pay for private training, go to a professional league where their training and brand development will be vastly inferior, or become a student and take the package that universities offer. The fact that they in 99.99% of cases take the package universities offer shows the invisible hand at work and who has the best offer out there for them.

BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Good questions, and you are stimulating more thought in me that is actually getting me a little excited at the prospects I'm dreaming up, though they'll never happen.

First answer, cause it's the right thing to do.

I was taught long ago in Econ classes that taxes, regulations, etc are always market inefficient disrupters. So, when you loosen the reigns on such things, good things happen. So, that's one thing. I know you could make all sorts of tangential arguments "but what about..."

In the case of colleges desire to attract talent, if they could make cash bids for high schoolers, they would.
So, why not allow that?
As a consortium, the NCAA has decided to ban together and disallow it in their rules to protect each other and themselves from paying money for something they can otherwise (and do) get at a discount. This feels wrong. It is not monopoly, but oligopoly. That is often illegal, when properly challenged. But I don't care to get into an legal argument. Economics is a better angle for me.

If I were to dream a dream...

The model of revenue sharing the pro leagues utilize is not a bad one. If universities were left to open bidding, the very strongest few would buy the best talent and dominate. This would not be great for the collective whole's earning power. It's already kinda like that, actually, and look how much money they make already.

What if...
-You took some of your tv contract money and spread it around to not just Top 20 (typical favorites: Duke, Michigan, Norte dame, ucla, etc) but to top (100 at least) for specific earmarking for player purchase/salaries.
-You allowed schools to bid this money on players, but only so much (salary cap) and then they had to make decisions on how much to spend on anyone player vs a collection of players.
- limit transfers via this type of contract.

I think you'd get even MORE competitiveness and even more viewership, boosting collective overall revenue.
And the players would benefit.


CT - A lot to digest there.

First - cause it's the right thing to do. Can you please elaborate what is the right thing and why? Not to put words in your mouth - but something like "Pay the top NCAA men's basketball players, because they deserve more money?"

Second - I posed what your objective was. It appears from your response that you want the NCAA to be a minor league system for the NBA, but with more star power than the G/D-league? If that is the case - I am in strong disagreement.

Third - I think a league or five below the NBA is warranted. However, I strongly dispute that NCAA institutions are best equipped to do so. Nor is it in the best interests of their educational and research missions. This is the point where we seem to diverge. Please explain your rationale why the NCAA is the best way.

OTB has some excellent points (as usual) about consumers desire to pay to watch someone with a Kentucky vs Mudhens jersey. I think that is truly the big stumbling block.

I don't get the sense that casual fans aren't complaining about players being exploited by ESPN/Coaches/SEC/ACC/P12N. The ones complaining are actually the fans (and many players - which is a valid point). My guess; it is the fans of the 300+ colleges that AREN'T usually in the top 20. Those are probably the same people that buy season tickets, donate to booster programs and pay for the sports package to get ESPN/FSN/P12N, etc. (and in turn provide the money that pays the large salaries of coaches - which is where this tangent came from).

How do I know this? Because I'm one of them. And I feel pretty slimy not being an intelligent consumer. ALL BECAUSE IM A CAL FAN! Personally, I prefer a system similar to European soccer, where top players gravitate to academies WHILE THEY ARE IN HIGH SCHOOL and avoid the whole AAU and NCAA route. If we must stay with an NCAA system to cheer for a jersey, than I would support something close to the baseball model.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

So, SFC, you're saying you want to run your intrasquad scrimmage as thus?

PG: Austin - with JHD defending
SG: McNeill
SF: Bradley
PF: Sueing
C: Stockman or Vanover, whoever wins tips better.

Okay, I'll buy that!

Your remaining B squad would be

SG: Gordon - will he be ready to go this year?
SF: Davis
PF: Kelly
C: Stockman or Vanover

Sub: Anticevich


Well, I'd see it differently, but bear in mind, I've only seen 5 of these players in action, so whatever I say is subject to change once the practices and games begin, and we see them all play together. For my first scrimmage, I would make lineups like this:

First team:

PG: Austin
SG: McNeill
SF: Sueing
PF: Kelly
C: Stockman (Stockman starts ahead of Vanover because he is a senior. Tips are nearly irrelevant in modern basketball, only one per game.)

Second team:

PG: JHD, McNeill, or maybe Zhao
SG: Bradley, JHD, or maybe Zhao
SF: Gordon, Davis, Anticevich, or JHD
PF: Davis, Anticevich, Sueing, or Welle
C: Vanover

Like last year, Coach Jones is going to have to make do with a very thin lineup, having to play an unproven veteran(Stockman) and inexperienced freshmen. He has big holes at backup PG and backup PF. The only known quantities are McNeill and Sueing. We don't know if Austin can be a P12 PG, and that is a big key. Center looks pretty iffy, so you might see a smaller lineup much of the time, except the only other player who could maybe play in the middle is Kelly, we don't know how good he is either. On the plus side, we've probably picked up some more scoring at the wings with Bradley and Gordon. The other plus is that we have a few players who might be able to play multiple positions: McNeill (PG SG), Sueing (SF PF SG), Harris-Dyson (SG SF, and maybe PF), Bradley (SG SF), Kelly (PF C), Davis and Anticevich (both can play PF, SF) Of course that could be a minus if they turn out to be jacks-of-all-trades-masters-in-none.

It could be a very interesting season. Two other big keys to the season: injuries, and the coach. Jones needs to do a whole lot better job in the areas of overall strategy, both offense and defense, game coaching on the floor, and individual player improvement. Very lacking in all areas, IMO. The jury is out on him, but several of the jury members are champing at the bit to cast their votes. Jones is on the edge.









SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

SFCityBear said:



2. Matt Bradley. CalBears.com roster lists him as a guard, but BI's Cal roster lists him as a forward. We know nothing about whether he would be a capable point guard foil for Austin. Cal lost most of their scoring from last season to transfer and graduation. McNeill and Sueing are the only proven scorers. We don't know if Austin can score against PAC12 guards. Bradley averaged 34 points in his junior year, scored 75 in one game. I don't think Bradley was recruited to play point. He was recruited to score the ball.
I feel I got burned by looking at gawky stats with Sam Singer, 36 ppg as HS junior.
I know he switched to a more difficult program in Utah for his senior year because of this. Good for him.
Hopefully even as a forward he's stretched his game considerably to include plenty of outside J's. We get that he can dominate lesser physical specimens in and around the paint. Let's see how he'll have expanded his game.
I think we were all left greatly disappointed by Singer's gawky scoring stats. To his credit, he was a pretty good point guard and became a heck of a defender. If Cal had just one more perimeter shooter, Singer would have been more effective. Having three guys who couldn't shoot 3's (Singer, Wallace, and Brown) on the floor at the same time was too much for us to overcome.

You hope Bradley has extended his range, but how do you know whether he can shoot perimeter shots or not? Is it his videos? I felt I was burned by Amondi Omoke's videos, which left me thinking he could lead the fast break and shoot threes like Jerome Randle. Omoke could not shoot a lick outside two feet.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

First - cause it's the right thing to do. Can you please elaborate what is the right thing and why? Not to put words in your mouth - but something like "Pay the top NCAA men's basketball players, because they deserve more money?"

One side is making the rules on behalf of the other. One side is using their power to control the rules.
How many on the players side would vote for "yes, we think you should penalize us if we try to profit off our name, our popularity for autographs or jerseys or such. Yes, we think that you should collect a $3B tv contract and subsidize it with other collegiate sports, use it to build jumbotrons, etc."?

I think it would be a landslide that the players would want access to the profit stream. Yet, the bosses have ultimate wage control right now.

If there were a players union and the nation of high school and college players held strong in a strike, they could break the current arrangement very quickly.

It's the right thing to do because one side is asserting their will on the other.
That's been my slant.

Now I could take the other side and say that general fact says plenty of people opt in to the offer that is made. Of their free will. They are not starving and a gun is not held to their head. So, what's the problem?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

C: Stockman (Stockman starts ahead of Vanover because he is a senior. Tips are nearly irrelevant in modern basketball, only one per game.)


Of course, silly me for not stating that up front, too.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

having to play an unproven veteran(Stockman) and inexperienced freshmen.
Here's a fun question.
Who is going to avg more points, minutes, rebounds, Okoroh as senior or Stockman as senior? I'll give the blocks to Okoroh hands down!

5.7 pts
5.4 rebs
25.1 mins
2.1 blocks

I think Stockman can challenge the pts #! But I have only seen a couple pics of him, so what do I know?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Second - I posed what your objective was. It appears from your response that you want the NCAA to be a minor league system for the NBA, but with more star power than the G/D-league? If that is the case - I am in strong disagreement.

Not at all.
I just want people to get what I view as their proper share. See prior post.
I'll be glad to try again if I've not provided a well thought out response.

Let's see... schools initially provided athletic programs because it's a developmental benefit. One can learn lots about life thru sports. I want that to continue, of course. But the fact is that the schools are profiting big time off the endeavor and they are now in it for profit motive. Meanwhile, they've written rules so they get to keep the money for themselves. Again, doesn't seem right.

I don't know why you throw in the minor league for NBA thing. That has nothing to do with my thinking. The NBA is the NBA. College basketball is college basketball. Both make a ton of money.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Third - I think a league or five below the NBA is warranted. However, I strongly dispute that NCAA institutions are best equipped to do so. Nor is it in the best interests of their educational and research missions. This is the point where we seem to diverge. Please explain your rationale why the NCAA is the best way.


I'm not trying to construct anything between the NBA and NCAA.
It might be a good thing if someone did, but people seem to like to root for schools, not D/G league teams. (So, I guess this means you're wrong - the NCAA IS best equipped.)
And, if the schools keep making so much money, I guess they are the de facto minor league. Oh well, doesn't matter to me.
The ncaa is the best step to the NCAA, if that's how you want to view it, because that's where the fans are, until something else may someday take its place. But that would be stupid if the NCAA allowed that - they'd be losing out at lots of income.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

My guess; it is the fans of the 300+ colleges that AREN'T usually in the top 20 (who complain). Those are probably the same people that buy season tickets, donate to booster programs and pay for the sports package to get ESPN/FSN/P12N, etc. (and in turn provide the money that pays the large salaries of coaches - which is where this tangent came from).

I'd like right now to see a pie showing the source of income for various schools. You could break them down into:
- the 6 bowl conferences (about 80)
- 2nd tier schools (next 100)
-3rd tier schools (bottom 100)

I'd like to see income sources of:
- event ticket sales and associated concierge
- tv and radio
- other advertising income
- donor funding
- school funding the program (for those that do not generate a profit or break even from the above).

The above accounting would have to be done sport by sport, not combining and hiding profits in football and basketball. I want them separated out!

For those schools that are running a profit off the first 4 categories, they would be candidates to pay/bid for talent. To make sure the Kentuckys and Michigans don't just get all the talent, I would suggest the schools profit share, expanding the number of schools that could bid on talent. They'd also have to enact a salary cap.

Kentucky and Michigan would never want to do this right now. They'd lose. But I predict that the overall amount of interest would increase a lot and overall income would increase as well. Eventually, Kentucky and Michigan might make more, but not initially.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:


Quote:

having to play an unproven veteran(Stockman) and inexperienced freshmen.
Here's a fun question.
Who is going to avg more points, minutes, rebounds, Okoroh as senior or Stockman as senior? I'll give the blocks to Okoroh hands down!

5.7 pts
5.4 rebs
25.1 mins
2.1 blocks

I think Stockman can challenge the pts #! But I have only seen a couple pics of him, so what do I know?
That is a good question! I have Stockman down for...

5 ppg
4 rpg
15-20 mpg
1 bpg

That would have Okoroh winning on all counts, but basically, I see them about even. I would LOVE for Stockman to surprise me with 8 ppg and 6 rpg, playing 20-25 mpg.
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:


Quote:

My guess; it is the fans of the 300+ colleges that AREN'T usually in the top 20 (who complain). Those are probably the same people that buy season tickets, donate to booster programs and pay for the sports package to get ESPN/FSN/P12N, etc. (and in turn provide the money that pays the large salaries of coaches - which is where this tangent came from).

I'd like right now to see a pie showing the source of income for various schools. You could break them down into:
- the 6 bowl conferences (about 80)
- 2nd tier schools (next 100)
-3rd tier schools (bottom 100)

I'd like to see income sources of:
- event ticket sales and associated concierge
- tv and radio
- other advertising income
- donor funding
- school funding the program (for those that do not generate a profit or break even from the above).

The above accounting would have to be done sport by sport, not combining and hiding profits in football and basketball. I want them separated out!

For those schools that are running a profit off the first 4 categories, they would be candidates to pay/bid for talent. To make sure the Kentuckys and Michigans don't just get all the talent, I would suggest the schools profit share, expanding the number of schools that could bid on talent. They'd also have to enact a salary cap.

Kentucky and Michigan would never want to do this right now. They'd lose. But I predict that the overall amount of interest would increase a lot and overall income would increase as well. Eventually, Kentucky and Michigan might make more, but not initially.

I'd love to see those as well. Great idea but probably a fruitless pipe dream. Looking at the recent internal struggles with Cal and their accounting of the athletic department reinforces my opinion that many (most?) of these institutions are ill-equipped to handle this type of reporting and transparency.

Anyway, we obviously disagree on these points regarding the future the NCAA institutions should take. You mention unfair labor relations and unionization at the high school level. That sounds more like a corporation or professional sports league - not a university.

Alabama, Notre Dame, Kentucky, Michigan all probably agree with your recommendations. The key is what about the other schools. Many have dropped football, but added basketball. Maybe it IS working out for them.

I'll end with this. I pledge that if the NCAA member institutions selectively bid and pay select players in high school as you are suggesting, then I will stop my bear backer donations and cancel me season tickets. I will also lobby others to do the same.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

I have Stockman down for...

5 ppg
4 rpg
20 mpg
1 bpg

That would have Okoroh winning on all counts, but basically, I see them about even. I would LOVE for Stockman to surprise me with 8 ppg and 6 rpg, playing 25 mpg.


If Stockman/Vanover can shoot from outside that would unclog the middle and improve scoring and offensive rebounding from others.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BeachedBear said:


sounds more like a corporation or professional sports league - not a university.


I'll end with this. I pledge that if the NCAA member institutions selectively bid and pay select players in high school as you are suggesting, then I will stop my bear backer donations and cancel me season tickets. I will also lobby others to do the same.
I think you just summarized everything I've been using as the basis for my rationale and suggestions for improvement. These Athletic Departments ALREADY ARE a corporation or pro sports leagues. I don't know why you don't seem to accept that. It's a profit center hidden within a university (see UNC academics, e.g..)

If you want to support the university, I recommend you contribute to an academic department or a scholarship fund where students who you can meet and cheer for.

If the athletic department cannot function with all the TV revenue they have coming in (WAAAY more than in the 70's when I started attending games in the family section) then they are totally incompetent! You are being hoodwinked, my friend.

Disclaimer: my family (parents, grandparents before them) have been BearBackers for decades, and we currently have 8 football seats at the 50 yard line, high up. (we also have recently endowed a professorship in the department where my father and grandfather graduated, so we are not entirely contrary to what I'm talking about). And for the record, I have nothing to do with any of that. My observations of that and other sports scene nationwide, it's all a big joke. And, yes, I enjoy the free food and bar when I go. But they've got the family by the balls purely based on nostalgia.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:


If Stockman/Vanover can shoot from outside that would unclog the middle and improve scoring and offensive rebounding from others.

I suppose I am slow to adjust to the new warriors/villanova form of play.
I'd like to see 7' and 7'3" dunk and block.
Of course, if their last name was Ayton, yes. But they both appear to be very skinny and are more apt to get pushed around or dunked on - perhaps.

That said, I did joke earlier about seeing Vanover chuck em up like Manute did years ago. He apparently connects at a much higher rate, so perhaps!
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:


Quote:

having to play an unproven veteran(Stockman) and inexperienced freshmen.
Here's a fun question.
Who is going to avg more points, minutes, rebounds, Okoroh as senior or Stockman as senior? I'll give the blocks to Okoroh hands down!

5.7 pts
5.4 rebs
25.1 mins
2.1 blocks

I think Stockman can challenge the pts #! But I have only seen a couple pics of him, so what do I know?
I think you've answered your own question. You don't know anything about Stockman, or how he would compare to Kingsley, because you never seen Stockman play a single second of basketball, in person or on tape. He could turn out to be an Ivan Rabb at Cal, or a Geoffrey Frid, or anywhere in between. All I know is that you have a fertile imagination. Go out and enjoy the beautiful summer, and come back in the fall, when we have seen the young man in action, and all of us can have more informed opinions of Stockman.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Smile.
Cheers to you, SFC.
Lots of World Cup action, hard to break from.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

Big C said:

I have Stockman down for...

5 ppg
4 rpg
20 mpg
1 bpg

That would have Okoroh winning on all counts, but basically, I see them about even. I would LOVE for Stockman to surprise me with 8 ppg and 6 rpg, playing 25 mpg.


If Stockman/Vanover can shoot from outside that would unclog the middle and improve scoring and offensive rebounding from others.



Agreed. It is how Braun could have / should have used Ryan Anderson.

A 7 footer who can hit a high percentage from three and provide interior defense is actually a much better addition to this team than a Okoroh or Rooks. We need outside threats.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
5-out ONLY works if all 5 can shoot from afar.
Otherwise, their center will simply sag to be a rim protector.
So, the proof will be in the pudding. Defenses will repeatedly sag initially and say "show me that you can hit that shot", and we will have to all endure watching shots go up. Are you ready to endure a series of those shots to see? Don't come on here complaining if it's bricksville.
BeachedBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

BeachedBear said:


sounds more like a corporation or professional sports league - not a university.


I'll end with this. I pledge that if the NCAA member institutions selectively bid and pay select players in high school as you are suggesting, then I will stop my bear backer donations and cancel me season tickets. I will also lobby others to do the same.
I think you just summarized everything I've been using as the basis for my rationale and suggestions for improvement. These Athletic Departments ALREADY ARE a corporation or pro sports leagues. I don't know why you don't seem to accept that. It's a profit center hidden within a university (see UNC academics, e.g..)

If you want to support the university, I recommend you contribute to an academic department or a scholarship fund where students who you can meet and cheer for.

If the athletic department cannot function with all the TV revenue they have coming in (WAAAY more than in the 70's when I started attending games in the family section) then they are totally incompetent! You are being hoodwinked, my friend.

Disclaimer: my family (parents, grandparents before them) have been BearBackers for decades, and we currently have 8 football seats at the 50 yard line, high up. (we also have recently endowed a professorship in the department where my father and grandfather graduated, so we are not entirely contrary to what I'm talking about). And for the record, I have nothing to do with any of that. My observations of that and other sports scene nationwide, it's all a big joke. And, yes, I enjoy the free food and bar when I go. But they've got the family by the balls purely based on nostalgia.
Sigh . . . Tom - you're arguing with yourself again.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Or with my parents.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BeachedBear said:

concordtom said:

BeachedBear said:


sounds more like a corporation or professional sports league - not a university.


I'll end with this. I pledge that if the NCAA member institutions selectively bid and pay select players in high school as you are suggesting, then I will stop my bear backer donations and cancel me season tickets. I will also lobby others to do the same.
I think you just summarized everything I've been using as the basis for my rationale and suggestions for improvement. These Athletic Departments ALREADY ARE a corporation or pro sports leagues. I don't know why you don't seem to accept that. It's a profit center hidden within a university (see UNC academics, e.g..)

If you want to support the university, I recommend you contribute to an academic department or a scholarship fund where students who you can meet and cheer for.

If the athletic department cannot function with all the TV revenue they have coming in (WAAAY more than in the 70's when I started attending games in the family section) then they are totally incompetent! You are being hoodwinked, my friend.

Disclaimer: my family (parents, grandparents before them) have been BearBackers for decades, and we currently have 8 football seats at the 50 yard line, high up. (we also have recently endowed a professorship in the department where my father and grandfather graduated, so we are not entirely contrary to what I'm talking about). And for the record, I have nothing to do with any of that. My observations of that and other sports scene nationwide, it's all a big joke. And, yes, I enjoy the free food and bar when I go. But they've got the family by the balls purely based on nostalgia.
Sigh . . . Tom - you're arguing with yourself again.
Tom, if you want the athletic department to function like it did in the 70's, I'm sure it can manage to do that with the TV revenue. What did Cal pay in coaching salaries and facilities in the 70's? If I remember correctly Snyder got lured away by a $500K offer and Holmoe made less than that. And that is 1991 and 2001. And it doesn't account for assistant coach salaries. Cal's facilities at the time were nonexistent. Yeah, there is more television money and every school is plowing all that money right back into their programs. All that television money is spent before it comes in. Acting like the television money should make it easier to run the department ignores the fact that the department costs a lot more to run.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

stu said:

Big C said:

I have Stockman down for...

5 ppg
4 rpg
20 mpg
1 bpg

That would have Okoroh winning on all counts, but basically, I see them about even. I would LOVE for Stockman to surprise me with 8 ppg and 6 rpg, playing 25 mpg.


If Stockman/Vanover can shoot from outside that would unclog the middle and improve scoring and offensive rebounding from others.



Agreed. It is how Braun could have / should have used Ryan Anderson.

A 7 footer who can hit a high percentage from three and provide interior defense is actually a much better addition to this team than a Okoroh or Rooks. We need outside threats.
With all due respect to you and Stu, I think wishing or hoping that our new 7-footers, Stockman and Vanover, be able can shoot threes at a high percentage, and that would be a good thing for Cal, is a just a dream.

There are very few players like that in college. Look at the PAC12 last season, our main opponents. The top 10 three-point shooters were all guards. Arizona's center Ayton shot threes at a decent percentage. But he only averaged one three point attempt per game. Villanova just won the NCAA Championship, with at least six very good three point shooters, most of them shooting 40% or better. But all of them were guards, with the exception of 6-9 Spellman.

I don't agree that a 7-footer who shoots threes would be better for this season than an Okoroh or Rooks. We don't have a single big on this team who is a proven rebounder. Right now, I'll predict we could very well finish dead last in the PAC12 in rebounding. And no matter how many three point shooters we have, they can't score if they can't get the ball, and they can't get the ball enough if Cal can't rebound.

As for Braun using Anderson to shoot a lot of threes, maybe he was reluctant to do it, because he had already tried that with Amit Tamir, a good three point-shooting big man. Tamir had better supporting players than Stockman or Vanover probably will have this season, and Tamir's teams were decent but did not fill the Cal trophy case with much.

As for Cal needing outside threats, well, this season Cal needs a lot of threats. We need outside threats, and inside threats. We need players who are a threat to rebound, and players who are a threat to steal the ball. We need players who are a threat to pass the ball effectively. We need a threat at point guard. And we need our coach to become a threat.

Right now we are only threats on paper, in our minds, or in our dreams. Some of these components may turn out to be threats, and this season will be interesting to watch to see if they can develop. Right now, no team is afraid of Cal. No team.

Seven footers shooting threes is a luxury, something that maybe occurs for a couple of teams in a conference in a season at most. Most big players are still growing in college, and don't shoot long very well. Of those bigs who do learn to shoot threes, some develop early, but most develop it later in the NBA, and the NCAA is not the NBA.

My greatest hope is that Vanover and Stockman focus on rebounding and defense, play the middle well enough not to be a detriment to the team, catch balls and not drop them, if they are open, put the short shots in the basket, not throw passes away, and protect the rim and the paint decently. That would be terrific, in my mind, and give the skilled players a chance to perform and maybe make the team a threat.





stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

With all due respect to you and Stu, I think wishing or hoping that our new 7-footers, Stockman and Vanover, be able can shoot threes at a high percentage, and that would be a good thing for Cal, is a just a dream.

My greatest hope is that Vanover and Stockman focus on rebounding and defense, play the middle well enough not to be a detriment to the team, catch balls and not drop them, if they are open, put the short shots in the basket, not throw passes away, and protect the rim and the paint decently. That would be terrific, in my mind, and give the skilled players a chance to perform and maybe make the team a threat.


Rebounding and defense are also what I want most from our centers. But they have to do something on offense. Based on nothing more than a bit of reading I'm guessing neither has the strength or skill to be effective offensively around the basket but might be able to contribute something from the high post. That could be setting screens, passing decently, and hitting enough open 15-foot shots they can't be ignored by the defense. Yes, I'm wishing and hoping, but maybe they can do that rather than stand around in the paint clogging the middle, getting their shots blocked, and turning the ball over.

I'm not expecting or predicting any particular statistics, just mentioning they might help the team in different ways than Lee and Okoroh did.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

SFCityBear said:

With all due respect to you and Stu, I think wishing or hoping that our new 7-footers, Stockman and Vanover, be able can shoot threes at a high percentage, and that would be a good thing for Cal, is a just a dream.

My greatest hope is that Vanover and Stockman focus on rebounding and defense, play the middle well enough not to be a detriment to the team, catch balls and not drop them, if they are open, put the short shots in the basket, not throw passes away, and protect the rim and the paint decently. That would be terrific, in my mind, and give the skilled players a chance to perform and maybe make the team a threat.


Rebounding and defense are also what I want most from our centers. But they have to do something on offense. Based on nothing more than a bit of reading I'm guessing neither has the strength or skill to be effective offensively around the basket but might be able to contribute something from the high post. That could be setting screens, passing decently, and hitting enough open 15-foot shots they can't be ignored by the defense. Yes, I'm wishing and hoping, but maybe they can do that rather than stand around in the paint clogging the middle, getting their shots blocked, and turning the ball over.

I'm not expecting or predicting any particular statistics, just mentioning they might help the team in different ways than Lee and Okoroh did.
Stu - Thanks for setting me straight. I didn't read your post carefully enough to see that you had written about our centers doing some outside shooting, and not necessarily 3-point shooting, as calumnus was writing about. I'm all in favor of what you wrote. There is a big difference between shooting from 15 feet and shooting from 25 feet. The reward is more for 25 footers, but the chance of making them is much lower, and for big players, I would guess there are many more of them in high school or college who can make a 12-15 footer than those who can make 25 footers on a consistent basis.

As for three pointers, the most important thing is not in the statistics. It is when does the player make threes? Does he make his threes when his team is up or down by 15 points, or does he make them in the clutch, in the final minutes when his team is up by a point or down by 5 points, when it really counts? Grant Anticevich made a great three in the clutch against Stanford last season, which led to a win. I thought that should have warranted giving him a chance to play in key situations on future games, but Wyking Jones gave him no such chances that I recall.

I'd also add that I'm really in favor of a coach utilizing and stressing the talents that his players possess. So if it is true that say, Connor Vanover is a good three point shot, then let him take a few three point attempts in games. If he proves to be very good at it, then go ahead and feature that in Cal's offense. What I don't like is forcing players to do things they are not skilled at, like Cuonzo Martin making all his players "take it to the rim" most of the time. It was painful to watch Jordan Mathews, a very good three point shooter, try to drive to the basket. He'd lose the ball or get caught up in the air with nowhere to go, putting up some wild off-balance shot. He did improve his drive a little over 3 years but nearly all the time it was a wasted possession, a Cal turnover. Okoroh and Rooks were both extremely limited in shooting ability, so they should not be featured offensively. If a rebound comes to them and they have confidence they can put it back in, then do that, but otherwise, pass the ball back out. If Cal's big men this season can shoot threes well, then by all means, use that talent to advantage.





TheSouseFamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't remember that about Mathews at all. He was 9th on the team in 2 point attempts and 8th on the team in turnover %, yet was 4th in FT attempts.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TheSouseFamily said:

I don't remember that about Mathews at all. He was 9th on the team in 2 point attempts and 8th on the team in turnover %, yet was 4th in FT attempts.
I guess we just saw Jordan Mathews differently. I loved his jump shot, but little else. From sports-reference.com, for Jordan Mathews, per game:

2014: 3.7 2PT Attempts (6th on the Cal team), 0.408 2PT% (9th on the Cal team)
2015: 4.9 " (4th " ), 0.448 " (7th " )
2016: 3.7 " (t4th " ), 0.432 " (8th " )
2017: 2.8 " (5th on Gonzaga team), 0.431 " (12th on the Gonzaga team)

Of course, 2PT shots include everything from a dunk or layup all the way out to the three-point line, so a lot of Mathews' two-point attempts were mid-range jumpers. Even with shooting some twos from just inside the three-point line, which was his strength, his shooting percentage for twos was not very good, and at Gonzaga they didn't have him shoot very many twos, the least of his college career. At Cal all I remember of him on twos was driving and taking a wild uncoordinated shot in the air near the basket. I'm sure he must have made some layups, but I don't remember seeing him make one in all the games I saw.

When I claimed Mathews' drives were usually a turnover for Cal, well, I confess I have an odd non-official definition of a turnover, and that is I include taking a bad or ill-advised shot, missing it and letting the opponent get the rebound to be a turnover for me. I classify any drive Mathews made, resulting in a wild off-balance shot which missed to be a turnover.










Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Compared to other conference shooting guards, Mathews was above-average at catch-and-shoot, below average at everything else.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

stu said:

SFCityBear said:

With all due respect to you and Stu, I think wishing or hoping that our new 7-footers, Stockman and Vanover, be able can shoot threes at a high percentage, and that would be a good thing for Cal, is a just a dream.

My greatest hope is that Vanover and Stockman focus on rebounding and defense, play the middle well enough not to be a detriment to the team, catch balls and not drop them, if they are open, put the short shots in the basket, not throw passes away, and protect the rim and the paint decently. That would be terrific, in my mind, and give the skilled players a chance to perform and maybe make the team a threat.


Rebounding and defense are also what I want most from our centers. But they have to do something on offense. Based on nothing more than a bit of reading I'm guessing neither has the strength or skill to be effective offensively around the basket but might be able to contribute something from the high post. That could be setting screens, passing decently, and hitting enough open 15-foot shots they can't be ignored by the defense. Yes, I'm wishing and hoping, but maybe they can do that rather than stand around in the paint clogging the middle, getting their shots blocked, and turning the ball over.

I'm not expecting or predicting any particular statistics, just mentioning they might help the team in different ways than Lee and Okoroh did.
Stu - Thanks for setting me straight. I didn't read your post carefully enough to see that you had written about our centers doing some outside shooting, and not necessarily 3-point shooting, as calumnus was writing about. I'm all in favor of what you wrote. There is a big difference between shooting from 15 feet and shooting from 25 feet. The reward is more for 25 footers, but the chance of making them is much lower, and for big players, I would guess there are many more of them in high school or college who can make a 12-15 footer than those who can make 25 footers on a consistent basis.

As for three pointers, the most important thing is not in the statistics. It is when does the player make threes? Does he make his threes when his team is up or down by 15 points, or does he make them in the clutch, in the final minutes when his team is up by a point or down by 5 points, when it really counts? Grant Anticevich made a great three in the clutch against Stanford last season, which led to a win. I thought that should have warranted giving him a chance to play in key situations on future games, but Wyking Jones gave him no such chances that I recall.

I'd also add that I'm really in favor of a coach utilizing and stressing the talents that his players possess. So if it is true that say, Connor Vanover is a good three point shot, then let him take a few three point attempts in games. If he proves to be very good at it, then go ahead and feature that in Cal's offense. What I don't like is forcing players to do things they are not skilled at, like Cuonzo Martin making all his players "take it to the rim" most of the time. It was painful to watch Jordan Mathews, a very good three point shooter, try to drive to the basket. He'd lose the ball or get caught up in the air with nowhere to go, putting up some wild off-balance shot. He did improve his drive a little over 3 years but nearly all the time it was a wasted possession, a Cal turnover. Okoroh and Rooks were both extremely limited in shooting ability, so they should not be featured offensively. If a rebound comes to them and they have confidence they can put it back in, then do that, but otherwise, pass the ball back out. If Cal's big men this season can shoot threes well, then by all means, use that talent to advantage.








1. As I pointed out when he transferred JM was terrible at two point shots - pretty much last among anyone who took more than a minimal amount of them. So I agree with you on your analysis of Mathews.

2. In fairness to Cuonzo, there was quite a lot of good info indicating that one of the reasons Jordan and Phil were so mad at Cuonzo was the coaches told Jordan to stop driving since he sucked at it. I thought it was funny that the team he left for then severely clamped down in his two point shooting.
Page 3 of 4
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.