Eight days ago, I was almost going to write that we would win our last three regular season conference games. Thing is, I would've been kidding, or at least tossing out some tongue-in-cheek bravado (is there a difference?). Eight days ago, it didn't seem like we could beat Washington St at Haas, no less 'Furd on the road and, amazingly, conference-leading UW. As I was driving to Haas for the UW game, I hear on the pre-game show that they were 13-1 in conference. 0-15 vs. 13-1?!? Needless to say, I did not arrive on campus with a hell of a lot of hope.

What does it all mean? Who knows! Probably nothing; maybe something. Just enjoy the brief ride.

Tough luck tonight, Stanfurd! Go Bears!

I thought we would cover the 11.5 spread but not win.

I gotta say that Stanford under performed this year big time

They have a lottery pick and a deep experienced roster with height

vanover playing well. mcneill scoreless and we win.we will be a threat in vegas. momentum momentum

Big C said:

---

Eight days ago, it didn't seem like we could beat Washington St at Haas, no less 'Furd on the road and, amazingly, conference-leading UW.

---

Bears won two in a row at Haas, then went on the road and beat Haase.

BearSD said:

---

Big C said:

---

Eight days ago, it didn't seem like we could beat Washington St at Haas, no less 'Furd on the road and, amazingly, conference-leading UW.

---

Bears won two in a row at Haas, then went on the road and beat Haase.

---

I've got friends on the Farm who aren't exactly ecstatic with Haase.

Yogi Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big C said:

---

Eight days ago, it didn't seem like we could beat Washington St at Haas, no less 'Furd on the road and, amazingly, conference-leading UW.

---

Bears won two in a row at Haas, then went on the road and beat Haase.

---

I've got friends on the Farm who aren't exactly ecstatic with Haase.

---

Eff him as far as I'm concerned. Ever since he ran off to Kansas, I haven't had a good thought about him.

---

Stop the fat-shaming, Yogi! Are you sure this isn't more about him being a fat tub of goo? You're terrible! I hope Furd is supplying a safe space for Haase, where he doesn't have to face your derision. Of course, it'd have to be a pretty WIDE space...

Yogi Bear said:

---

Ever since he ran off to Kansas, I haven't had a good thought about him.

---

At the time it looked more like he got run off.

But if his teams keep losing to Cal I'd be happy to have him stay at Stanford forever. Is that a good thought?

There were plenty of us around here who saw the progress and potential, starting with the first Stanford game that was stolen from us.

It was just hard to hear that message with all the repetitive and worthless 0-18 and fire Wyking chants.

Of course nobody would have predicted we'd win the last 3, and it would have been a bad bet even if we were 8-7 instead of 0-15. There was at least a 30% chance we'd win one of the last three, which then improved substantially with the WSU concussions and Davis injury.

Big C said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big C said:

---

Eight days ago, it didn't seem like we could beat Washington St at Haas, no less 'Furd on the road and, amazingly, conference-leading UW.

---

Bears won two in a row at Haas, then went on the road and beat Haase.

---

I've got friends on the Farm who aren't exactly ecstatic with Haase.

---

Eff him as far as I'm concerned. Ever since he ran off to Kansas, I haven't had a good thought about him.

---

Stop the fat-shaming, Yogi! Are you sure this isn't more about him being a fat tub of goo?

---

I can just about guarantee that

R90 said:

---

There were plenty of us around here who saw the progress and potential, starting with the first Stanford game that was stolen from us.

It was just hard to hear that message with all the receptive and worthless 0-18 and fire Wyking chants.

Of course nobody would have predicted we'd win the last 3, and it would have been a bad bet even if we were 8-7 instead of 0-15. There was at least a 30% chance we'd win one of the last three, which then improved substantially with the WSU concussions and Davis injury.

---

This is the most Cal thing ever. I've seen Cal Cal before, but this puts them all to shame.

Big C said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big C said:

---

Eight days ago, it didn't seem like we could beat Washington St at Haas, no less 'Furd on the road and, amazingly, conference-leading UW.

---

Bears won two in a row at Haas, then went on the road and beat Haase.

---

I've got friends on the Farm who aren't exactly ecstatic with Haase.

---

Eff him as far as I'm concerned. Ever since he ran off to Kansas, I haven't had a good thought about him.

---

Stop the fat-shaming, Yogi! Are you sure this isn't more about him being a fat tub of goo? You're terrible! I hope Furd is supplying a safe space for Haase, where he doesn't have to face your derision. Of course, it'd have to be a pretty big space...

---

Agree definitely not a fan. This win couldn't be sweeter. I hope they tank in conf tourney too.

Yogi Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big C said:

---

Eight days ago, it didn't seem like we could beat Washington St at Haas, no less 'Furd on the road and, amazingly, conference-leading UW.

---

Bears won two in a row at Haas, then went on the road and beat Haase.

---

I've got friends on the Farm who aren't exactly ecstatic with Haase.

---

Eff him as far as I'm concerned. Ever since he ran off to Kansas, I haven't had a good thought about him.

---

In fairness to him maybe he knew Bozeman was a d@uche.

bearister said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big C said:

---

Eight days ago, it didn't seem like we could beat Washington St at Haas, no less 'Furd on the road and, amazingly, conference-leading UW.

---

Bears won two in a row at Haas, then went on the road and beat Haase.

---

I've got friends on the Farm who aren't exactly ecstatic with Haase.

---

Eff him as far as I'm concerned. Ever since he ran off to Kansas, I haven't had a good thought about him.

---

In fairness to him maybe he knew Bozeman was a d@uche.

---

Well, yeah.

Haase's top assistant at Stanford is Jeff Wulbrun, who was an assistant for Lou Campanelli at Cal (and quit when Campanelli was fired).

If all the negative fans have been watching, the Bears have been playing very well for the last 8 games or so. Even the games they lost showed improvement. Beating Stanford should not have been such a surprise. They will be tough in the tournament, but beatable again. Geez, doesn't beating Washington tell us something?

bearchamp said:

---

If all the negative fans have been watching, the Bears have been playing very well for the last 8 games or so. Even the games they lost showed improvement. Beating Stanford should not have been such a surprise. They will be tough in the tournament, but beatable again. Geez, doesn't beating Washington tell us something?

---

In our last 8 games...

were we playing very well when we lost to Arizona by 25, 5 games ago (ending their 7 game losing streak)?

were we playing very well when we lost to USC by 23 at home, 6 games ago?

We've played well the last 3 games.

In the losses, Cal was competitive through the first half. The quality of play was infinitely better than it was at the beginning of the season. Even the commentator, Don MacLean observed and recognized the progress. The scores weren't completely indicative of the quality of play.

HoopDreams said:

---

I gotta say that Stanford under performed this year big time

They have a lottery pick and a deep experienced roster with height

---

A lottery pick?

59bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I gotta say that Stanford under performed this year big time

They have a lottery pick and a deep experienced roster with height

---

A lottery pick?

---

I've seen Okpala as high as #6 in mock drafts. https://www.nbadraft.net has him at #9.

TheFiatLux said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

If all the negative fans have been watching, the Bears have been playing very well for the last 8 games or so. Even the games they lost showed improvement. Beating Stanford should not have been such a surprise. They will be tough in the tournament, but beatable again. Geez, doesn't beating Washington tell us something?

---

In our last 8 games...

were we playing very well when we lost to Arizona by 25, 5 games ago (ending their 7 game losing streak)?

were we playing very well when we lost to USC by 23 at home, 6 games ago?

We've played well the last 3 games.

---

I think you'd also have to say we showed improvement in the OSU and UCLA games, much of it tied to Vanover's development. There is much to criticize in Jones' body of work but it's clear he has managed to hold this team together and gotten improved play the last half of the conference season.

bearchamp said:

---

In the losses, Cal was competitive through the first half. The quality of play was infinitely better than it was at the beginning of the season. Even the commentator, Don MacLean observed and recognized the progress. The scores weren't completely indicative of the quality of play.

---

Sorry, bearchamp, but anytime I hear something like that, you really need to back it up with something OFF THE COURT or dealing with officials. The quality of play argument only seems to make sense in subjective events like figure skating. But I get your point - they are passing the eye test.

Have the Bears improved? Absolutely, I don't want to diminish that point. But I also think the three game winning streak was due as much to the opponent looking past the lowly Bears, than their dominant play.

Washington win seemed like a classic trap game.

WSU probably thought the UW win was a fluke and that they could get past Cal on the road. Oh yeah, WSU has almost as bad a record as Cal (#11).

Stanfurd is also pretty weak - #10 in P12. I think they missed their first 17 or 18 3 point shots - many of which were NOT well contested. We got lucky that they were that bad. Had they made 6 of those - that's 18 points and we probably lose by double digits.

At least the Bears took advantage of the opportunities, which is something they could NOT do against the prior 5 'quality of play' losses.

And they look better to the eye!

Go Bears!

The other thing to note, the Bears improvement didn't start with the UW win last week. It began ten games back when Cal lost a heartbreaker at home to Stanford. In the subsequent ten game stretch, they've either won or had a chance to win eight of those games. That's a far cry from the previous eight Pac-12 tilts, where the Bears lost by an average of 16 points.

Bear Insider. I rest my case.

Last night was our best performance, by far, on the defensive end, at least statistically speaking. No other game even comes close from an defensive efficiency or defensive eFG% standpoint. Coincidentally, It was also Furd's worst game of the season offensively, driven in large part by their 4-22 performance from 3. If they make 2 more of those (still a bad 28%), they win.

So was that performance all about our defense tightening up finally or Furd just laying an egg? I think the answer is somehere in the middle. I thought the defense looked better and the guys played with good energy (and the blocks by CV helped) but at the same time, a lot of those 3's that Furd missed were good open looks. In the end, it was probably a bit more about Furd being cold than us being hot. But, hey, a win is a win and a streak is a streak.

Kudos to the players for never giving up and to the staff for not letting them.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Last night was our best performance, by far, on the defensive end, at least statistically speaking. No other game even comes close from an defensive efficiency or defensive eFG% standpoint. Coincidentally, It was also Furd's worst game of the season offensively, driven in large part by their 4-22 performance from 3. If they make 2 more of those (still a bad 28%), they win.

So was that performance all about our defense tightening up finally or Furd just laying an egg? I think the answer is somehere in the middle. I thought the defense looked better and the guys played with good energy (and the blocks by CV helped) but at the same time, a lot of those 3's that Furd missed were good open looks. In the end, it was probably a bit more about Furd being cold than us being hot. But, hey, a win is a win and a streak is a streak.

Kudos to the players for never giving up and to the staff for not letting them.

---

Near the end of the game we gave Furd way too many open 3 ball looks. All season they have over-helped and then rotate way too late to the line. Whatever the case, it's been fun to see the boys get it done. The shortened rotation I think kind of helps if you think about it. Just gets everyone in rhythm and not worried about PT.

Another thing to note: Nobody expected that Wyking would outcoach Haase

bearchamp said:

---

In the losses, Cal was competitive through the first half. The quality of play was infinitely better than it was at the beginning of the season. Even the commentator, Don MacLean observed and recognized the progress. The scores weren't completely indicative of the quality of play.

---

Two things seem to be involved there. Lack of depth and lack of adjustments at halftime or ability to react to halftime adjustments by other teams.

Didn't really change last night. The first half was just either better or weirder or both.

I don't think WJ did out coach Haas. Stanford tried the right things and Cal actually messed up with its "slow down" strategy. The coaching wasn't the problem, the execution was.

bearchamp said:

---

I don't think WJ did out coach Haas. Stanford tried the right things and Cal actually messed up with its "slow down" strategy. The coaching wasn't the problem, the execution was.

---

Probably true, poor execution, just like Cal in most of their losses. Honestly I was being a bit satirical about WJ and Haase. I just find it amusing that in almost every loss that we've had it is somehow attributed to WJ on this board, but when we win his coaching never is.

I think overall WJ should be congratulated on the progress this team has made and on the spirit the team has maintained. Notwithstanding, he makes, what I see as silly errors that handicap the overall results. for instance, subbing Kelly for Vanover with about three minutes left in the game last night; abandoning offense and "working" the clock waaaay to early, and the like.

Big C said:

---

Eight days ago, I was almost going to write that we would win our last three regular season conference games. Thing is, I would've been kidding, or at least tossing out some tongue-in-cheek bravado (is there a difference?). Eight days ago, it didn't seem like we could beat Washington St at Haas, no less 'Furd on the road and, amazingly, conference-leading UW. As I was driving to Haas for the UW game, I hear on the pre-game show that they were 13-1 in conference. 0-15 vs. 13-1?!? Needless to say, I did not arrive on campus with a hell of a lot of hope.

What does it all mean? Who knows! Probably nothing; maybe something. Just enjoy the brief ride.

Tough luck tonight, Stanfurd! Go Bears!

---

I don't often make predictions. But I remember writing a few weeks back that Cal was in a slump, where they lost game after game often for different reasons. They lost games by poor defense, or when they played defense, the shooting went cold. They shoot free throws well, but lost games on poor free throw shooting. They lost games on bad calls by the refs, and on the bounce of the ball. When you are on a team like that, you collectively begin to think, "Geez, what else can go wrong?" And then something you never expect goes wrong. It is a funk. I remember writing here or telling someone, that when you are in a slump like that, all you need is that first win. After that win, it can be an aberration, and you can go back into losing all your games. Or, maybe you got so high with the first win, you have a letdown, lose the next game, but return to win games after that. Or, you can break through that barrier of getting your first win, and you take off and win several in a row, proving it was not a fluke. It looks like that is what Cal has done. Bad play is bad play, but slumps can become mental in nature and are tough to shake. It may well be that Wyking Jones learning and the team learning how to play together were the cause of Cal losing so many games and getting into the slump, but it is to the credit of both Jones and the players that they remained positive and are now playing to their potential. How good they will be will be learned by how long this streak lasts. The good news is the players will all be back next season, a year older, and a year wiser, knowing they can overcome an awful losing streak with a winning streak of their own.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

...I just find it amusing that in almost every loss that we've had it is somehow attributed to WJ on this board, but when we win his coaching never is.

---

In the case of one Cuonzo Martin I can assure you that during his two year stint the majority of the wins were primarily because of the players and the majority of the losses were on Cuonzo. He basically dropped the reins at tip off.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Another thing to note: Nobody expected that Wyking would outcoach Haase

---

no comment on wyking, but there's nothing I've seen to suggest Haase is a good coach

his teams have underperformed their talent

they couldn't even get to the ncaa last year with a junior 5 star monster, a senior 4 star and talented center/forward, a solid junior center, a 5 star freshmen wing, a 4 star freshmen PG, and a lot of height and depth

talent, experience, depth, height, yet no ncaa

bearister said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

...I just find it amusing that in almost every loss that we've had it is somehow attributed to WJ on this board, but when we win his coaching never is.

---

In the case of one Cuonzo Martin I can assure you that during his two year stint the majority of the wins were primarily because of the players and the majority of the losses were on Cuonzo. He basically dropped the reins at tip off.

---

I understand what you're feeling, but whether its Cuonzo, WJ, or anyone else, you can't have it both ways everytime. If a coach is subject to constant criticism when losing, at some point you have to give him some credit for winning, that's all.