I appreciate it when long quotes are trimmed to just the relevant portion or replaced with text like "In response to Oski's opinion". Some posts containing a series of long quotes are difficult for me to follow and in extreme cases make scrolling the page a pain. Thank you.
quotes
6,693 Views |
48 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by UrsaMajor
stu said:
I appreciate it when long quotes are trimmed to just the relevant portion or replaced with text like "In response to Oski's opinion". Some posts containing a series of long quotes are difficult for me to follow and in extreme cases make scrolling the page a pain. Thank you.
Will do
Give to Cal Legends!
https://calegends.com/donation/ Do it now. Text every Cal fan you know, give them the link, tell them how much you gave, and ask them to text every Cal fan they know and do the same.
https://calegends.com/donation/ Do it now. Text every Cal fan you know, give them the link, tell them how much you gave, and ask them to text every Cal fan they know and do the same.
Dear fat: In addition to your trimming quotes, will you also be trimming those pizza slices??
Got itstu said:
I appreciate it when long quotes are trimmed
Kstu said:
...trimmed...
The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!
fat_slice said:stu said:
I appreciate it when long quotes are trimmed to just the relevant portion or replaced with text like "In response to Oski's opinion". Some posts containing a series of long quotes are difficult for me to follow and in extreme cases make scrolling the page a pain. Thank you.
Will do
Question for SFCB: what was it like watching the Pete Newell coached Cal teams? Was the game different from today?
KenBurnski said:fat_slice said:stu said:
I appreciate it when long quotes are trimmed to just the relevant portion or replaced with text like "In response to Oski's opinion". Some posts containing a series of long quotes are difficult for me to follow and in extreme cases make scrolling the page a pain. Thank you.
Will do
Question for SFCB: what was it like watching the Pete Newell coached Cal teams? Was the game different from today?
Good question.
Was wondering the same actually.
Also, here's a good review about Cheez-Its.
* * *
"Before we go any further, I have a confession. If you asked me two weeks ago what I thought about the humble Cheez-It, I would have probably given you a simple and uninspired "meh." The mention of the snack would make me think about the halcyon days of middle school snack-time, the soiled floor of the of my mom's '97 Ford Explorer... and not much else. So when I was tasked with ranking "every single flavor of Cheez-It," I assumed the lift would be low and simple -- after all, how many flavors of Cheez-Its can there be? And, more importantly, how different can they be? And perhaps most importantly, what is really the plural version of Cheez-It? Cheez-I? Cheez-Them?
Well, when I stared down 21 (yes, 21) boxes of distinctly flavored Cheez-Its (according to our copy editor Will, that's the correct way to do "Cheez-It," plural), I realized just how sorely I had been underrating these tiny little windows of flavor all of these years. Each variety had a different taste. Every box was a new adventure. And the party that was happening in my mouth, in (most) of cases, was the culinary equivalent of a Diddy all-white Hamptons party in June featuring a surprise musical performance by Phil Collins. Simply put: Cheez-Its are kind of the ***** And I was totally wrong.
In light of my reformation, here is every flavor of Cheez-It, lovingly ranked by a recently converted Cheez-Them head.
Feel free to disagree. But know that absolutely nothing can change my mind, suckers. "
Thanks Stu. I'll try and do better.
SFCityBear
helltopay1 said:
Dear fat: In addition to your trimming quotes, will you also be trimming those pizza slices??
Pizza and beer help me deal with the frustrations of being a cal fan. If we can become better at football and/or basketball I am happy to trim both the quotes and the slices.
Give to Cal Legends!
https://calegends.com/donation/ Do it now. Text every Cal fan you know, give them the link, tell them how much you gave, and ask them to text every Cal fan they know and do the same.
https://calegends.com/donation/ Do it now. Text every Cal fan you know, give them the link, tell them how much you gave, and ask them to text every Cal fan they know and do the same.
Very different. The arena was filled every game. The noise was from the rooting fans, including many more Cal students than today, I'd wager, and the Straw Hat Band, not music on a PA system and a light show. Stanford had a sizable rooting section when they came to play, and there were even card stunts, but that probably pre-dated Newell. The floor was simpler, with no artwork painted in, no large and small semi-circle lines on the floor. And a bold black stripe for a half-court line.KenBurnski said:fat_slice said:stu said:
I appreciate it when long quotes are trimmed to just the relevant portion or replaced with text like "In response to Oski's opinion". Some posts containing a series of long quotes are difficult for me to follow and in extreme cases make scrolling the page a pain. Thank you.
Will do
Question for SFCB: what was it like watching the Pete Newell coached Cal teams? Was the game different from today?
The schedules were pretty rigid. All games, at least conference games, were played at 8PM on Friday and Saturday nights, back to back. Students could go to a game at 8, and be back home in their dorm room by 9:30 at the latest to begin studying.
The game was different. The rules. No carrying the ball, no traveling, no charging. All baskets worth 2 points, no three-pointer, no players looking down at their shoes to see if they were outside the three point line. There were no timeouts for TV commercials. In fact Cal games were not all on TV, and many games were only on radio. There were far fewer timeouts allowed. Newell seldom called a timeout. In many games he called no timeout at all. Many players were asked to play 40 minutes and more. There were two referees, not three, and NO TV replay. Fans were lucky to have TV games at all.
Recruiting was provincial, mostly. California players went to the California schools, and so forth. California high school teams and players of that era were known for defense, and so were the college teams. Midwest and East Coast teams featured offense more, and more fast break. The Midwestern and Eastern teams never knew what hit them come tournament time, when they faced the great defenses of USF and Cal. There were no conference tournaments, and most of the teams invited to the NCAA had to have won their conference. The NIT invited the best teams, no matter who. I think winning rival games and winning your conference were much more important than today.
As to watching Newell's teams play a game, it was like going to church, in that you usually went home feeling positive and happy. I'm an engineer, so watching Cal play offense was like watching a Swiss clock movement, with all the parts working together, each doing their job, usually resulting in a Cal basket. He often used a dribble-screen-handoff weave, where the ball handler dribbles toward a teammate, and sets a screen just as he is handing the ball to him. He can't be called for setting a moving pick, because he is the dribbler. The only suspense for us watching the Cal weave was which Cal player would be left wide open under the basket at the end of it. It was mostly layups or short jumpers. Denny Fitzpatrick shot mostly from 10-15 feet, often from behind a screen, Al Buch from a little farther out. Buch was great on the drive, when it presented itself. When Tandy Gillis arrived, he shot what would be called a three today. Larry Friend on Newell's first 3 teams shot threes and lots of mid-range jumpers. Imhoff had a soft 10 foot jumper, and a great hook shot. McClintock had a variety of drives, post moves, and a jumper out to 10-12 feet, many of his shots off the glass.
Defensively, if you can imagine 5 guys (actually more like 8) moving their man around the floor, not letting him go where he wanted to go, like a Jorge Gutierrez, that was Cal. In 1959 Newell used a two-man full court press, with Fitzpatrick and Buch (or Simpson) who often stole the ball in the backcourt and scored easily. In the halfcourt, they often would let their man slip by and kind of pinch him, forcing him right into Imhoff, to get a steal or a shot block. In 1960, Cal's defense might have been even better, and they seldom pressed at all. They had some other great individual defenders like Tandy Gillis, Bob Dalton, and Don McIntosh and Duane Asplund before them. Dick Doughty was nearly as good as Imhoff.
As Denny Fitzpatrick said they had a chance to win maybe three NCAA Championshps, won one, and probably should have won all three..
Today's players are taller on average by a couple inches. They are stronger on average, more athletic. But I don't think they would fare very well if they suddenly had to compete using the old rules They have spent all their lives learning to do things according to the modern rules. Conversely, the players of Newell's era would have the same trouble trying to play by the modern rules, having spent their lives playing within the old rules. The star players of either era would likely be able to adapt and compete in the other era. Just IMO.
Thanks for the question. I probably left a lot out, but the post is too long already.
SFCityBear
Good summary. But you forgot to mention that there was no 30 second clock, and a hallmark of Newell's teams was their stall tactic when on offense. Near the end of a game, they could hold the ball for 3-4 minutes without taking a shot or giving up the ball.SFCityBear said:Very different. The arena was filled every game. The noise was from the rooting fans, including many more Cal students than today, I'd wager, and the Straw Hat Band, not music on a PA system and a light show. Stanford had a sizable rooting section when they came to play, and there were even card stunts, but that probably pre-dated Newell. The floor was simpler, with no artwork painted in, no large and small semi-circle lines on the floor. And a bold black stripe for a half-court line.KenBurnski said:fat_slice said:
Question for SFCB: what was it like watching the Pete Newell coached Cal teams? Was the game different from today?
The schedules were pretty rigid. All games, at least conference games, were played at 8PM on Friday and Saturday nights, back to back. Students could go to a game at 8, and be back home in their dorm room by 9:30 at the latest to begin studying.
The game was different. The rules. No carrying the ball, no traveling, no charging. All baskets worth 2 points, no three-pointer, no players looking down at their shoes to see if they were outside the three point line. There were no timeouts for TV commercials. In fact Cal games were not all on TV, and many games were only on radio. There were far fewer timeouts allowed. Newell seldom called a timeout. In many games he called no timeout at all. Many players were asked to play 40 minutes and more. There were two referees, not three, and NO TV replay. Fans were lucky to have TV games at all.
Recruiting was provincial, mostly. California players went to the California schools, and so forth. California high school teams and players of that era were known for defense, and so were the college teams. Midwest and East Coast teams featured offense more, and more fast break. The Midwestern and Eastern teams never knew what hit them come tournament time, when they faced the great defenses of USF and Cal. There were no conference tournaments, and most of the teams invited to the NCAA had to have won their conference. The NIT invited the best teams, no matter who. I think winning rival games and winning your conference were much more important than today.
As to watching Newell's teams play a game, it was like going to church, in that you usually went home feeling positive and happy. I'm an engineer, so watching Cal play offense was like watching a Swiss clock movement, with all the parts working together, each doing their job, usually resulting in a Cal basket. He often used a dribble-screen-handoff weave, where the ball handler dribbles toward a teammate, and sets a screen just as he is handing the ball to him. He can't be called for setting a moving pick, because he is the dribbler. The only suspense for us watching the Cal weave was which Cal player would be left wide open under the basket at the end of it. It was mostly layups or short jumpers. Denny Fitzpatrick shot mostly from 10-15 feet, often from behind a screen, Al Buch from a little farther out. Buch was great on the drive, when it presented itself. When Tandy Gillis arrived, he shot what would be called a three today. Larry Friend on Newell's first 3 teams shot threes and lots of mid-range jumpers. Imhoff had a soft 10 foot jumper, and a great hook shot. McClintock had a variety of drives, post moves, and a jumper out to 10-12 feet, many of his shots off the glass.
Defensively, if you can imagine 5 guys (actually more like 8) moving their man around the floor, not letting him go where he wanted to go, like a Jorge Gutierrez, that was Cal. In 1959 Newell used a two-man full court press, with Fitzpatrick and Buch (or Simpson) who often stole the ball in the backcourt and scored easily. In the halfcourt, they often would let their man slip by and kind of pinch him, forcing him right into Imhoff, to get a steal or a shot block. In 1960, Cal's defense might have been even better, and they seldom pressed at all. They had some other great individual defenders like Tandy Gillis, Bob Dalton, and Don McIntosh and Duane Asplund before them. Dick Doughty was nearly as good as Imhoff.
As Denny Fitzpatrick said they had a chance to win maybe three NCAA Championshps, won one, and probably should have won all three..
Today's players are taller on average by a couple inches. They are stronger on average, more athletic. But I don't think they would fare very well if they suddenly had to compete using the old rules They have spent all their lives learning to do things according to the modern rules. Conversely, the players of Newell's era would have the same trouble trying to play by the modern rules, having spent their lives playing within the old rules. The star players of either era would likely be able to adapt and compete in the other era. Just IMO.
Thanks for the question. I probably left a lot out, but the post is too long already.
And no arc and no 3 point shots.
The key was narrower . . . 8' instead of 12'.
Glass backboards? Short shorts.
More jump balls, and no possession arrows.
The key was narrower . . . 8' instead of 12'.
Glass backboards? Short shorts.
More jump balls, and no possession arrows.
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
stu, the devil made me do itGolden One said:Good summary. But you forgot to mention that there was no 30 second clock, and a hallmark of Newell's teams was their stall tactic when on offense. Near the end of a game, they could hold the ball for 3-4 minutes without taking a shot or giving up the ball.SFCityBear said:Very different. The arena was filled every game. The noise was from the rooting fans, including many more Cal students than today, I'd wager, and the Straw Hat Band, not music on a PA system and a light show. Stanford had a sizable rooting section when they came to play, and there were even card stunts, but that probably pre-dated Newell. The floor was simpler, with no artwork painted in, no large and small semi-circle lines on the floor. And a bold black stripe for a half-court line.KenBurnski said:fat_slice said:
Question for SFCB: what was it like watching the Pete Newell coached Cal teams? Was the game different from today?
The schedules were pretty rigid. All games, at least conference games, were played at 8PM on Friday and Saturday nights, back to back. Students could go to a game at 8, and be back home in their dorm room by 9:30 at the latest to begin studying.
The game was different. The rules. No carrying the ball, no traveling, no charging. All baskets worth 2 points, no three-pointer, no players looking down at their shoes to see if they were outside the three point line. There were no timeouts for TV commercials. In fact Cal games were not all on TV, and many games were only on radio. There were far fewer timeouts allowed. Newell seldom called a timeout. In many games he called no timeout at all. Many players were asked to play 40 minutes and more. There were two referees, not three, and NO TV replay. Fans were lucky to have TV games at all.
Recruiting was provincial, mostly. California players went to the California schools, and so forth. California high school teams and players of that era were known for defense, and so were the college teams. Midwest and East Coast teams featured offense more, and more fast break. The Midwestern and Eastern teams never knew what hit them come tournament time, when they faced the great defenses of USF and Cal. There were no conference tournaments, and most of the teams invited to the NCAA had to have won their conference. The NIT invited the best teams, no matter who. I think winning rival games and winning your conference were much more important than today.
As to watching Newell's teams play a game, it was like going to church, in that you usually went home feeling positive and happy. I'm an engineer, so watching Cal play offense was like watching a Swiss clock movement, with all the parts working together, each doing their job, usually resulting in a Cal basket. He often used a dribble-screen-handoff weave, where the ball handler dribbles toward a teammate, and sets a screen just as he is handing the ball to him. He can't be called for setting a moving pick, because he is the dribbler. The only suspense for us watching the Cal weave was which Cal player would be left wide open under the basket at the end of it. It was mostly layups or short jumpers. Denny Fitzpatrick shot mostly from 10-15 feet, often from behind a screen, Al Buch from a little farther out. Buch was great on the drive, when it presented itself. When Tandy Gillis arrived, he shot what would be called a three today. Larry Friend on Newell's first 3 teams shot threes and lots of mid-range jumpers. Imhoff had a soft 10 foot jumper, and a great hook shot. McClintock had a variety of drives, post moves, and a jumper out to 10-12 feet, many of his shots off the glass.
Defensively, if you can imagine 5 guys (actually more like 8) moving their man around the floor, not letting him go where he wanted to go, like a Jorge Gutierrez, that was Cal. In 1959 Newell used a two-man full court press, with Fitzpatrick and Buch (or Simpson) who often stole the ball in the backcourt and scored easily. In the halfcourt, they often would let their man slip by and kind of pinch him, forcing him right into Imhoff, to get a steal or a shot block. In 1960, Cal's defense might have been even better, and they seldom pressed at all. They had some other great individual defenders like Tandy Gillis, Bob Dalton, and Don McIntosh and Duane Asplund before them. Dick Doughty was nearly as good as Imhoff.
As Denny Fitzpatrick said they had a chance to win maybe three NCAA Championshps, won one, and probably should have won all three..
Today's players are taller on average by a couple inches. They are stronger on average, more athletic. But I don't think they would fare very well if they suddenly had to compete using the old rules They have spent all their lives learning to do things according to the modern rules. Conversely, the players of Newell's era would have the same trouble trying to play by the modern rules, having spent their lives playing within the old rules. The star players of either era would likely be able to adapt and compete in the other era. Just IMO.
Thanks for the question. I probably left a lot out, but the post is too long already.
Big C said:
stu, the devil made me do it
...trim...blungld said:Kstu said:
...trimmed...
A picture is worth a thousand words. Check this out:
Crew cuts. No black players. No dunks. White uniforms at home and dark ones away. One assistant coach. White Chuck Taylors.
Crew cuts. No black players. No dunks. White uniforms at home and dark ones away. One assistant coach. White Chuck Taylors.
Well done SFCityBear. I remember it quite the same. When I was there in 59 and especially games I watched or listened to before, it seemed with Newell's stall tactics that almost every game was low scoring and went down to the wire. I do not think he ever lost to Wooden in those days.
Harmon, for its size, was intense to put it mildly. I cannot imagine any visiting team wanting to come to Harmon. I also recall the games when St. Mary's came to town with Tom Mershery vs. Bill McClintock. A bull fight to say the least. The St. Marys students seemed very immature as if they had been locked up in Moraga for a year and let loose for the game. And then on the other side of the bay, I recall that 'furds gym seated about 2500. Not the noise of Harmon, but still the peaception of the fans "on the floor".
Harmon, for its size, was intense to put it mildly. I cannot imagine any visiting team wanting to come to Harmon. I also recall the games when St. Mary's came to town with Tom Mershery vs. Bill McClintock. A bull fight to say the least. The St. Marys students seemed very immature as if they had been locked up in Moraga for a year and let loose for the game. And then on the other side of the bay, I recall that 'furds gym seated about 2500. Not the noise of Harmon, but still the peaception of the fans "on the floor".
Thanks for posting. Wowroqmoq said:
A picture is worth a thousand words. Check this out:
Crew cuts. No black players. No dunks. White uniforms at home and dark ones away. One assistant coach. White Chuck Taylors.
Yes the game was different!
Ball handling, passing, shooting all different
Without 3 point arc defenses really packed it in
Very interesting
Thanks for all the great replies. I knew I had left some things out, but ran out of gas. You all came up with many more - all good. We ought to all get together and write a book.
SFCityBear
Good points, Joe. Yes, there were glass backboards, not in the playgrounds or a lot of gyms, but I played on them at Kezar in about 1955, and at Harmon in 1959. I went to games at Harmon with my dad as early as 1950, and I don't remember any boards except glass ones. USF Memorial had glass boards from the day it opened. We used to go there an get in pickup games, just to get the feel of shooting with glass boards. It took a while to master bank shots on glass.joe amos yaks said:
And no arc and no 3 point shots.
The key was narrower . . . 8' instead of 12'.
Glass backboards? Short shorts.
More jump balls, and no possession arrows.
SFCityBear
I think you already wrote the book.SFCityBear said:
Thanks for all the great replies. I knew I had left some things out, but ran out of gas. You all came up with many more - all good. We ought to all get together and write a book.
BTW -- The two-handed set shots, the one-handed push shot. . . and more.
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
Good point. Every team stalled at the end of a game, sometimes earlier. We did it in high school, and so did all our opponents. Ironic that Newell lobbied the NCAA for a shot clock. He loved the idea. He felt his teams were so disciplined that they could easily get off a good shot within the clock limit, while he felt with Cal's defense, the opponents would have problems getting off a good shot.Golden One said:Good summary. But you forgot to mention that there was no 30 second clock, and a hallmark of Newell's teams was their stall tactic when on offense. Near the end of a game, they could hold the ball for 3-4 minutes without taking a shot or giving up the ball.SFCityBear said:Very different. The arena was filled every game. The noise was from the rooting fans, including many more Cal students than today, I'd wager, and the Straw Hat Band, not music on a PA system and a light show. Stanford had a sizable rooting section when they came to play, and there were even card stunts, but that probably pre-dated Newell. The floor was simpler, with no artwork painted in, no large and small semi-circle lines on the floor. And a bold black stripe for a half-court line.KenBurnski said:fat_slice said:
Question for SFCB: what was it like watching the Pete Newell coached Cal teams? Was the game different from today?
The schedules were pretty rigid. All games, at least conference games, were played at 8PM on Friday and Saturday nights, back to back. Students could go to a game at 8, and be back home in their dorm room by 9:30 at the latest to begin studying.
The game was different. The rules. No carrying the ball, no traveling, no charging. All baskets worth 2 points, no three-pointer, no players looking down at their shoes to see if they were outside the three point line. There were no timeouts for TV commercials. In fact Cal games were not all on TV, and many games were only on radio. There were far fewer timeouts allowed. Newell seldom called a timeout. In many games he called no timeout at all. Many players were asked to play 40 minutes and more. There were two referees, not three, and NO TV replay. Fans were lucky to have TV games at all.
Recruiting was provincial, mostly. California players went to the California schools, and so forth. California high school teams and players of that era were known for defense, and so were the college teams. Midwest and East Coast teams featured offense more, and more fast break. The Midwestern and Eastern teams never knew what hit them come tournament time, when they faced the great defenses of USF and Cal. There were no conference tournaments, and most of the teams invited to the NCAA had to have won their conference. The NIT invited the best teams, no matter who. I think winning rival games and winning your conference were much more important than today.
As to watching Newell's teams play a game, it was like going to church, in that you usually went home feeling positive and happy. I'm an engineer, so watching Cal play offense was like watching a Swiss clock movement, with all the parts working together, each doing their job, usually resulting in a Cal basket. He often used a dribble-screen-handoff weave, where the ball handler dribbles toward a teammate, and sets a screen just as he is handing the ball to him. He can't be called for setting a moving pick, because he is the dribbler. The only suspense for us watching the Cal weave was which Cal player would be left wide open under the basket at the end of it. It was mostly layups or short jumpers. Denny Fitzpatrick shot mostly from 10-15 feet, often from behind a screen, Al Buch from a little farther out. Buch was great on the drive, when it presented itself. When Tandy Gillis arrived, he shot what would be called a three today. Larry Friend on Newell's first 3 teams shot threes and lots of mid-range jumpers. Imhoff had a soft 10 foot jumper, and a great hook shot. McClintock had a variety of drives, post moves, and a jumper out to 10-12 feet, many of his shots off the glass.
Defensively, if you can imagine 5 guys (actually more like 8) moving their man around the floor, not letting him go where he wanted to go, like a Jorge Gutierrez, that was Cal. In 1959 Newell used a two-man full court press, with Fitzpatrick and Buch (or Simpson) who often stole the ball in the backcourt and scored easily. In the halfcourt, they often would let their man slip by and kind of pinch him, forcing him right into Imhoff, to get a steal or a shot block. In 1960, Cal's defense might have been even better, and they seldom pressed at all. They had some other great individual defenders like Tandy Gillis, Bob Dalton, and Don McIntosh and Duane Asplund before them. Dick Doughty was nearly as good as Imhoff.
As Denny Fitzpatrick said they had a chance to win maybe three NCAA Championshps, won one, and probably should have won all three..
Today's players are taller on average by a couple inches. They are stronger on average, more athletic. But I don't think they would fare very well if they suddenly had to compete using the old rules They have spent all their lives learning to do things according to the modern rules. Conversely, the players of Newell's era would have the same trouble trying to play by the modern rules, having spent their lives playing within the old rules. The star players of either era would likely be able to adapt and compete in the other era. Just IMO.
Thanks for the question. I probably left a lot out, but the post is too long already.
SFCityBear
SFCity:SFCityBear said:
Thanks for all the great replies. I knew I had left some things out, but ran out of gas. You all came up with many more - all good. We ought to all get together and write a book.
You also left out the change in free throws. One free throw for fouls before the "bonus" (which was after the 5th foul/half, not 7th), then one-and-one (no double bonus), and 2 for shooting fouls.
Prior to 1938, jump ball after every made basket.
One thing: I doubt that students could be studying by 9:30 after an 8 PM game--given a minimum of 15-20 minutes to leave Harmon and walk to he dorms, and a game that has 40 minutes of running time, plus 20 minutes of halftime plus stopped time (free throws, etc.). No way.
Cool. The Bears were nervous in the first half of that one and played like it.roqmoq said:
A picture is worth a thousand words. Check this out:
Crew cuts. No black players. No dunks. White uniforms at home and dark ones away. One assistant coach. White Chuck Taylors.
There were black players on Newell's teams, but not the '59 team. He had lobbied the administration hard to get some into Cal. The first was from San Francisco, who wanted to be a doctor. I forget his name. He played frosh ball, but wanted to concentrate on his studies, so he left the program and eventually transferred, I think. Earl Robinson was a fine player, a starter at guard for Cal for 3 years and helped take Cal to two Elite 8 Western Regional finals, and two Conference Championships. A third was Bob Washington, a strong forward, who was on the team for a while, but had to leave school, but returned a year later to rejoin the team. I don't think he played enough minutes to earn a letter.
SFCityBear
There have been so many changes in free throw rules over the years, I have lost track.UrsaMajor said:SFCity:SFCityBear said:
Thanks for all the great replies. I knew I had left some things out, but ran out of gas. You all came up with many more - all good. We ought to all get together and write a book.
You also left out the change in free throws. One free throw for fouls before the "bonus" (which was after the 5th foul/half, not 7th), then one-and-one (no double bonus), and 2 for shooting fouls.
Prior to 1938, jump ball after every made basket.
One thing: I doubt that students could be studying by 9:30 after an 8 PM game--given a minimum of 15-20 minutes to leave Harmon and walk to he dorms, and a game that has 40 minutes of running time, plus 20 minutes of halftime plus stopped time (free throws, etc.). No way.
There was a time before that when very few fouls were called, but when then were.called, they resulted in a jump ball, not a free throw. Men were men in those days, and the refs had little influence on the outcome of games.
As for back in my dorm room studying by 9:30, I did it. My friend used to make it back to his northside co-op too. With all due respect, you must have dilly-dallied or stopped to do some socializing.
SFCityBear
If anybody was really wondering how 25% of the board would vote that they want Wyking to get a third year in the BI poll, this thread provides the answer.KenBurnski said:fat_slice said:Will dostu said:
I appreciate it when long quotes are trimmed to just the relevant portion or replaced with text like "In response to Oski's opinion". Some posts containing a series of long quotes are difficult for me to follow and in extreme cases make scrolling the page a pain. Thank you.
Question for SFCB: what was it like watching the Pete Newell coached Cal teams? Was the game different from today?
LOL
Truth.SFCityBear said:
As for back in my dorm room studying by 9:30, I did it. My friend used to make it back to his northside co-op too. With all due respect, you must have dilly-dallied or stopped to do some drinking.
Yogi Bear said:If anybody was really wondering how 25% of the board would vote that they want Wyking to get a third year in the BI poll, this thread provides the answer.KenBurnski said:fat_slice said:Will dostu said:
I appreciate it when long quotes are trimmed to just the relevant portion or replaced with text like "In response to Oski's opinion". Some posts containing a series of long quotes are difficult for me to follow and in extreme cases make scrolling the page a pain. Thank you.
Question for SFCB: what was it like watching the Pete Newell coached Cal teams? Was the game different from today?
LOL
I starred this post. If I could star it again I would.
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
I think I wrote the book three times over. I keep writing it so I don't forget all this, which I obviously did in my post.joe amos yaks said:I think you already wrote the book.SFCityBear said:
Thanks for all the great replies. I knew I had left some things out, but ran out of gas. You all came up with many more - all good. We ought to all get together and write a book.
BTW -- The two-handed set shots, the one-handed push shot. . . and more.
Good video.
I never could master the two-handed shot. From playing too much tennis, my right arm was much stronger than my left, and in a two-hand set, I couldn't keep the ball going straight on line. I was very happy when the one-hand shot arrived in the neighborhood, and I learned that one. After some time I did master a two hand jump shot.
Funny story, which I may be repeating. My golf buddy Larry was All-City in the New York City high school league and played hoops for UConn and Hofstra. He played in a summer league with some NBA players on a team coached by Red Auerbach. Before the game, Auerbach was asking his players and others, "What happened to the two-handed set shot? No one ever shoots it anymore." In the game Larry figures he will try one. He launches this two-hand set shot from 40 feet with a high arc. While the ball is in the air, Larry looks over at the bench, and Auerbach is standing up and screaming at some player on the bench, "Hey you. Get up off your rear end and go into the game for Larry." Larry looked back at the ball as it arrived and went into the basket, nothing but net. Larry never again took a two-handed set shot. Never.
SFCityBear
BTW--They use to call traveling (aka steps or "walking") and carrying (turning the ball over), but they don't do that anymore. Why is that?
They do call a technical foul for flopping unless your name is James Harden or Russell Westbrook or your Coach looks like a "pickle-puss" and his last name starts with a K. Why is that?
They do call a technical foul for flopping unless your name is James Harden or Russell Westbrook or your Coach looks like a "pickle-puss" and his last name starts with a K. Why is that?
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
Dear Yaks: We will need some research on this: I could have sworn that the key was only six feet rather than 8. Research master??
Early results of the BI 2019 Quote Curtailment initiative proving mixed.
Dear SFCB: The player you had in mind was Bob Tealer from Mission. teaser made first-string all-city as a senior and third-string as a junior. Flunked out because he couldn't handle foreign languages. Otherwise, he was a decent student. Transferred to the mid-west where he was an all-league player. He is in the SF Prep hall of Fame. I believe he was 6/3.
Early results of the BI sarcasm detection capability proving failure.KenBurnski said:
Early results of the BI 2019 Quote Curtailment initiative proving mixed.
You are most correct.helltopay1 said:
Dear Yaks: We will need some research on this: I could have sworn that the key was only six feet rather than 8. Research master??
A "three second area" created in 1936 was to prevent offensive players from "camping out" around the basket -- which they did -- and to eliminate some rough play and smash-mouth aspects of the game -- good grief! The three second area was 6 feet wide. It was known as the "key". In 1951 the CBB three second area was widened to 12 feet. It never was 8 feet. How about that?
Also, why are CBB players sometimes referred to as "cagers"?
Answer: Before 1932 chicken wire (or chain-link) fencing was often installed around the court in an effort to make the game go faster by eliminating all the out of bounds delays, and it served as a buffer to protect players from rowdy spectators -- and vice versa -- and from objects being hurled onto the court -- which there often was.
When games got physical the wire fences were used by players to body check each other like in hockey -- and they did -- often resulting in injury. So in ca.1933 "cage" fences were removed; however, some more seasoned ("experienced") sportswriters still use the term "cagers" in reference to CBB play. That's just the way it is.
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
Featured Stories
See All
Cal Football National Signing Day Central
by Jim McGill
Bear Insider Video: Cal DB Commit Kaden Cook
by Jim McGill
Bears Falter In Second Half At Missouri
by Cal Athletics
Bears Earn All-ACC Honors
by Cal Athletics
Wilkinson Named ACC Co-Rookie Of The Week
by Cal Athletics