Who says Cal isn't competitive?

15,076 Views | 120 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by calumnus
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

wifeisafurd said:

My two cents.

The basketball programs hit bottom and the AD probably waited too long to make moves.

The issue is how you return to respectability from the basement at a school like Cal. This may or may not happen, but it is clear Fox can coach. The question is can he recruit sufficiently at a school like Cal? Cal is not going to change what it is to accommodate its basketball program. Those that think so have misread the priorities, especially when it comes admissions criteria. And frankly, that is simply excuse making. Furd has a crumpling, outdated Maples, crappy practice facilities and similar academic criteria. Yet Haase (a guy who played at Cal) seems to be recruiting just fine. And at least this year, Furd seems to be able to have a very competitive team. Admittedly, Furd basketball, when Haase took over, had not sunk as low as Cal's program prior to hiring Fox. , Fox just may be the intermediate step needed to get back to being respectable enough to actually be in the conversation for qualified highly rated recruits and to attract a more complete coach (and donors willing to pay for that coach). But Cal right now is far from being attractive to either top players or top coaches because of the sins of the past, and whining about admissions standards or facilities still are just excuses. For better or worse, an AD is evaluated on the football and basketball programs, and over time I assume Knowlton should be held accountable based on how these programs evolve under Wilcox and Fox, or their successors as need be. In most other schools, you find an AD that can provide an environment and personnel for these programs to prosper or you find a new AD that can.
My second least favorite argument on these boards (my first is that J. Brown wasn't great for Cal) is that there is value in comparing Furd and Cal to REVENUE SPORTS recruiting.

I think this comes up because among the general undergrad population students apply to both schools - especially bay area kids or alumni that say in the Bay Area. But, and I have done this repeatedly over the years, an analysis of Furd's BB and Football rosters tells a VERY different story.

Repeatedly (Cafferty is one of the best examples) key difference makers for the Furd have attended either ELITE prep schools with tuition exceeding 30K a year and/or extremely affluent exurban high schools were property values and taxes serve the same function. These are students, I might suggest, that are night and day from many of the principal difference makers in our revenue sports who hail from middle class and diverse neighborhoods, often in Southern California. I am not at all convinced that students happy on the Farm would be happy hanging out on Telegraph and vis-a-versa.

Cal's true comparatives are UCLA, Michigan, Wisconsin, perhaps UT A - Big state schools that draw a diverse student body which is heavily represented from PUBLIC high schools and which have excellent academic reputations and semi-competitive (and up) admission standards.

Or put another way - do you think what Zaire CLAIMED drove his decision to be on the farm (I sorta scoof at it but for these purposes I will take on face value) can be found at the MUCH larger, much more diverse and much less coddling of undergrads Cal. When does Cal set up wine and cheese stuff for Frosh with VCs?

Getting our benchmark right is the first step. From there we can sorta laugh at the support Cal gives athletics compared to the sister school to the south and how that translates into success.


Rather than compare ourselves to others, I think Cal needs to embrace and develop its unique brand. Identify our comparative advantage. We have landed #1 (or near #1) recruits like Shareef Abdur Rahim, Jaylen Brown and in football Demitris Robertson from the Atlanta area plus local guys like Jason Kidd, Leon Powe, Ivan Rabb, Jabari Bird and Marshawn Lynch.

The top players we attracted from Atlanta came specifically because of Cal's reputation for embracing diversity, social activism, meaningful academic inquiry and intellectualism. Plus the great weather.

Bill Walton, Hakeem Olajuwon, LeBron James, Dirk Nowitski and Isiah Thomas have all been attracted to Cal for the campus environment or academic programs, several saying that if they had know what Cal had to offer they would have come. So one task is to identify top student athletes nationally who are not only good students, but who also want to make a difference in society and are likely to be attracted to Berkeley and all it represents. For those athletes, Cal has no competition. Among the kids coming up, the numbers are huge.

Local players stayed for the opportunity to play in front of family and friends and represent their community. With the Raiders and Warriors leaving Oakland, Cal is the East Bay (or North Bay) team in those sports. We need to embrace that.

Part of that would be having an AD and hiring head coaches that embody and embrace the above and are thus able to authentically sell it to recruits.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't disagree with this Calumunus. I do think that we kid ourselves a bit to not appreciate that other land grant schools (Michigan comes immediately to mind) don't offer some of the same things. UCLA probably as well. We can quibble about the margins. But I really believe FURD and Cal, for revenues sport athletes are extremely different experiences. Honestly for the Farm, Duke or Notre Dame are probably closer - though they also (the South, Catholicism) are very distinct as well.

And I also STRONGLY support the idea that there needs to be a better relationship between Cal and the rest of the East Bay. The number of AMAZING ballers that grew up in Oakland that played elsewhere boggles the mind and would be a pretty impressive NBA HoF team.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've been away with tax problems for a week, and thought I better revisit this thread. I was surprised to see so many comments on such a simple subject. Many of the comments went well beyond my definition of "competitive" to include what posters feel in their hearts what their definition of competitive is, and insisting that Cal isn't that, and has no desire to be that. Then the thread morphed further into other topics, as many threads do.

My definition of competitive was one that I thought everyone would agree on, and that is staying in a game, staying close enough to the opponent to have a chance to win it at the end, or close to the end. And do that against at least half of a team's opponents in a season. My thread was about how Cal competed in the Oregon game. They competed well enough to be down only one bucket with 5:36 to go in the game. That is being competitive to that point, in my book, at least.

The Bears were not competitive to start the game. They were asleep. They got down 7-0. Then things got competitive, as Cal fought back and forged ahead by 7 points, only to see Oregon regain a one point lead by the end of the half. Analyst Ben Braun said that should give Oregon momentum carrying over into the 2nd half. Sorry, Ben. It didn't happen. Cal competed, and quickly, Cal tied the game and went up by 4, just 4:16 into the half. Oregon came back and went ahead by 7 with 8:10 to go, but Cal was not done competing. The Bears came back to be just one bucket behind with just 5:18 to go when the roof fell in on Cal.

Enter Chris Duarte off the bench. Here is how it went:

5:18 Duarte hits a 3
4:48 Bradley misses a 3
4:40 Duarte hits a 3, with an assist from Amauri
4:11 Foreman misses a 3
4:09 Kuany gets fouled and makes two FTs
3:55 Betley fouls Duarte, and Duarte makes 2FTs
3:31 Betley misses a 3
3:01 Betley misses another 3
2:37 Duarte makes a 3, and Cal is down 12 and the game is over.

In 2 minutes and 41 seconds, Duarte, mostly all by himself, with only one assist from a teammate (plus a foul by Betley), scored 11 points and blew the game open. He added another 3 for good measure at 2:01 left for 14 points in 3 minutes 17 seconds. That is called smoking hot. He probably won't have another stretch like that in his career. For the rest of his game, 31 minutes, Duarte was 1-6 on threes, made one jumper, and missed two layups.

It is absurd to gauge a game or a team being competitive with a glance at the box score or the final score. That is cherry picking. The box score can be accurate, but can also be very misleading when trying to make too much out of some statistic. I've commented on box scores before, and been educated by Civil Bear as to when that is a cherry pick. And the game of basketball is all about improving, and no coach looks at the final score for much insight about what went wrong. He looks at the rest of the game, where his team made bad mistakes and how to eliminate those and make improvements. And the ideal competitive game is teams trading baskets for 40 minutes, but it rarely if ever happens that way. The game constantly ebbs and flows, one team getting hot, and the other cold, then fighting to get back in the game. Al McGuire, the great Marquette coach, used to say the first objective of his team should be to build a lead of 7 points. The second objective would be to build a lead of 12 points. When you reach 17 points, the game is over. He said that in the days of no shot clock, so the leads might be different now, but the concept is the same.

And the objective of a team should be to become competitive in games, and from there to winning games. For Cal it might mean being competitive against weaker teams, and graduate to being competitive against equal teams, and finally to being competitive against good teams. That is why I felt it the game vs Oregon was competitive. I wasn't talking about this season's team, the overall program, only just this first game were we were competitive for a long time against a better team. For you sticklers who demand perfection in this screwed up season of the virus, can't you say the game was almost competitive against a superior ranked team, except for a two minute stretch by one player?









SFCityBear
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We pretty much shot lights out and still lost because of no inside scoring and poor defense.
Go Bears!
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

I've been away with tax problems for a week, and thought I better revisit this thread. I was surprised to see so many comments on such a simple subject. Many of the comments went well beyond my definition of "competitive" to include what posters feel in their hearts what their definition of competitive is, and insisting that Cal isn't that, and has no desire to be that. Then the thread morphed further into other topics, as many threads do.

My definition of competitive was one that I thought everyone would agree on, and that is staying in a game, staying close enough to the opponent to have a chance to win it at the end, or close to the end. And do that against at least half of a team's opponents in a season. My thread was about how Cal competed in the Oregon game. They competed well enough to be down only one bucket with 5:36 to go in the game. That is being competitive to that point, in my book, at least.

The Bears were not competitive to start the game. They were asleep. They got down 7-0. Then things got competitive, as Cal fought back and forged ahead by 7 points, only to see Oregon regain a one point lead by the end of the half. Analyst Ben Braun said that should give Oregon momentum carrying over into the 2nd half. Sorry, Ben. It didn't happen. Cal competed, and quickly, Cal tied the game and went up by 4, just 4:16 into the half. Oregon came back and went ahead by 7 with 8:10 to go, but Cal was not done competing. The Bears came back to be just one bucket behind with just 5:18 to go when the roof fell in on Cal.

Enter Chris Duarte off the bench. Here is how it went:

5:18 Duarte hits a 3
4:48 Bradley misses a 3
4:40 Duarte hits a 3, with an assist from Amauri
4:11 Foreman misses a 3
4:09 Kuany gets fouled and makes two FTs
3:55 Betley fouls Duarte, and Duarte makes 2FTs
3:31 Betley misses a 3
3:01 Betley misses another 3
2:37 Duarte makes a 3, and Cal is down 12 and the game is over.

In 2 minutes and 41 seconds, Duarte, mostly all by himself, with only one assist from a teammate (plus a foul by Betley), scored 11 points and blew the game open. He added another 3 for good measure at 2:01 left for 14 points in 3 minutes 17 seconds. That is called smoking hot. He probably won't have another stretch like that in his career. For the rest of his game, 31 minutes, Duarte was 1-6 on threes, made one jumper, and missed two layups.

It is absurd to gauge a game or a team being competitive with a glance at the box score or the final score. That is cherry picking. The box score can be accurate, but can also be very misleading when trying to make too much out of some statistic. I've commented on box scores before, and been educated by Civil Bear as to when that is a cherry pick. And the game of basketball is all about improving, and no coach looks at the final score for much insight about what went wrong. He looks at the rest of the game, where his team made bad mistakes and how to eliminate those and make improvements. And the ideal competitive game is teams trading baskets for 40 minutes, but it rarely if ever happens that way. The game constantly ebbs and flows, one team getting hot, and the other cold, then fighting to get back in the game. Al McGuire, the great Marquette coach, used to say the first objective of his team should be to build a lead of 7 points. The second objective would be to build a lead of 12 points. When you reach 17 points, the game is over. He said that in the days of no shot clock, so the leads might be different now, but the concept is the same.

And the objective of a team should be to become competitive in games, and from there to winning games. For Cal it might mean being competitive against weaker teams, and graduate to being competitive against equal teams, and finally to being competitive against good teams. That is why I felt it the game vs Oregon was competitive. I wasn't talking about this season's team, the overall program, only just this first game were we were competitive for a long time against a better team. For you sticklers who demand perfection in this screwed up season of the virus, can't you say the game was almost competitive against a superior ranked team, except for a two minute stretch by one player?












Cal is as competitive this year as they were in Wyking's last year.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Turned it off with 8 minutes to go. Why did Foreman get so little playing time?
Go Bears!
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

Turned it off with 8 minutes to go. Why did Foreman get so little playing time?


Betley and Brown both played 35. Left little time for Foreman and Hyder given that you knew Fox was going to try to match up with WSU's front line.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

I've been away with tax problems for a week, and thought I better revisit this thread. I was surprised to see so many comments on such a simple subject. Many of the comments went well beyond my definition of "competitive" to include what posters feel in their hearts what their definition of competitive is, and insisting that Cal isn't that, and has no desire to be that. Then the thread morphed further into other topics, as many threads do.

My definition of competitive was one that I thought everyone would agree on, and that is staying in a game, staying close enough to the opponent to have a chance to win it at the end, or close to the end. And do that against at least half of a team's opponents in a season. My thread was about how Cal competed in the Oregon game. They competed well enough to be down only one bucket with 5:36 to go in the game. That is being competitive to that point, in my book, at least.

The Bears were not competitive to start the game. They were asleep. They got down 7-0. Then things got competitive, as Cal fought back and forged ahead by 7 points, only to see Oregon regain a one point lead by the end of the half. Analyst Ben Braun said that should give Oregon momentum carrying over into the 2nd half. Sorry, Ben. It didn't happen. Cal competed, and quickly, Cal tied the game and went up by 4, just 4:16 into the half. Oregon came back and went ahead by 7 with 8:10 to go, but Cal was not done competing. The Bears came back to be just one bucket behind with just 5:18 to go when the roof fell in on Cal.

Enter Chris Duarte off the bench. Here is how it went:

5:18 Duarte hits a 3
4:48 Bradley misses a 3
4:40 Duarte hits a 3, with an assist from Amauri
4:11 Foreman misses a 3
4:09 Kuany gets fouled and makes two FTs
3:55 Betley fouls Duarte, and Duarte makes 2FTs
3:31 Betley misses a 3
3:01 Betley misses another 3
2:37 Duarte makes a 3, and Cal is down 12 and the game is over.

In 2 minutes and 41 seconds, Duarte, mostly all by himself, with only one assist from a teammate (plus a foul by Betley), scored 11 points and blew the game open. He added another 3 for good measure at 2:01 left for 14 points in 3 minutes 17 seconds. That is called smoking hot. He probably won't have another stretch like that in his career. For the rest of his game, 31 minutes, Duarte was 1-6 on threes, made one jumper, and missed two layups.

It is absurd to gauge a game or a team being competitive with a glance at the box score or the final score. That is cherry picking. The box score can be accurate, but can also be very misleading when trying to make too much out of some statistic. I've commented on box scores before, and been educated by Civil Bear as to when that is a cherry pick. And the game of basketball is all about improving, and no coach looks at the final score for much insight about what went wrong. He looks at the rest of the game, where his team made bad mistakes and how to eliminate those and make improvements. And the ideal competitive game is teams trading baskets for 40 minutes, but it rarely if ever happens that way. The game constantly ebbs and flows, one team getting hot, and the other cold, then fighting to get back in the game. Al McGuire, the great Marquette coach, used to say the first objective of his team should be to build a lead of 7 points. The second objective would be to build a lead of 12 points. When you reach 17 points, the game is over. He said that in the days of no shot clock, so the leads might be different now, but the concept is the same.

And the objective of a team should be to become competitive in games, and from there to winning games. For Cal it might mean being competitive against weaker teams, and graduate to being competitive against equal teams, and finally to being competitive against good teams. That is why I felt it the game vs Oregon was competitive. I wasn't talking about this season's team, the overall program, only just this first game were we were competitive for a long time against a better team. For you sticklers who demand perfection in this screwed up season of the virus, can't you say the game was almost competitive against a superior ranked team, except for a two minute stretch by one player?










My idea of competitive is winning games. No one wants to coach or play at a program that can't win. The fan base doesn't want to follow a program that can't win. You are not relevant if you can not win. A moral victory about losing by 13 is a loss.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:



My idea of competitive is winning games. No one wants to coach or play at a program that can't win. The fan base doesn't want to follow a program that can't win. You are not relevant if you can not win. A moral victory about losing by 13 is a loss.
With all due respect, you are mixing apples and oranges. You are conflating a term used to describe a team that likes to compete in sports (usually a team with great desire and great effort to play a game hard) with whether they end up winning the game or not. Wins are the objective, of course, but they are not the measure of whether a team is a competitive team or not. Look up "competitive" in any dictionary. This is not the Wonderland of Alice, and you and I are not Humpty Dumpty, who said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less."

In sports, the word "competitive" means having a desire, a will, to compete, and to play the game hard, make it a competitive game. It is very seldom in college basketball history that a team is undefeated for a full season. There have been only a handful of teams which have done that.

In 1970-71, UCLA ruled college basketball. Coach John Wooden had Sidney Wicks and Curtis Rowe. They were 29-1, losing only to Notre Dame. Does that mean that none of their opponents except the Irish were competitive? UCLA was undefeated, ranked #1. The NCAA in 1971 was 25 teams. UCLA went 4-0 and won the Tournament, while 24 teams ended up losers. Were all those losing teams not "competitive"?

That very same season, USC had the greatest team in USC history. Coach Bob Boyd had Paul Westphal and Dennis Layton and were ranked #2 at one point. UCLA defeated USC in the first game between them, 64-60. So would you say USC was not competitive, because they did not win? The #2 team in the nation not competitive?

In the final game of the conference season, again they met. This time it was at Pauley, and UCLA won by 11 points. Do you think that USC was not competitive, because they lost by 11? Do you think they or their fans felt it was a moral victory? I can only guess that every USC player thought they could beat UCLA and most of their fans did too. None of them felt they had any kind of moral victory, I'll bet. In 1970-71, a PAC8 team had to win the conference to get invited to the NCAA, so that loss hurt more than what teams are used to today, with most conferences sending more than one team to the NCAA.

I was writing about how Cal was competitive against a much higher ranked team for almost all of the Oregon game. They were playing hard and playing pretty well. I'll guarantee you they felt they could win that game, and so did many Cal fans, especially when they came back from down 7-0, and pulling ahead, and then when they got the lead back in the second half, and then when they were able to keep the game very close until the last few minutes when Duarte blew it open. Duarte had given no indication in the previous 35 minutes that he could do anything like that. In the end, it was Duarte hitting 3 treys in a row, and Cal missing three treys in a row, and Cal fouling him, giving him two more points.

For the record, Cal still believed they could win games, and their momentum carried over into the OSU game, where they built a good lead by halftime. They could not sustain the loss of Bradley over the entire 40 minutes. Cal was never in the WSU game, they were not competitive at all in that one. Then they regrouped and got real competitive against UW and won that one. It is a work in progress, but Cal is not deep enough yet or experienced enough yet to be competitive against good teams when key players get hurt.


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


. . .

In sports, the word "competitive" means having a desire, a will, to compete, and to play the game hard, make it a competitive game. It is very seldom in college basketball history that a team is undefeated for a full season. There have been only a handful of teams which have done that.
. . .

Sorry SFCity - this is simply inaccurate. I coached a 7th grade CYO team that had ALL of the things you describe. If they were to play a college team - they would NOT be competitive. And that is because they had a different talent level (like Cal).

I think most of us agree with your sentiment if your were to choose a different term such as plucky, determined, hardworking, etc.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

wifeisafurd said:



My idea of competitive is winning games. No one wants to coach or play at a program that can't win. The fan base doesn't want to follow a program that can't win. You are not relevant if you can not win. A moral victory about losing by 13 is a loss.
With all due respect, you are mixing apples and oranges. You are conflating a term used to describe a team that likes to compete in sports (usually a team with great desire and great effort to play a game hard) with whether they end up winning the game or not. Wins are the objective, of course, but they are not the measure of whether a team is a competitive team or not. Look up "competitive" in any dictionary. This is not the Wonderland of Alice, and you and I are not Humpty Dumpty, who said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less."

In sports, the word "competitive" means having a desire, a will, to compete, and to play the game hard, make it a competitive game. It is very seldom in college basketball history that a team is undefeated for a full season. There have been only a handful of teams which have done that.

In 1970-71, UCLA ruled college basketball. Coach John Wooden had Sidney Wicks and Curtis Rowe. They were 29-1, losing only to Notre Dame. Does that mean that none of their opponents except the Irish were competitive? UCLA was undefeated, ranked #1. The NCAA in 1971 was 25 teams. UCLA went 4-0 and won the Tournament, while 24 teams ended up losers. Were all those losing teams not "competitive"?

That very same season, USC had the greatest team in USC history. Coach Bob Boyd had Paul Westphal and Dennis Layton and were ranked #2 at one point. UCLA defeated USC in the first game between them, 64-60. So would you say USC was not competitive, because they did not win? The #2 team in the nation not competitive?

In the final game of the conference season, again they met. This time it was at Pauley, and UCLA won by 11 points. Do you think that USC was not competitive, because they lost by 11? Do you think they or their fans felt it was a moral victory? I can only guess that every USC player thought they could beat UCLA and most of their fans did too. None of them felt they had any kind of moral victory, I'll bet. In 1970-71, a PAC8 team had to win the conference to get invited to the NCAA, so that loss hurt more than what teams are used to today, with most conferences sending more than one team to the NCAA.

I was writing about how Cal was competitive against a much higher ranked team for almost all of the Oregon game. They were playing hard and playing pretty well. I'll guarantee you they felt they could win that game, and so did many Cal fans, especially when they came back from down 7-0, and pulling ahead, and then when they got the lead back in the second half, and then when they were able to keep the game very close until the last few minutes when Duarte blew it open. Duarte had given no indication in the previous 35 minutes that he could do anything like that. In the end, it was Duarte hitting 3 treys in a row, and Cal missing three treys in a row, and Cal fouling him, giving him two more points.

For the record, Cal still believed they could win games, and their momentum carried over into the OSU game, where they built a good lead by halftime. They could not sustain the loss of Bradley over the entire 40 minutes. Cal was never in the WSU game, they were not competitive at all in that one. Then they regrouped and got real competitive against UW and won that one. It is a work in progress, but Cal is not deep enough yet or experienced enough yet to be competitive against good teams when key players get hurt.



I think you are confusing winning every game with a program that is the bottom dweller of its conference. This program is not competitive against its peers, to the extent that when it finally wins a game it engenders headlines like this:

Washington Huskies Hit Rock Bottom in 84-78 Loss at Cal ...www.uwdawgpound.com husky-comeback-fails-in-loss-...

The program presently is so uncompetitive it has loss a substantial part of its following. Just compare the number of posts five years ago on a conference game to today. In fact, a lot of the posts on the game thread dealt with even remembering there was a game.

Your concept that you are competitive for a portion of the game may sound great in a delusional sort of way, but that is not how recruits, coaches and fans view the world. Your assumption that to win means winning every game is so absurd even you point out is rarely achieved. That you can't see a middle ground that even this program can't achieve currently and has not achieved is several years is denial. We strive to compare favorably to others similarly striving, which in sports means at least winning a decent share of games. Most people would say at least competing for conference championship on occasion is a competitive goal. Winning against your peers encourages higher standards of achievement, camaraderie, shared experience and emotion that builds loyalty and trust both within in a team and a fan base. A losing program like Cal currently fails to achieve that end.

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

SFCityBear said:

It has been posted here many times and especially recently that Cal's hiring of Fox showed that Cal did not care about having a competitive basketball team. And so I was mildly surprised by how well Cal competed against #21 ranked Oregon, the team picked to win the PAC12. Oregon was missing one of their best players, and Cal was missing our 2nd best player. Cal made mistakes all over the place, but Cal's 2-3 zone defense forced Oregon into numerous errors as well. Cal started so slow, it looked like maybe those who doubted Cal could be competitive were right. But they began to break the Oregon full court press, and came storming back behind one of the most competitive players I've ever seen at Cal, Matt Bradley. Cal passed Oregon and we were up 7 with a minute or so to go in the half, when Oregon made some key buckets and were up by one at halftime. In the 2nd half, Altman added another man, and with 3 defenders pressing Cal in the backcourt, Cal had trouble with the press. Still Cal was only down 3 or 4 points with less than 10 minutes to go, before the athleticism of Oregon took over the game.

I never thought the game would be this close, but Cal made Oregon look pretty beatable for 3/4 of the game. I don't know if Cal played well, or Oregon took Cal for granted, but if Oregon is the PAC12 favorite, then the conference has slipped a notch or two this season, no matter how good a teame Casey Jacobsen thinks Oregon is. Maybe Richardson will make a huge difference. I don't know if Cal can sustain this and give us close games in conference on most nights, but for this night, Cal was competitive, against a team which has a huge home court advantage, and we were even missing a very good player, and not playing well in the turnover department. We could have won that game. Do we play them at Haas? That would be interesting.


When people use losses to argue you have a competitive program, you don't have a competitive program.
Which people argued that? I said that Cal competed well, better than I expected against a highly ranked team, and was down only one or two buckets with less than 10 minutes to go. (Actually, Cal was down only one bucket with 5:19 to go.) I felt, and I'll bet a few others who watched also felt that Cal had a real chance to win that game. I never said a word about Cal being or not being a competitive program.
SFCityBear
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

HoopDreams said:

Question for Oak:

If that's your perspective then why did you watch the game?
I didn't. And I'm sure that will make you think AHA! But I can read a box score. When a team gets its doors blown off by 13 over a 4 and a half minute period, literally a pace to lose by more than 100 over a whole game, it wasn't a close game. It frankly amazes me that people that watch sports their whole life do not get this equation. Teams that never win have games that are close because every other team knows they suck, plays accordingly and normally at some point says, "okay, this is too close guys. time to turn on the jets".

So fine, was Cal competitive for 34 minutes with an Oregon team that was not playing up to its full capability? Yes. Was Cal competitive for 6 minutes with a team that was playing to about 75% capability. No. Had one of the good teams in conference gone up to Oregon and played like Cal did, against an Oregon team that was expecting to be playing a good team and to have to go all out start to finish to win, that team would have lost by 30.

Further, the post game analysis that is basically, well if only we had no injuries and every player had a career game we woulda won is silly.

You are going to find very few Cal fans who watch that game to say that Cal was not competitive because their are very few watching period and those that do are family, friends, and the hopelessly delusional. The rest of us have left.

Wyking Jones last team beat San Diego State, SJSU, Santa Clara, and lost to a Sweet 16 Oregon team on the road by 12. So if you think beating Seattle by 5 and losing to Oregon by 13 makes us competitive, you must have loved Wyking.

Fox was a cluster eff hire the minute it was made and has been every minute since and has doomed us to at least 5 years of a cluster eff program.

If you guys want to be complete suckers and waste your time when Cal is not remotely attempting to compete, they are only attempting to con a few of you into thinking they are attempting to compete, be my guest. But when OP wants to post a gloating "who says Cal isn't competitive?" post, based on a 13 point loss, it needs to be taken down more than a peg. Cal is not competitive. Not going to be any time soon. Having the theoretical ability to win a game does not make a team competitive. We lost to a team this year that lost to Bakersfield by 28 and we were out of the game by halftime.

As for the fantasy that the roster is getting better, it is just that. 3 of our starters were inherited from Wyking and 2 of the guys that left when Fox was hired would easily be starting. Fox has recruited exactly 1 player out of high school who is playing double digit minutes and no one can figure out why he is playing 30 seconds. He has back filled with an Ivy League player and an American Easter Conference player both of whom who have walked into major major minutes on a freaking Pac-12 team. You guys seem to be stoked about a sophomore who doesn't score 3 points a game. We will be lucky if any Freshman or Sophomore on this team at all will develop into a player that would start on a top half conference team by their senior year.

Edit:

Look where we are compared to Wyking Jones last year. 5 of the top 6 players by minutes on his team and 6 of the top 8 were freshman or sophomores. 3 of those players are still in our top minute getters. The other 3 are making significant contributions on other teams. We now have 1 underclassman getting significant minutes (Wyking recruit) and 1 getting 12.9 minutes per game which is about 12.8 minutes more than he would get on any other Pac-12 team.

That is the mark of how bad the future is. It is not improved from the depths of the last 40 years.
It seems you seldom can get into a discussion here on a thread I start, without getting personally insulting towards me. Where was I gloating? If you had read the post, I wrote that after all the negativity surrounding the quality of this basketball team, "I was mildly surprised" about how well they competed for most of the game. Does that sound like "gloating" to you? I was trying to be a little uplifting after a tough loss, a game Cal could have won if some buckets had fallen for our side. That is twice in this thread that you checked your reading comprehension skills at the door before entering the thread.

If you had watched the game, you might have felt the same interest and the little excitement that I had for 35+ minutes, thinking Cal could win this. But you have gone all cynic on us, and it is clouding your vision. Oregon did not "blow Cal's doors off". It was one guy, Duarte, who got hot and made 4 threes and two FTs, in 2 minutes 41 seconds. No other Oregon player scored a single point. Other than 2 assists from a teammate, no other Oregon player contributed to what you called a blowout by a team, when in fact it was one guy. Up to that point Duarte had gone 1-6 on threes, and generally stunk up the joint.

What happened was that Cal got into a three point contest with Duarte. During the same 2:41 minutes, Bradley missed a three, Foreman missed a three, and Betley missed 2 threes. You might want to look at these players careers shooting three pointers and compare percentages. Bradley has the best percentage, but has been in a season-long slump. Duarte was shooting threes this season at 42% prior to this hot streak. Foreman and Betley shoot threes about the same rate as Duarte has in his career. So all four of these players could have gone on a hot streak, and Cal was just as likely to make their four shots as Duarte was, who happened to be the lucky one on this night. At Haas, if we play them there, and play well enough to get to down a bucket with 5 minutes to go, Cal might be the one making the threes.

Finally, what is the purpose of writing cynical negative posts? What are you trying to do, convince us to stop following Cal basketball, to stop enjoying the team trying to battle tough teams, battle injuries, and compete, putting themselves at some risk to Covid, partially for our enjoyment? There is nothing you or I can do about the current situation, unless you have some pull with who hires and fires and decides what kind of program we want and how much money we can spend on it. If you do follow the Bears, can't you be constructive, or at least neutral? This is a site for fans, isn't it? You weren't always like this, as I remember.

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

SFCityBear said:

wifeisafurd said:



My idea of competitive is winning games. No one wants to coach or play at a program that can't win. The fan base doesn't want to follow a program that can't win. You are not relevant if you can not win. A moral victory about losing by 13 is a loss.
With all due respect, you are mixing apples and oranges. You are conflating a term used to describe a team that likes to compete in sports (usually a team with great desire and great effort to play a game hard) with whether they end up winning the game or not. Wins are the objective, of course, but they are not the measure of whether a team is a competitive team or not. Look up "competitive" in any dictionary. This is not the Wonderland of Alice, and you and I are not Humpty Dumpty, who said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less."

In sports, the word "competitive" means having a desire, a will, to compete, and to play the game hard, make it a competitive game. It is very seldom in college basketball history that a team is undefeated for a full season. There have been only a handful of teams which have done that.

In 1970-71, UCLA ruled college basketball. Coach John Wooden had Sidney Wicks and Curtis Rowe. They were 29-1, losing only to Notre Dame. Does that mean that none of their opponents except the Irish were competitive? UCLA was undefeated, ranked #1. The NCAA in 1971 was 25 teams. UCLA went 4-0 and won the Tournament, while 24 teams ended up losers. Were all those losing teams not "competitive"?

That very same season, USC had the greatest team in USC history. Coach Bob Boyd had Paul Westphal and Dennis Layton and were ranked #2 at one point. UCLA defeated USC in the first game between them, 64-60. So would you say USC was not competitive, because they did not win? The #2 team in the nation not competitive?

In the final game of the conference season, again they met. This time it was at Pauley, and UCLA won by 11 points. Do you think that USC was not competitive, because they lost by 11? Do you think they or their fans felt it was a moral victory? I can only guess that every USC player thought they could beat UCLA and most of their fans did too. None of them felt they had any kind of moral victory, I'll bet. In 1970-71, a PAC8 team had to win the conference to get invited to the NCAA, so that loss hurt more than what teams are used to today, with most conferences sending more than one team to the NCAA.

I was writing about how Cal was competitive against a much higher ranked team for almost all of the Oregon game. They were playing hard and playing pretty well. I'll guarantee you they felt they could win that game, and so did many Cal fans, especially when they came back from down 7-0, and pulling ahead, and then when they got the lead back in the second half, and then when they were able to keep the game very close until the last few minutes when Duarte blew it open. Duarte had given no indication in the previous 35 minutes that he could do anything like that. In the end, it was Duarte hitting 3 treys in a row, and Cal missing three treys in a row, and Cal fouling him, giving him two more points.

For the record, Cal still believed they could win games, and their momentum carried over into the OSU game, where they built a good lead by halftime. They could not sustain the loss of Bradley over the entire 40 minutes. Cal was never in the WSU game, they were not competitive at all in that one. Then they regrouped and got real competitive against UW and won that one. It is a work in progress, but Cal is not deep enough yet or experienced enough yet to be competitive against good teams when key players get hurt.



I think you are confusing winning every game with a program that is the bottom dweller of its conference. This program is not competitive against its peers, to the extent that when it finally wins a game it engenders headlines like this:

Washington Huskies Hit Rock Bottom in 84-78 Loss at Cal ...www.uwdawgpound.com husky-comeback-fails-in-loss-...

The program presently is so uncompetitive it has loss a substantial part of its following. Just compare the number of posts five years ago on a conference game to today. In fact, a lot of the posts on the game thread dealt with even remembering there was a game.

Your concept that you are competitive for a portion of the game may sound great in a delusional sort of way, but that is not how recruits, coaches and fans view the world. Your assumption that to win means winning every game is so absurd even you point out is rarely achieved. That you can't see a middle ground that even this program can't achieve currently and has not achieved is several years is denial. We strive to compare favorably to others similarly striving, which in sports means at least winning a decent share of games. Most people would say at least competing for conference championship on occasion is a competitive goal. Winning against your peers encourages higher standards of achievement, camaraderie, shared experience and emotion that builds loyalty and trust both within in a team and a fan base. A losing program like Cal currently fails to achieve that end.


I'm not confusing anything, except maybe my words are confusing you. I'll try and state it better. The word "competitive" is an adjective, and in basketball is used to describe how well a team plays against other teams of different levels in different games. The root of the word, "competitive" is the word "compete", which is a verb which describes competition in a game. I have two dictionaries, a Webster, and a Random House Collegiate. And I have also done online searches especially how "competitive" is used in sports, and nowhere in any of those dictionaries does the word "win" or "wins" or "winning" appear. I also have a Roget's Thesaurus, and it lists the synonyms for the word "competitive" as: "emulous", "rival", "competitory". (emulous means "desirous or equaling or excelling). Competitive has to deal with how you play the game to win, not whether you actually win it or not. If you win games you are said to have won them, not hat you were competitive. If that were true, when every team which loses a game would be said to not have been competitive. That does not happen, except maybe on this board and others.

You are right when you say no one follows a team that does not win games. (Although I disagree with your assessment of this board as having lost more fans due Cal's not winning more games. I think it is a crappy season in a lot of ways for every team.) We know that Cal is crappy. We only have a couple of very good players, and a couple of good ones. If any one of them gets hurt, we won't win much of anything. And injuries are a constant problem for all teams.

My bigger point is that Cal stayed competitive for 35+ minutes against the #21 team, a team favored to win the PAC12, and by competitive I mean they stayed close enough to give themselves a good chance to win it for all but 5 minutes, and they did it without Anticevich, their 2nd best player, and their best player, Bradley, having a good first half, but slowing down in the 2nd due to having missed 2 games due to injury. I believe coaches and players on a team that is struggling to get out of the cellar look at the game differently than say, Oregon. I think the first thing they look at is to start well, and not lose the whole game in the first 1 minutes. Try and stay close until halftime. Try to be competitive for another 10 minutes, and if you get there, then try to be competitive in the last few minutes of crunch time, and maybe pull off that big upset.

I had a close friend, for a few years the top amateur golfer in the Bay Area, until he died of Crohn's Disease at age 33. He won the Area's biggest tournament twice, the SF City, and won Area's 2nd biggest tournament, the Alameda Commuters, and several others. He played in the SF City for years before he won it. He got to the semis one year and lost. Then one year he got to the Final and he lost. Then he won the Final two times. I asked him about the thought process, and he said "You have to get there first, before you can win. You have to get there and learn how to lose or learn from the loss. The next time you get there, the pressure will be a little less, because you have been there before, and you know what it is like to be there, and now you can learn how to win" That is being competitive, as I see it.

Some say the road to glory is snap up a bunch of one and dones or highly ranked players. Even when we did that in 2014, Wallace's injury killed our chances. I don't think we'll ever be the school that can stockpile the top recruits to protect against all these injuries. So we have to work on playing together, playing smart, helping a lot at both ends, and work on staying competitive in more games. Then one day the wins will come. Pete Newell did not win the NCAA in year one. In year one, his team was awful. In year two, it was better. In year 3 Cal went to the Elite 8. In year 4, the Elite 8 again. This time Cal tied Elgin Baylor and Seattle, and with 5 seconds to go had the ball at the far end. 4 or 5 passes, where the ball never hit the floor, and Al Buch missed a floater at the buzzer. Pete said if they had beaten Seattle, they would have won the Championship, because Cal was better than Kentucky. In year 5, Cal, who had been there 2 times in those big games, was now ready to win the big one, and they did.

SFCityBear
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank you for that condescending definition.

I think you were very clear in your earlier post:

"In sports, the word "competitive" means having a desire, a will, to compete, and to play the game hard, make it a competitive game. It is very seldom in college basketball history that a team is undefeated for a full season. There have been only a handful of teams which have done that."

We disagree about what being competitive means in the context of a power 5 basketball program. That said, I think most stakeholders in the team would argue my criteria of looking at victories is a more critical criteria than being competitive for a portion of a game against a decent team.

As for Fox, my views are stated above, and he seems competent enough, over time, to get the team beyond the Pac basement. His ceiling probably will be determined on his recruiting ability. I hope he succeeds. It is really hard to evaluate a coach based on this season.

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

Thank you for that condescending definition.

I think you were very clear in your earlier post:

"In sports, the word "competitive" means having a desire, a will, to compete, and to play the game hard, make it a competitive game. It is very seldom in college basketball history that a team is undefeated for a full season. There have been only a handful of teams which have done that."

We disagree about what being competitive means in the context of a power 5 basketball program. That said, I think most stakeholders in the team would argue my criteria of looking at victories is a more critical criteria than being competitive for a portion of a game against a decent team.

As for Fox, my views are stated above, and he seems competent enough, over time, to get the team beyond the Pac basement. His ceiling probably will be determined on his recruiting ability. I hope he succeeds. It is really hard to evaluate a coach based on this season.


I apologize for the condescension. It was unintentional.

I agree with you that wins are very important. I consider wins and developing the character of young players as the two most important things. A coach is usually judged on the basis of wins. I feel that teaching them to be competitive is a process that takes time, improving little by little, which will lead to wins, which is the objective. Fans are maybe a little too obsessed with winning sometimes, and there is nothing wrong with that.
SFCityBear
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A competitive basketball program is one in which, in November, fans have a reasonable belief that they will make the dance and thus start to think about where the first round pods are being hosted that year, look at their calendars, and start to build contingencies.

Cal, right now, is so far from that it is laughable. Even if we take into account COVID. Seriously - whereas I RELIGIOUSLY cleared my calendar for games I no longer do. I used to travel at least once a year to the Bay Area for games. Fat chance. Always made the SoCal games. Yeah right? Sure that would be "fun" to fight the traffic back on the 405 at 10 p.m.

Post removed:
by user
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stanford Jonah said:

I say Cal isn't competitive. Some things are so obvious that they don't need to be debated.

Victories against the Nicholls States of the world mean nothing to me.

When Cal decides to start caring about their men's major sports, I'll decide to start caring. If they don't care, why should I?


We care, that is why we are here. The problem is there is really nothing we can do but root for the guys in the blue and gold. I became a fan when Theder and Kutchen were out coaches so I just have to go back to that mindset. Go Bears!
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:

A competitive basketball program is one in which, in November, fans have a reasonable belief that they will make the dance and thus start to think about where the first round pods are being hosted that year, look at their calendars, and start to build contingencies.

Cal, right now, is so far from that it is laughable. Even if we take into account COVID. Seriously - whereas I RELIGIOUSLY cleared my calendar for games I no longer do. I used to travel at least once a year to the Bay Area for games. Fat chance. Always made the SoCal games. Yeah right? Sure that would be "fun" to fight the traffic back on the 405 at 10 p.m.




Yes. Defining "competitive" by reading dictionary definitions without connotations to essentially mean trying really hard to win is silly because it is not how anyone understands the term and it makes it totally meaningless in context. Power conference college athletes want to win and work really hard to that end. By this definition, like 98% of teams are competitive. Basically everyone who hasn't completely given up on their coach. No one thinks our players don't bust their butts to be their best. That doesn't mean our program is competitive in any understood use of the word.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stanford Jonah said:

I say Cal isn't competitive. Some things are so obvious that they don't need to be debated.

Victories against the Nicholls States of the world mean nothing to me.

When Cal decides to start caring about their men's major sports, I'll decide to start caring. If they don't care, why should I?
Look, Cal is not a good team. That is not debatable.

Cal is a losing team. That is not debatable.

Cal doesn't have many good wins. That is not debatable.

The words "good", "losing", "wins" have concrete meanings in all dictionaries of English language.

What some are doing here is knowingly or unknowingly corrupting the word, "competitive" to mean what they want it to mean, which is "not good" or "losing", or "not winning". That is my gripe.

Competitive in the basketball sense refers to how a player or a team COMPETES, not the result of how they competed. It means getting ahead of your opponent in a game or staying with him, keeping the score close, ane giving yourself a chance to win the game.

I wrote that the game was competitive for 35 minutes. If Cal had lost on a bucket at the buzzer, would any of you have considered Cal to have been competitive in that game? If the lost on a free throw at the end, would you then say they were competitive? What if Cal had tied the score and sent the game to overtime, where they lost, would you have admitted they were competitive? No, you probably wouldn't. So why not just say that Cal didn't win, or Cal lost again, or Cal wasn't any good again? Instead of corrupting the word "competitive" to mean something not found in any dictionary?

Modern society in America, at least, permits the corruption of many words. Whether this is a defect in our schools as to how we teach the English language, or just changes in our culture which have caused us to lose respect for our history, which includes our dictionaries, and lose respect for one another to the point where we say whatever the hell we want to say, no matter who it offends.

Take the word "impeachment", for example. The Republican Party stupidly started the corruption of the word by impeaching Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury over some incident which was not a "high crime or misdemeanor". This was purely vindictive, wanting to punish Clinton just to weaken him and his presidency. Not wanting to be outdone, the Democrats impeached Donald Trump, accusing his campaign of a made up story of consorting with Russians and branding Trump as a Russian spy, all without a shred of evidence. This was purely vindictive, and started even before Trump assumed the Presidency. Now they choose to impeach Trump a second time over a speech which was not in any way inciting insurrection and violence, based on the definition of his words and the words used in the indictment. This is vindictive, only meant to punish someone they don't like, and want to prevent from running for President again. It is also absurd, a farce, because the purpose of impeachment is to make a case to have a trial and remove the President from office, and he will already have been removed from office by the election and the inauguration of President Biden.

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

Stanford Jonah said:

I say Cal isn't competitive. Some things are so obvious that they don't need to be debated.

Victories against the Nicholls States of the world mean nothing to me.

When Cal decides to start caring about their men's major sports, I'll decide to start caring. If they don't care, why should I?
Look, Cal is not a good team. That is not debatable.

Cal is a losing team. That is not debatable.

Cal doesn't have many good wins. That is not debatable.

The words "good", "losing", "wins" have concrete meanings in all dictionaries of English language.

What some are doing here is knowingly or unknowingly corrupting the word, "competitive" to mean what they want it to mean, which is "not good" or "losing", or "not winning". That is my gripe.

I actually think that you are the one corrupting the term and are frustrated that just about everyone is calling you on it.

Competitive in the basketball sense refers to how a player or a team COMPETES, not the result of how they competed. It means getting ahead of your opponent in a game or staying with him, keeping the score close, ane giving yourself a chance to win the game.

Which dictionary is that in?

I wrote that the game was competitive for 35 minutes. If Cal had lost on a bucket at the buzzer, would any of you have considered Cal to have been competitive in that game? If the lost on a free throw at the end, would you then say they were competitive? What if Cal had tied the score and sent the game to overtime, where they lost, would you have admitted they were competitive? No, you probably wouldn't. So why not just say that Cal didn't win, or Cal lost again, or Cal wasn't any good again? Instead of corrupting the word "competitive" to mean something not found in any dictionary?

Modern society in America, at least, permits the corruption of many words. Whether this is a defect in our schools as to how we teach the English language, or just changes in our culture which have caused us to lose respect for our history, which includes our dictionaries, and lose respect for one another to the point where we say whatever the hell we want to say, no matter who it offends.

What you describe had been going on for as long as language exists wherever it exists. This has nothing to do with 'Modern society in America'. That type of argument sort of reeks of a political angle attempting to leverage fear or nostalgia as an excuse to say 'whatever the hell you want'

Take the word "impeachment", for example. The Republican Party stupidly started the corruption of the word by impeaching Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury over some incident which was not a "high crime or misdemeanor". This was purely vindictive, wanting to punish Clinton just to weaken him and his presidency. Not wanting to be outdone, the Democrats impeached Donald Trump, accusing his campaign of a mded up story of consorting with Russians and branding Trump as a Russian spy, all without a shred of evidence. This was purely vindictive, and started even before Trump assumed the Presidency. Now they choose to impeach Trump a second time over a speech which was not in any way inciting insurrection and violence, based on the definition of his words and the words used in the indictment. This is vindictive, only meant to punish someone they don't like, and want to prevent from running for President again. It is also absurd, a farce, because the purpose of impeachment is to make a case to have a trial and remove the President from office, and he will already have been removed from office by the election and the inauguration of President Biden.

Whoops - your underwear is showing. This last paragraph sort of just goes off the rails. Are you suggesting that Trump is as 'competitive' as Clinton?


My comments in bold are above. I responded earlier about semantics and am surprised SFCity is choosing this hill to plant his flag. Although I agree with much of what he says about basketball - I feel compelled to respond to this latest rant that reflects very poorly on him IMHO.

BTW - I don't even think Cal was competitive (in his sense) for 35 minutes. I think they other team was 'playing down to our level'.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

... The words "good", "losing", "wins" have concrete meanings in all dictionaries of English language ...
Do you think Trump "won" or "lost" the 2020 election?
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

Quote:

... The words "good", "losing", "wins" have concrete meanings in all dictionaries of English language ...
Do you think Trump "won" or "lost" the 2020 election?

He was competitive!
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:


Lots of good comments.

I do want to touch on the "competitiveness" angle.

When the Showtime Lakers were rolling opponents I knew that if they were within X points of the opponent where X roughly equaled minutes left in the game then they would come away with the win. Down 8 with 8 minutes to play? A gimme win. Those were not competitive games.

Competitive games were when the score was tied with 30 seconds to play - still usually a win but you could say the opponent came to play. So I agree that a double digit loss to Oregon was not a competitive loss. That was the expected result.

That said, there are good thing that can be taken away from the game and I am not sure that SFCItyBear should be bashed because he saw some fire in the kids playing for Cal. There is a different definition of competitive which is that the team is playing hard and trying to win. By that definition I do think Cal is competing. The players are playing with confidence in the team and the strategy. That is important. Fox hasn't lost them. He needs more talent, though.


I can agree with some of this. I didn't say it was a competitive loss. I just said it was competitive for 35 minutes, to point out that it looked like Cal was improving a little from previous games where we did not look this good against weaker opponents.

I agree with you on the Showtime Lakers, but that is comparing apples with oranges. Cal plays against much weaker competition than the NBA, in a game that has a longer shot clock and is a much shorter game at 40 minutes. This gives college teams a game where you can still run clock and control pace much better than in the NBA. The NBA clock and and pace almost guarantee that most games will go to the wire, or almost to it, even many games between mismatched teams. I think I wrote before that Al McGuire said that his first goal was to get a lead of 7 points, then work to increase it to 12 points. If at any point in the game he could get it to 17 points, the game would be over. That was 1977. Today with a clock, I'd make a wild guess and say that the first goal would be to get a lead of 12 points, and then a lead of 17 points, and finally if you could get a lead of 24 points the game would be over. In our game vs Oregon, Oregon got the lead to 7 and lost it, and in the 2nd half they got it to 6, and then Cal missed 4 straight 3's, enabling Oregon to get it to 12, with 2:33 to go, and the game was over.
SFCityBear
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
stu said:

Quote:

... The words "good", "losing", "wins" have concrete meanings in all dictionaries of English language ...
Do you think Trump "won" or "lost" the 2020 election?
I have no opinion. Biden has been certified the winner. I have listened to the testimony of many witnesses involved in the election process, as to the means of voting, the counting, and the observing. They were very compelling as to the irregularities they described, so I think the election should be thoroughly investigated, so that all Americans can feel confident in the results of future elections.
SFCityBear
smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
easy to get carried away, trust me i know, but might wanna be more careful on insider boards where political content is strongly discouraged.
# peace / out
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

Stanford Jonah said:

I say Cal isn't competitive. Some things are so obvious that they don't need to be debated.

Victories against the Nicholls States of the world mean nothing to me.

When Cal decides to start caring about their men's major sports, I'll decide to start caring. If they don't care, why should I?
Look, Cal is not a good team. That is not debatable.

Cal is a losing team. That is not debatable.

Cal doesn't have many good wins. That is not debatable.

The words "good", "losing", "wins" have concrete meanings in all dictionaries of English language.

What some are doing here is knowingly or unknowingly corrupting the word, "competitive" to mean what they want it to mean, which is "not good" or "losing", or "not winning". That is my gripe.

Competitive in the basketball sense refers to how a player or a team COMPETES, not the result of how they competed. It means getting ahead of your opponent in a game or staying with him, keeping the score close, ane giving yourself a chance to win the game.

I wrote that the game was competitive for 35 minutes. If Cal had lost on a bucket at the buzzer, would any of you have considered Cal to have been competitive in that game? If the lost on a free throw at the end, would you then say they were competitive? What if Cal had tied the score and sent the game to overtime, where they lost, would you have admitted they were competitive? No, you probably wouldn't. So why not just say that Cal didn't win, or Cal lost again, or Cal wasn't any good again? Instead of corrupting the word "competitive" to mean something not found in any dictionary?

Modern society in America, at least, permits the corruption of many words. Whether this is a defect in our schools as to how we teach the English language, or just changes in our culture which have caused us to lose respect for our history, which includes our dictionaries, and lose respect for one another to the point where we say whatever the hell we want to say, no matter who it offends.

Take the word "impeachment", for example. The Republican Party stupidly started the corruption of the word by impeaching Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury over some incident which was not a "high crime or misdemeanor". This was purely vindictive, wanting to punish Clinton just to weaken him and his presidency. Not wanting to be outdone, the Democrats impeached Donald Trump, accusing his campaign of a made up story of consorting with Russians and branding Trump as a Russian spy, all without a shred of evidence. This was purely vindictive, and started even before Trump assumed the Presidency. Now they choose to impeach Trump a second time over a speech which was not in any way inciting insurrection and violence, based on the definition of his words and the words used in the indictment. This is vindictive, only meant to punish someone they don't like, and want to prevent from running for President again. It is also absurd, a farce, because the purpose of impeachment is to make a case to have a trial and remove the President from office, and he will already have been removed from office by the election and the inauguration of President Biden.


Anyone that writes dictionaries for a living will not agree with you. Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. That phrase has been drilled into me by every English teacher I ever had. That is what I was taught in the Linguistics department at Cal. Words mean what people in society think they mean. Dictionaries try to describe how they are used. They do not tell people how they are supposed to used. They are a guide. When everyone else is telling you your usage of a word is not what anyone else thinks is proper, you are wrong. I am confident that if we got the Webster guy who wrote the definition, he would tell you that you are wrong about how you are categorizing dictionaries generally and that you are wrong about how you are specifically using the word in context. Context matters.

Further, words have connotations beyond their dictionary meaning. A dictionary cannot possible capture every nuance of every usage of a word. This is not corruption. This is evolution. Languages evolve. Always. That is not modern society. That is not American society. This is not losing respect for our history. This is not a failure of our schools. This is a failure of your school to teach you how languages work. Words have evolved since 1957. And you know what? They evolved between 1900 and 1957. Words meant different things in 1957 than in 1900. That wasn't corruption. This is just you not being able to handle that things change. I'll give you an example. The word "arena". You know what that "means". It means sand. It does not mean a large place where people go to watch sporting events. A Roman would be really upset at your corruption of his language and your lack of respect for history. See, in the places that we now call "arenas", Romans held events that resulted in a lot of blood. To soak up the blood, the floor of such a place was covered in sand, or as the Romans would say, "arena". When they went to watch animals and humans get slaughtered, they went to the place where the "arena" was. After a while, the word evolved, or as you would say "became corrupted". People started referring to going to the arena meaning the whole building.

That is what words do.

As I said, your use of the word in the context you used it in is basically useless. Virtually every team in America is competitive under your statement. I assumed you had a point in your post. I assumed you wouldn't post "Who says the sky is not blue". Of course Cal is "competitive" by your definition. Who the hell isn't?

Nice sneaking in your political point on a sports board. We have an off topic board for that

Your whole discussion of the definition of impeachment is completely wrong even by your standard. Impeachment is a process. Your opinion of what should lead to impeachment is irrelevant to its definition. Here is the dictionary definition:

-the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something.

-a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office.

When it comes to American government, impeachment means a majority of the House of Representatives voting to indict the office holder and send the question of removal from office to the Senate. That is it. They can do it if they don't like the guy's face. That is the process. Should they? No. Has nothing to do with the definition of impeachment

I will limit my political response to this. What Trump did was far worse than anything Nixon did. One can argue whether Clinton should have been impeached. One can argue whether Trump should have been impeached the first time. I can only shake my head at any American questioning impeaching a President who incited a mob that almost killed the Vice President and members of Congress, and did kill a police officer.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

stu said:

Quote:

... The words "good", "losing", "wins" have concrete meanings in all dictionaries of English language ...
Do you think Trump "won" or "lost" the 2020 election?
I have no opinion. Biden has been certified the winner. I have listened to the testimony of many witnesses involved in the election process, as to the means of voting, the counting, and the observing. They were very compelling as to the irregularities they described, so I think the election should be thoroughly investigated, so that all Americans can feel confident in the results of future elections.
In other words, I have no opinion except that the lies that have been told over and over might be true despite 70 judges of all political stipes saying that they were presented no evidence that any of the claims were true.

But looks like you will get an investigation into improper election interference:

Atlanta Prosecutor Appears to Move Closer to Trump Inquiry - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Civil Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

stu said:

Quote:

... The words "good", "losing", "wins" have concrete meanings in all dictionaries of English language ...
Do you think Trump "won" or "lost" the 2020 election?

He was competitive!
Okay, now that gave me a chuckle. Thanks.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
can we end the discussion on the meaning of 'competitive'

seems to me that how you define the word has less to do with the dictionary and more to do with your general opinion on the cal program/ coach and general glass half-full / half-empty tendencies
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
smh said:

easy to get carried away, trust me i know, but might wanna be more careful on insider boards where political content is strongly discouraged.
# peace / out
Maybe if we keep mentioning politics we'll get this thread removed and thereby be freed from English lessons.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

can we end the discussion on the meaning of 'competitive'

seems to me that how you define the word has less to do with the dictionary and more to do with your general opinion on the cal program/ coach and general glass half-full / half-empty tendencies



I believe it was a paper tiger argument all along, it started with "People keep saying Cal is not competitive" and rather than ask what people mean when they say that, we get this thread based on semantics plus a mischaracterization of Trump's two sustained articles of impeachment.
concernedparent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCity if anything can be said, you drive traffic lol.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Maybe we're trying to define the wrong word: Since this thread has also evolved (or devolved) into the Presidents, let me quote one:

To answer the question of if Cal is competitive, doesn't that also "depend on what the definition of 'Is' is"?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.