Cal’s Early 2021-22 Pac-12 Game Dates Announced

It's a small thing given the other question marks surrounding the team, but Playing CU and UO only once and not having to travel to Boulder sounds like a pretty decent scheduling break to me.

Plus we own utah at utah.

I don't like it so much, playing our first PAC12 game with only about 6 or 7 non-conference games under our belt. We have for many years begun the PAC12 conference season in the beginning of January or so, having gained experience (and hopefully begun to jell) in 12-13 non-conference games to get ready for the PAC12.

Last season, we played PAC12 games in our 4th and 5th games of the season, and that sure did not work out well for us.

SFCityBear said:

---

I don't like it so much, playing our first PAC12 game with only about 6 or 7 non-conference games under our belt. We have for many years begun the PAC12 conference season in the beginning of January or so, having gained experience (and hopefully begun to jell) in 12-13 non-conference games to get ready for the PAC12.

Last season, we played PAC12 games in our 4th and 5th games of the season, and that sure did not work out well for us.

---

Well, yeah, but Stanford and Colorado play five days before that and everybody else plays the same weekend as Cal, so we're no worse off. It's the young teams that really need the non-conference games to adjust but experience-wise, won't Cal's starting rotation likely be the same minus Bradley? Maybe it's better to get a couple of conference games played before winter break so the team has a better sense of their strengths and weaknesses. Coming out of non-conference games last season, we thought Betley was going to be a key offensive force but the higher caliber Pac-12 opposition caused him problems. As in football, there's a temptation to schedule pre-conference patsies to inflate the record and excite the fan-base and I don't think it works to the team's benefit.

SFCityBear said:

---

I don't like it so much, playing our first PAC12 game with only about 6 or 7 non-conference games under our belt. We have for many years begun the PAC12 conference season in the beginning of January or so, having gained experience (and hopefully begun to jell) in 12-13 non-conference games to get ready for the PAC12.

Last season, we played PAC12 games in our 4th and 5th games of the season, and that sure did not work out well for us.

---

The flip side is we may have the most senior starting 5 in the conference with all returning players that played together last year. Maybe 1 new player in the starting 5 at most. I am pretty sure everyone else will be more reliant on their young players and incoming transfers.

In particular, our early games are against OSU and Utah. Oregon State will have 7 newcomers, 6 of them transfers who will be in the mix to start.

Utah is the most extreme case in the conference. Utah made a coaching change in the offseason and will only have 4 scholarship players returning from last year's team. They had 9 players leave, mostly transfers to other P5 programs and will rely extensively on a roster composed almost entirely of transfers. They are the ones that really need time to gel. It is an advantage for Cal to play OSU and Utah early, not a disadvantage. I would not be surprised to again see our relative ratings within the conference drop over the course of the season.

However, this will be a good chance to steal some early conference wins and boost the team's confidence.

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I don't like it so much, playing our first PAC12 game with only about 6 or 7 non-conference games under our belt. We have for many years begun the PAC12 conference season in the beginning of January or so, having gained experience (and hopefully begun to jell) in 12-13 non-conference games to get ready for the PAC12.

Last season, we played PAC12 games in our 4th and 5th games of the season, and that sure did not work out well for us.

---

The flip side is we may have the most senior starting 5 in the conference with all returning players that played together last year. Maybe 1 new player in the starting 5 at most. I am pretty sure everyone else will be more reliant on their young players and incoming transfers.

In particular, our early games are against OSU and Utah. Oregon State will have 7 newcomers, 6 of them transfers who will be in the mix to start.

Utah is the most extreme case in the conference. Utah made a coaching change in the offseason and will only have 4 scholarship players returning from last year's team. They had 9 players leave, mostly transfers to other P5 programs and will rely extensively on a roster composed almost entirely of transfers. They are the ones that really need time to gel. It is an advantage for Cal to play OSU and Utah early, not a disadvantage. I would not be surprised to again see our relative ratings within the conference drop over the course of the season.

However, this will be a good chance to steal some early conference wins and boost the team's confidence.

---

Kudos for the optimism. I hope you are right, but I just don't think it is very realistic. If we do have a starting five of all returning players, it will be a comparatively weak one, not just compared to the rest of the PAC12, but especially compared to last season's Cal starting five, the five who started the most games and played the most minutes, and were the worst team in the PAC12. We have lost two starters from last season, one of whom was far and away our best player, Matt Bradley, and Ryan Betley. There is no one from the old 2021 roster who can fill Bradley's shoes, or even lace up his sneakers that well. He was always the go-to guy when the team needed a bucket to win a game, or a bucket or a rebound or a stop to keep us in a game, or stop an opponent's run of points. Losing Betley is losing your 2nd best 3 point scorer, and with Bradley gone, the only volume 3-point scorer returning is Foreman, who had the lowest percentage at .317. You will need threes. And if it is to come from the old roster, it will be Foreman and some from Grant. Celestine shot over .400, and Brown .387. but both of them shot only one attempt each per game, a tiny sample, so it is questionable whether they can provide the volume of threes necessary to win most games.

The likely choices to start are Celestine at SF and Foreman at SG, if you have an all-veteran lineup. I wonder about Celestine's durability. Has he rehabbed and built himself back up to where he could play 25 minutes a game? Defensively, he'll be better than Betley, but Betley was a good rebounder, Foreman is undersized, and I don't believe skilled enough to be a PAC12 starter. Hyder penetrates but hasn't shown skill scoring or passing inside, and his three point attempts are little more than prayers. Lars, Thorpe, Kuany, Bowser are all projects in various stages of development. Bowser's head injury may have caused Fox to use him sparingly to be safe. Will he be ready this season to play more?

The big challenge for this team is can Fox coach it? They may be mostly veteran players, but without Bradley (and Betley) they will have to play an entirely different offense from last season. The challenge last season was to get players to compliment Bradley, who mostly played one-on-one. They will need to move more without the ball, set more screens, play together more. They will need to focus more on the inside game and the mid-range shot. Kelley will need many more touches. Grant will need to learn to finish at the rim. Defensively, Celestine will be an upgrade over Betley, Foreman a downgrade from Bradley. I'm not sure Fox can coach this group to be better than the sum of its parts, and it may take quite a while for this team to start to jell. That is why I question how well Cal can be playing after only 3 games of playing this new style, and playing without two of last season's starters, in order to "steal" any PAC12 games. Again, I hope you are right, and they do steal them. I am also hoping the newcomers are good enough to earn minutes early in the season.

SFCityBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I don't like it so much, playing our first PAC12 game with only about 6 or 7 non-conference games under our belt. We have for many years begun the PAC12 conference season in the beginning of January or so, having gained experience (and hopefully begun to jell) in 12-13 non-conference games to get ready for the PAC12.

Last season, we played PAC12 games in our 4th and 5th games of the season, and that sure did not work out well for us.

---

The flip side is we may have the most senior starting 5 in the conference with all returning players that played together last year. Maybe 1 new player in the starting 5 at most. I am pretty sure everyone else will be more reliant on their young players and incoming transfers.

In particular, our early games are against OSU and Utah. Oregon State will have 7 newcomers, 6 of them transfers who will be in the mix to start.

Utah is the most extreme case in the conference. Utah made a coaching change in the offseason and will only have 4 scholarship players returning from last year's team. They had 9 players leave, mostly transfers to other P5 programs and will rely extensively on a roster composed almost entirely of transfers. They are the ones that really need time to gel. It is an advantage for Cal to play OSU and Utah early, not a disadvantage. I would not be surprised to again see our relative ratings within the conference drop over the course of the season.

However, this will be a good chance to steal some early conference wins and boost the team's confidence.

---

Kudos for the optimism. I hope you are right, but I just don't think it is very realistic. If we do have a starting five of all returning players, it will be a comparatively weak one, not just compared to the rest of the PAC12, but especially compared to last season's Cal starting five, the five who started the most games and played the most minutes, and were the worst team in the PAC12. We have lost two starters from last season, one of whom was far and away our best player, Matt Bradley, and Ryan Betley. There is no one from the old 2021 roster who can fill Bradley's shoes, or even lace up his sneakers that well. He was always the go-to guy when the team needed a bucket to win a game, or a bucket or a rebound or a stop to keep us in a game, or stop an opponent's run of points. Losing Betley is losing your 2nd best 3 point scorer, and with Bradley gone, the only volume 3-point scorer returning is Foreman, who had the lowest percentage at .317. You will need threes. And if it is to come from the old roster, it will be Foreman and some from Grant. Celestine shot over .400, and Brown .387. but both of them shot only one attempt each per game, a tiny sample, so it is questionable whether they can provide the volume of threes necessary to win most games.

The likely choices to start are Celestine at SF and Foreman at SG, if you have an all-veteran lineup. I wonder about Celestine's durability. Has he rehabbed and built himself back up to where he could play 25 minutes a game? Defensively, he'll be better than Betley, but Betley was a good rebounder, Foreman is undersized, and I don't believe skilled enough to be a PAC12 starter. Hyder penetrates but hasn't shown skill scoring or passing inside, and his three point attempts are little more than prayers. Lars, Thorpe, Kuany, Bowser are all projects in various stages of development. Bowser's head injury may have caused Fox to use him sparingly to be safe. Will he be ready this season to play more?

The big challenge for this team is can Fox coach it? They may be mostly veteran players, but without Bradley (and Betley) they will have to play an entirely different offense from last season. The challenge last season was to get players to compliment Bradley, who mostly played one-on-one. They will need to move more without the ball, set more screens, play together more. They will need to focus more on the inside game and the mid-range shot. Kelley will need many more touches. Grant will need to learn to finish at the rim. Defensively, Celestine will be an upgrade over Betley, Foreman a downgrade from Bradley. I'm not sure Fox can coach this group to be better than the sum of its parts, and it may take quite a while for this team to start to jell. That is why I question how well Cal can be playing after only 3 games of playing this new style, and playing without two of last season's starters, in order to "steal" any PAC12 games. Again, I hope you are right, and they do steal them. I am also hoping the newcomers are good enough to earn minutes early in the season.

---

The issue is playing PAC-12 games early in the season versus late. We will be very challenged in both. Celestine's durability? That is a late season concern. Again, advantage to have the games early.

Of course we will not be exactly the same team as last year and will need to sort out our best lineup and offense, and yes that is not likely to be very good. However our opponents' personnel will be even more different than last year and will take more time to figure out their best lineups and best offense, but the result is likely to be much better than ours as the season progresses. Thus, if they are better than us early, they should be far better than us as the season progresses.

As far as coaching, Tinkle's teams tend to get better as the season progresses (as we saw in the Tournament). Smith is new to Utah, but that alone is reason to think it will take longer for him to implement his system. Again, playing them early is an advantage.

I am not optimistic about next season, but having early PAC-12 games is an advantage for Cal, not a disadvantage. Whether that is enough to make a difference is a different issue.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I don't like it so much, playing our first PAC12 game with only about 6 or 7 non-conference games under our belt. We have for many years begun the PAC12 conference season in the beginning of January or so, having gained experience (and hopefully begun to jell) in 12-13 non-conference games to get ready for the PAC12.

Last season, we played PAC12 games in our 4th and 5th games of the season, and that sure did not work out well for us.

---

Waiting to play Pac12 games later in the season hasn't worked out well either.

---

I was talking specifically about the most tried and proven way to have things work out well in your first conference game. I'll guess there were many years when Cal won its first conference game after playing a pre-conference season of 10-13 games There are reasons all teams play say 10-14 games or so before heading into conference play, and one is to get the team ready for all types of competition, weak teams, maybe strong teams, road games, home games, tournaments, etc.

There are different definitions of things working out well, depending on one's opinion. This is not the great Cal teams of the 1950s when Pete played 6-8 non-conference games before the first game. They were full of talent, coached by the best coach in the business. They didn't need much time. Without yet having seen the recruits, I'd say what we have here is a team not loaded with talent, not coached by a coach with great proven success, and I figure he and they need all the time working together in practice games that they can get in order to have a good chance to win their first conference game, or many conference games this year. For me, really good success this year would be a .500 overall season, and .500 in conference would be even better.

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I don't like it so much, playing our first PAC12 game with only about 6 or 7 non-conference games under our belt. We have for many years begun the PAC12 conference season in the beginning of January or so, having gained experience (and hopefully begun to jell) in 12-13 non-conference games to get ready for the PAC12.

Last season, we played PAC12 games in our 4th and 5th games of the season, and that sure did not work out well for us.

---

Waiting to play Pac12 games later in the season hasn't worked out well either.

---

Playing games hasn't worked out well the last 4 seasons.

SFCityBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I don't like it so much, playing our first PAC12 game with only about 6 or 7 non-conference games under our belt. We have for many years begun the PAC12 conference season in the beginning of January or so, having gained experience (and hopefully begun to jell) in 12-13 non-conference games to get ready for the PAC12.

Last season, we played PAC12 games in our 4th and 5th games of the season, and that sure did not work out well for us.

---

Waiting to play Pac12 games later in the season hasn't worked out well either.

---

I was talking specifically about the most tried and proven way to have things work out well in your first conference game. I'll guess there were many years when Cal won its first conference game after playing a pre-conference season of 10-13 games There are reasons all teams play say 10-14 games or so before heading into conference play, and one is to get the team ready for all types of competition, weak teams, maybe strong teams, road games, home games, tournaments, etc.

There are different definitions of things working out well, depending on one's opinion. This is not the great Cal teams of the 1950s when Pete played 6-8 non-conference games before the first game. They were full of talent, coached by the best coach in the business. They didn't need much time. Without yet having seen the recruits, I'd say what we have here is a team not loaded with talent, not coached by a coach with great proven success, and I figure he and they need all the time working together in practice games that they can get in order to have a good chance to win their first conference game, or many conference games this year. For me, really good success this year would be a .500 overall season, and .500 in conference would be even better.

---

Again, you are ignoring our opponents. They need the time to prepare even more than we do. Any reasonable analysis would say their differential between how good they will be at the beginning of the season and how good they will be at the end is likely much greater than ours.

Let's be realistic....we could start practicing today and we still would not be ready by December, January, February or even March....Long season coming....Probably, IMO, worse than last season....Sorry for the pessimism but I have no faith in this coaching staff to perform well... let alone miracles....

calumnus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Civil Bear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I don't like it so much, playing our first PAC12 game with only about 6 or 7 non-conference games under our belt. We have for many years begun the PAC12 conference season in the beginning of January or so, having gained experience (and hopefully begun to jell) in 12-13 non-conference games to get ready for the PAC12.

Last season, we played PAC12 games in our 4th and 5th games of the season, and that sure did not work out well for us.

---

Waiting to play Pac12 games later in the season hasn't worked out well either.

---

I was talking specifically about the most tried and proven way to have things work out well in your first conference game. I'll guess there were many years when Cal won its first conference game after playing a pre-conference season of 10-13 games There are reasons all teams play say 10-14 games or so before heading into conference play, and one is to get the team ready for all types of competition, weak teams, maybe strong teams, road games, home games, tournaments, etc.

There are different definitions of things working out well, depending on one's opinion. This is not the great Cal teams of the 1950s when Pete played 6-8 non-conference games before the first game. They were full of talent, coached by the best coach in the business. They didn't need much time. Without yet having seen the recruits, I'd say what we have here is a team not loaded with talent, not coached by a coach with great proven success, and I figure he and they need all the time working together in practice games that they can get in order to have a good chance to win their first conference game, or many conference games this year. For me, really good success this year would be a .500 overall season, and .500 in conference would be even better.

---

Again, you are ignoring our opponents. They need the time to prepare even more than we do. Any reasonable analysis would say their differential between how good they will be at the beginning of the season and how good they will be at the end is likely much greater than ours.

---

Okay, maybe so, but I'm not ignoring the opponents any more than you are ignoring the deficiencies of the Cal roster players. In fact, you are inflating their abilities somewhat, as we all can remember how they played last season. Bad. Not Wyking bad, but bad. And you have ignored the Cal coach and his abilities or lack of same, which surprises me, as you have not been complimentary to him so far.

It is not that I have no interest in the teams and the matchups, but I know nothing yet about the recruits and transfers that OSU and Utah are bringing in, and as an amateur gambler of sorts, I am not in the habit of making predictions with so little knowledge. Therefore I chose to write more about what I have seen from the players on the Cal roster and I was not impressed. If these kids could not jell last year with Bradley and Betley in the lineup, I'm not sure they have much chance to do it without them, after 3 games under their belts. Cal will have two new players in the starting lineup, either veterans who have started very few games, or recruits who have started no games yet. I believe that Fox will be sorely challenged to make them look anywhere near as good as last season, where they were the worst team in the PAC12. I am hoping that Fox will be surprised by the players being better able to play as a team or unit with the departure of Bradley, who was such a star, but also his best was as a one-on-one player, and sometimes that can detract from the play of others. And Bradley did much more than score to make the team play better, like defense, rebounding, making FTs, and being the team leader. With him gone, Brown will be the leader, and I look forward to watching him do that. Betley also contributed with many key rebounds. I hope to see Celestine pick that up, if he is the starter.

I'll stick by what I wrote, focusing on Cal, because I am interested more in how the team plays than winning games at this point. If they play well together, I think wins will come. That is why I like the traditional long pre-conference season before a team has to gear it up a notch for conference play, rather than the chance to steal a couple of conference wins early. I think losing those conference games early last season hurt Cal's confidence, not that it would have mattered. Cal was jinxed last season by injuries and lack of any depth.

HearstMining said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I don't like it so much, playing our first PAC12 game with only about 6 or 7 non-conference games under our belt. We have for many years begun the PAC12 conference season in the beginning of January or so, having gained experience (and hopefully begun to jell) in 12-13 non-conference games to get ready for the PAC12.

Last season, we played PAC12 games in our 4th and 5th games of the season, and that sure did not work out well for us.

---

Well, yeah, but Stanford and Colorado play five days before that and everybody else plays the same weekend as Cal, so we're no worse off. It's the young teams that really need the non-conference games to adjust but experience-wise, won't Cal's starting rotation likely be the same minus Bradley? Maybe it's better to get a couple of conference games played before winter break so the team has a better sense of their strengths and weaknesses. Coming out of non-conference games last season, we thought Betley was going to be a key offensive force but the higher caliber Pac-12 opposition caused him problems. As in football, there's a temptation to schedule pre-conference patsies to inflate the record and excite the fan-base and I don't think it works to the team's benefit.

---

These are all good points. The starting rotation will be minus Bradley and Betley. As I wrote in another thread, Betley had a very good pre-conference season, and a decent first few conference games. Then he had a poor stretch of several games, but recovered to have 3 good games at the end, including in the tournament. Fox indicated Betley was exhausted because he used Betley too much, but the PAC12 defenses (plus the chance for those teams to see him twice and see lots of video on him) surely contributed to his slump.

yet not a peep about tickets..
https://calbears.com/sports/mens-basketball
https://calbears.com/sports/womens-basketball

SFCityBear said:

---

smh said:

---

yet not a peep about tickets..
https://calbears.com/sports/mens-basketball
https://calbears.com/sports/womens-basketball

---

They are probably discussing how much they can charge us for the tickets. I would hope they won't try to recoup all the lost revenue from last season's shutdown in just this coming season.

A Cal classmate of mine called the other day to see if I wanted to go to a Giants game. I agreed, and he got the tickets for the Dodgers in July. Upper deck seats, $89 each, he said, plus $30 each online carrying charges. Total $119 for one ticket to a regular season game. Outrageous.

---

Then dont go.

oskidunker said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

smh said:

---

yet not a peep about tickets..
https://calbears.com/sports/mens-basketball
https://calbears.com/sports/womens-basketball

---

They are probably discussing how much they can charge us for the tickets. I would hope they won't try to recoup all the lost revenue from last season's shutdown in just this coming season.

A Cal classmate of mine called the other day to see if I wanted to go to a Giants game. I agreed, and he got the tickets for the Dodgers in July. Upper deck seats, $89 each, he said, plus $30 each online carrying charges. Total $119 for one ticket to a regular season game. Outrageous.

---

Then don't go.

---

I wouldn't... and I'm a Giants fan. That's insanely priced. Are they using "dynamic pricing", where a game against the Dodgers costs more? Whatever, that's nuts.

I am trying to convert to chairback seats but was told a month ago someone was working on the seating-map and they had no access. Told me maybe in june but would have to go to the reseating event "sometime in July" . I emailed the person last week and there has been no response. Its like pulling teeth to give them money.

I suppose there is no rush but not very customer friendly. Cant be that many people interested.

Big C said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

smh said:

---

yet not a peep about tickets..
https://calbears.com/sports/mens-basketball
https://calbears.com/sports/womens-basketball

---

They are probably discussing how much they can charge us for the tickets. I would hope they won't try to recoup all the lost revenue from last season's shutdown in just this coming season.

A Cal classmate of mine called the other day to see if I wanted to go to a Giants game. I agreed, and he got the tickets for the Dodgers in July. Upper deck seats, $89 each, he said, plus $30 each online carrying charges. Total $119 for one ticket to a regular season game. Outrageous.

---

Then don't go.

---

I wouldn't... and I'm a Giants fan. That's insanely priced. Are they using "dynamic pricing", where a game against the Dodgers costs more? Whatever, that's nuts.

---

Its-supply and demand. If people pay it, they will charge it. A friend mine goes in person and avoids the fee. Not sure if you can do that right now. Basically the on line fee is separate so they don't have to share it with the opposing team.

oskidunker said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

smh said:

---

yet not a peep about tickets..
https://calbears.com/sports/mens-basketball
https://calbears.com/sports/womens-basketball

---

They are probably discussing how much they can charge us for the tickets. I would hope they won't try to recoup all the lost revenue from last season's shutdown in just this coming season.

A Cal classmate of mine called the other day to see if I wanted to go to a Giants game. I agreed, and he got the tickets for the Dodgers in July. Upper deck seats, $89 each, he said, plus $30 each online carrying charges. Total $119 for one ticket to a regular season game. Outrageous.

---

Then dont go.

---

The 30 bucks was a charge from the online ticket service, not a charge from the Giants. I'm already committed, so I'm going, and I plan to really enjoy this one. Because if ticket prices remain like this, it will be my last game ever, unless someone gives me a freebie. And I hope the Giants management reads this.