Story Poster
Photo by On3.com
Cal Basketball

After Official Visit to Cal, '22 PG Milos Uzan Ready For Decision

October 12, 2021
2,237

Trying to get on the board with their 2022 recruiting class, Cal hosted 6-4/185 Dream City Christian (Glendale, Arizona) High School point guard Milos Uzan‍ on an official visit.

The 4 star PG and his family had an impressive visit to Berkeley leading into his decision day this week.

“Coach Fox is a great guy who has been upfront and honest with me from the very beginning, said Uzan of his Cal recruitment.

Discussion from...

After Official Visit to Cal, '22 PG Milos Uzan Ready For Decision

1,329 Views | 13 Replies | Last: 1 min ago by philbert
parentswerebears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I see absolutely no reason for any elite player to come to Cal at this time unless someone is paying them to do so.
fat_slice
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Right? I mean might as well write an article that titled "Cal's men's basketball team has chance to the win NCAA championship."

Yeah, not holding my breath.
bearchamp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lots of "elite" athletes come to Cal for the education. A four-star basketball player might just have his eye on the ball and choose Cal as he is not an obvious candidate for professional basketball.
parentswerebears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My only pause is that 247 has no crystal ball for him. And Cal isn't even on his list on that site. I have mixed feelings. Would I love to have him here? Yes. Would that mean more Fox? Probably. Want him, don't want Fox.
stu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
parentswerebears said:

... I have mixed feelings. Would I love to have him here? Yes. Would that mean more Fox? Probably. Want him, don't want Fox.
I think the coach has a far greater impact on the program than any one player. A case could be made for a player like Jason Kidd but I can't see any reason why that player would stay at Cal more than one year, even enroll at Cal, or for that matter enroll at any college.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't consider 4-star ratings to mean that is an elite player. Elite in terms of rankings means a composite or consensus top 20 (approximately) ranked player. Those are the players for whom the rankings are the most accurate. Rankings below 20 or so in general are not that accurate. The accuracy of the ranking declines with the distance below on the ladder from the top 20. Some ranked players exceed their rankings, and some fail to warrant their ranking.

The elite player is not likely to stay in school more than a year, and he is also not always likely to dominate or play at an elite level against college players, most whom are older and more experienced than him. He may have been ranked in the top 20 because of his pro potential. Our most recent examples, Jaylen Brown and Ivan Rabb, were elite players by my definition, and played well at Cal, but neither dominated or was really outstanding in college. Jaylen has proved so far to have had much more potential for the pros than Ivan, and yet Ivan performed much more like I expected him to perform at the college level than I felt Brown did. You could see the potential in both of them when they played for us. I think Ivan would have become a very dominant big man in the PAC12 even if he did not improve a lot in year 2. Jaylen, too, would have become a very dominant player in the PAC12, had he stayed, and he would have done that earlier than Ivan, IMO.

I think the 4-stars and high 3 stars are what Cal should target, because if we want success soon, we don't have the luxury of gambling on one-and-dones. We need Alan Crabbes, or Matt Bradleys, 4-stars who are ready to play as freshmen, and will stay 3-4 years. We need Jerome Randles or Harper Kamps, 3-stars who might not be ready to play until they are sophs or juniors, and will stay 4 years. And we need a lot of these types, not just 2 or 3 per team. If we are going to gamble, I'd rather it be on the low ranked 3 stars, or the unranked Jorges, than on the elite players.

Think about how good Hawaii was, with 3 stars, 2 stars, and unranked players. Boy, you add two or three 4-stars to that mix, keeping the same coach, then you have the potential to be a really fine team, don't you?
SFCityBear
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear said:

Think about how good Hawaii was, with 3 stars, 2 stars, and unranked players. Boy, you add two or three 4-stars to that mix, keeping the same coach, then you have the potential to be a really fine team, don't you?
I know this is not your point, but you brought up the NCAA game vs Hawaii

...That hawaii team was solid, because they had a bunch of veteran solid players + 1 strong player (their overseas stretch 4)

but besides their 4, they were undersized at every position.

but those undersized guards were the worst matchup for us as they were quick and aggressive defenders, and we didn't have our starting PG.

Instead we had Singer, who played well that game but spent a lot of time on the bench, and a make-shift backup PG position from Chanca (who got thrashed) and Jaylen (who wasn't a PG, and couldn't drive on those quicker guards)

Basically a bad matchup

We also didn't have Bird, but Tyrone was the key missing player for us

It still really bothers me that we lost to that team. We were so much better than them a week before that game, and I think we would have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. After that, who knows as a lot would have depended on matchups

calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams said:

SFCityBear said:

Think about how good Hawaii was, with 3 stars, 2 stars, and unranked players. Boy, you add two or three 4-stars to that mix, keeping the same coach, then you have the potential to be a really fine team, don't you?
I know this is not your point, but you brought up the NCAA game vs Hawaii

...That hawaii team was solid, because they had a bunch of veteran solid players + 1 strong player (their overseas stretch 4)

but besides their 4, they were undersized at every position.

but those undersized guards were the worst matchup for us as they were quick and aggressive defenders, and we didn't have our starting PG.

Instead we had Singer, who played well that game but spent a lot of time on the bench, and a make-shift backup PG position from Chanca (who got thrashed) and Jaylen (who wasn't a PG, and couldn't drive on those quicker guards)

Basically a bad matchup

We also didn't have Bird, but Tyrone was the key missing player for us

It still really bothers me that we lost to that team. We were so much better than them a week before that game, and I think we would have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. After that, who knows as a lot would have depended on matchups




We still finished the season ranked.

That Hawaii team was 28-6. They almost knocked off #3 Oklahoma (lost by 3) and beat 6 seed Texas Tech and beat Auburn by 12. It was a team of mostly juniors and seniors, international backgrounds, JC players assembled under Gib Arnold who was dismissed pending NCAA sanctions. First year HC Eran Ganot, Randy Bennet's chief assistant at St. Mary's and was the acting HC the previous while Bennet served a 5 game suspension for rules violations.

It was a classic case of a guy taking over a program and getting the players to play better defense. KenPom had Hawaii as #35 in defensive efficiency. Moreover, earlier that season Cal had beaten St. Mary's and Bennet helped his friend and former assistant with a scouting report.

BC Calfan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
parentswerebears said:

My only pause is that 247 has no crystal ball for him. And Cal isn't even on his list on that site. I have mixed feelings. Would I love to have him here? Yes. Would that mean more Fox? Probably. Want him, don't want Fox.


Looks like you don't have to worry about the Uzan-Fox Predicament. This is embarrassing.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?


I think the 4-stars and high 3 stars are what Cal should target, because if we want success soon, we don't have the luxury of gambling on one-and-dones. We need Alan Crabbes, or Matt Bradleys, 4-stars who are ready to play as freshmen, and will stay 3-4 years. We need Jerome Randles or Harper Kamps, 3-stars who might not be ready to play until they are sophs or juniors, and will stay 4 years. And we need a lot of these types, not just 2 or 3 per team. If we are going to gamble, I'd rather it be on the low ranked 3 stars, or the unranked Jorges, than on the elite players."


I just will never understand your point here which you have made a LOT of times in a LOT of posts (Ditto the whole Hawaii thing forgetting that Bird and Wallace were BOTH out that game and the team was clearly rattled by the whole Yani thing).. Would you really give a scholarship to an low ranked 3 rather than Ivan Rabb? "Sorry Ms. Rabb, I know your son is a dominant player but we want to pass on him to give it to this guy from Chico that will work really hard on his two hand jumper?"

To compete to get to the second weekend in the current environment you MUST have kids that at least can SMELL the next level. They might not make it (Bird, Wallace, Rabb, Jorge, Jerome ) but they need to have the skills to get there. It is important to know that only Jorge flew under the radar here - frankly form some very very unique circumstances. The rest where 4* (I believe that is true of Jerome but he might have been a 3 because of height) or a low 5 (Ivan).

What is the case is that we are so far from smelling even low 4s that it is funny. We can not replace Fox with someone who can actually recruit fast enough.




bearmanpg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amen brother Socal....can only coach'em up so far.....the picket fence ain't working at P5 level anymore....
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie said:



I think the 4-stars and high 3 stars are what Cal should target, because if we want success soon, we don't have the luxury of gambling on one-and-dones. We need Alan Crabbes, or Matt Bradleys, 4-stars who are ready to play as freshmen, and will stay 3-4 years. We need Jerome Randles or Harper Kamps, 3-stars who might not be ready to play until they are sophs or juniors, and will stay 4 years. And we need a lot of these types, not just 2 or 3 per team. If we are going to gamble, I'd rather it be on the low ranked 3 stars, or the unranked Jorges, than on the elite players."


I just will never understand your point here which you have made a LOT of times in a LOT of posts (Ditto the whole Hawaii thing forgetting that Bird and Wallace were BOTH out that game and the team was clearly rattled by the whole Yani thing).. Would you really give a scholarship to an low ranked 3 rather than Ivan Rabb? "Sorry Ms. Rabb, I know your son is a dominant player but we want to pass on him to give it to this guy from Chico that will work really hard on his two hand jumper?"

To compete to get to the second weekend in the current environment you MUST have kids that at least can SMELL the next level. They might not make it (Bird, Wallace, Rabb, Jorge, Jerome ) but they need to have the skills to get there. It is important to know that only Jorge flew under the radar here - frankly form some very very unique circumstances. The rest where 4* (I believe that is true of Jerome but he might have been a 3 because of height) or a low 5 (Ivan).

What is the case is that we are so far from smelling even low 4s that it is funny. We can not replace Fox with someone who can actually recruit fast enough.




I did not think Wyking Jones was a good recruiter, yet he was light years ahead of Fox. Our best players under Fox continue to be Jones' recruits, and that was after most of the starters transferred out.

I do not think Fox is going to leave a lot of talent for his replacement. They are Bears, seem like great guys, and I will absolutely root for them, but there will definitely need to be a rebuild after Fox finishes demolishing the program.
philbert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

socaltownie said:



I think the 4-stars and high 3 stars are what Cal should target, because if we want success soon, we don't have the luxury of gambling on one-and-dones. We need Alan Crabbes, or Matt Bradleys, 4-stars who are ready to play as freshmen, and will stay 3-4 years. We need Jerome Randles or Harper Kamps, 3-stars who might not be ready to play until they are sophs or juniors, and will stay 4 years. And we need a lot of these types, not just 2 or 3 per team. If we are going to gamble, I'd rather it be on the low ranked 3 stars, or the unranked Jorges, than on the elite players."


I just will never understand your point here which you have made a LOT of times in a LOT of posts (Ditto the whole Hawaii thing forgetting that Bird and Wallace were BOTH out that game and the team was clearly rattled by the whole Yani thing).. Would you really give a scholarship to an low ranked 3 rather than Ivan Rabb? "Sorry Ms. Rabb, I know your son is a dominant player but we want to pass on him to give it to this guy from Chico that will work really hard on his two hand jumper?"

To compete to get to the second weekend in the current environment you MUST have kids that at least can SMELL the next level. They might not make it (Bird, Wallace, Rabb, Jorge, Jerome ) but they need to have the skills to get there. It is important to know that only Jorge flew under the radar here - frankly form some very very unique circumstances. The rest where 4* (I believe that is true of Jerome but he might have been a 3 because of height) or a low 5 (Ivan).

What is the case is that we are so far from smelling even low 4s that it is funny. We can not replace Fox with someone who can actually recruit fast enough.




I did not think Wyking Jones was a good recruiter, yet he was light years ahead of Fox. Our best players under Fox continue to be Jones' recruits, and that was after most of the starters transferred out.

I do not think Fox is going to leave a lot of talent for his replacement. They are Bears, seem like great guys, and I will absolutely root for them, but there will definitely need to be a rebuild after Fox finishes demolishing the program.
That's why the sooner they end the Fox experiment, the better off the program will be.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.