Photo by Cal Athletics
Cal Basketball

Bears Fall Short In Thriller in Boulder

February 7, 2018
1,387

BOULDER, Colo. (AP) — McKinley Wright scored 17 points and hit two key layups in the final minutes to help Colorado beat California 68-64 on Wednesday night.

The Buffaloes (14-10, 6-6 Pac-12) beat the Bears for the 12th time in the last 14 games in Boulder.

Marcus Lee had 10 points and 12 rebounds and Kingsley Okoroh and Justice Sueing scored 12 points each for Cal (8-17, 2-10 Pac-12), which was attempting to win consecutive games for the first time since Dec. 16.

Colorado used a 10-0 run early in the second half to go ahead 38-31. The Bears hung around and made it a one-point game on Okoroh's soft hook with 4:45 left.

The Buffaloes turned it over on their next possession but Don Coleman missed a layup that would have given Cal a lead with 3:58 left. Wright hit a layup as he fell out of bounds to extend Colorado's lead to three and he reached double figures on his bucket with 1:50 left for a five-point lead.

The Bears hit three of their five 3-pointers in the final 40 seconds but Wright made six free throws down the stretch to seal it. He was 11 of 14 from the line in the game.

BIG PICTURE

Cal: Coleman, the team's leading scorer coming in at 16.4 points a game, had just two points at halftime and finished with eight. ... The Bears' last win in Boulder was a 68-61 victory on Feb. 12, 2015. ... Lee has seven double-doubles this season.

Colorado: Senior George King picked up two quick fouls and only played eight minutes in the first half. ... Namon Wright missed his second straight game due to illness. ... Colorado had 13 turnovers at halftime and 19 for the game. The team's season high in turnovers is 23.

UP NEXT

Cal: At Utah on Saturday night.

Discussion from...

Bears Fall Short In Thriller in Boulder

fat_slice
How long do you want to ignore this user?
V
Thriller?
LOUMFSG2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
fat_slice said:

Thriller?
No, it wasn't a thriller, but it was a close game, a winnable game. The Bears were gassed, especially Sueing. Most of his shots were short, indicating tired legs. When he came to the free throw line, in the camera close-up, you could seem him panting, laboring a little to breathe. The Bears came out of the blocks strong, built a lead, but gradually faded as the altitude took its toll. On one play, Coleman, was guarding The Colorado point guard bringing the ball up the floor. He gets by Coleman, and Coleman tried to catch up to him from behind, and kept falling further behind. The defense became less aggressive as the game wore on. In a perfect world, Cal would have had time to send the team to Boulder a few days earlier to acclimate to the altitude. Especially Suening, who probably lived his whol life at sea level. Competing athletically at altitude, at even only 5400 feet, is difficult, and different.

Some Bears played like it did not affect them much, like Lee and Roman Davis, and JHD. Everyone is different. I used to do a lot of climbing in the Sierras, and it took me 3-4 days at 9,000 feet to get acclimated before climing to 12,000 or 13,000 feet. Some guys I hiked or climbed with took a little longer, and some took no time at all.

Even as tired as the Bears were, and having their usual problems, if Sueing makes a couple of those 15 shots he missed, then Cal wins that game.

The Bears, if they stayed at altitude, instead of coming back to Berkeley and then returning to Salt Lake, should be a little better acclimated for the Utah game, which will be played a little lower at 4400 ft.
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
A solid showing by our guys. It's progress, although I'm sure they are disappointed.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
Very good post SF

I remember playing at Lake Tahoe once. Just pickup but was shocked how in less than five minutes I got extremely winded. It actually hurt my chest and I felt like I couldn't jump even. It just seemed like it took so much effort

I also remember being so tired that my legs fatigued and I literally couldn't run. It actually felt like my legs would give out

I can understand how it could really throw a players shooting off, and certainly defense. When you are tired, you don't get low in your stance, don't react as quickly, and as a result you get beat. Making things worse, you might just reach resulting in a foul

I think Colorado's last scores were from their PG who drove on his defender. Maybe even part of Boyle's game plan as pretty much anyone coming in will be tired at end of game

Depth is one solution but we've tightened our rotation recently and we basically lost the game during the late second half when we had too many bench players in the game, so I can't argue with going with a tight rotation

Too bad, because I thought we could beat Colorado (we would have if it was a home game)
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
SFCityBear said:

fat_slice said:

Thriller?
No, it wasn't a thriller, but it was a close game, a winnable game. The Bears were gassed, especially Sueing. Most of his shots were short, indicating tired legs. When he came to the free throw line, in the camera close-up, you could seem him panting, laboring a little to breathe. The Bears came out of the blocks strong, built a lead, but gradually faded as the altitude took its toll. On one play, Coleman, was guarding The Colorado point guard bringing the ball up the floor. He gets by Coleman, and Coleman tried to catch up to him from behind, and kept falling further behind. The defense became less aggressive as the game wore on. In a perfect world, Cal would have had time to send the team to Boulder a few days earlier to acclimate to the altitude. Especially Suening, who probably lived his whol life at sea level. Competing athletically at altitude, at even only 5400 feet, is difficult, and different.

Some Bears played like it did not affect them much, like Lee and Roman Davis, and JHD. Everyone is different. I used to do a lot of climbing in the Sierras, and it took me 3-4 days at 9,000 feet to get acclimated before climing to 12,000 or 13,000 feet. Some guys I hiked or climbed with took a little longer, and some took no time at all.

Even as tired as the Bears were, and having their usual problems, if Sueing makes a couple of those 15 shots he missed, then Cal wins that game.

The Bears, if they stayed at altitude, instead of coming back to Berkeley and then returning to Salt Lake, should be a little better acclimated for the Utah game, which will be played a little lower at 4400 ft.
Agree with most of this, SFCity, although research shows that 3-4 days doesn't actually help much with aclimatization (in terms of stamina) except perhaps psychologically. The problem, simply enough, is no bench).
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
chazzed said:

A solid showing by our guys. It's progress, although I'm sure they are disappointed.
It's encouraging to see the improvement in play and coaching.

Funny but even with all our Mickey Dee talent, we couldn't beat SDSU, win @ Furd or be competitive in Boulder. We've done all three with this ragtag team.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

fat_slice said:

Thriller?
No, it wasn't a thriller, but it was a close game, a winnable game. The Bears were gassed, especially Sueing. Most of his shots were short, indicating tired legs. When he came to the free throw line, in the camera close-up, you could seem him panting, laboring a little to breathe. The Bears came out of the blocks strong, built a lead, but gradually faded as the altitude took its toll. On one play, Coleman, was guarding The Colorado point guard bringing the ball up the floor. He gets by Coleman, and Coleman tried to catch up to him from behind, and kept falling further behind. The defense became less aggressive as the game wore on. In a perfect world, Cal would have had time to send the team to Boulder a few days earlier to acclimate to the altitude. Especially Suening, who probably lived his whol life at sea level. Competing athletically at altitude, at even only 5400 feet, is difficult, and different.

Some Bears played like it did not affect them much, like Lee and Roman Davis, and JHD. Everyone is different. I used to do a lot of climbing in the Sierras, and it took me 3-4 days at 9,000 feet to get acclimated before climing to 12,000 or 13,000 feet. Some guys I hiked or climbed with took a little longer, and some took no time at all.

Even as tired as the Bears were, and having their usual problems, if Sueing makes a couple of those 15 shots he missed, then Cal wins that game.

The Bears, if they stayed at altitude, instead of coming back to Berkeley and then returning to Salt Lake, should be a little better acclimated for the Utah game, which will be played a little lower at 4400 ft.
Agree with most of this, SFCity, although research shows that 3-4 days doesn't actually help much with aclimatization (in terms of stamina) except perhaps psychologically. The problem, simply enough, is no bench).
What research is that? Please tell us.

Not my experience at all. I remember the very first time I went for a steep hike out of Agnew Meadows, with no acclimatization at all. That night I went to bed at 10,000 ft, and could not sleep, my heart was pounding so hard and fast. It sounded like a heard of buffaloes was running through my camp. Pun intended. Another time, I went from fishing for Golden Trout, starting at Tuolomne Meadows at 9,000 ft up to a lake around 12,000 ft. I went with a friend who I had played a lot of sports with in Berkeley. He has always been in far better shape than I was. Even today he still runs marathons. On that trip, he charged ahead of me on the trail, eager to get to the fishing spot. I took my time, rested here and there, and arrived 20 minutes behind him. The altitude got him by nightfall, and he got dizzy and nauseous and spent 3 miserable days in the tent, while I fished. Another time I went up to 12,000 ft with a guy I used to go on bike rides with in Palo Alto. He was just out of the army and in great shape. I never could keep up with him on a bike. With no acclimatizing, we started up the mountain. He was way ahead of me at the beginning but I was a mile ahead of him at the finish. He had never been in the mountains before, and after that, he always went up and camped a day or two before starting a climb. I have lots of stories about this. I used to be a pretty good golfer, shooting in the mid-70s, but at Tahoe, I had trouble breaking 100. My game fell apart, and I'd get exhausted walking the course.

The last few times I've been in the mountains, I have always taken a day or two to get used to the altitude, before I attempt anything strenuous, and I've not gotten fatigued at all. A former teammate of mine at Lowell who was also on our cross country team, who recently quit playing basketball at 75, is still riding a bike competitively, keeping up with much younger cyclists, and a lot of the races are up the steep Eastern side of the Sierras. I asked him recently if he is acclimating himself before these races. He said "Absolutely." He and the wife take a trailer up to Agnew and lay around for a week or two before the race.

Of course, much of this is mental. If I have time to acclimate, I seem to have more stamina than I do at sea level. I've know avid climbers who do not acclimate at all. They get in the car, drive to a mountain and up the mountain they go the next morning, with plenty of stamina. But it is hard to argue with the results Colorado has had, and the trouble other teams have with stamina when they play in Boulder. Colorado's players practice in the altitude all the time, and don't have any team issue with stamina.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
KoreAmBear said:

chazzed said:

A solid showing by our guys. It's progress, although I'm sure they are disappointed.
It's encouraging to see the improvement in play and coaching.

Funny but even with all our Mickey Dee talent, we couldn't beat SDSU, win @ Furd or be competitive in Boulder. We've done all three with this ragtag team.
There has been improvement in attitude, and aggressiveness. But we had THREE assists in this game? Are we kidding? That could be the low mark for the season. I see the same offense I saw under Cuonzo Martin. Nobody moving to get open, Nobody looking to pass, only to dribble and score. I guess that is what you get when you hire one of your own assistants, the offense looks similar to that of your previous head coach. I only wish the defense looked like that of the previous head coach. I didn't like it much, but it was more effective than the current defense.
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
SFCityBear said:

KoreAmBear said:

chazzed said:

A solid showing by our guys. It's progress, although I'm sure they are disappointed.
It's encouraging to see the improvement in play and coaching.

Funny but even with all our Mickey Dee talent, we couldn't beat SDSU, win @ Furd or be competitive in Boulder. We've done all three with this ragtag team.
There has been improvement in attitude, and aggressiveness. But we had THREE assists in this game? Are we kidding? That could be the low mark for the season. I see the same offense I saw under Cuonzo Martin. Nobody moving to get open, Nobody looking to pass, only to dribble and score. I guess that is what you get when you hire one of your own assistants, the offense looks similar to that of your previous head coach. I only wish the defense looked like that of the previous head coach. I didn't like it much, but it was more effective than the current defense.
Opponents are running a defensive zone designed to exploit our lack of a true PG who can create off the bounce, our lack of perimeter shooters and big men who are not good at posting up. Impossible to judge the system IMO until we solve for at least two of those three
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

fat_slice said:

Thriller?
No, it wasn't a thriller, but it was a close game, a winnable game. The Bears were gassed, especially Sueing. Most of his shots were short, indicating tired legs. When he came to the free throw line, in the camera close-up, you could seem him panting, laboring a little to breathe. The Bears came out of the blocks strong, built a lead, but gradually faded as the altitude took its toll. On one play, Coleman, was guarding The Colorado point guard bringing the ball up the floor. He gets by Coleman, and Coleman tried to catch up to him from behind, and kept falling further behind. The defense became less aggressive as the game wore on. In a perfect world, Cal would have had time to send the team to Boulder a few days earlier to acclimate to the altitude. Especially Suening, who probably lived his whol life at sea level. Competing athletically at altitude, at even only 5400 feet, is difficult, and different.

Some Bears played like it did not affect them much, like Lee and Roman Davis, and JHD. Everyone is different. I used to do a lot of climbing in the Sierras, and it took me 3-4 days at 9,000 feet to get acclimated before climing to 12,000 or 13,000 feet. Some guys I hiked or climbed with took a little longer, and some took no time at all.

Even as tired as the Bears were, and having their usual problems, if Sueing makes a couple of those 15 shots he missed, then Cal wins that game.

The Bears, if they stayed at altitude, instead of coming back to Berkeley and then returning to Salt Lake, should be a little better acclimated for the Utah game, which will be played a little lower at 4400 ft.
Agree with most of this, SFCity, although research shows that 3-4 days doesn't actually help much with aclimatization (in terms of stamina) except perhaps psychologically. The problem, simply enough, is no bench).
What research is that? Please tell us.

Not my experience at all. I remember the very first time I went for a steep hike out of Agnew Meadows, with no acclimatization at all. That night I went to bed at 10,000 ft, and could not sleep, my heart was pounding so hard and fast. It sounded like a heard of buffaloes was running through my camp. Pun intended. Another time, I went from fishing for Golden Trout, starting at Tuolomne Meadows at 9,000 ft up to a lake around 12,000 ft. I went with a friend who I had played a lot of sports with in Berkeley. He has always been in far better shape than I was. Even today he still runs marathons. On that trip, he charged ahead of me on the trail, eager to get to the fishing spot. I took my time, rested here and there, and arrived 20 minutes behind him. The altitude got him by nightfall, and he got dizzy and nauseous and spent 3 miserable days in the tent, while I fished. Another time I went up to 12,000 ft with a guy I used to go on bike rides with in Palo Alto. He was just out of the army and in great shape. I never could keep up with him on a bike. With no acclimatizing, we started up the mountain. He was way ahead of me at the beginning but I was a mile ahead of him at the finish. He had never been in the mountains before, and after that, he always went up and camped a day or two before starting a climb. I have lots of stories about this. I used to be a pretty good golfer, shooting in the mid-70s, but at Tahoe, I had trouble breaking 100. My game fell apart, and I'd get exhausted walking the course.

The last few times I've been in the mountains, I have always taken a day or two to get used to the altitude, before I attempt anything strenuous, and I've not gotten fatigued at all. A former teammate of mine at Lowell who was also on our cross country team, who recently quit playing basketball at 75, is still riding a bike competitively, keeping up with much younger cyclists, and a lot of the races are up the steep Eastern side of the Sierras. I asked him recently if he is acclimating himself before these races. He said "Absolutely." He and the wife take a trailer up to Agnew and lay around for a week or two before the race.

Of course, much of this is mental. If I have time to acclimate, I seem to have more stamina than I do at sea level. I've know avid climbers who do not acclimate at all. They get in the car, drive to a mountain and up the mountain they go the next morning, with plenty of stamina. But it is hard to argue with the results Colorado has had, and the trouble other teams have with stamina when they play in Boulder. Colorado's players practice in the altitude all the time, and don't have any team issue with stamina.
It depends on what Ursa means by "in terms of stamina", but I think that is misleading in any case. If somebody is prone to altitude sickness, 3-4 days can dramatically reduce the symptoms of altitude sickness which I would say most of us would describe as improving stamina. However, if you train at sea level and you move to high altitude, it takes a few weeks to recover your normal stamina, whether you feel the impact of altitude sickness or not.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
H
SFCityBear said:

KoreAmBear said:

chazzed said:

A solid showing by our guys. It's progress, although I'm sure they are disappointed.
It's encouraging to see the improvement in play and coaching.

Funny but even with all our Mickey Dee talent, we couldn't beat SDSU, win @ Furd or be competitive in Boulder. We've done all three with this ragtag team.
There has been improvement in attitude, and aggressiveness. But we had THREE assists in this game? Are we kidding? That could be the low mark for the season. I see the same offense I saw under Cuonzo Martin. Nobody moving to get open, Nobody looking to pass, only to dribble and score. I guess that is what you get when you hire one of your own assistants, the offense looks similar to that of your previous head coach. I only wish the defense looked like that of the previous head coach. I didn't like it much, but it was more effective than the current defense.
Three assists is incredible. Saw where McNeill led us with two of those! Woo hoo!

What is the Cal record for least assists in a game? The NCAA record? (We can't be too far off, can we now?)
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
OaktownBear said:

SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

fat_slice said:

Thriller?
No, it wasn't a thriller, but it was a close game, a winnable game. The Bears were gassed, especially Sueing. Most of his shots were short, indicating tired legs. When he came to the free throw line, in the camera close-up, you could seem him panting, laboring a little to breathe. The Bears came out of the blocks strong, built a lead, but gradually faded as the altitude took its toll. On one play, Coleman, was guarding The Colorado point guard bringing the ball up the floor. He gets by Coleman, and Coleman tried to catch up to him from behind, and kept falling further behind. The defense became less aggressive as the game wore on. In a perfect world, Cal would have had time to send the team to Boulder a few days earlier to acclimate to the altitude. Especially Suening, who probably lived his whol life at sea level. Competing athletically at altitude, at even only 5400 feet, is difficult, and different.

Some Bears played like it did not affect them much, like Lee and Roman Davis, and JHD. Everyone is different. I used to do a lot of climbing in the Sierras, and it took me 3-4 days at 9,000 feet to get acclimated before climing to 12,000 or 13,000 feet. Some guys I hiked or climbed with took a little longer, and some took no time at all.

Even as tired as the Bears were, and having their usual problems, if Sueing makes a couple of those 15 shots he missed, then Cal wins that game.

The Bears, if they stayed at altitude, instead of coming back to Berkeley and then returning to Salt Lake, should be a little better acclimated for the Utah game, which will be played a little lower at 4400 ft.
Agree with most of this, SFCity, although research shows that 3-4 days doesn't actually help much with aclimatization (in terms of stamina) except perhaps psychologically. The problem, simply enough, is no bench).
What research is that? Please tell us.

Not my experience at all. I remember the very first time I went for a steep hike out of Agnew Meadows, with no acclimatization at all. That night I went to bed at 10,000 ft, and could not sleep, my heart was pounding so hard and fast. It sounded like a heard of buffaloes was running through my camp. Pun intended. Another time, I went from fishing for Golden Trout, starting at Tuolomne Meadows at 9,000 ft up to a lake around 12,000 ft. I went with a friend who I had played a lot of sports with in Berkeley. He has always been in far better shape than I was. Even today he still runs marathons. On that trip, he charged ahead of me on the trail, eager to get to the fishing spot. I took my time, rested here and there, and arrived 20 minutes behind him. The altitude got him by nightfall, and he got dizzy and nauseous and spent 3 miserable days in the tent, while I fished. Another time I went up to 12,000 ft with a guy I used to go on bike rides with in Palo Alto. He was just out of the army and in great shape. I never could keep up with him on a bike. With no acclimatizing, we started up the mountain. He was way ahead of me at the beginning but I was a mile ahead of him at the finish. He had never been in the mountains before, and after that, he always went up and camped a day or two before starting a climb. I have lots of stories about this. I used to be a pretty good golfer, shooting in the mid-70s, but at Tahoe, I had trouble breaking 100. My game fell apart, and I'd get exhausted walking the course.

The last few times I've been in the mountains, I have always taken a day or two to get used to the altitude, before I attempt anything strenuous, and I've not gotten fatigued at all. A former teammate of mine at Lowell who was also on our cross country team, who recently quit playing basketball at 75, is still riding a bike competitively, keeping up with much younger cyclists, and a lot of the races are up the steep Eastern side of the Sierras. I asked him recently if he is acclimating himself before these races. He said "Absolutely." He and the wife take a trailer up to Agnew and lay around for a week or two before the race.

Of course, much of this is mental. If I have time to acclimate, I seem to have more stamina than I do at sea level. I've know avid climbers who do not acclimate at all. They get in the car, drive to a mountain and up the mountain they go the next morning, with plenty of stamina. But it is hard to argue with the results Colorado has had, and the trouble other teams have with stamina when they play in Boulder. Colorado's players practice in the altitude all the time, and don't have any team issue with stamina.
It depends on what Ursa means by "in terms of stamina", but I think that is misleading in any case. If somebody is prone to altitude sickness, 3-4 days can dramatically reduce the symptoms of altitude sickness which I would say most of us would describe as improving stamina. However, if you train at sea level and you move to high altitude, it takes a few weeks to recover your normal stamina, whether you feel the impact of altitude sickness or not.
A few days can reduce the incidence of altitude sickness (as can increased hydration); however, according to research published in adaptation biology and medicine, the amount of time necessary for the physiological changes necessary to truly acclimate (increase in hemoglobin and red cells) is 11.4 days/kilometer--i.e., for Boulder it would be 18 days.

Of course, the psychological effects are significant, and may make it worth while to arrive 1-2 days early. I know that when I've done hiking at altitude (Peru at 12-13,000, Tibet at 13-16,000, etc.) I have rested the first day.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
BearGreg said:

SFCityBear said:

KoreAmBear said:

chazzed said:

A solid showing by our guys. It's progress, although I'm sure they are disappointed.
It's encouraging to see the improvement in play and coaching.

Funny but even with all our Mickey Dee talent, we couldn't beat SDSU, win @ Furd or be competitive in Boulder. We've done all three with this ragtag team.
There has been improvement in attitude, and aggressiveness. But we had THREE assists in this game? Are we kidding? That could be the low mark for the season. I see the same offense I saw under Cuonzo Martin. Nobody moving to get open, Nobody looking to pass, only to dribble and score. I guess that is what you get when you hire one of your own assistants, the offense looks similar to that of your previous head coach. I only wish the defense looked like that of the previous head coach. I didn't like it much, but it was more effective than the current defense.
Opponents are running a defensive zone designed to exploit our lack of a true PG who can create off the bounce, our lack of perimeter shooters and big men who are not good at posting up. Impossible to judge the system IMO until we solve for at least two of those three
Obviously you have more expertise in this than I, so are you seeing more of an inability by the bigs to properly post up, or lack of an ability (or willingness) to make good entry passes, or both?

I know we are getting zoned, but its just so frustrating watching the offense when its obvious that our best option right now is to just dump it down to one of our bigs and let them go to work.

Its funny, cause since we lack the ability to post up our bigs, our best offense right now is our bigs cleaning up our guards' wild forays into the key. Offensive rebounding is like the only way the bigs can get their hands on the ball.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
UrsaMajor said:

OaktownBear said:

SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

fat_slice said:

Thriller?
No, it wasn't a thriller, but it was a close game, a winnable game. The Bears were gassed, especially Sueing. Most of his shots were short, indicating tired legs. When he came to the free throw line, in the camera close-up, you could seem him panting, laboring a little to breathe. The Bears came out of the blocks strong, built a lead, but gradually faded as the altitude took its toll. On one play, Coleman, was guarding The Colorado point guard bringing the ball up the floor. He gets by Coleman, and Coleman tried to catch up to him from behind, and kept falling further behind. The defense became less aggressive as the game wore on. In a perfect world, Cal would have had time to send the team to Boulder a few days earlier to acclimate to the altitude. Especially Suening, who probably lived his whol life at sea level. Competing athletically at altitude, at even only 5400 feet, is difficult, and different.

Some Bears played like it did not affect them much, like Lee and Roman Davis, and JHD. Everyone is different. I used to do a lot of climbing in the Sierras, and it took me 3-4 days at 9,000 feet to get acclimated before climing to 12,000 or 13,000 feet. Some guys I hiked or climbed with took a little longer, and some took no time at all.

Even as tired as the Bears were, and having their usual problems, if Sueing makes a couple of those 15 shots he missed, then Cal wins that game.

The Bears, if they stayed at altitude, instead of coming back to Berkeley and then returning to Salt Lake, should be a little better acclimated for the Utah game, which will be played a little lower at 4400 ft.
Agree with most of this, SFCity, although research shows that 3-4 days doesn't actually help much with aclimatization (in terms of stamina) except perhaps psychologically. The problem, simply enough, is no bench).
What research is that? Please tell us.

Not my experience at all. I remember the very first time I went for a steep hike out of Agnew Meadows, with no acclimatization at all. That night I went to bed at 10,000 ft, and could not sleep, my heart was pounding so hard and fast. It sounded like a heard of buffaloes was running through my camp. Pun intended. Another time, I went from fishing for Golden Trout, starting at Tuolomne Meadows at 9,000 ft up to a lake around 12,000 ft. I went with a friend who I had played a lot of sports with in Berkeley. He has always been in far better shape than I was. Even today he still runs marathons. On that trip, he charged ahead of me on the trail, eager to get to the fishing spot. I took my time, rested here and there, and arrived 20 minutes behind him. The altitude got him by nightfall, and he got dizzy and nauseous and spent 3 miserable days in the tent, while I fished. Another time I went up to 12,000 ft with a guy I used to go on bike rides with in Palo Alto. He was just out of the army and in great shape. I never could keep up with him on a bike. With no acclimatizing, we started up the mountain. He was way ahead of me at the beginning but I was a mile ahead of him at the finish. He had never been in the mountains before, and after that, he always went up and camped a day or two before starting a climb. I have lots of stories about this. I used to be a pretty good golfer, shooting in the mid-70s, but at Tahoe, I had trouble breaking 100. My game fell apart, and I'd get exhausted walking the course.

The last few times I've been in the mountains, I have always taken a day or two to get used to the altitude, before I attempt anything strenuous, and I've not gotten fatigued at all. A former teammate of mine at Lowell who was also on our cross country team, who recently quit playing basketball at 75, is still riding a bike competitively, keeping up with much younger cyclists, and a lot of the races are up the steep Eastern side of the Sierras. I asked him recently if he is acclimating himself before these races. He said "Absolutely." He and the wife take a trailer up to Agnew and lay around for a week or two before the race.

Of course, much of this is mental. If I have time to acclimate, I seem to have more stamina than I do at sea level. I've know avid climbers who do not acclimate at all. They get in the car, drive to a mountain and up the mountain they go the next morning, with plenty of stamina. But it is hard to argue with the results Colorado has had, and the trouble other teams have with stamina when they play in Boulder. Colorado's players practice in the altitude all the time, and don't have any team issue with stamina.
It depends on what Ursa means by "in terms of stamina", but I think that is misleading in any case. If somebody is prone to altitude sickness, 3-4 days can dramatically reduce the symptoms of altitude sickness which I would say most of us would describe as improving stamina. However, if you train at sea level and you move to high altitude, it takes a few weeks to recover your normal stamina, whether you feel the impact of altitude sickness or not.
A few days can reduce the incidence of altitude sickness (as can increased hydration); however, according to research published in adaptation biology and medicine, the amount of time necessary for the physiological changes necessary to truly acclimate (increase in hemoglobin and red cells) is 11.4 days/kilometer--i.e., for Boulder it would be 18 days.

Of course, the psychological effects are significant, and may make it worth while to arrive 1-2 days early. I know that when I've done hiking at altitude (Peru at 12-13,000, Tibet at 13-16,000, etc.) I have rested the first day.


I pretty much agree with you, but I don't think classifying that as psychological effects is appropriate. It is like calling a very sore but structurally sound ankle psychological. Headaches, dizziness, chest burning, heart pounding, loss of breath, are all symptoms of altitude sickness. Those are physical effects that significantly impact play. Yes, it takes weeks for hemoglobin levels to adjust, but that is only one physical issue in moving to altitude.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
L
OaktownBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

OaktownBear said:

SFCityBear said:

UrsaMajor said:

SFCityBear said:

fat_slice said:

Thriller?
No, it wasn't a thriller, but it was a close game, a winnable game. The Bears were gassed, especially Sueing. Most of his shots were short, indicating tired legs. When he came to the free throw line, in the camera close-up, you could seem him panting, laboring a little to breathe. The Bears came out of the blocks strong, built a lead, but gradually faded as the altitude took its toll. On one play, Coleman, was guarding The Colorado point guard bringing the ball up the floor. He gets by Coleman, and Coleman tried to catch up to him from behind, and kept falling further behind. The defense became less aggressive as the game wore on. In a perfect world, Cal would have had time to send the team to Boulder a few days earlier to acclimate to the altitude. Especially Suening, who probably lived his whol life at sea level. Competing athletically at altitude, at even only 5400 feet, is difficult, and different.

Some Bears played like it did not affect them much, like Lee and Roman Davis, and JHD. Everyone is different. I used to do a lot of climbing in the Sierras, and it took me 3-4 days at 9,000 feet to get acclimated before climing to 12,000 or 13,000 feet. Some guys I hiked or climbed with took a little longer, and some took no time at all.

Even as tired as the Bears were, and having their usual problems, if Sueing makes a couple of those 15 shots he missed, then Cal wins that game.

The Bears, if they stayed at altitude, instead of coming back to Berkeley and then returning to Salt Lake, should be a little better acclimated for the Utah game, which will be played a little lower at 4400 ft.
Agree with most of this, SFCity, although research shows that 3-4 days doesn't actually help much with aclimatization (in terms of stamina) except perhaps psychologically. The problem, simply enough, is no bench).
What research is that? Please tell us.

Not my experience at all. I remember the very first time I went for a steep hike out of Agnew Meadows, with no acclimatization at all. That night I went to bed at 10,000 ft, and could not sleep, my heart was pounding so hard and fast. It sounded like a heard of buffaloes was running through my camp. Pun intended. Another time, I went from fishing for Golden Trout, starting at Tuolomne Meadows at 9,000 ft up to a lake around 12,000 ft. I went with a friend who I had played a lot of sports with in Berkeley. He has always been in far better shape than I was. Even today he still runs marathons. On that trip, he charged ahead of me on the trail, eager to get to the fishing spot. I took my time, rested here and there, and arrived 20 minutes behind him. The altitude got him by nightfall, and he got dizzy and nauseous and spent 3 miserable days in the tent, while I fished. Another time I went up to 12,000 ft with a guy I used to go on bike rides with in Palo Alto. He was just out of the army and in great shape. I never could keep up with him on a bike. With no acclimatizing, we started up the mountain. He was way ahead of me at the beginning but I was a mile ahead of him at the finish. He had never been in the mountains before, and after that, he always went up and camped a day or two before starting a climb. I have lots of stories about this. I used to be a pretty good golfer, shooting in the mid-70s, but at Tahoe, I had trouble breaking 100. My game fell apart, and I'd get exhausted walking the course.

The last few times I've been in the mountains, I have always taken a day or two to get used to the altitude, before I attempt anything strenuous, and I've not gotten fatigued at all. A former teammate of mine at Lowell who was also on our cross country team, who recently quit playing basketball at 75, is still riding a bike competitively, keeping up with much younger cyclists, and a lot of the races are up the steep Eastern side of the Sierras. I asked him recently if he is acclimating himself before these races. He said "Absolutely." He and the wife take a trailer up to Agnew and lay around for a week or two before the race.

Of course, much of this is mental. If I have time to acclimate, I seem to have more stamina than I do at sea level. I've know avid climbers who do not acclimate at all. They get in the car, drive to a mountain and up the mountain they go the next morning, with plenty of stamina. But it is hard to argue with the results Colorado has had, and the trouble other teams have with stamina when they play in Boulder. Colorado's players practice in the altitude all the time, and don't have any team issue with stamina.
It depends on what Ursa means by "in terms of stamina", but I think that is misleading in any case. If somebody is prone to altitude sickness, 3-4 days can dramatically reduce the symptoms of altitude sickness which I would say most of us would describe as improving stamina. However, if you train at sea level and you move to high altitude, it takes a few weeks to recover your normal stamina, whether you feel the impact of altitude sickness or not.
A few days can reduce the incidence of altitude sickness (as can increased hydration); however, according to research published in adaptation biology and medicine, the amount of time necessary for the physiological changes necessary to truly acclimate (increase in hemoglobin and red cells) is 11.4 days/kilometer--i.e., for Boulder it would be 18 days.

Of course, the psychological effects are significant, and may make it worth while to arrive 1-2 days early. I know that when I've done hiking at altitude (Peru at 12-13,000, Tibet at 13-16,000, etc.) I have rested the first day.


I pretty much agree with you, but I don't think classifying that as psychological effects is appropriate. It is like calling a very sore but structurally sound ankle psychological. Headaches, dizziness, chest burning, heart pounding, loss of breath, are all symptoms of altitude sickness. Those are physical effects that significantly impact play. Yes, it takes weeks for hemoglobin levels to adjust, but that is only one physical issue in moving to altitude.
Sorry, Oaktown, perhaps I wasn't clear. What I meant was the psychological effects of rest for a day or two are significant in that they lower anxiety about the physical symptoms (which are very real) and which exacerbate their impact on performance.
BearGreg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
ducky23 said:

BearGreg said:

SFCityBear said:

KoreAmBear said:

chazzed said:

A solid showing by our guys. It's progress, although I'm sure they are disappointed.
It's encouraging to see the improvement in play and coaching.

Funny but even with all our Mickey Dee talent, we couldn't beat SDSU, win @ Furd or be competitive in Boulder. We've done all three with this ragtag team.
There has been improvement in attitude, and aggressiveness. But we had THREE assists in this game? Are we kidding? That could be the low mark for the season. I see the same offense I saw under Cuonzo Martin. Nobody moving to get open, Nobody looking to pass, only to dribble and score. I guess that is what you get when you hire one of your own assistants, the offense looks similar to that of your previous head coach. I only wish the defense looked like that of the previous head coach. I didn't like it much, but it was more effective than the current defense.
Opponents are running a defensive zone designed to exploit our lack of a true PG who can create off the bounce, our lack of perimeter shooters and big men who are not good at posting up. Impossible to judge the system IMO until we solve for at least two of those three
Obviously you have more expertise in this than I, so are you seeing more of an inability by the bigs to properly post up, or lack of an ability (or willingness) to make good entry passes, or both?

I know we are getting zoned, but its just so frustrating watching the offense when its obvious that our best option right now is to just dump it down to one of our bigs and let them go to work.

Its funny, cause since we lack the ability to post up our bigs, our best offense right now is our bigs cleaning up our guards' wild forays into the key. Offensive rebounding is like the only way the bigs can get their hands on the ball.
No one is double teaming either Lee or Okoroh so clearly that is our best offensive option. That and dribble penetration against the zone (Dyson was effective last night and Sueing has for most of the season). The challenge is that we don't get great ball movement off penetration as the penetrators aren't natural passers and when they do kick it out to perimeter players, most them are not capable jump shooters.
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A
BearGreg said:

SFCityBear said:

KoreAmBear said:

chazzed said:

A solid showing by our guys. It's progress, although I'm sure they are disappointed.
It's encouraging to see the improvement in play and coaching.

Funny but even with all our Mickey Dee talent, we couldn't beat SDSU, win @ Furd or be competitive in Boulder. We've done all three with this ragtag team.
There has been improvement in attitude, and aggressiveness. But we had THREE assists in this game? Are we kidding? That could be the low mark for the season. I see the same offense I saw under Cuonzo Martin. Nobody moving to get open, Nobody looking to pass, only to dribble and score. I guess that is what you get when you hire one of your own assistants, the offense looks similar to that of your previous head coach. I only wish the defense looked like that of the previous head coach. I didn't like it much, but it was more effective than the current defense.
Opponents are running a defensive zone designed to exploit our lack of a true PG who can create off the bounce, our lack of perimeter shooters and big men who are not good at posting up. Impossible to judge the system IMO until we solve for at least two of those three
We don't have a true PG, but McNeill is decent at point for combo guard. We don't have great perimeter shooting, but McNeill is respectable and Sueing adequate, though a little inconsistent. Coleman can make threes, if he just would shoot them only when open. We do need a third shooter, and we need a fourth on the bench in a perfect world. If King and Lee get the ball with a well-made pass at their favorite spots, they can score. All these players have enough abilities to score more points than they are scoring. Their biggest problem on offense in many games has been turning the ball over way too many times. That and poor shot selection.

If these zones were a reason we don't score much, then I would expect they would limit Cal's shots. But they don't. Night after night, we put up enough shots to beat almost any team. Right now we are first in the PAC12 in field goal attempts. That tells me we might be putting our shots up too early, and most of the time, not waiting for a good open look. My eyeball test is probably biased, but it seems our opponents get more open shots than we do. Almost any player will shoot his best without a hand in his face or trying to block his shot, and we take way too many of those shots.

I don't buy the lack of a true point guard as a problem that could not be overcome. There are many ways to attack a zone that can be successful. I don't see Cal trying the fundamental attacks coaches use to defeat a zone, like back door plays. Where are the back cuts?

I don't see see much overloading one side of the defense. In junior high we put three players on one side, or we were taught to pass quickly around the perimeter. I could be wrong, but have we used a triangle to overload a zone? I don't remember seeing it. That is really basic, something players should be learning to do in high school. Sometimes we end up with three players on one side of the floor, but then we pass the ball into the corner, a no-no, and the player who catches the ball gets trapped, and loses the ball.

I see a screen once in a while, but I don't see us using two screens on the same play. We don't use many off-ball screens, if any. Screens are less effective against zones, but if you use crosscourt passes, screens can work better, and you can also use pass and go or give and go plays to some success. To beat a zone requires some sophistication, not just dribbling around or passing a lot and then losing patience and taking a shot that is not an open shot.

I'm a dinosaur I know, but I believe in team play and not as much in individual play. Instead what I see is too much individual play, and not enough team play on offense. I wish I could see some practices, to see what the team is working on to defeat a zone.
Page 1 of 1
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.