barsad said:

---

I was afraid of this All Dai Dai strategy… when he's not on (4-10 FG, 0-3 from 3 pt) it's an instant blowout. We need more contributors and 100% more tenacity on D.

---

to be fair, he was 10-10 FTs

HoopDreams said:

---

barsad said:

---

I was afraid of this All Dai Dai strategy… when he's not on (4-10 FG, 0-3 from 3 pt) it's an instant blowout. We need more contributors and 100% more tenacity on D.

---

to be fair, he was 10-10 FTs

---

A good free throw shooting night means nothing when two starters have zero points (Bell-Dort). UVA has all five starters contributing, four with double digits (and a bench guy).
Dai Dai is great but he can't put up 30 every night, which is what we'll need at this rate.

bearsandgiants said:

---

If Madsen needs 4-star talent at every position just to compete, I think we have a problem. Payroll may be low, but this team looked awful all over the place. The offense didn't even look like an offense. That was gross.

---

The point is how many 4 stars does Virginia have. The Dutch kid is clearly a top 50 recruit.

he's also 23 in a couple of weeks

barsad said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

barsad said:

---

I was afraid of this All Dai Dai strategy… when he's not on (4-10 FG, 0-3 from 3 pt) it's an instant blowout. We need more contributors and 100% more tenacity on D.

---

to be fair, he was 10-10 FTs

---

A good free throw shooting night means nothing when two starters have zero points (Bell-Dort). UVA has all five starters contributing, four with double digits (and a bench guy).
Dai Dai is great but he can't put up 30 every night, which is what we'll need at this rate.

---

you wrote about Dai Dai's stats, but forcing the defense to foul you and hitting your FTs is like shooting 9-15. Even better because it gets their players into foul trouble and gets our players to the line faster

NIT. Out in the 2nd round.

I saw only the 2nd half, which was a poor choice. The only thing which looked good was our free throw shooting. Then I saw the stats and was amazed that Carr pulled down 8 rebounds, more than 30% of out team's meager total, in just 23 minutes.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

The difference in strength and athleticism is so obvious.

---

Virginia (and Louisville) are good but not quite Final Four contenders yet to be so far from competing with just those guys in year 3 is alarming

---

Just making the Tournament is the goal and this loss does not hurt that goal, with margin of loss not a factor. Before the season started, .500 and the NIT was the goal. Last year was the disappointment. This year is definitely showing progress. Beating Virginia Tech, who is just ahead of us in NET ranking, on the road, is the one we need to try to get. Stanford did.

---

I like the effort of all of our players. But after watching the last three games, "just making the tournament is the goal" appears to be a completely irrelevant issue. This is not an NCAA tournament team. I know today's game is based heavily on 3 point shooting, but the fact is that the makeup of this year's Cal squad sorely lacks inside strength to be part of the big dance conversation. Dort and Ilic at the center position are mediocre at best. And the real problem is after that we have no players to establish some strength and athleticism inside. I like Camden, but he is really a "3" position player. We have nobody who is a "4." I would guess the only one you might fit that description is Yeaney and he doesn't even suit up. I'm hoping we win enough games to make the NIT field, which will be a more realistic level for this year's squad to compete in.

Socal, for clarity I stated "mediocre AT BEST."
And then you're using the term "talent gaps."? That sounds a bit soft to me as well.

Bottom line, no matter how we say it, we're both saying the same thing.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Socal, for clarity I stated "mediocre AT BEST."
And then you're using the term "talent gaps."? That sounds a bit soft to me as well.

Bottom line, no matter how we say it, we're both saying the same thing.

---

I know it is just word choices.

I guess for me mediocre players are not trying or cancers. Thing jalani thinking he was a point guard and getting picked cause he dribbled up by his ear. Our guys TRY but they (the front court) are slow, lack explosiveness, don't have much range and thus are limited. But everyone uses words differently so I am not going to belabor the point.

socaltownie said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Socal, for clarity I stated "mediocre AT BEST."
And then you're using the term "talent gaps."? That sounds a bit soft to me as well.

Bottom line, no matter how we say it, we're both saying the same thing.

---

I know it is just word choices.

I guess for me mediocre players are not trying or cancers. Thing jalani thinking he was a point guard and getting picked cause he dribbled up by his ear. Our guys TRY but they (the front court) are slow, lack explosiveness, don't have much range and thus are limited. But everyone uses words differently so I am not going to belabor the point.

---

Mediocre: of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance : ordinary, so-so

People can correct me if I'm wrong but the old rule was that if we dominate pre season and go 500+ in conf and win a big game here or there that we sneak in. Is that still the rule?

cal83dls79 said:

---

People can correct me if I'm wrong but the old rule was that if we dominate pre season and go 500+ in conf and win a big game here or there that we sneak in. Is that still the rule?

---

I don't know that was ever the rule but it certainly is not the rule now. We generally will need to be in the NCAA's Top 40-50 in NET ranking to get an at large bid. We are #68 now: https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings
That generally means we need to beat the teams below us just to maintain our level and beat teams ranked above us to improve. We can lose to Duke, Louisville, North Carolina and Virginia but we need to beat almost everyone else. Not likely, but still possible.

calumnus said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

People can correct me if I'm wrong but the old rule was that if we dominate pre season and go 500+ in conf and win a big game here or there that we sneak in. Is that still the rule?

---

I don't know that was ever the rule but it certainly is not the rule now. We generally will need to be in the NCAA's Top 40-50 in NET ranking to get an at large bid. We are #68 now: https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings
That generally means we need to beat the teams below us just to maintain our level and beat teams ranked above us to improve. We can lose to Duke, Louisville, North Carolina and Virginia but we need to beat almost everyone else. Not likely, but still possible.

---

I BELIEVE there are 38 at large bids this year.

It is too bad that UCLA and Utah are not that good. Those Ws would be helpful.

BTW - are we on Cronin death watch yet? I don't know if that is the most brutal job in college BB but it has to be a top 5. 10 and 5 aint cutting it as Westwood.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

At this point all you can ask is that the players give maximum effort. So far I think they are.
My hope is that this team is able to win all of the games that they are capable of winning. Based on the talent level in this conference, a .500 or better record in the conference would be considered an accomplishment at this point.

---

Your characterization is accurate. Many on this board stated that, after a mostly cream-puff preconference schedule, we really didn't know how Cal would match up to ACC opponents. That's becoming clearer now. But let's look at the bright side here:

• From players 1-7, this team is a more well-rounded team than the previous two Madsen teams
• They play better defense - especially at the point of attack
• They have a better, and more interesting offensive scheme featuring passing and some motion and better team 3-pt shooting
• They've proven they can close a gap and win a close game at home (ND)

I know geography doesn't mean much these days, but when I saw UVa's Malik Thomas transferred from U of San Francisco . . . man, that's the kind of guy Cal should be able to land. Presumably an issue of $$$, but who knows.

HearstMining said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

At this point all you can ask is that the players give maximum effort. So far I think they are.
My hope is that this team is able to win all of the games that they are capable of winning. Based on the talent level in this conference, a .500 or better record in the conference would be considered an accomplishment at this point.

---

Your characterization is accurate. Many on this board stated that, after a mostly cream-puff preconference schedule, we really didn't know how Cal would match up to ACC opponents. That's becoming clearer now. But let's look at the bright side here:

• From players 1-7, this team is a more well-rounded team than the previous two Madsen teams
• They play better defense - especially at the point of attack
• They have a better, and more interesting offensive scheme featuring passing and some motion and better team 3-pt shooting
• They've proven they can close a gap and win a close game at home (ND)

I know geography doesn't mean much these days, but when I saw UVa's Malik Thomas transferred from U of San Francisco . . . man, that's the kind of guy Cal should be able to land. Presumably an issue of $$$, but who knows.

---

Presumably an issue of UVa is a lot better than we are.

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

People can correct me if I'm wrong but the old rule was that if we dominate pre season and go 500+ in conf and win a big game here or there that we sneak in. Is that still the rule?

---

I don't know that was ever the rule but it certainly is not the rule now. We generally will need to be in the NCAA's Top 40-50 in NET ranking to get an at large bid. We are #68 now: https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings
That generally means we need to beat the teams below us just to maintain our level and beat teams ranked above us to improve. We can lose to Duke, Louisville, North Carolina and Virginia but we need to beat almost everyone else. Not likely, but still possible.

---

I BELIEVE there are 38 at large bids this year.

It is too bad that UCLA and Utah are not that good. Those Ws would be helpful.

BTW - are we on Cronin death watch yet? I don't know if that is the most brutal job in college BB but it has to be a top 5. 10 and 5 aint cutting it as Westwood.

---

There are 31 automatic qualifiers and 37 at-large bids. However, maybe half the conference champs will be top rated teams anyway. That is why we need to get into the Top 40- 50 NET ranking to try to get one of those 37 at-large bids.

Here is the ACC in the NET Rankings right now:
4 Duke
15 Louisville
21 Virginia
22 North Carolina
27 SMU
32 Clemsen
33 Miami
36 NC State
58 Virginia Tech
60 Notre Dame
68 California
69 Stanford
70 Wake Forest
84 Syracuse
112 Pitt
115 FSU
151 Georgia Tech
196 Boston College

If the Tournament selection was right now, I think the ACC gets 8 in, with NC State our last in.

We are currently #68, 11th of 18 with only ACC games to go (we need to root for UCLA and KState). The formula with the quadrants is a bit mysterious, but let's make it simple: We can easily lose to Duke, Louisville, Virginia and North Carolina and get in, but we cannot lose to the teams behind us and we have to beat maybe half the other teams that are currently ahead of us (we already beat Notre Dame). We have to beat a couple of the SMU, Clemson, Miami, NCState second tier. This next game against Virginia Tech is huge if we want to keep the dream alive.

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

People can correct me if I'm wrong but the old rule was that if we dominate pre season and go 500+ in conf and win a big game here or there that we sneak in. Is that still the rule?

---

I don't know that was ever the rule but it certainly is not the rule now. We generally will need to be in the NCAA's Top 40-50 in NET ranking to get an at large bid. We are #68 now: https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings
That generally means we need to beat the teams below us just to maintain our level and beat teams ranked above us to improve. We can lose to Duke, Louisville, North Carolina and Virginia but we need to beat almost everyone else. Not likely, but still possible.

---

I BELIEVE there are 38 at large bids this year.

It is too bad that UCLA and Utah are not that good. Those Ws would be helpful.

BTW - are we on Cronin death watch yet? I don't know if that is the most brutal job in college BB but it has to be a top 5. 10 and 5 aint cutting it as Westwood.

---

I think some folks are a bit delusional. If ucla and kState were good, we'd have one more loss, and one more of our losses would have been embarrassing. This team needs a miracle if it's to make the tournament this year. Honestly I think our only chance is getting lucky in the acc tournament and winning it.