Okay, after the high of noncon and now seeing us come back down to earth in conference, where are peoples' heads at? At this point, I'm thinking we need at least 6 more wins for an NIT bid. What do y'all think?
Recalibrating
3,214 Views |
36 Replies |
Last: 2 mo ago by calumnus
eastcoastcal said:
Okay, after the high of noncon and now seeing us come back down to earth in conference, where are peoples' heads at? At this point, I'm thinking we need at least 6 more wins for an NIT bid. What do y'all think?
Finishing with 7 wins in the ACC would be fantastic given the low hopes I had this summer after the signings. But really more critical that NIT or 7 wins or anything is player RETENTION and RECRUITMENT. We are making progress (yeah!!) but the gap is pretty big. Can't wait for folks to chime in about the "yearly player of the year" that Duke will feature wednesday and how much better he is than any player we have ever had at Cal.
Take care of your Chicken
This was always a team whose ceiling is a winning record (overall) and an NIT bid. That's progress! Let's get the makeshift practice facility up and running and increase the NIL-type dollars. Do that and we will continue to progress.
Big C said:
This was always a team whose ceiling is a winning record (overall) and an NIT bid. That's progress! Let's get the makeshift practice facility up and running and increase the NIL-type dollars. Do that and we will continue to progress.
We still appear to be a middle of the conference team.
Our ceiling is not a winning conference record overall: we were 12-1 OCC, so with 18 ACC games that would mean going 4-14 in conference to finish 16-15. Last year we won 6 ACC games so 4 wins would be the floor falls out.
We are 13-4. Here is the rest of the schedule and guess at the likely outcome:
Duke L
North Carolina L
@Stanford T
@FSU W
@Miami L
GT W
Clemson T
@Syracuse T
@BC W
Stanford W
SMU L
Pitt W
@GT W
@WF L
I see 6 to 9 more wins. 9 would be 22-9 (10-8) with an outside shot at the NCAA Tournament with a couple wins in the ACC Tournament. That is still this team's likely ceiling and goal. Of course we will need Camden and Bell to start scoring again. If they don't, we are toast.
socaltownie said:eastcoastcal said:
Okay, after the high of noncon and now seeing us come back down to earth in conference, where are peoples' heads at? At this point, I'm thinking we need at least 6 more wins for an NIT bid. What do y'all think?
Finishing with 7 wins in the ACC would be fantastic given the low hopes I had this summer after the signings. But really more critical that NIT or 7 wins or anything is player RETENTION and RECRUITMENT. We are making progress (yeah!!) but the gap is pretty big. Can't wait for folks to chime in about the "yearly player of the year" that Duke will feature wednesday and how much better he is than any player we have ever had at Cal.
To your point, the biggest deficiency of this year's team is physicality. I hope next year we can bring in a couple of power forwards to give us a stronger presence inside. Maybe Yeaney fits the profile but it's hard to tell if he never plays. The problem with having both Bell and Camden in our lineup goes past their shooting ability. We need at least one of our frontcourt guys to bring more strength inside to support who's ever in the post. This is something that MM needs to address over the summer.
At this stage, I'm not focused on post season bubble fantasies. I am following the development of players and team to see if we have something to build on longer term.
Yeah, yeah, yeah - I know that long term is less meaningful than in the past, but watching how EACH player fits into and executes the offensive and defensive schemes demonstrates that the staff has a workable plan that cna be executed (which Fox and Jones were unable to even sniff).
In this regard, I think this team is far ahead of the first two with Madsen - so I think that is very promising.
So - less concerned about W/Ls and more concerned with how those games look. Under the prior regime, the games were over during the first half. Under Madsen and the current players, we seem to be in almost every game.
Yeah, yeah, yeah - I know that long term is less meaningful than in the past, but watching how EACH player fits into and executes the offensive and defensive schemes demonstrates that the staff has a workable plan that cna be executed (which Fox and Jones were unable to even sniff).
In this regard, I think this team is far ahead of the first two with Madsen - so I think that is very promising.
So - less concerned about W/Ls and more concerned with how those games look. Under the prior regime, the games were over during the first half. Under Madsen and the current players, we seem to be in almost every game.
calumnus said:Big C said:
This was always a team whose ceiling is a winning record (overall) and an NIT bid. That's progress! Let's get the makeshift practice facility up and running and increase the NIL-type dollars. Do that and we will continue to progress.
We still appear to be a middle of the conference team.
Our ceiling is not a winning conference record overall: we were 12-1 OCC, so with 18 ACC games that would mean going 4-14 in conference to finish 16-15. Last year we won 6 ACC games so 4 wins would be the floor falls out.
We are 13-4. Here is the rest of the schedule and guess at the likely outcome:
Duke L
North Carolina L
@Stanford T
@FSU W
@Miami L
GT W
Clemson T
@Syracuse T
@BC W
Stanford W
SMU L
Pitt W
@GT W
@WF L
I see 6 to 9 more wins. 9 would be 22-9 (10-8) with an outside shot at the NCAA Tournament with a couple wins in the ACC Tournament. That is still this team's likely ceiling and goal. Of course we will need Camden and Bell to start scoring again. If they don't, we are toast.
If you are going to do this exercise in a productive manner, (I used to do the same thing) you need to push yourself to take off the Cal glasses and really look at your assumptions once, twice and three times. I say this because just looking at your Stanford results, I don't think you can argue for your case here. How is the road game a toss up and the home game a presumed win? They are either an L and a W or two toss ups. When I looked at your list and saw Stanford, my off the cuff thoughts were those are clearly both toss ups. Looking into it, Stanford is 2 spots ahead of us in Ken Pom and 1 spot behind us in Net. They are 2-2 in conference to our 1-3 playing the same 4 teams. We have the same overall records. There is no argument that we have an advantage. I think we are almost exactly even. That is two toss ups. Counting one as a win is the blue coming through.
I think the other 5 W's you have on your list are accurate because those games are against dreadful opponents. Not guaranteed (and neither are the losses), but we are significantly better than those teams. I tend to default strongly to toss up in this type of calculation, so I would also give Syracuse a toss up, but given the data and the fact that it is on the road, it is a toss up leaning strongly to Syracuse and in fact could easily put that in the L column on another day.
How on earth is Clemson a toss up? They are 53 places ahead of us in Ken Pom and 43 places ahead of us in NET. They are very clearly substantially better than we are. On the other hand, I don't know how you have Wake as a loss compared to Clemson. I'd put Wake in the same category as Syracuse as they are almost identical in KenPom and NET and both like 30-40 places behind Clemson.
I see 5 W's, 4 toss ups with two of the toss ups being a lean to the L side. If I had to predict, I'd say 6 more wins.
BearlyCareAnymore said:calumnus said:Big C said:
This was always a team whose ceiling is a winning record (overall) and an NIT bid. That's progress! Let's get the makeshift practice facility up and running and increase the NIL-type dollars. Do that and we will continue to progress.
We still appear to be a middle of the conference team.
Our ceiling is not a winning conference record overall: we were 12-1 OCC, so with 18 ACC games that would mean going 4-14 in conference to finish 16-15. Last year we won 6 ACC games so 4 wins would be the floor falls out.
We are 13-4. Here is the rest of the schedule and guess at the likely outcome:
Duke L
North Carolina L
@Stanford T
@FSU W
@Miami L
GT W
Clemson T
@Syracuse T
@BC W
Stanford W
SMU L
Pitt W
@GT W
@WF L
I see 6 to 9 more wins. 9 would be 22-9 (10-8) with an outside shot at the NCAA Tournament with a couple wins in the ACC Tournament. That is still this team's likely ceiling and goal. Of course we will need Camden and Bell to start scoring again. If they don't, we are toast.
If you are going to do this exercise in a productive manner, (I used to do the same thing) you need to push yourself to take off the Cal glasses and really look at your assumptions once, twice and three times. I say this because just looking at your Stanford results, I don't think you can argue for your case here. How is the road game a toss up and the home game a presumed win? They are either an L and a W or two toss ups. When I looked at your list and saw Stanford, my off the cuff thoughts were those are clearly both toss ups. Looking into it, Stanford is 2 spots ahead of us in Ken Pom and 1 spot behind us in Net. They are 2-2 in conference to our 1-3 playing the same 4 teams. We have the same overall records. There is no argument that we have an advantage. I think we are almost exactly even. That is two toss ups. Counting one as a win is the blue coming through.
I think the other 5 W's you have on your list are accurate because those games are against dreadful opponents. Not guaranteed (and neither are the losses), but we are significantly better than those teams. I tend to default strongly to toss up in this type of calculation, so I would also give Syracuse a toss up, but given the data and the fact that it is on the road, it is a toss up leaning strongly to Syracuse and in fact could easily put that in the L column on another day.
How on earth is Clemson a toss up? They are 53 places ahead of us in Ken Pom and 43 places ahead of us in NET. They are very clearly substantially better than we are. On the other hand, I don't know how you have Wake as a loss compared to Clemson. I'd put Wake in the same category as Syracuse as they are almost identical in KenPom and NET and both like 30-40 places behind Clemson.
I see 5 W's, 4 toss ups with two of the toss ups being a lean to the L side. If I had to predict, I'd say 6 more wins.
That's fair, I was going by the NET rankings and didn't double-check Ken Pom which is a far better predictor of wins and losses (even though final NET rankings will be decisive). Make the spread 4 to 9 games. To be clear, I was not predicting 9 wins, NIT or worse is the most likely result.
The thread title is "recalibrating" but that is only because people were overestimating before and now after a few predicted losses are underestimating. When there was a bunch of people predicting NCAA Tournament before ACC play, I said we'd have to improve to get there and that NIT is far more likely given our current play. Now that we have lost to some of the teams that we were predicted to lose to at that time I still stand by that position. We could lose to Virginia but we needed to beat VT to move up. If Camden and Bell are MIA and our bigs foul out we are not going to win many road games against mid-tier ACC teams, yet we almost did. Let's not give up hope on this team yet, even if, right now, we think 7-11 in the ACC is most likely and we are about to play our two toughest opponents yet.
7-11 in conference would imply we go .500 after losing to both Duke and Carolina, which would be fantastic if we can actually pull it off! The problem as someone stated last month is that many of the more difficult games this year are at home (home opponent's average KenPom ranking is 40.85 -- includes Duke, L'Ville, Clemson) and many of the more winnable games are on the road (road opponent's average KenPom ranking is 71.43 -- includes BC and Florida State). So even if we end up with fewer wins than last year's team, I'm not sure that automatically means this is a worse team, but could be argued as scheduling variance.
To me, would have been really interesting to see how the Jaylon Tyson / Fardaz team would have fared against ACC competition - assuming they stayed healthy .... that team had less depth than either of the last two years!
To me, would have been really interesting to see how the Jaylon Tyson / Fardaz team would have fared against ACC competition - assuming they stayed healthy .... that team had less depth than either of the last two years!
HaasCampOut said:
7-11 in conference would imply we go .500 after losing to both Duke and Carolina, which would be fantastic if we can actually pull it off! The problem as someone stated last month is that many of the more difficult games this year are at home (home opponent's average KenPom ranking is 40.85 -- includes Duke, L'Ville, Clemson) and many of the more winnable games are on the road (road opponent's average KenPom ranking is 71.43 -- includes BC and Florida State). So even if we end up with fewer wins than last year's team, I'm not sure that automatically means this is a worse team, but could be argued as scheduling variance.
To me, would have been really interesting to see how the Jaylon Tyson / Fardaz team would have fared against ACC competition - assuming they stayed healthy .... that team had less depth than either of the last two years!
That Tyson-led squad seemed like it was the most likely out of any of Madsen's to beat more talented/athletic teams on a good day but its lack of depth resulted in a high game-to-game variance and a very low floor. If Tyson had an off-day, we had no chance.
If I had to rank Madsen's teams so far, I'd go:
1) This year
2) First year
3) Second year
ManBearLion123 said:HaasCampOut said:
7-11 in conference would imply we go .500 after losing to both Duke and Carolina, which would be fantastic if we can actually pull it off! The problem as someone stated last month is that many of the more difficult games this year are at home (home opponent's average KenPom ranking is 40.85 -- includes Duke, L'Ville, Clemson) and many of the more winnable games are on the road (road opponent's average KenPom ranking is 71.43 -- includes BC and Florida State). So even if we end up with fewer wins than last year's team, I'm not sure that automatically means this is a worse team, but could be argued as scheduling variance.
To me, would have been really interesting to see how the Jaylon Tyson / Fardaz team would have fared against ACC competition - assuming they stayed healthy .... that team had less depth than either of the last two years!
That Tyson-led squad seemed like it was the most likely out of any of Madsen's to beat more talented/athletic teams on a good day but its lack of depth resulted in a high game-to-game variance and a very low floor. If Tyson had an off-day, we had no chance.
If I had to rank Madsen's teams so far, I'd go:
1) This year
2) First year
3) Second year
I agree with your ranking. Fardaz definitely had problems with opposing big men who were athletic, so I doubt Cal could have done much against the top ACC teams. It's taking longer than we'd like, but I think Madsen is figuring how to recruit and develop the right types of players for Cal.
eastcoastcal said:
Okay, after the high of noncon and now seeing us come back down to earth in conference, where are peoples' heads at? At this point, I'm thinking we need at least 6 more wins for an NIT bid. What do y'all think?
I think we need to recalibrate the whole thing. I guess I wonder what it is people want. When Madsen was hired this board was filled with talk of "homerun hire" and predictions of a NCAA tourney bid in the first year. Three years in and people seem to be resigned. One poster last year saw a one win improvement over a poor year as a major step. Here we have 7 wins in conference as being fantastic. .500 is a big step. If we go .500 on the remainder of our conference schedule after playing almost all of the hardest games on our schedule, that is awesome.
I'm not sure what we are doing here.
Comparing the three teams so far, I guess it depends on what you want. In one sense, this year's team is clearly the best (assuming the season keeps going as it has). Cal set them up with a ridiculously easy nonconference schedule. They didn't blow it. That is a big improvement over the first year's team who blew it repeatedly against lesser competition. The players on this team are more disciplined, more self motivated, and play together well. I feel like on a night in, night out basis we can count on these guys to put up a performance that is reasonably to the best of their ability. That is gratifying. I don't know if Madsen has improved or he just recruited guys with frankly better attitudes.
On the flip side, let's be honest. This team has been exposed a bit in conference. There are guys who can dominate lesser competition who frankly aren't making the step up against high major competition.
If Cal was magically put in the ACC championship against Duke and asked which team they wanted to use, its the first year's team, hands down. Much better talent. Much higher chance of competing at a high level. Unfortunately also generally shyte at working together and taking every game seriously.
So I guess I would say, what's your goal here? IMO, we are further away from competing at a high level. If your goal is to have a nice little team that wins 5-10 conference games, beats all the cupcakes, loses by 10-20 to the good teams, and splits the mediocre, that is what you have and that is what you are going to keep having for the foreseeable future. The bottom line is, we aren't recruiting at a level that will significantly change the trajectory of the program. I don't know if that is Madsen or the support he is getting (I suspect the latter), but that is reality. Madsen has absolutely stabilized a program that badly needed stabilizing. But we pretty much immediately stagnated. We are three years in and the modest gains are not going to build this program in the NIL era where teams turn around in a season.
Winning 7 or 8 games in conference or maybe squeaking into an NIT is not going to make recruits say "Hey! Something is brewing at Cal!" It's not going to move the needle at all. Cal needs to pull off some upsets and do something better. Otherwise, don't expect that next year we are going to be 2-3 games better. Then the next 2-3 games better. Then in a few years we are in the Final Four. We are going to hit diminishing returns very quickly.
Frankly, I think the time is now for Cal to push the chips in and see if proper support can help Madsen bring in talent that can make him competitive. He seems like the type of guy who could do it. But if you wait too long, you get covered in loser stink and recruits don't believe in you.
Unless this is what Cal wants - to placate the remaining fanbase with easy non-conference wins combined with competing with the bottom of the ACC. We aren't going to build our fanbase back this way.
And to be clear, I'm not mad at it. I'm kind of resigned to it, actually. I'm just confused as to what we are trying to achieve here. It doesn't seem like anyone, most especially Cal, has the appetite to push this program forward. If the goal is not to be a Mark Fox program, I think we've hit that. It's feeling like that IS the goal. I kind of feel like Madsen deserves a better shot and we are burying this program in low expectations.
Our level of NIL funding for our MBB program is rather dismal (likely bottom quartile or worse in the ACC). VA, for example, is reported to have had $14M or so to spend on its much improved roster this year (Duke, NC, Louisville and perhaps Syracuse, Miami and Clemson may be near or even exceed that amount). We had somewhere around $4M-$5M by comparison (as well as lacking a dedicated practice facility). Recruiting talent with NIL funds has a direct correlation to the degree of competitiveness and success that a team likely will have within a reasonable degree, with the level of coaching being another variable.
Big C said:
This was always a team whose ceiling is a winning record (overall) and an NIT bid. That's progress! Let's get the makeshift practice facility up and running and increase the NIL-type dollars. Do that and we will continue to progress.
I went to NIT games in the Monty and Cuonzo eras (aggregate attendance 2000).
I would only buy a ticket to another NIT Bears game if they brought Cuonzo back as a guest coach with 40 cases of Fiji Water parked on the baseline served by hostesses……which is 10 less cases that he and his staff consumed on the bench as CSUB ripped them new @$$h@les.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
“I love Cal deeply, by the way, what are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
“I love Cal deeply, by the way, what are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
bearister said:Big C said:
This was always a team whose ceiling is a winning record (overall) and an NIT bid. That's progress! Let's get the makeshift practice facility up and running and increase the NIL-type dollars. Do that and we will continue to progress.
I went to NIT games in the Monty and Cuonzo eras (aggregate attendance 2000).
I would only buy a ticket to another NIT Bears game if they brought Cuonzo back as a guest coach with 40 cases of Fiji Water parked on the baseline served by hostesses……which is 10 less cases that he and his staff consumed on the bench as CSUB ripped them new @$$h@les.
Scene:
A quiet bedroom. Sun streaming in through the curtains.
Camera pans to reveal a 108 year old man lying peacefully in a bed. He calls out quietly.
bearister: Ophelia. I'm thirsty. Can you bring me something to drink?
Ophelia walks in after a few moments.
Ophelia: (Loving tone in her voice) Here you go bearister.
Hands him a bottle of water. bearister takes it. He turns the bottle to reveal the label. Fiji water.
bearister looks to the ceiling, throws up his hands and screams
bearister: Cuonzooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!
bearister collapses. Ophelia gently closes his eyes with her hand.
fade to black.
coughing sound. we hear bearister's voice
bearister: Black? Raiders! Al Davis!!!!!! Mark Davis!!!!!
We hear choking. then silence.
Roll credits.
Most likely we are in NIT range (maybe slightly above, maybe slightly below). I thought this during non-conference too.
This would be more progress for the program. Certainly not where we want to be ultimately, but in the right direction.
This would be more progress for the program. Certainly not where we want to be ultimately, but in the right direction.
If we make the NIT and (more importantly) retain a very solid core going into next season, the program will very clearly be trending upward. Madsen can sell recruits on that trajectory.
If we aren't able to retain a core after this year, the program will be in a pretty tough spot moving forward. We need to start retaining talent and maintain some continuity going into the '26/27 season.
If we aren't able to retain a core after this year, the program will be in a pretty tough spot moving forward. We need to start retaining talent and maintain some continuity going into the '26/27 season.
ManBearLion123 said:
If we make the NIT and (more importantly) retain a very solid core going into next season, the program will very clearly be trending upward. Madsen can sell recruits on that trajectory.
If we aren't able to retain a core after this year, the program will be in a pretty tough spot moving forward. We need to start retaining talent and maintain some continuity going into the '26/27 season.
Does seem like the core problem is that we don't have the money behind this program that the better ones do. Obviously donors are focused on football right now, but if we want to be good at basketball they will have to start supporting there too.
I get to bang on way out, yeah?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
“I love Cal deeply, by the way, what are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
“I love Cal deeply, by the way, what are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Harky4 said:
Our level of NIL funding for our MBB program is rather dismal (likely bottom quartile or worse in the ACC). VA, for example, is reported to have had $14M or so to spend on its much improved roster this year (Duke, NC, Louisville and perhaps Syracuse, Miami and Clemson may be near or even exceed that amount). We had somewhere around $4M-$5M by comparison (as well as lacking a dedicated practice facility). Recruiting talent with NIL funds has a direct correlation to the degree of competitiveness and success that a team likely will have within a reasonable degree, with the level of coaching being another variable.
recruiting for the current season was tough with the basically unlimited NIL budgets for the top programs, but I don't think that will be possible for next season's recruiting.
Yes, Duke and UNC will have some legit NIL sponsorships, but the large gaps shouldn't be as dramatic. At least I don't think so.
However, we somehow need to get the dedicated practice facility. I haven't heard an update on that for a while now.
The NIL budgets are simply not going to go down. The theory behind that is naiveHoopDreams said:Harky4 said:
Our level of NIL funding for our MBB program is rather dismal (likely bottom quartile or worse in the ACC). VA, for example, is reported to have had $14M or so to spend on its much improved roster this year (Duke, NC, Louisville and perhaps Syracuse, Miami and Clemson may be near or even exceed that amount). We had somewhere around $4M-$5M by comparison (as well as lacking a dedicated practice facility). Recruiting talent with NIL funds has a direct correlation to the degree of competitiveness and success that a team likely will have within a reasonable degree, with the level of coaching being another variable.
recruiting for the current season was tough with the basically unlimited NIL budgets for the top programs, but I don't think that will be possible for next season's recruiting.
Yes, Duke and UNC will have some legit NIL sponsorships, but the large gaps shouldn't be as dramatic. At least I don't think so.
However, we somehow need to get the dedicated practice facility. I haven't heard an update on that for a while now.
BearlyCareAnymore said:HoopDreams said:Harky4 said:
Our level of NIL funding for our MBB program is rather dismal (likely bottom quartile or worse in the ACC). VA, for example, is reported to have had $14M or so to spend on its much improved roster this year (Duke, NC, Louisville and perhaps Syracuse, Miami and Clemson may be near or even exceed that amount). We had somewhere around $4M-$5M by comparison (as well as lacking a dedicated practice facility). Recruiting talent with NIL funds has a direct correlation to the degree of competitiveness and success that a team likely will have within a reasonable degree, with the level of coaching being another variable.
recruiting for the current season was tough with the basically unlimited NIL budgets for the top programs, but I don't think that will be possible for next season's recruiting.
Yes, Duke and UNC will have some legit NIL sponsorships, but the large gaps shouldn't be as dramatic. At least I don't think so.
However, we somehow need to get the dedicated practice facility. I haven't heard an update on that for a while now.
The NIL budgets are simply not going to go down. The theory behind that is naive
The theory is that NIL prices were especially high last year because many programs opted to empty their NIL coffers before the new rules take effect this year. Even if programs now decide to ignore the new rules, NIL prices shouldn't be as crazy as last year.
Civil Bear said:BearlyCareAnymore said:HoopDreams said:Harky4 said:
Our level of NIL funding for our MBB program is rather dismal (likely bottom quartile or worse in the ACC). VA, for example, is reported to have had $14M or so to spend on its much improved roster this year (Duke, NC, Louisville and perhaps Syracuse, Miami and Clemson may be near or even exceed that amount). We had somewhere around $4M-$5M by comparison (as well as lacking a dedicated practice facility). Recruiting talent with NIL funds has a direct correlation to the degree of competitiveness and success that a team likely will have within a reasonable degree, with the level of coaching being another variable.
recruiting for the current season was tough with the basically unlimited NIL budgets for the top programs, but I don't think that will be possible for next season's recruiting.
Yes, Duke and UNC will have some legit NIL sponsorships, but the large gaps shouldn't be as dramatic. At least I don't think so.
However, we somehow need to get the dedicated practice facility. I haven't heard an update on that for a while now.
The NIL budgets are simply not going to go down. The theory behind that is naive
The theory is that NIL prices were especially high last year because many programs opted to empty their NIL coffers before the new rules take effect this year. Even if programs now decide to ignore the new rules, NIL prices shouldn't be as crazy as last year.
I know the theory
BearlyCareAnymore said:Civil Bear said:BearlyCareAnymore said:HoopDreams said:Harky4 said:
Our level of NIL funding for our MBB program is rather dismal (likely bottom quartile or worse in the ACC). VA, for example, is reported to have had $14M or so to spend on its much improved roster this year (Duke, NC, Louisville and perhaps Syracuse, Miami and Clemson may be near or even exceed that amount). We had somewhere around $4M-$5M by comparison (as well as lacking a dedicated practice facility). Recruiting talent with NIL funds has a direct correlation to the degree of competitiveness and success that a team likely will have within a reasonable degree, with the level of coaching being another variable.
recruiting for the current season was tough with the basically unlimited NIL budgets for the top programs, but I don't think that will be possible for next season's recruiting.
Yes, Duke and UNC will have some legit NIL sponsorships, but the large gaps shouldn't be as dramatic. At least I don't think so.
However, we somehow need to get the dedicated practice facility. I haven't heard an update on that for a while now.
The NIL budgets are simply not going to go down. The theory behind that is naive
The theory is that NIL prices were especially high last year because many programs opted to empty their NIL coffers before the new rules take effect this year. Even if programs now decide to ignore the new rules, NIL prices shouldn't be as crazy as last year.
I know the theory
Another theory which I am just now making up is that some donors (somewhere), who are used to donating for capital improvements, are going to have to somehow wrap their heads around the fact that the 6 or 7 figure "NIL" donations from this year are going to have repeated next year... and the year after that... and the year after that and...
Civil Bear said:BearlyCareAnymore said:HoopDreams said:Harky4 said:
Our level of NIL funding for our MBB program is rather dismal (likely bottom quartile or worse in the ACC). VA, for example, is reported to have had $14M or so to spend on its much improved roster this year (Duke, NC, Louisville and perhaps Syracuse, Miami and Clemson may be near or even exceed that amount). We had somewhere around $4M-$5M by comparison (as well as lacking a dedicated practice facility). Recruiting talent with NIL funds has a direct correlation to the degree of competitiveness and success that a team likely will have within a reasonable degree, with the level of coaching being another variable.
recruiting for the current season was tough with the basically unlimited NIL budgets for the top programs, but I don't think that will be possible for next season's recruiting.
Yes, Duke and UNC will have some legit NIL sponsorships, but the large gaps shouldn't be as dramatic. At least I don't think so.
However, we somehow need to get the dedicated practice facility. I haven't heard an update on that for a while now.
The NIL budgets are simply not going to go down. The theory behind that is naive
The theory is that NIL prices were especially high last year because many programs opted to empty their NIL coffers before the new rules take effect this year. Even if programs now decide to ignore the new rules, NIL prices shouldn't be as crazy as last year.
Why not? $7.5 million for one very good quarterback. Oligarchs play for real.
Our lack of NIL funding is a choice. You see it in other threads when people readily accept the idea that we have to be "all in on Tosh" to avoid the threat of relegation. I am a broken record on the viability of that logic so I won't belabor it. But I DO think it fair for the powers that be on this board and the chancellor, and MAdsen and others to lay out a scenario which IS viable. Right now I do not see it.
For instance, the theory right now is that get football right and then pivot. But why in the world WOULD they pivot? Once you win one Nattie you want another. Lose int he ACC championship game and well with a bit more investment. Gotta replace JKS. Etc. etc. etc.
Ultimately it is hard to be BOTH a basketball and football school. I know where I would choose but I don't get a vote and my view isn't the majority. It is probably worth accepting that until realignment occurs and we stop being in an uber competitive conference which DOES prioritize BB over football it is what it is...
PS. And before Seb and the gridiron boys chime in OF COURSE DUKE prioritizes BB. If they didn't they would have taken every cent going to the boozer twins and spent it on FB. They do invest. FB isn't starved. But we play in a conference that finds a way to get 14 million to hoop and have FB be a little less wealthy. It is what it is.
PPS. And Duke isn't the best example because they have figured out the pipeline of former players with the tall genes and recruiting their kids. Better is Virginia whose payroll is about double ours or Louiseville who invested and reloaded from their really awful low.
For instance, the theory right now is that get football right and then pivot. But why in the world WOULD they pivot? Once you win one Nattie you want another. Lose int he ACC championship game and well with a bit more investment. Gotta replace JKS. Etc. etc. etc.
Ultimately it is hard to be BOTH a basketball and football school. I know where I would choose but I don't get a vote and my view isn't the majority. It is probably worth accepting that until realignment occurs and we stop being in an uber competitive conference which DOES prioritize BB over football it is what it is...
PS. And before Seb and the gridiron boys chime in OF COURSE DUKE prioritizes BB. If they didn't they would have taken every cent going to the boozer twins and spent it on FB. They do invest. FB isn't starved. But we play in a conference that finds a way to get 14 million to hoop and have FB be a little less wealthy. It is what it is.
PPS. And Duke isn't the best example because they have figured out the pipeline of former players with the tall genes and recruiting their kids. Better is Virginia whose payroll is about double ours or Louiseville who invested and reloaded from their really awful low.
Take care of your Chicken
Big C said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Civil Bear said:BearlyCareAnymore said:HoopDreams said:Harky4 said:
Our level of NIL funding for our MBB program is rather dismal (likely bottom quartile or worse in the ACC). VA, for example, is reported to have had $14M or so to spend on its much improved roster this year (Duke, NC, Louisville and perhaps Syracuse, Miami and Clemson may be near or even exceed that amount). We had somewhere around $4M-$5M by comparison (as well as lacking a dedicated practice facility). Recruiting talent with NIL funds has a direct correlation to the degree of competitiveness and success that a team likely will have within a reasonable degree, with the level of coaching being another variable.
recruiting for the current season was tough with the basically unlimited NIL budgets for the top programs, but I don't think that will be possible for next season's recruiting.
Yes, Duke and UNC will have some legit NIL sponsorships, but the large gaps shouldn't be as dramatic. At least I don't think so.
However, we somehow need to get the dedicated practice facility. I haven't heard an update on that for a while now.
The NIL budgets are simply not going to go down. The theory behind that is naive
The theory is that NIL prices were especially high last year because many programs opted to empty their NIL coffers before the new rules take effect this year. Even if programs now decide to ignore the new rules, NIL prices shouldn't be as crazy as last year.
I know the theory
Another theory which I am just now making up is that some donors (somewhere), who are used to donating for capital improvements, are going to have to somehow wrap their heads around the fact that the 6 or 7 figure "NIL" donations from this year are going to have repeated next year... and the year after that... and the year after that and...
I do wonder how sustainable this is. Not just at Cal, but everywhere. How willing are donors to keep writing checks to pay athletes who will just up and leave the next year?
sycasey said:Big C said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Civil Bear said:BearlyCareAnymore said:HoopDreams said:Harky4 said:
Our level of NIL funding for our MBB program is rather dismal (likely bottom quartile or worse in the ACC). VA, for example, is reported to have had $14M or so to spend on its much improved roster this year (Duke, NC, Louisville and perhaps Syracuse, Miami and Clemson may be near or even exceed that amount). We had somewhere around $4M-$5M by comparison (as well as lacking a dedicated practice facility). Recruiting talent with NIL funds has a direct correlation to the degree of competitiveness and success that a team likely will have within a reasonable degree, with the level of coaching being another variable.
recruiting for the current season was tough with the basically unlimited NIL budgets for the top programs, but I don't think that will be possible for next season's recruiting.
Yes, Duke and UNC will have some legit NIL sponsorships, but the large gaps shouldn't be as dramatic. At least I don't think so.
However, we somehow need to get the dedicated practice facility. I haven't heard an update on that for a while now.
The NIL budgets are simply not going to go down. The theory behind that is naive
The theory is that NIL prices were especially high last year because many programs opted to empty their NIL coffers before the new rules take effect this year. Even if programs now decide to ignore the new rules, NIL prices shouldn't be as crazy as last year.
I know the theory
Another theory which I am just now making up is that some donors (somewhere), who are used to donating for capital improvements, are going to have to somehow wrap their heads around the fact that the 6 or 7 figure "NIL" donations from this year are going to have repeated next year... and the year after that... and the year after that and...
I do wonder how sustainable this is. Not just at Cal, but everywhere. How willing are donors to keep writing checks to pay athletes who will just up and leave the next year?
I think a lot of people are whistling past the graveyard on that.
Take care of your Chicken
calumnus said:Big C said:
This was always a team whose ceiling is a winning record (overall) and an NIT bid. That's progress! Let's get the makeshift practice facility up and running and increase the NIL-type dollars. Do that and we will continue to progress.
We still appear to be a middle of the conference team.
Our ceiling is not a winning conference record overall: we were 12-1 OCC, so with 18 ACC games that would mean going 4-14 in conference to finish 16-15. Last year we won 6 ACC games so 4 wins would be the floor falls out.
We are 13-4. Here is the rest of the schedule and guess at the likely outcome:
Duke L
North Carolina L
@Stanford T
@FSU W
@Miami L
GT W
Clemson T
@Syracuse T
@BC W
Stanford W
SMU L
Pitt W
@GT W
@WF L
I see 6 to 9 more wins. 9 would be 22-9 (10-8) with an outside shot at the NCAA Tournament with a couple wins in the ACC Tournament. That is still this team's likely ceiling and goal. Of course we will need Camden and Bell to start scoring again. If they don't, we are toast.
Stanford looking pretty good. Don't see those as a tie or a win.
sycasey said:Big C said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Civil Bear said:BearlyCareAnymore said:HoopDreams said:Harky4 said:
Our level of NIL funding for our MBB program is rather dismal (likely bottom quartile or worse in the ACC). VA, for example, is reported to have had $14M or so to spend on its much improved roster this year (Duke, NC, Louisville and perhaps Syracuse, Miami and Clemson may be near or even exceed that amount). We had somewhere around $4M-$5M by comparison (as well as lacking a dedicated practice facility). Recruiting talent with NIL funds has a direct correlation to the degree of competitiveness and success that a team likely will have within a reasonable degree, with the level of coaching being another variable.
recruiting for the current season was tough with the basically unlimited NIL budgets for the top programs, but I don't think that will be possible for next season's recruiting.
Yes, Duke and UNC will have some legit NIL sponsorships, but the large gaps shouldn't be as dramatic. At least I don't think so.
However, we somehow need to get the dedicated practice facility. I haven't heard an update on that for a while now.
The NIL budgets are simply not going to go down. The theory behind that is naive
The theory is that NIL prices were especially high last year because many programs opted to empty their NIL coffers before the new rules take effect this year. Even if programs now decide to ignore the new rules, NIL prices shouldn't be as crazy as last year.
I know the theory
Another theory which I am just now making up is that some donors (somewhere), who are used to donating for capital improvements, are going to have to somehow wrap their heads around the fact that the 6 or 7 figure "NIL" donations from this year are going to have repeated next year... and the year after that... and the year after that and...
I do wonder how sustainable this is. Not just at Cal, but everywhere. How willing are donors to keep writing checks to pay athletes who will just up and leave the next year?
Well, right now with the K shaped economy the top 10% are flush in cash and spending a lot. People have been pretty irrational all my life about spending on sports. The next time they stop will be the first time.
No one really cares about players being committed to a school. They care about how many W's their laundry gets this year.
Does anybody think Cal will ever see a full payout share from the ACC? I wonder if the ACC holds together long enough for Cal to hit the 70% threshold in, what, 2032?
BearlyCareAnymore said:sycasey said:Big C said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Civil Bear said:BearlyCareAnymore said:HoopDreams said:Harky4 said:
Our level of NIL funding for our MBB program is rather dismal (likely bottom quartile or worse in the ACC). VA, for example, is reported to have had $14M or so to spend on its much improved roster this year (Duke, NC, Louisville and perhaps Syracuse, Miami and Clemson may be near or even exceed that amount). We had somewhere around $4M-$5M by comparison (as well as lacking a dedicated practice facility). Recruiting talent with NIL funds has a direct correlation to the degree of competitiveness and success that a team likely will have within a reasonable degree, with the level of coaching being another variable.
recruiting for the current season was tough with the basically unlimited NIL budgets for the top programs, but I don't think that will be possible for next season's recruiting.
Yes, Duke and UNC will have some legit NIL sponsorships, but the large gaps shouldn't be as dramatic. At least I don't think so.
However, we somehow need to get the dedicated practice facility. I haven't heard an update on that for a while now.
The NIL budgets are simply not going to go down. The theory behind that is naive
The theory is that NIL prices were especially high last year because many programs opted to empty their NIL coffers before the new rules take effect this year. Even if programs now decide to ignore the new rules, NIL prices shouldn't be as crazy as last year.
I know the theory
Another theory which I am just now making up is that some donors (somewhere), who are used to donating for capital improvements, are going to have to somehow wrap their heads around the fact that the 6 or 7 figure "NIL" donations from this year are going to have repeated next year... and the year after that... and the year after that and...
I do wonder how sustainable this is. Not just at Cal, but everywhere. How willing are donors to keep writing checks to pay athletes who will just up and leave the next year?
Well, right now with the K shaped economy the top 10% are flush in cash and spending a lot. People have been pretty irrational all my life about spending on sports. The next time they stop will be the first time.
No one really cares about players being committed to a school. They care about how many W's their laundry gets this year.
Not sure about the other posters but here is what I mean......
There are programs (your mileage will vary of whom and how many) that can sustsain this from their regular revenue streams. Those streams can be enhanced and modified to increase flow but does not require abnormal conditions.
Then their are others. Indiana and Mark Cuban are a good example. Yes. Cubans $$$ were instrumental in allowing them to get the cogs they needed. But it is the right question to ask whether he is writring a check every year for the next 10 years. Or, to be snarky, what happens to Michigan when Larry finds a new sugarbaby who goes to an SEC school.
That is the challenge for NIL. We are talking about so much money - and the challenges that every few years a new whale will arrive to make a spalsh - that we get these spikes in $$$ and new pecking order. But sustaining position in such a world is really difficult - and as fans we are going to have to calibrate to that.
Take care of your Chicken
HearstMining said:
Does anybody think Cal will ever see a full payout share from the ACC? I wonder if the ACC holds together long enough for Cal to hit the 70% threshold in, what, 2032?
We currently get 30%
2031 we get 70%
2032 we get 75%
2033 we get 100%
Current media deal is through 2036.
socaltownie said:BearlyCareAnymore said:sycasey said:Big C said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Civil Bear said:BearlyCareAnymore said:HoopDreams said:Harky4 said:
Our level of NIL funding for our MBB program is rather dismal (likely bottom quartile or worse in the ACC). VA, for example, is reported to have had $14M or so to spend on its much improved roster this year (Duke, NC, Louisville and perhaps Syracuse, Miami and Clemson may be near or even exceed that amount). We had somewhere around $4M-$5M by comparison (as well as lacking a dedicated practice facility). Recruiting talent with NIL funds has a direct correlation to the degree of competitiveness and success that a team likely will have within a reasonable degree, with the level of coaching being another variable.
recruiting for the current season was tough with the basically unlimited NIL budgets for the top programs, but I don't think that will be possible for next season's recruiting.
Yes, Duke and UNC will have some legit NIL sponsorships, but the large gaps shouldn't be as dramatic. At least I don't think so.
However, we somehow need to get the dedicated practice facility. I haven't heard an update on that for a while now.
The NIL budgets are simply not going to go down. The theory behind that is naive
The theory is that NIL prices were especially high last year because many programs opted to empty their NIL coffers before the new rules take effect this year. Even if programs now decide to ignore the new rules, NIL prices shouldn't be as crazy as last year.
I know the theory
Another theory which I am just now making up is that some donors (somewhere), who are used to donating for capital improvements, are going to have to somehow wrap their heads around the fact that the 6 or 7 figure "NIL" donations from this year are going to have repeated next year... and the year after that... and the year after that and...
I do wonder how sustainable this is. Not just at Cal, but everywhere. How willing are donors to keep writing checks to pay athletes who will just up and leave the next year?
Well, right now with the K shaped economy the top 10% are flush in cash and spending a lot. People have been pretty irrational all my life about spending on sports. The next time they stop will be the first time.
No one really cares about players being committed to a school. They care about how many W's their laundry gets this year.
Not sure about the other posters but here is what I mean......
There are programs (your mileage will vary of whom and how many) that can sustsain this from their regular revenue streams. Those streams can be enhanced and modified to increase flow but does not require abnormal conditions.
Then their are others. Indiana and Mark Cuban are a good example. Yes. Cubans $$$ were instrumental in allowing them to get the cogs they needed. But it is the right question to ask whether he is writring a check every year for the next 10 years. Or, to be snarky, what happens to Michigan when Larry finds a new sugarbaby who goes to an SEC school.
That is the challenge for NIL. We are talking about so much money - and the challenges that every few years a new whale will arrive to make a spalsh - that we get these spikes in $$$ and new pecking order. But sustaining position in such a world is really difficult - and as fans we are going to have to calibrate to that.
Mark Cuban is being portrayed as a lot more instrumental than he was because his name is Mark Cuban
wifeisafurd said:calumnus said:Big C said:
This was always a team whose ceiling is a winning record (overall) and an NIT bid. That's progress! Let's get the makeshift practice facility up and running and increase the NIL-type dollars. Do that and we will continue to progress.
We still appear to be a middle of the conference team.
Our ceiling is not a winning conference record overall: we were 12-1 OCC, so with 18 ACC games that would mean going 4-14 in conference to finish 16-15. Last year we won 6 ACC games so 4 wins would be the floor falls out.
We are 13-4. Here is the rest of the schedule and guess at the likely outcome:
Duke L
North Carolina L
@Stanford T
@FSU W
@Miami L
GT W
Clemson T
@Syracuse T
@BC W
Stanford W
SMU L
Pitt W
@GT W
@WF L
I see 6 to 9 more wins. 9 would be 22-9 (10-8) with an outside shot at the NCAA Tournament with a couple wins in the ACC Tournament. That is still this team's likely ceiling and goal. Of course we will need Camden and Bell to start scoring again. If they don't, we are toast.
Stanford looking pretty good. Don't see those as a tie or a win.
Agreed.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Beat Out Top Comp for Houston RB AJ Sanders
by Jim McGill
Bears Grab 4 Star Georgia SF Jake Wilkins
by Jim McGill
Bears Embracing 'Daily Process' During Spring Ball
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal’s Men Win 5th Straight Big Meet
by Cal Athletics
Four Edge Players Hoping to Make an Immediate Impact in Bears Pass Rush
by Ian Firstenberg