If we keep getting destroyed in the paint, nor much else to talk about, *****ing about refs when the other team shoots 60% free throws is comical

Really want to see this team play without constant direction given from the bench. Coaches need to coach during practice and time-outs and just chill out during the action. Such a distraction.

Quote:

---

Cal men's team needs a win at Syracuse tonight.

Go Bears!

---

https://instagr.am/p/CmpNizQPclZ
syracuse orange 107
california golden bears 100

fiercely contested battle between two very flawed teams (one team shot a crooked azz 24% on 3 pointers & 60% of free throws while the other team got no interior d presence without its violent starting center who wuz arrested for a felony aggravated assault on his ex girlfriend at his last school) that played hard for 50 minutes

well officiated acc dogfight with permissible physicality unlike the candy azz soft ticky tack no rhythm pac 10 games back in the day, madsen needs to recruit 4s & 5s that got the +1 athleticism & mentality/physicality to play thru minor contact that's the hallmark of east coast college basketball & the 2026 ncca tournament

yeah it's almost as hard to win basketball games in up state new york as it is to get a friday nite reservation at carbone in the city

https://instagr.am/p/DTJM5qDkiFJ

Here is what drives me crazy about some folks on this board. Our guys have "holes" in their games. Isn't there fault. In a lot of ways that is why we could afford them. So you have John Camden who is a 3.5 and that hurts him defensively. Bell doesn't have the weight to play the four and gets beat by faster 3s. Ames and TT are height challenged and also slight so they can't go at bigs and draw contact as often as say Cuses guards. We have endlessly discussed that our 2nd, 3rd and 4th string centers need work. We are out our glue guy.

And then posters come on here and blame Madsen. I have termed the "the old picket fence" thinking that they, who have coached youth BB, know more than Madsen about Xs and Os. What is PAINFULLY obvious is that he is getting what he can out of these guys and getting them into position. But when Bell can't hit WIDE OPEN 3s off a wonderful double screen or that Ames misses kick outs because he gets trapped too deep or that our 2nd string center has hands of stone it isn't Madsens fault

Whose it it? Ours. You see it in Football. I am not a huge fan but you know what - the guys that PASSIONATELY care went out, got Wilcox canned and then used "I want a condo at Snowmass" money to get talent. I see a lot of keyboard warriors here. Frustrated with BB? The new era provides you a path - donate. Dig Deep. Keep in ming the TOWNIE that lives 500 miles away in San Diego whose f'ing son doesn't go to every game donates not snowmass condo but week in Tahoe money because I care.

Shocky came out of his shell ! Or maybe he is thinking wyking jones ! ?

https://instagr.am/p/DUoQNIskvsy
^ poor marketing decision to not include lulu's ponytail (sigh)



let it fly, lulu, let if fly (the greatest 3 point shooter in the history of cal basketball since cal's monster class jeff powers)!!#



the university of california, berkeley=#1 ranked public university in the world (including down under in oz on the great shark barrier reef, just ask nohl williams or something)

Do you think that if Cal only makes it to the NIT that MM will be able to keep all of his top eligible players from entering the transfer portal?

Ain't nobody ever say in Wilcox we trust lol. But in all seriousness I think mostly I trust our coach and even the stuff I question I probably am wrong about and he probably has a good reason for doing. Wilcox on the other hand, I had no idea what he was doing almost every game.

I can't read Socaltownie's mind, but I think his recent post was more about the fact that our players on the current squad all have deficiencies and too often people tend to ignore that and come down a bit hard on MM's coaching. His post wasn't as much about building Madsen up as it was about MM sometimes receiving unjustified critcism. Whether he stated that fans think they know "more" or "as much" as Madsen is nitpicking with semantics. I agree with the replies addressing the reality of Cal not be willing to financially match other schools, but Socaltownie's post seemed to be strictly about fans' view of the coach, while the fact is there are certain things that our players just aren't capable of doing.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

I can't read Socaltownie's mind, but I think his recent post was more about the fact that are players on the current squad all have deficiencies and too often people tend to ignore that and come down a bit hard on MM's coaching. His post wasn't as much about building Madsen up as it was about MM sometimes receiving unjustified critcism. Whether he stated that fans think they know "more" or "as much" as Madsen is nitpicking with semantics. I agree with the replies addressing the reality of Cal not be willing to financially match other schools, but Socaltownie's post seemed to be strictly about fans' view of the coach, while the fact is there are certain things that our players just aren't capable of doing.

---

I might go for that except for the fact that Madsen gets extremely light criticism here. If the minimal amount of criticism, whether right or wrong, can't be handled, I don't know what to say here.

Onebearofpower said:

---

Ain't nobody ever say in Wilcox we trust lol. But in all seriousness I think mostly I trust our coach and even the stuff I question I probably am wrong about and he probably has a good reason for doing. Wilcox on the other hand, I had no idea what he was doing almost every game.

---

They were posters who most certainly did say that about Wilcox, even Fox, Christ and Knowlton, and worse, attacked and insulted anyone who dared criticize them. The "You think you know more than ____?" Is a common response to any criticism or suggestion on this board. I don't know if it is just people who naturally defer to and side with authority or if it is people on staff or just insiders close to the program and emotionally tied to the individuals. Sometimes those posters disappear when the individual in question is fired. When a new coach or admin comes in we have new posters that are all in on the stupendous genius of the new person as we now have with Tosh. I remember that there were people wildly praising Knowlton early on, for things as basic as helping carry items at a tailgate.

However, the thing we need to really keep in mind: this whole discussion was in the context of comments in a game thread. Game threads need to be treated like what they are: a bunch of drunk Cal fans watching a Cal game, reacting to the emotions of the moment. People overreact. Nobody should take statements said on a game thread as being definitive opinions about a player or a coach overall. And hindsight is 20-20. In a game that was lost in double overtime, of course there were multiple coaching decisions that ended up losing the game, just as any single missed free throw, turnover, missed layup, uncalled foul, missed defensive assignments can be said to have "cost us the game." That is just the nature of the game.

calumnus said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

Ain't nobody ever say in Wilcox we trust lol. But in all seriousness I think mostly I trust our coach and even the stuff I question I probably am wrong about and he probably has a good reason for doing. Wilcox on the other hand, I had no idea what he was doing almost every game.

---

They were posters who most certainly did say that about Wilcox, even Fox, Christ and Knowlton, and worse, attacked and insulted anyone who dared criticize them. The "You think you know more than ____?" Is a common response to any criticism or suggestion on this board. I don't know if it is just people who naturally defer to and side with authority or if it is people on staff or just insiders close to the program and emotionally tied to the individuals. Sometimes those posters disappear when the individual in question is fired. When a new coach or admin comes in we have new posters that are all in on the stupendous genius of the new person as we now have with Tosh. I remember that there were people wildly praising Knowlton early on, for things as basic as helping carry items at a tailgate.

---

You make some very good points but it's not always about rejecting a criticism because someone thinks the coach can never be wrong, sometimes it's more about questioning the validity of the criticism. In the case of MM, I see him criticized here for things that I believe are valid, but on other occasions I see criticisms that seem unjustified. Defending a coach's strategy isn't always about the coach himself, sometimes it is simply a counter opinion to the issue in question.

HKBear97! said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Here is what drives me crazy about some folks on this board. Our guys have "holes" in their games. Isn't there fault. In a lot of ways that is why we could afford them. So you have John Camden who is a 3.5 and that hurts him defensively. Bell doesn't have the weight to play the four and gets beat by faster 3s. Ames and TT are height challenged and also slight so they can't go at bigs and draw contact as often as say Cuses guards. We have endlessly discussed that our 2nd, 3rd and 4th string centers need work. We are out our glue guy.

And then posters come on here and blame Madsen. I have termed the "the old picket fence" thinking that they, who have coached youth BB, know more than Madsen about Xs and Os. What is PAINFULLY obvious is that he is getting what he can out of these guys and getting them into position. But when Bell can't hit WIDE OPEN 3s off a wonderful double screen or that Ames misses kick outs because he gets trapped too deep or that our 2nd string center has hands of stone it isn't Madsens fault

Whose it it? Ours. You see it in Football. I am not a huge fan but you know what - the guys that PASSIONATELY care went out, got Wilcox canned and then used "I want a condo at Snowmass" money to get talent. I see a lot of keyboard warriors here. Frustrated with BB? The new era provides you a path - donate. Dig Deep. Keep in ming the TOWNIE that lives 500 miles away in San Diego whose f'ing son doesn't go to every game donates not snowmass condo but week in Tahoe money because I care.

---

Nobody here thinks "they know more". They think they know enough to judge a coach in relation to his peers. That is fair.

The coach is really a hybrid GM and coach and he gets paid a lot of money to do that job. Money most won't see in a lifetime. He is responsible for everything. He recruits the players and he trains the players. To the extent they are deficient, that is on the coach. This is professional basketball. We aren't posting sign ups in the RSF and relying on the luck of who happens to be a student at any given time.

Guys miss shots. That is part of the game. I've seen the "they missed a wide open three" argument a million times. Steph Curry misses wide open threes. That is not a reason people can't talk about X's and O's. I think anyone who thinks Madsen is in the upper echelon of X's and O's coaches and can't take some criticism in that area and continue to improve is kidding themselves. Geez. Any criticism here has been incredibly tame. Pay me that salary and I'll be thrilled to take on ten times the criticism on a website I can choose to read or not.

100% fair to say that Cal does not provide the resources required to succeed in basketball. Cal is a cheap owner. Is Madsen being held back by that? Is Madsen a result of that? I think it is all a fair conversation to have. IMO, Cal provides at best middling to below average resources to the program and gets middling to below average players, has a middling to below average coach/GM, and gets middling to below average results. I do think that Madsen has "earned" the chance to prove me wrong and see what he can do with more support, and I said so very stridently earlier this season. I completely agree with you that if Cal will not put more resources, this is what we can expect. But it is a fair discussion topic whether Madsen is another middling cog in the wheel of the middling program or whether he is a supersonic rocket waiting for the rocket fuel to blast off.

Let's be honest. Last year was a failure from recruiting to X's and O's to retention. First year - IMO, that team had some talent but also had a ton of cohesion and attitude problems. But given where we were and the timing, Madsen did a very good job of putting together a solid team to stop the bleeding even if cohesion and X's and O's were just not good. Then we lost virtually everybody. We recruited a team that was far less talented and that had fewer but still glaring attitude and cohesion problems. Then we lost virtually everybody. This year's team really did not improve the talent level, but it significantly improved the attitude and cohesion and that is the difference. I sensed this from the profiles and because of that was more optimistic going into the year. You can't know until they show up, but I think they proved that more than I even thought. I think this is about as good as you can expect given the third straight rebuild and the resources we have (or don't have) to buy a completely new team. How much this team moves the program forward is very much contingent on how many stay for next season. (something I am more optimistic about).

You say people have "old picket fence" thinking. I would counter that we have an old picket fence program. By which I mean, we have the resources we have. You can't just will more into existence or yell at people to give more. And, frankly, I don't see Cal ever being in the upper echelon of basketball revenue/donations. I'd argue that while you need the horses to run with the top 10, to maximize what CAL can do, frankly, you need a coach who can do more with less. Which did concern me about whether Madsen was the right fit. A guy who if he was going to succeed was going to do it through attracting personnel, not by X's and O's. You don't give the resources, the talent is wasted. And, frankly, I think Cal is going to be focused on football for the time being, which is the intelligent thing to do given the relative return of football vs. basketball.

This is an issue I have with Cal athletics. There never seems to be a systematic analysis of what we are good at and what we can be good at. What are we good at? What resources do we have? What resources can we sustain? What are the attributes of coaches that fit well within who we are? What kind of players can we get and what system makes best use of those players. All the hires seem to be vibe hires, whether they work out or (usually) not.

I join you in the reality of needing more resources, but I don't join you in essentially saying we can't look at the coaching as one of the elements to the be considered. We need more X's and O's than hero ball. Frankly, I think now that he has seen what he can get done on the personnel side, it would be a very good idea for Madsen to bring in someone who can upgrade the X's and O's and squeeze more out of the players we have/can get.

---

Thank you for posting this! I was also going to reply to socaltownie, but you hit it 100% on the head better than I could ever hope to. There is far too much "In (insert coaches name here) We Trust" thinking. It was "In Tedford We Trust", then "In Wilcox We Trust" and now it's "In Tosh and Madsen We Trust". Then at some point, typically well after it was already evident, the same posters come to the realization that perhaps the coach wasn't that great and shouldn't have been trusted in the first place. As you said, fans know enough to judge a coach's strengths and weaknesses and I certainly don't believe I know more than them. (With that said, I absolutely believe I could have done a better job than Wyking - that guy was atrocious!)

---

OK. Then let me put some finer points on things.....

1) The "analysis" often suck

There is lots of criticisms about "hero" ball in the 2 OTs (and some of the end of the second half). But lets keep in mind that our PG is out at that point and TT is running point. That means we have (at best) 2 shooters out there and 2 guys that people are sagging WAY off on....and a Center who can not score. Meanwhile Cambden and Bell's guys can guard them like glue AND., because they are not 4s, switch on screens (Cuse was switching EVERYING). What Madsen was doing was using a high weave AND ball screen hand offs to isolate a Cuse big on Ames.

The PROBLEM is that Ames (see my first post) is too slight to finish with contact against shotblockers. Did you see when he went into the paint REPEATEDLY and weak side help closed him off. Rather than go right at the shot blocker he just ins't big enough to do that and get the foul and more likely he is going to get swatted....especially given that the refs were REALLY calling reach ins but not calling physical play with body.

The other issue is that our shooters legs were tired. When plays were run for them they bricked. Makes sense. the minutes were pilling up.

Now I get it. People are posting in the moment. Probably not staring at the stats sheet.


2) The analysis think the other side can't coach

This is SO frustrating on this page. There is the assumption that we are so smart and they are dumb. Well they are not. We had a game plan for Cuse which worked really well for about 35 minutes. Double the post with a big every time their leading scoring 4 touched it. But eventually they adjusted (they put a wing in the corner who immediately flashed baseline everytime the big touched it and the big only touched it at the elbow and not way out top. Once they did that we stopped doubling and then a guy, who probably is getting 1 to 2 million a year in NIL ate out Number 2 center and no four defense for lunch.

3) It feels rooted in a game of basketball no longer played.

You know which 3, 4 and 5 star players want to come to a program that is rigidly structured around set plays and defense. NONE. That is not prepapring them for the next level NOR enhancing their personal brand. GO rail against Sports Center but we live in a world of dunks and amazing drives to the basket - not routine threes behind hight double ball screens. I am not saying hero ball is all but you can not compete over the long haul in that recruiting scheme and coaches that insisted on it are....retired coaches.

4) And the NCAA gives people here a very distorted view.

Yes. The St. Mary's of the world can pull an occasional upset in March. Why the tournament is the greatest sporting event mankind knows. But over time Talent prevails, especially once film is broken down and with adequate prep time. If you want to play in the P4 you have to have 4 and 5 stars and see number ythree.

A nd I get PARTICULARLY salty about that. Because I have been VILIFIED on this board for pointing out the gap between Cal's structure and needs and what "real" P4s do and need. I am not going down this rabbit hole AGAIN. But trying to will these things away is yes...."the old picket fence" sort of thinking and why Hoosiers is a fictional movie (semi based on a real story).

This is why you just need to observe the results over time. With Wilcox, I was reasonably happy with him up through 2019 because the program seemed to be improving. Yeah, there were some things under the hood (like recruiting rankings) that were concerning, but I gave the benefit of the doubt that if the record kept improving the underlying stuff would improve too. Well, it turned out that was the high point. The program never improved beyond that 8-5 year, so I changed my opinion of Wilcox.

I take a similar approach with Madsen. Year 2 was concerning, apparently not an improvement at all. But this year shows clear improvement. I think that's worth giving him more rope. Yeah, it's disappointing in the moment to be nearly out of an NCAA Tournament berth thanks to this recent loss, but when looked at holistically we are still tracking towards an impressive over-performance for the season. Hopefully the upswing continues, and hopefully Cal provides the resources necessary for it to continue.

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Here is what drives me crazy about some folks on this board. Our guys have "holes" in their games. Isn't there fault. In a lot of ways that is why we could afford them. So you have John Camden who is a 3.5 and that hurts him defensively. Bell doesn't have the weight to play the four and gets beat by faster 3s. Ames and TT are height challenged and also slight so they can't go at bigs and draw contact as often as say Cuses guards. We have endlessly discussed that our 2nd, 3rd and 4th string centers need work. We are out our glue guy.

And then posters come on here and blame Madsen. I have termed the "the old picket fence" thinking that they, who have coached youth BB, know more than Madsen about Xs and Os. What is PAINFULLY obvious is that he is getting what he can out of these guys and getting them into position. But when Bell can't hit WIDE OPEN 3s off a wonderful double screen or that Ames misses kick outs because he gets trapped too deep or that our 2nd string center has hands of stone it isn't Madsens fault

Whose it it? Ours. You see it in Football. I am not a huge fan but you know what - the guys that PASSIONATELY care went out, got Wilcox canned and then used "I want a condo at Snowmass" money to get talent. I see a lot of keyboard warriors here. Frustrated with BB? The new era provides you a path - donate. Dig Deep. Keep in ming the TOWNIE that lives 500 miles away in San Diego whose f'ing son doesn't go to every game donates not snowmass condo but week in Tahoe money because I care.

---

Nobody here thinks "they know more". They think they know enough to judge a coach in relation to his peers. That is fair.

The coach is really a hybrid GM and coach and he gets paid a lot of money to do that job. Money most won't see in a lifetime. He is responsible for everything. He recruits the players and he trains the players. To the extent they are deficient, that is on the coach. This is professional basketball. We aren't posting sign ups in the RSF and relying on the luck of who happens to be a student at any given time.

Guys miss shots. That is part of the game. I've seen the "they missed a wide open three" argument a million times. Steph Curry misses wide open threes. That is not a reason people can't talk about X's and O's. I think anyone who thinks Madsen is in the upper echelon of X's and O's coaches and can't take some criticism in that area and continue to improve is kidding themselves. Geez. Any criticism here has been incredibly tame. Pay me that salary and I'll be thrilled to take on ten times the criticism on a website I can choose to read or not.

100% fair to say that Cal does not provide the resources required to succeed in basketball. Cal is a cheap owner. Is Madsen being held back by that? Is Madsen a result of that? I think it is all a fair conversation to have. IMO, Cal provides at best middling to below average resources to the program and gets middling to below average players, has a middling to below average coach/GM, and gets middling to below average results. I do think that Madsen has "earned" the chance to prove me wrong and see what he can do with more support, and I said so very stridently earlier this season. I completely agree with you that if Cal will not put more resources, this is what we can expect. But it is a fair discussion topic whether Madsen is another middling cog in the wheel of the middling program or whether he is a supersonic rocket waiting for the rocket fuel to blast off.

Let's be honest. Last year was a failure from recruiting to X's and O's to retention. First year - IMO, that team had some talent but also had a ton of cohesion and attitude problems. But given where we were and the timing, Madsen did a very good job of putting together a solid team to stop the bleeding even if cohesion and X's and O's were just not good. Then we lost virtually everybody. We recruited a team that was far less talented and that had fewer but still glaring attitude and cohesion problems. Then we lost virtually everybody. This year's team really did not improve the talent level, but it significantly improved the attitude and cohesion and that is the difference. I sensed this from the profiles and because of that was more optimistic going into the year. You can't know until they show up, but I think they proved that more than I even thought. I think this is about as good as you can expect given the third straight rebuild and the resources we have (or don't have) to buy a completely new team. How much this team moves the program forward is very much contingent on how many stay for next season. (something I am more optimistic about).

You say people have "old picket fence" thinking. I would counter that we have an old picket fence program. By which I mean, we have the resources we have. You can't just will more into existence or yell at people to give more. And, frankly, I don't see Cal ever being in the upper echelon of basketball revenue/donations. I'd argue that while you need the horses to run with the top 10, to maximize what CAL can do, frankly, you need a coach who can do more with less. Which did concern me about whether Madsen was the right fit. A guy who if he was going to succeed was going to do it through attracting personnel, not by X's and O's. You don't give the resources, the talent is wasted. And, frankly, I think Cal is going to be focused on football for the time being, which is the intelligent thing to do given the relative return of football vs. basketball.

This is an issue I have with Cal athletics. There never seems to be a systematic analysis of what we are good at and what we can be good at. What are we good at? What resources do we have? What resources can we sustain? What are the attributes of coaches that fit well within who we are? What kind of players can we get and what system makes best use of those players. All the hires seem to be vibe hires, whether they work out or (usually) not.

I join you in the reality of needing more resources, but I don't join you in essentially saying we can't look at the coaching as one of the elements to the be considered. We need more X's and O's than hero ball. Frankly, I think now that he has seen what he can get done on the personnel side, it would be a very good idea for Madsen to bring in someone who can upgrade the X's and O's and squeeze more out of the players we have/can get.

---

Thank you for posting this! I was also going to reply to socaltownie, but you hit it 100% on the head better than I could ever hope to. There is far too much "In (insert coaches name here) We Trust" thinking. It was "In Tedford We Trust", then "In Wilcox We Trust" and now it's "In Tosh and Madsen We Trust". Then at some point, typically well after it was already evident, the same posters come to the realization that perhaps the coach wasn't that great and shouldn't have been trusted in the first place. As you said, fans know enough to judge a coach's strengths and weaknesses and I certainly don't believe I know more than them. (With that said, I absolutely believe I could have done a better job than Wyking - that guy was atrocious!)

---

OK. Then let me put some finer points on things.....

1) The "analysis" often suck

There is lots of criticisms about "hero" ball in the 2 OTs (and some of the end of the second half). But lets keep in mind that our PG is out at that point and TT is running point. That means we have (at best) 2 shooters out there and 2 guys that people are sagging WAY off on....and a Center who can not score. Meanwhile Cambden and Bell's guys can guard them like glue AND., because they are not 4s, switch on screens (Cuse was switching EVERYING). What Madsen was doing was using a high weave AND ball screen hand offs to isolate a Cuse big on Ames.

The PROBLEM is that Ames (see my first post) is too slight to finish with contact against shotblockers. Did you see when he went into the paint REPEATEDLY and weak side help closed him off. Rather than go right at the shot blocker he just ins't big enough to do that and get the foul and more likely he is going to get swatted....especially given that the refs were REALLY calling reach ins but not calling physical play with body.

The other issue is that our shooters legs were tired. When plays were run for them they bricked. Makes sense. the minutes were pilling up.

Now I get it. People are posting in the moment. Probably not staring at the stats sheet.


2) The analysis think the other side can't coach

This is SO frustrating on this page. There is the assumption that we are so smart and they are dumb. Well they are not. We had a game plan for Cuse which worked really well for about 35 minutes. Double the post with a big every time their leading scoring 4 touched it. But eventually they adjusted (they put a wing in the corner who immediately flashed baseline everytime the big touched it and the big only touched it at the elbow and not way out top. Once they did that we stopped doubling and then a guy, who probably is getting 1 to 2 million a year in NIL ate out Number 2 center and no four defense for lunch.

3) It feels rooted in a game of basketball no longer played.

You know which 3, 4 and 5 star players want to come to a program that is rigidly structured around set plays and defense. NONE. That is not prepapring them for the next level NOR enhancing their personal brand. GO rail against Sports Center but we live in a world of dunks and amazing drives to the basket - not routine threes behind hight double ball screens. I am not saying hero ball is all but you can not compete over the long haul in that recruiting scheme and coaches that insisted on it are....retired coaches.

4) And the NCAA gives people here a very distorted view.

Yes. The St. Mary's of the world can pull an occasional upset in March. Why the tournament is the greatest sporting event mankind knows. But over time Talent prevails, especially once film is broken down and with adequate prep time. If you want to play in the P4 you have to have 4 and 5 stars and see number ythree.

A nd I get PARTICULARLY salty about that. Because I have been VILIFIED on this board for pointing out the gap between Cal's structure and needs and what "real" P4s do and need. I am not going down this rabbit hole AGAIN. But trying to will these things away is yes...."the old picket fence" sort of thinking and why Hoosiers is a fictional movie (semi based on a real story).

---

1. Absolutely nobody thinks that we should be running Gene Hackman's schemes and the fact that you keep characterizing anyone who dares to question the schemes we run that way shows your mindset.

Hero ball has its place. I am not criticizing specific schemes in one 2 OT game. There are times when the best arrow in the quiver is to just let guys do their work. The issue for me is not one partial game of hero ball. It is 3 years of hero ball. It is that everything Madsen says about his offense reads hero ball. Which would be fine if we had heroes. We don't. I don't think his scheme is bad. I think it is mismatched, which was very clear in years one and two. It looks a little better this year because our guard play is better. And to be clear, when I say hero ball, I don't mean relying on one guy. I mean you come down the floor and your scheme is essentially "somebody be a hero". That is great when you have talent advantage. We don't.

2. You can say this about everything. You criticize a player for a poor offensive night - well, you know their guy was trying to stop him from scoring, so... Players and coaches are not playing in a vacuum. It is a competition. So are people not supposed to opine that a coach gets outcoached in a situation? They adjusted. Our job is to adjust back. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

3. Do you think that the Warriors got Steph Curry and implemented on offense of "Hey, Steph, go be Steph" They ran a system that matched their talent. No one is saying to call plays everytime down the floor like in the old days. There is middle ground between Hoosiers and Two Baskets and a Ball, Just Play. There are schemes. In fact Cal runs schemes. The question that is fair to debate is whether Cal's schemes match its players. Recruits like to play for teams with lots of resources that win. No, elite recruits don't want to play for overly structured programs where you can't develop or breathe. No one is saying to do that. You act like the coach is a recruiter and that is it.

4. I have to say, I don't know who you think we are. Cal and its fans would be thrilled with St Mary's program. Let me disabuse you of something right now. Madsen is not taking Cal to the Final Four. Ever. (unless we find our Phil Knight). I fully realize you need elite 5 star recruits to do that. Call me when we are remotely close to getting that. Running a scheme for players you don't have doesn't work because you aren't going to have the success you need to have to attract those 5 star players in the first place. St. Mary's is basically at Cal's ceiling. Cal is not going to be Duke. Cal can be a team that can get better talent than St. Mary's, keep that talent, and run schemes that maximize that talent and maybe win 13 or 14 games in this conference. You can't run schemes that teams with 5 star talent run and think you are going to beat them by hoping one day 5 star talent shows up.

And again, I'm not blasting Madsen. X's and O's are not his strength. That is a fact. You might say that doesn't matter because getting 4 and 5 stars is all that matters. Okay. He isn't doing that either. You may say that is because he doesn't have the resources to compete with Duke for that talent. I agree. And he will never have that here. He may get more, but there is a ceiling to what resources are achievable here, and that ceiling is much lower than Duke's floor. If he's going to run a program that relies on matching Duke's resources, the ceiling is going to be lower than it has to be.

Cuonzo and Dykes both failed at Cal partly because of Cal's limitations, but also because when they got hit with the reality of the parameters surrounding Cal's program, they did nothing but complain about it. They did not take lemons and made lemonade. They did not adjust to the program they had. If Madsen can build us to the point where he can get 5 star recruits, he should easily be able to adjust his schemes to match that talent. You need to build success to earn hero ball schemes. Otherwise it makes as much sense as trying to build a $2M house with $1M and ending up with a house with no roof or plumbing or electricity. You might want to try building a $1M house and adding on when you get the other $1M.

And by the way, Madsen, unlike Cuonzo and Dykes has made some adjustments. But, we are just talkin about the game. If you think the analysis sucks, so be it. I don't think much of "you know what Duke does? Do that" as analysis. Of course our players aren't as good. They are never going to be. That is not a catch all for you can never discuss coaching. Not to mention the fact that we are talking about a game with an opponent who was 13-11 and 4-7, not a juggernaut. He is the coach at Cal. We all know what that means. But if you'd like to give your strategy of just sign 5 stars a try, I'd love to hear how you think we do that. And the answer isn't guys on bearinsider giving condo money. Yeah, sure. Donate. It will help Cal be the best it can be. If you think people here donating is going to make Cal compete for 5 stars you are kidding yourself. I agree, he has earned more support. But if he gets it, he is going to have to meet us halfway and put in place schemes that can be successful with the Monty or Braun level players because that is what we are capable of pulling. You can talk about people being stuck in the old days with their picket fence, but you are equally stuck if you think Cal is capable of regularly pulling Leon Powe types in a world of professional basketball awash with money.

Lots of words but flat out the core of our disagreement is that "St. Mary's is at Cal's Ceiling".

NO THEY ARE NOT.

If Bennet and saint mary's was in the Acc they would be.....Boston College. You get those teams on tape and all the holes that are present with 2 star guys are Exploited endlessly.

Programs are not dumb. If this could be done numerous P4 teams would play the BI way and win. They do not in P4s. There is a reason why.

But the second thing you say is that Cal isn't running scheme. Rod Benson every week tells you that is wrong. There is a scheme. It is designed, like the modern game, to exploit match ups and get switches that put your "hero" on a guy since with modern rules it is near impossible for anyone to guard another person straight up.

The main issue remains that with a lack of front line finisher we are screwed when help comes.

No one wins in the modern p4 game, over time, without talent. Hard stop. But Cal "fans" continue to believe they can because it allows them to live in this myth that we can win as a P4 but not act like a P4.

See I am there. I get this. The main argument, to the point of perhaps blows with Seb, is that I don't think cal can ever change and he does. But at least there is recognition on the football side that to compete for a national championship you have to have talent that is playoff worthy.

Yeah I know I'm mostly kidding. I think people like that honestly just don't understand sports and aren't real fans. If you don't want the best for your program and are content with awful play then I don't know what to say. Unless they are friends with the person it is absurd.