….and Pippen off too. I wonder if he has been sick or has an injury.

stu said:

---

With Dort back we have a lot of weapons, at both ends, with no glaring weaknesses and Madsen has them playing together. That's what a NCAA Tournament team looks like!

---

The biggest weakness is that we only have one of each weapon and Dort. After them we drop off enough that things get less certain.

It's crazy to me that with 64+ teams making the tournament you still have to be this good and it is still this hard to make it in.

stu said:

---

With Dort back we have a lot of weapons, at both ends, with no glaring weaknesses and Madsen has them playing together. That's what a NCAA Tournament team looks like!

---

I wouldn't say no glaring weaknesses. We still have stretches of offensive stagnation like last night against SMU's zone. Even with Dort back, are susceptible to teams with a strong front court. Rebounding has also been an issue. There's a reason Cal is on the bubble and not considered a lock. With that said, in the tournament all it takes is for a team to get hot from three which Cal is very capable of doing.

stu said:

---

With Dort back we have a lot of weapons, at both ends, with no glaring weaknesses and Madsen has them playing together. That's what a NCAA Tournament team looks like!

---

Sorry, can't go along with that. We lack any physical strength at the "4" spot. However, now that we are getting some minutes from Yeaney off the bench we may be able to solve at least part of that problem. Ironically, on the offensive end when he has had the ball it's usually been more on the perimeter. But defensively I'd like to see MM use him a bit when Milic is in the game so that we don't get overwhelmed trying to protect the inside and be more consistent in our defensive rebounding. Hopefully it plays out well.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

stu said:

---

With Dort back we have a lot of weapons, at both ends, with no glaring weaknesses and Madsen has them playing together. That's what a NCAA Tournament team looks like!

---

Sorry, can't go along with that. We lack any physical strength at the "4" spot.

---

This is partly just a feature of the modern game with emphasis on 3-pt shooting--the question is whether you'd rather have Camden down low, or out hitting threes? Most teams, including in the NBA would choose the latter. But it also depends on the other teams' defense. For example, getting Camden to the middle of the paint in the zone defense has been extremely effective lately--he's looked like the second coming of Grant Antecivich there. SMU left Ilic wide open there last night, and he was very tentative. I think he has the ability to hit that free throw line jumper consistently, but needs to practice it, obviously, so that it becomes more automatic.

On paper, this is a very dangerous tournament team (whatever tournament we're talking about) because of the generally excellent backcourt play, streaky shooting and consistently excellent free throw shooting--the team elements that typically favor deep tournament runs. Of course that's just paper, so it'll be fun to see how it all plays out.

TummyoftheGB said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

stu said:

---

With Dort back we have a lot of weapons, at both ends, with no glaring weaknesses and Madsen has them playing together. That's what a NCAA Tournament team looks like!

---

Sorry, can't go along with that. We lack any physical strength at the "4" spot.

---

This is partly just a feature of the modern game with emphasis on 3-pt shooting--the question is whether you'd rather have Camden down low, or out hitting threes? Most teams, including in the NBA would choose the latter. But it also depends on the other teams' defense. For example, getting Camden to the middle of the paint in the zone defense has been extremely effective lately--he's looked like the second coming of Grant Antecivich there. SMU left Ilic wide open there last night, and he was very tentative. I think he has the ability to hit that free throw line jumper consistently, but needs to practice it, obviously, so that it becomes more automatic.

On paper, this is a very dangerous tournament team (whatever tournament we're talking about) because of the generally excellent backcourt play, streaky shooting and consistently excellent free throw shooting--the team elements that typically favor deep tournament runs. Of course that's just paper, so it'll be fun to see how it all plays out.

---

I completely understand what you're saying. I know that in our case with our shooters we are usually playing "4 out." But look at the teams that we have really struggled with. Those are the teams that have beaten us up inside. I can't believe that if Madsen had a "Mark Madsen type" player he would not make some adjustments to incorporate it into the teams' strategy.

As recently as last night's game, when we went through that stretch in the second half when our 3 point shooting really cooled off, we were fortunate that SMU didn't make even a bigger run then they did. I've got to think that MM is looking to bring in a solid power forward next season.

TummyoftheGB said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

stu said:

---

With Dort back we have a lot of weapons, at both ends, with no glaring weaknesses and Madsen has them playing together. That's what a NCAA Tournament team looks like!

---

Sorry, can't go along with that. We lack any physical strength at the "4" spot.

---

This is partly just a feature of the modern game with emphasis on 3-pt shooting--the question is whether you'd rather have Camden down low, or out hitting threes? Most teams, including in the NBA would choose the latter. But it also depends on the other teams' defense. For example, getting Camden to the middle of the paint in the zone defense has been extremely effective lately--he's looked like the second coming of Grant Antecivich there. SMU left Ilic wide open there last night, and he was very tentative. I think he has the ability to hit that free throw line jumper consistently, but needs to practice it, obviously, so that it becomes more automatic.

On paper, this is a very dangerous tournament team (whatever tournament we're talking about) because of the generally excellent backcourt play, streaky shooting and consistently excellent free throw shooting--the team elements that typically favor deep tournament runs. Of course that's just paper, so it'll be fun to see how it all plays out.

---

As of this morning, Cal is still not a lock for the tournament. From ESPN:

Work to do (2)
California Golden Bears
Updated: Feb. 26, 8:26 a.m.
Cal's tourney chances remain somewhat distant, but victories over Boston College, Stanford and, most importantly, SMU on Wednesday have the Golden Bears moving in the right direction. They still sit outside the nation's top-50 on the rsum ranking, but they also have five Quadrant 1 wins and face the ACC's easiest remaining schedule. That doesn't leave many more signature-win chances, aside from a Quadrant 1 visit to Wake Forest in the finale. With a consensus at-large probability of 35%, the Bears have to bolster their case further.
Next game: vs. Pittsburgh (Saturday)

"somewhat distant"??

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

TummyoftheGB said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

stu said:

---

With Dort back we have a lot of weapons, at both ends, with no glaring weaknesses and Madsen has them playing together. That's what a NCAA Tournament team looks like!

---

Sorry, can't go along with that. We lack any physical strength at the "4" spot.

---

This is partly just a feature of the modern game with emphasis on 3-pt shooting--the question is whether you'd rather have Camden down low, or out hitting threes? Most teams, including in the NBA would choose the latter. But it also depends on the other teams' defense. For example, getting Camden to the middle of the paint in the zone defense has been extremely effective lately--he's looked like the second coming of Grant Antecivich there. SMU left Ilic wide open there last night, and he was very tentative. I think he has the ability to hit that free throw line jumper consistently, but needs to practice it, obviously, so that it becomes more automatic.

On paper, this is a very dangerous tournament team (whatever tournament we're talking about) because of the generally excellent backcourt play, streaky shooting and consistently excellent free throw shooting--the team elements that typically favor deep tournament runs. Of course that's just paper, so it'll be fun to see how it all plays out.

---

I've got to think that MM is looking to bring in a solid power forward next season.

---

Agreed, especially since most of the shooters will have graduated and there's no guarantee of good shooter availability in the portal. Since this is a tournament thread, however, I'll note that true power forwards tend to be in foul trouble with the whistle-happy tournament refs. Which is one reason why free throw shooting is so important. I think Camden may have fouled out once this year (not sure about that--too lazy to look it up)?

BC Calfan said:

---

"somewhat distant"??

---

Sorry, that really plsses me off. Talk all week (even with Lunardi in post game) was a win against SMU bumps us into the bracket...and we haven't budged???

BC Calfan said:

---

"somewhat distant"??

---

after some looking around eventually figured out who you were replying to
# lazy pain in the butt / mumble grumble / where's my coffee

sycasey said:

---

blungld said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

"somewhat distant"??

---

Sorry, that really plsses me off. Talk all week (even with Lunardi in post game) was a win against SMU bumps us into the bracket...and we haven't budged???

---

Lunardi is a different guy from the one who writes the "Bubble Watch" column.

Either way, I think "work to do" is a correct categorization for Cal. We can't afford any losses except maybe to Wake.

---

SI.com also has us out - not even the first four out, but the next four out.

Cal Golden Bears: 208 (87 ACC)

• NCAA NET Ranking: 59
• Quad 1 Record: 5-4
• Quad 2 Record: 1-4
• Quad 3 Record: 5-0
• Quad 4 Record: 8-0
• Last Game: Won 73-69 vs. SMU (2/25)
• Next Game: vs. Pittsburgh (2/28)

It's been a strange season for Cal, who picked up its fifth Quad 1 win in a 73-69 tilt at home against SMU on Wednesday night. The victory is a significant one for the resume, which includes a 1-4 record in Quad 2 games. Anything better than that in Quad 2 with a 5-4 Quad 1 record would likely find Cal on the right side of the bubble at this point. Alas, a 3-0 close at home against Pittsburgh (Q3), at Georgia Tech (Q2) and at Wake Forest (Q1) would really help the tournament hopes for the Bears, who would still likely have some work to do in the ACC tournament for a bid.

TummyoftheGB said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

blungld said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

"somewhat distant"??

---

Sorry, that really plsses me off. Talk all week (even with Lunardi in post game) was a win against SMU bumps us into the bracket...and we haven't budged???

---

Lunardi is a different guy from the one who writes the "Bubble Watch" column.

Either way, I think "work to do" is a correct categorization for Cal. We can't afford any losses except maybe to Wake.

---

SI.com also has us out - not even the first four out, but the next four out.

Cal Golden Bears: 208 (87 ACC)

• NCAA NET Ranking: 59
• Quad 1 Record: 5-4
• Quad 2 Record: 1-4
• Quad 3 Record: 5-0
• Quad 4 Record: 8-0
• Last Game: Won 73-69 vs. SMU (2/25)
• Next Game: vs. Pittsburgh (2/28)

It's been a strange season for Cal, who picked up its fifth Quad 1 win in a 73-69 tilt at home against SMU on Wednesday night. The victory is a significant one for the resume, which includes a 1-4 record in Quad 2 games. Anything better than that in Quad 2 with a 5-4 Quad 1 record would likely find Cal on the right side of the bubble at this point. Alas, a 3-0 close at home against Pittsburgh (Q3), at Georgia Tech (Q2) and at Wake Forest (Q1) would really help the tournament hopes for the Bears, who would still likely have some work to do in the ACC tournament for a bid.

---

This is totally absurd. 23-8 and #8 in the ACC still has "work to do" in the ACC tournament, against an NCAA tournament lock team?? Most of these "updated projections", whether SI or ESPN, haven't really changed their text in over two weeks, except to update the wins/losses.

---

That's what I think is happening here. Winning out in the regular season probably puts us in "should be in" territory. (You also have to consider the other bubble teams potentially NOT winning games in that time.)

blungld said:

---

It's crazy to me that with 64+ teams making the tournament you still have to be this good and it is still this hard to make it in.

---

Agreed, but there are a decent number of those 64 spots that are reserved for teams that meet certain criteria such as winning a lower division conference championship tourney. The reality is Cal and most other P4 and Big East schools are competing for fewer spaces than 64. The ACC has the no. 1 team and a few top 25 teams, but has a lot of good, but not great teams like Cal. Tough overall conference. The Big 12 and Big 10 have been 1 and 2 in RPI with the SEC and ACC taking turns on the next two spots, and the Big East then (though the Big East has some elite teams such as UConn. My guess is that Cal will be listed in the Topp 25 as an "other receiving votes" after the SMU win (assuming they take care of business against a weak Pitt team). Win out and win the first ACC tourney game they should be set for the Big Dance and could be somewhere ranked around 25 to 30.

Keep in mind that our game last night ended around midnight EST, so those updates published early morning today might have been hastily put together. I'd wait till this weekend for a better assessment.

Also we have a relatively easier remaining schedule than the other bubble teams, our remaining opponents are 10-35 in the ACC, so we should finish stronger.

bearfan93 said:

---

Bell is a senior and Camden a Grad student, but Ames and Pippen both would be able to return if they don't enter the portal.

---

turns out, and this is true, IF is a very important word.

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

It's crazy to me that with 64+ teams making the tournament you still have to be this good and it is still this hard to make it in.

---

Agreed, but there are a decent number of those 64 spots that are reserved for teams that meet certain criteria such as winning a lower division conference championship tourney. The reality is Cal and most other P4 and Big East schools are competing for fewer spaces than 64. The ACC has the no. 1 team and a few top 25 teams, but has a lot of good, but not great teams like Cal. Tough overall conference. The Big 12 and Big 10 have been 1 and 2 in RPI with the SEC and ACC taking turns on the next two spots, and the Big East then (though the Big East has some elite teams such as UConn. My guess is that Cal will be listed in the Topp 25 as an "other receiving votes" after the SMU win (assuming they take care of business against a weak Pitt team). Win out and win the first ACC tourney game they should be set for the Big Dance and could be somewhere ranked around 25 to 30.

---

I think the bigger issue is that Cal needs a few teams 'ahead' of them to start tanking. It is not whether Cal is good enough, but more if Cal is better than a few other teams that may have a better record against quads 1 and 2 (I think Cal is still .500 or below in that metric).

BeachedBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

It's crazy to me that with 64+ teams making the tournament you still have to be this good and it is still this hard to make it in.

---

Agreed, but there are a decent number of those 64 spots that are reserved for teams that meet certain criteria such as winning a lower division conference championship tourney. The reality is Cal and most other P4 and Big East schools are competing for fewer spaces than 64. The ACC has the no. 1 team and a few top 25 teams, but has a lot of good, but not great teams like Cal. Tough overall conference. The Big 12 and Big 10 have been 1 and 2 in RPI with the SEC and ACC taking turns on the next two spots, and the Big East then (though the Big East has some elite teams such as UConn. My guess is that Cal will be listed in the Topp 25 as an "other receiving votes" after the SMU win (assuming they take care of business against a weak Pitt team). Win out and win the first ACC tourney game they should be set for the Big Dance and could be somewhere ranked around 25 to 30.

---

I think the bigger issue is that Cal needs a few teams 'ahead' of them to start tanking. It is not whether Cal is good enough, but more if Cal is better than a few other teams that may have a better record against quads 1 and 2 (I think Cal is still .500 or below in that metric).

---

We have a somewhat unusual profile with the quads in that we are 4-4 Q1 and 2-4 Q2. There are only 16 teams ahead of us with a better Q1 win percentage, but well over 70 with better Q2 % than our mediocre 33%.

Cal88 said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

blungld said:

---

It's crazy to me that with 64+ teams making the tournament you still have to be this good and it is still this hard to make it in.

---

Agreed, but there are a decent number of those 64 spots that are reserved for teams that meet certain criteria such as winning a lower division conference championship tourney. The reality is Cal and most other P4 and Big East schools are competing for fewer spaces than 64. The ACC has the no. 1 team and a few top 25 teams, but has a lot of good, but not great teams like Cal. Tough overall conference. The Big 12 and Big 10 have been 1 and 2 in RPI with the SEC and ACC taking turns on the next two spots, and the Big East then (though the Big East has some elite teams such as UConn. My guess is that Cal will be listed in the Topp 25 as an "other receiving votes" after the SMU win (assuming they take care of business against a weak Pitt team). Win out and win the first ACC tourney game they should be set for the Big Dance and could be somewhere ranked around 25 to 30.

---

I think the bigger issue is that Cal needs a few teams 'ahead' of them to start tanking. It is not whether Cal is good enough, but more if Cal is better than a few other teams that may have a better record against quads 1 and 2 (I think Cal is still .500 or below in that metric).

---

We have a somewhat unusual profile with the quads in that we are 4-4 Q1 and 2-4 Q2. There are only 16 teams ahead of us with a better Q1 win percentage, but well over 70 with better Q2 % than our mediocre 33%.

---

It is because our Q2 opponents have all been teams just outside the top 75 on the road whereas mid major teams have played multiple teams just above top 135 on the road. Totally different level of competition but system ranks them the same.

TummyoftheGB said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

blungld said:

---

BC Calfan said:

---

"somewhat distant"??

---

Sorry, that really plsses me off. Talk all week (even with Lunardi in post game) was a win against SMU bumps us into the bracket...and we haven't budged???

---

Lunardi is a different guy from the one who writes the "Bubble Watch" column.

Either way, I think "work to do" is a correct categorization for Cal. We can't afford any losses except maybe to Wake.

---

SI.com also has us out - not even the first four out, but the next four out.

Cal Golden Bears: 208 (87 ACC)

• NCAA NET Ranking: 59
• Quad 1 Record: 5-4
• Quad 2 Record: 1-4
• Quad 3 Record: 5-0
• Quad 4 Record: 8-0
• Last Game: Won 73-69 vs. SMU (2/25)
• Next Game: vs. Pittsburgh (2/28)

It's been a strange season for Cal, who picked up its fifth Quad 1 win in a 73-69 tilt at home against SMU on Wednesday night. The victory is a significant one for the resume, which includes a 1-4 record in Quad 2 games. Anything better than that in Quad 2 with a 5-4 Quad 1 record would likely find Cal on the right side of the bubble at this point. Alas, a 3-0 close at home against Pittsburgh (Q3), at Georgia Tech (Q2) and at Wake Forest (Q1) would really help the tournament hopes for the Bears, who would still likely have some work to do in the ACC tournament for a bid.

---

This is totally absurd. 23-8 and #8 in the ACC still has "work to do" in the ACC tournament, against an NCAA tournament lock team?? Most of these "updated projections", whether SI or ESPN, haven't really changed their text in over two weeks, except to update the wins/losses.

---

Just keep winning. Bears
With all the mumbo jumbo about the Quads it appears to me that there is a lot of subjectivity that goes into the decision making. More so than in the days of the
PAC12.
That allows the powers that be room to fudge a little (a lot?) in the standings and who is in and who is out.

blungld said:

---

It's crazy to me that with 64+ teams making the tournament you still have to be this good and it is still this hard to make it in.

---

There are something like 350 D1 teams