By one point on a last second putback. Just saw the score online
Furd loses to Pitt
2,865 Views |
37 Replies |
Last: 23 days ago by 6956bear
Stanford got an and one by Okorie with like 26 seconds to go before Pitt pulled it out.
Demarco Minor is him.
That Minor even got the chance is remarkable as the ball bounced around after the missed 3 - all the way past the half court line - just incredible.
My heart bleeds for the poor Cardinal...
Aw, I feel so sorry for them,\
What a shame!
What a shame!
Wow, I was seriously starting to think that they might make the Dance...not so fast my Furdie friends. Damn shame I tell ya
Minor followed his shot, something I saw us do just a handful of times the entire freaking season. The lack of this, and boxing out, were coaching malpractice. Out of all of the things that matter, Madsen mostly does a great job, but these two simple things you learn to do as a kid (which need to be reinforced until you're a pro) probably cost us four games this year because either they weren't reinforced or the players simply refused to do them. Either way, that's coaching. If we're still not doing this next year, I'll come back to watching games when this coaching staff has moved on. Three years in, it's simply unacceptable.
bearsandgiants said:
Minor followed his shot, something I saw us do just a handful of times the entire freaking season. The lack of this, and boxing out, were coaching malpractice. Out of all of the things that matter, Madsen mostly does a great job, but these two simple things you learn to do as a kid (which need to be reinforced until you're a pro) probably cost us four games this year because either they weren't reinforced or the players simply refused to do them. Either way, that's coaching. If we're still not doing this next year, I'll come back to watching games when this coaching staff has moved on. Three years in, it's simply unacceptable.
I think rebounding is about will at this level because the guys are SO quick and long. We have had a challenge in our recruiting with that - kids like Bell and Ames (and to an extent Pippen) just don't relish banging with guys and imposing their will. Think about the wing rebounders of yore - guys like Tony G. or Jorge that LOVED contact. I would be shocked if AS has suddenly transformed into a rebound machine in Illinois.
Take care of your Chicken
bearsandgiants said:
Minor followed his shot, something I saw us do just a handful of times the entire freaking season. The lack of this, and boxing out, were coaching malpractice. Out of all of the things that matter, Madsen mostly does a great job, but these two simple things you learn to do as a kid (which need to be reinforced until you're a pro) probably cost us four games this year because either they weren't reinforced or the players simply refused to do them. Either way, that's coaching. If we're still not doing this next year, I'll come back to watching games when this coaching staff has moved on. Three years in, it's simply unacceptable.
I watched the last 7 minutes, and that last play was freaking crazy ... Pitt almost turned the ball over 3 times, and when Minor got the ball he made a mad dash for the basket. His defender did a pretty good job defending him, but couldn't foul him as it was a one point game, and the defender's momentum carried him past the baseline.
The bigs were all out of place from the mad scramble
The play is all over the internet but they don't show the whole play. If you can find it watch the game. Besides Ames plays to beat ND, it was the craziest ending I've seen this season
bearsandgiants said:
Minor followed his shot, something I saw us do just a handful of times the entire freaking season. The lack of this, and boxing out, were coaching malpractice. Out of all of the things that matter, Madsen mostly does a great job, but these two simple things you learn to do as a kid (which need to be reinforced until you're a pro) probably cost us four games this year because either they weren't reinforced or the players simply refused to do them. Either way, that's coaching. If we're still not doing this next year, I'll come back to watching games when this coaching staff has moved on. Three years in, it's simply unacceptable.
"Follow your shot" is a thing, to be sure, but so is "Get back on defense". My point is, how do you know which one of these they've been instructed to do? Maybe you know, but I do not, so legitimate question. (Agree on "boxing out", but that can be much harder if you happen to be playing a zone.)
Stanford gave up 20 offensive rebounds.
— C.J. Lowe (@cjlowehoops) March 10, 2026
Fitting way to lose, just standing there watching the shooter get his own board and put it back up.#H2P pic.twitter.com/dlF7yMBJXm
Give to Cal Legends!
https://calegends.com/donation/ Do it now. Text every Cal fan you know, give them the link, tell them how much you gave, and ask them to text every Cal fan they know and do the same.
https://calegends.com/donation/ Do it now. Text every Cal fan you know, give them the link, tell them how much you gave, and ask them to text every Cal fan they know and do the same.
Econ141 said:Stanford gave up 20 offensive rebounds.
— C.J. Lowe (@cjlowehoops) March 10, 2026
Fitting way to lose, just standing there watching the shooter get his own board and put it back up.#H2P pic.twitter.com/dlF7yMBJXm
Thanks for posting ... most of the replays including the ACC's highlights start that last play with Minor getting to the ball ... but this full play highlight captures the crazy last possession which was pure chaos
BTownsend said:
Wow, I was seriously starting to think that they might make the Dance...not so fast my Furdie friends. Damn shame I tell ya
Just my opinion, but going into the tournament their resume was the tiniest fraction better than ours and not enough to counter the fact that we beat them twice. They should never have been ahead of us and I don't see how they would be now no matter what our result is.
BearlyCareAnymore said:BTownsend said:
Wow, I was seriously starting to think that they might make the Dance...not so fast my Furdie friends. Damn shame I tell ya
Just my opinion, but going into the tournament their resume was the tiniest fraction better than ours and not enough to counter the fact that we beat them twice. They should never have been ahead of us and I don't see how they would be now no matter what our result is.
Really funny, this morning I read Smith's quote that despite the loss, "our league is good, I'd be shocked if we're not in it." Hate to do the furd sterotype, but does that sound smug or what? BTW, I guess he thinks Cal should be in it as well since we finished ahead of them in the "good league" and we beat them twice.
RedlessWardrobe said:BearlyCareAnymore said:BTownsend said:
Wow, I was seriously starting to think that they might make the Dance...not so fast my Furdie friends. Damn shame I tell ya
Just my opinion, but going into the tournament their resume was the tiniest fraction better than ours and not enough to counter the fact that we beat them twice. They should never have been ahead of us and I don't see how they would be now no matter what our result is.
Really funny, this morning I read Smith's quote that despite the loss, "our league is good, I'd be shocked if we're not in it." Hate to do the furd sterotype, but does that sound smug or what? BTW, I guess he thinks Cal should be in it as well since we finished ahead of them in the "good league" and we beat them twice.
Wake me when Kyle Smith is on the committee. But I do think the ACC is getting a bit undersold nationally. John Wildhack (Syracuse AD) is on the committee and needs to push for as many ACC bids as possible.
I think with what happened yesterday the high end for the ACC is 9. 8 seems to be what most bracketologists think. I think these 6 are in. Duke, UVa, Miami, UNC, Clemson and Louisville. NC State seems likely. SMU may have done enough yesterday. Cal needs to win to stay in consideration.
But the middle tier of all the power leagues has some softness. And that these bracketologists have Auburn, Cincy, Indiana, Oklahoma all still in contention with 13, 14 or in Auburns case 15 losses makes one wonder why those leagues possibly get double digit bids and the ACC may get only 8.
I think if Cal wins today they should be a consideration. Despite the poor OOC schedule.
Sell the ACC John. It is better than these bracketologists are giving them credit for.
6956bear said:RedlessWardrobe said:BearlyCareAnymore said:BTownsend said:
Wow, I was seriously starting to think that they might make the Dance...not so fast my Furdie friends. Damn shame I tell ya
Just my opinion, but going into the tournament their resume was the tiniest fraction better than ours and not enough to counter the fact that we beat them twice. They should never have been ahead of us and I don't see how they would be now no matter what our result is.
Really funny, this morning I read Smith's quote that despite the loss, "our league is good, I'd be shocked if we're not in it." Hate to do the furd sterotype, but does that sound smug or what? BTW, I guess he thinks Cal should be in it as well since we finished ahead of them in the "good league" and we beat them twice.
Wake me when Kyle Smith is on the committee. But I do think the ACC is getting a bit undersold nationally. John Wildhack (Syracuse AD) is on the committee and needs to push for as many ACC bids as possible.
I think with what happened yesterday the high end for the ACC is 9. 8 seems to be what most bracketologists think. I think these 6 are in. Duke, UVa, Miami, UNC, Clemson and Louisville. NC State seems likely. SMU may have done enough yesterday. Cal needs to win to stay in consideration.
But the middle tier of all the power leagues has some softness. And that these bracketologists have Auburn, Cincy, Indiana, Oklahoma all still in contention with 13, 14 or in Auburns case 15 losses makes one wonder why those leagues possibly get double digit bids and the ACC may get only 8.
I think if Cal wins today they should be a consideration. Despite the poor OOC schedule.
Sell the ACC John. It is better than these bracketologists are giving them credit for.
Well first of all I never implied that Smith's comments had anything to do with being on the committee or that his opinion matters. I just found his comment rather amusing.
And watching this selection thing for decades, as time has gone by it seems that the selection committee's choices have gradually become less about the conference and more about the teams.
At this point my only hope is that by 6pm or so tonight we still will be having a conversation about Cal's chances, simple as that.
RedlessWardrobe said:6956bear said:RedlessWardrobe said:BearlyCareAnymore said:BTownsend said:
Wow, I was seriously starting to think that they might make the Dance...not so fast my Furdie friends. Damn shame I tell ya
Just my opinion, but going into the tournament their resume was the tiniest fraction better than ours and not enough to counter the fact that we beat them twice. They should never have been ahead of us and I don't see how they would be now no matter what our result is.
Really funny, this morning I read Smith's quote that despite the loss, "our league is good, I'd be shocked if we're not in it." Hate to do the furd sterotype, but does that sound smug or what? BTW, I guess he thinks Cal should be in it as well since we finished ahead of them in the "good league" and we beat them twice.
Wake me when Kyle Smith is on the committee. But I do think the ACC is getting a bit undersold nationally. John Wildhack (Syracuse AD) is on the committee and needs to push for as many ACC bids as possible.
I think with what happened yesterday the high end for the ACC is 9. 8 seems to be what most bracketologists think. I think these 6 are in. Duke, UVa, Miami, UNC, Clemson and Louisville. NC State seems likely. SMU may have done enough yesterday. Cal needs to win to stay in consideration.
But the middle tier of all the power leagues has some softness. And that these bracketologists have Auburn, Cincy, Indiana, Oklahoma all still in contention with 13, 14 or in Auburns case 15 losses makes one wonder why those leagues possibly get double digit bids and the ACC may get only 8.
I think if Cal wins today they should be a consideration. Despite the poor OOC schedule.
Sell the ACC John. It is better than these bracketologists are giving them credit for.
Well first of all I never implied that Smith's comments had anything to do with being on the committee or that his opinion matters. I just found his comment rather amusing.
And watching this selection thing for decades, as time has gone by it seems that the selection committee's choices have gradually become less about the conference and more about the teams.
At this point my only hope is that by 6pm or so tonight we still will be having a conversation about Cal's chances, simple as that.
My comment was a snide comment at Smith not you. Sorry if you took it that way. Every team on the bubble tries to sell their team in the media after what looks like a disqualifying loss. I would hope Madsen would do the same if they lose.
The idea of conference strength should be bigger IMO. The NCAA tournament has made its reputation and fan love with all the "Cinderella" stories but with NIL and transfer portal the P4 leagues are much stronger now than ever.
Many brackets have VCU in. They are 24-7. looks good until you review their resume,. 1 quad 1 win over S Florida (49 NET) on a neutral floor. Cal has 4 wins better than that one. The committee cannot and should not consider travel concerns but Cal and Stanford have the most difficult travel of anyone. UCLA, USC, UW and UO are in a similar situation.
VCU being in on many brackets and Cal in next 4 out is a ridiculous joke IMO. We can argue over whether Cal is worthy. But they should be in over VCU.
But yes around 6pm tonight we will hope Cal is still under consideration. They should be if they win.
^
Interesting, a few years back there was talk about expanding the tournament field to 96 or 128 teams. At the time I thought it was a horrible idea because like every sport it "cheapens" the regular season games. But honestly as I think about it now it's not all that bad of an idea. At 128 it would only require one more game, or at 96 it would mean one more game and you can even give the first 32 teams a bye.
The reason I say this is even though there will always be a controversy as to who gets in, I don't think the controversy would be as magnified deciding between 128 and 129, or even 96 to 97, as compared to the 68/69 that we have now. I would like to see it changed.
Interesting, a few years back there was talk about expanding the tournament field to 96 or 128 teams. At the time I thought it was a horrible idea because like every sport it "cheapens" the regular season games. But honestly as I think about it now it's not all that bad of an idea. At 128 it would only require one more game, or at 96 it would mean one more game and you can even give the first 32 teams a bye.
The reason I say this is even though there will always be a controversy as to who gets in, I don't think the controversy would be as magnified deciding between 128 and 129, or even 96 to 97, as compared to the 68/69 that we have now. I would like to see it changed.
RedlessWardrobe said:
^
Interesting, a few years back there was talk about expanding the tournament field to 96 or 128 teams. At the time I thought it was a horrible idea because like every sport it "cheapens" the regular season games. But honestly as I think about it now it's not all that bad of an idea. At 128 it would only require one more game, or at 96 it would mean one more game and you can even give the first 32 teams a bye.
The reason I say this is even though there will always be a controversy as to who gets in, I don't think the controversy would be as magnified deciding between 128 and 129, or even 96 to 97, as compared to the 68/69 that we have now. I would like to see it changed.
I think we are going up 8 teams next year.
128 feels too big because that is like 40% of the programs in the country. We start getting to finish 500 and go to a made up ESPN bowl. But 68 feels too small because of how many autobids there are. Add on the NIL issues and the challenges of cinderellas not being as likely. IN the end that is what make it the greatest sports event in the world - that on the second weekend you have these small schools you never heard of that become everyone's favorite.
Take care of your Chicken
even as someone who would love to see Cal back in the tourney, i really hope the tournament does not expand. Getting an invite should mean something.
As much as I love the Bears, we had two chances with games vs Pitt and WF. We lost both and we still have a chance if we can win tonight.
As much as I love the Bears, we had two chances with games vs Pitt and WF. We lost both and we still have a chance if we can win tonight.
RedlessWardrobe said:
^
Interesting, a few years back there was talk about expanding the tournament field to 96 or 128 teams. At the time I thought it was a horrible idea because like every sport it "cheapens" the regular season games. But honestly as I think about it now it's not all that bad of an idea. At 128 it would only require one more game, or at 96 it would mean one more game and you can even give the first 32 teams a bye.
The reason I say this is even though there will always be a controversy as to who gets in, I don't think the controversy would be as magnified deciding between 128 and 129, or even 96 to 97, as compared to the 68/69 that we have now. I would like to see it changed.
I think 68 teams in the tournament is enough. Teams have in essence, three ways to make the group of 68:
- Strong overall record and strength of schedule
- Strong conference record
- Winning (or maybe just getting to the finals of) their conference tournament
HearstMining said:RedlessWardrobe said:
^
Interesting, a few years back there was talk about expanding the tournament field to 96 or 128 teams. At the time I thought it was a horrible idea because like every sport it "cheapens" the regular season games. But honestly as I think about it now it's not all that bad of an idea. At 128 it would only require one more game, or at 96 it would mean one more game and you can even give the first 32 teams a bye.
The reason I say this is even though there will always be a controversy as to who gets in, I don't think the controversy would be as magnified deciding between 128 and 129, or even 96 to 97, as compared to the 68/69 that we have now. I would like to see it changed.
I think 68 teams in the tournament is enough. Teams have in essence, three ways to make the group of 68:Sure, it's clear that lobbying occurs as part of the selection process, but teams really have those three ways to make their case and that should be enough. Diluting the pool by adding more teams only makes the whole tournament look like a craven money-grab.
- Strong overall record and strength of schedule
- Strong conference record
- Winning (or maybe just getting to the finals of) their conference tournament
64 would be enough. More than 68 is too many. Seems like there is always at least one team chosen at large that has 14 or more losses and a sub .500 record in their conference. Don't need even more of those teams in the tournament.
I don't like the play-in. 64 is indeed enough and an even power of 2. Whoever is 65 has virtually no chance of going all the way so why include them?
RedlessWardrobe said:
The reason I say this is even though there will always be a controversy as to who gets in, I don't think the controversy would be as magnified deciding between 128 and 129, or even 96 to 97, as compared to the 68/69 that we have now. I would like to see it changed.
sorry but, many many years ago there a wicked song in a popular movie, and still floats my boat..
further off topic bonus content clickable in the upper left corner after the first song ends, is also a not half bad classic, from the late great Phil Ochs, who eventually hung himself in a his adult sister's bathroom, sniff.
late add: if the clickable link alleged above doesn't work out, sorry, a backup is here (fingers crossed)..
and who the hey was Phil Ochs anyways, nobody asks? well, says here he was a wet-behind the ears songwriter in the 60s who lost it, entirely, after the catastrophic '68 democratic presidential nomination went sideways; first semi famous for his breakthru "draft dodger rag" semi-hit.. look it up.
ohkay, ohkay, sorry again, sometimes i ramble, alot.
sighned, not dead yet # funk trunk; i.c.e. too
RedlessWardrobe said:
^
Interesting, a few years back there was talk about expanding the tournament field to 96 or 128 teams. At the time I thought it was a horrible idea because like every sport it "cheapens" the regular season games. But honestly as I think about it now it's not all that bad of an idea. At 128 it would only require one more game, or at 96 it would mean one more game and you can even give the first 32 teams a bye.
The reason I say this is even though there will always be a controversy as to who gets in, I don't think the controversy would be as magnified deciding between 128 and 129, or even 96 to 97, as compared to the 68/69 that we have now. I would like to see it changed.
I guarantee that whatever the number of teams is there will always be a magnified controversy about who just barely got in or left out. Sports media needs stuff to talk about.
I think adding 8 teams to 76 is the right number (~20%) because:
A. It keeps more teams engaged longer in the season. That's good for everyone (players, schools, businesses, TV)
B. Because of A. more teams will have more money for their operational expenses and NIL
C. I don't like "play in" games but if we go to 76 teams just rename to First Round with the other teams receiving a "first round bye". This is the same as most of the Conference tournaments including the P4
D. Adding 8 teams will make the first round brackets symmetrical
E. It adds no more days to the tournament schedule from today
A. It keeps more teams engaged longer in the season. That's good for everyone (players, schools, businesses, TV)
B. Because of A. more teams will have more money for their operational expenses and NIL
C. I don't like "play in" games but if we go to 76 teams just rename to First Round with the other teams receiving a "first round bye". This is the same as most of the Conference tournaments including the P4
D. Adding 8 teams will make the first round brackets symmetrical
E. It adds no more days to the tournament schedule from today
HoopDreams said:
I think adding 8 teams to 76 is the right number (~20%) because:
A. It keeps more teams engaged longer in the season. That's good for everyone (players, schools, businesses, TV)
B. Because of A. more teams will have more money for their operational expenses and NIL
C. I don't like "play in" games but if we go to 76 teams just rename to First Round with the other teams receiving a "first round bye". This is the same as most of the Conference tournaments including the P4
D. Adding 8 teams will make the first round brackets symmetrical
E. It adds no more days to the tournament schedule from today
It is ridiculous that teams with .500 records and below in conference are in the conversation. Expanding beyond 64 was already ridiculous.
These have been all really good comments.
Again, I too actually think 68 is enough. The only reason I brought up the expansion factor was the difference between the 37th and 38th at large team selected is worth arguing about. If the issue was between the 101st and 102nd team selected it would seem less controversial because there would be no way that the last team in is going to do anything in the tournament anyway. It was just a thought.
Again, I too actually think 68 is enough. The only reason I brought up the expansion factor was the difference between the 37th and 38th at large team selected is worth arguing about. If the issue was between the 101st and 102nd team selected it would seem less controversial because there would be no way that the last team in is going to do anything in the tournament anyway. It was just a thought.
stu said:
I don't like the play-in. 64 is indeed enough and an even power of 2. Whoever is 65 has virtually no chance of going all the way so why include them?
I mean didn't UCLA lose on a half court heave by Jalen Suggs in the final four a few years ago?
Onebearofpower said:stu said:
I don't like the play-in. 64 is indeed enough and an even power of 2. Whoever is 65 has virtually no chance of going all the way so why include them?
I mean didn't UCLA lose on a half court heave by Jalen Suggs in the final four a few years ago?
Fox Sports says the lowest seed to ever win the men's NCAA Tournament was #8 Villanova in 1985. Several #11 seeds have made the Final Four and several #15 seeds have made the Sweet Sixteen with one #15 getting to the Elite Eight.
Additional at-large teams would be seeded #13 and lower. Based on the above history I think the chances of any winning the whole thing are less than remote.
Another factor is money. I expect the best players to end up on the best teams, not on the Cinderellas.
stu said:
Another factor is money. I expect the best players to end up on the best teams, not on the Cinderellas.
Remember it is weird. Some programs that have P4 BB teams but no football expenses are going to have more "base" NIL than P4s struggling to balance budgets. Case in point Zaga - who has a HEFTY NIL raised in that major media market and hotbed of player endorsement deals known as Spokane.
That said, I am not sure Zaga qualifies as a Cinderella any more even if they haven't made it all the way over the hump. Someday Mark Few, Someday ;-)
Take care of your Chicken
Gonzaga is still flush with money from Bing Crosby's estate.
Big C said:
Gonzaga is still flush with money from Bing Crosby's estate.
Gonzaga is quite the Unicorn. Spokane isn't quite Paris, but the impact of Gonzaga in that city is like all bay area sports teams, universities and brands put together into one single entity. I imagine the level of support they get per capita is off the charts.
Featured Stories
See All
Saturday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Establishes Dedicated Basketball Practice Facility
by Cal Athletics
Friday Spring Practice Notes
by Joaquin Ruiz
From Physicality to Bagels: Meet Cal's inside linebacker room
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Football Spring Game Set For April 18
by Cal Athletics