Golden One said:

---

Camden and Bell are giving us nothing tonight. Only Dai Dai and Pippen are playing like they want to win.

---

That's been a problem a lot lately.

Dort with 14 rebounds.....because......

gwashburn14 said:

---

Can't win or defend if you can't stop dribble penetration. FSU living in the lane and just passing off to open bigs. Add to that 13 for 27 from the 3-point line and Cal's gonna give up nearly 100 points. Something happened after that SMU win. Maybe they were feeling themselves a little because they haven't been the same since. A 1-3 record, losses to teams that are solid but none are going to the NCAA tournament and today they are just getting bullied by a team that wants it more. Madsen needs to look in the mirror about how this team melted down.

---

Agree here. I also think worn down. They are missing shots they usually hit.

I think we're winning the second half.
Just erase that 21-2 run and we'd be fine. Unfortunately, there's no eraser in sight.

Makes no sense to foul them now when we're down 8 with 17 seconds to go.

Hard to believe we lost by only 6 points given how poorly we played.

We shot 50% from the field and 41% from 3

That wins most games but FSU was red hot

At least we got score to respectable

Bell scored 17 points with a good efficiency

JimSox said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Camden and Bell are giving us nothing tonight. Only Dai Dai and Pippen are playing like they want to win.

---

That's been a problem a lot lately.

---

18 rebounds

calbearinamaze said:

---

Dort with 14 rebounds.....because......

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Bell scored 17 points with a good efficiency

JimSox said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Camden and Bell are giving us nothing tonight. Only Dai Dai and Pippen are playing like they want to win.

---

That's been a problem a lot lately.

---

---

After game was over.

Big C said:

---

Giving up 95 damned points: That's why we lost this game. Very disappointing.

Great to have two forwards who can bury threes, but...

---

They made an uncanny number of threes, but they were open shots. Our defense didn't get set in time so often. Is it a defensive coaching problem? I don't know. Someone break this down for me. I'm not going to try to figure it out. Deleted my recording of the game.

ducky can break it down. He know hoop. SFCB too.

Kind of glad I missed this one, sounds like our perimeter defense once again failed us and the 12 turnovers committed showed we weren't taking care of the ball (20 points off turnovers for FSU, that's a big number)
But I do like that we "won" the 2nd half by 8 points, the guys didn't stop playing.
10 games over .500 is several wins past any of the most optimistic projections 7 months ago, so I'm going to say a success by any measure.
Do we want better talent next year? Definitely… let's keep who we can and roll the dice in the portal.

JimSox said:

---

Big C said:

---

Giving up 95 damned points: That's why we lost this game. Very disappointing.

Great to have two forwards who can bury threes, but...

---

They made an uncanny number of threes, but they were open shots. Our defense didn't get set in time so often. Is it a defensive coaching problem? I don't know. Someone break this down for me. I'm not going to try to figure it out. Deleted my recording of the game.

---

We became a better shooting team and a less selfish team this year by buying players who could shoot better and were willing to share the ball. If we wanted players like that who could also defend well, we would've needed millions more.

Our forwards and backup centers lack explosive strength, lateral quickness and a defensive mindset. Ames lacks positional length.

The question I have is how does Cal build loaded rosters with athletes and physical players in the NIL era? With this roster, there's gonna be some guys who get asked not to come back, some who decide to transfer for more money and some for more playing time. So how does Madsen build that ACC-type roster that goes three deep at every position with legit NCAA athletes? The previous poster is right, Cal doesn't have close to the athletes Florida State has and it lost 14 games this season.

You look at these other ACC teams and they are 10 deep with multiple shooters and multiple wings. We had more specialty players. Bell is a decent shooter but doesn't score at the rim and doesn't defend all that well. Camden and Dorsey play hard and are streaky shooters. We had a quality Pac-12 roster in the ACC and we're finding out that isn't going to get us into the upper half of the conference, so how do we get better with our resources? I would think the state of California has plenty of good, young talent that want to play in the ACC. Is that a start?

gwashburn14 said:

---

The question I have is how does Cal build loaded rosters with athletes and physical players in the NIL era? With this roster, there's gonna be some guys who get asked not to come back, some who decide to transfer for more money and some for more playing time. So how does Madsen build that ACC-type roster that goes three deep at every position with legit NCAA athletes? The previous poster is right, Cal doesn't have close to the athletes Florida State has and it lost 14 games this season.

You look at these other ACC teams and they are 10 deep with multiple shooters and multiple wings. We had more specialty players. Bell is a decent shooter but doesn't score at the rim and doesn't defend all that well. Camden and Dorsey play hard and are streaky shooters. We had a quality Pac-12 roster in the ACC and we're finding out that isn't going to get us into the upper half of the conference, so how do we get better with our resources? I would think the state of California has plenty of good, young talent that want to play in the ACC. Is that a start?

---

Well Florida State wasn't 10 deep. They played eight players today, one of them for just four minutes. Maybe they got tired, allowing us to make that late run that made the score look almost acceptable.

" We had a quality Pac-12 roster in the ACC and we're finding out that isn't going to get us into the upper half of the conference, so how do we get better with our resource"

And this is a question for the powers that be - that are making the strategic decision to go all in on FB. I think there is at least a counter argument but I know that I am in the distinct minority and I am SO over screaming into the wind on it. But if you are buying season tixs or not working on your sprinkler system during sat games You SHOULD ask them

"If revenue share is going to FB and the effort is to fund raise for it and there are no whales should we know this is teh absolute tip top peak?"

Because as fans you deserve to know that and live with the answer. I think it is "Yes".

socaltownie said:

---

" We had a quality Pac-12 roster in the ACC and we're finding out that isn't going to get us into the upper half of the conference, so how do we get better with our resource"

And this is a question for the powers that be - that are making the strategic decision to go all in on FB. I think there is at least a counter argument but I know that I am in the distinct minority and I am SO over screaming into the wind on it. But if you are buying season tixs or not working on your sprinkler system during sat games You SHOULD ask them

"If revenue share is going to FB and the effort is to fund raise for it and there are no whales should we know this is teh absolute tip top peak?"

Because as fans you deserve to know that and live with the answer. I think it is "Yes".

---

If we can sell 5,000 more tickets per game at $20 per for 20 home games that is $2 million in additional revenue. Would $2 million more in NIL produce a team that could generate that attendance? Quite possibly. Mostly, I see basketball as on opportunity for a moneyed alum to "own" the program for relatively little as far as sports franchises go. He or she could even be the "GM" or help select the GM.

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

" We had a quality Pac-12 roster in the ACC and we're finding out that isn't going to get us into the upper half of the conference, so how do we get better with our resource"

And this is a question for the powers that be - that are making the strategic decision to go all in on FB. I think there is at least a counter argument but I know that I am in the distinct minority and I am SO over screaming into the wind on it. But if you are buying season tixs or not working on your sprinkler system during sat games You SHOULD ask them

"If revenue share is going to FB and the effort is to fund raise for it and there are no whales should we know this is teh absolute tip top peak?"

Because as fans you deserve to know that and live with the answer. I think it is "Yes".

---

If we can sell 5,000 more tickets per game at $20 per for 20 home games that is $2 million in additional revenue. Would $2 million more in NIL produce a team that could generate that attendance? Quite possibly. Mostly, I see basketball as on opportunity for a moneyed alum to "own" the program for relatively little as far as sports franchises go. He or she could even be the "GM" or help select the GM.

---

$2m is not going to come close to increasing ticket sales by 5000 per game. You need to increase season tickets because half the games are with crappy opponents no one cares about. Cal at minimum needs a sweet sixteen to get that buzz, and I think maybe two. You aren't getting that with an extra $2m.

Basketball just doesn't have a good ROI at Cal. You won't get your money back. You won't lose a lot either. It's a matter of whether Cal and it's alums value the experience of winning basketball enough to pay for it.

Undermanned in talent we face an even bigger NIL budget for men's BB next year and the whales sitting on their wallets. A very respectable coach with much positive energy, but refilling with the needed talent will be difficult.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

" We had a quality Pac-12 roster in the ACC and we're finding out that isn't going to get us into the upper half of the conference, so how do we get better with our resource"

And this is a question for the powers that be - that are making the strategic decision to go all in on FB. I think there is at least a counter argument but I know that I am in the distinct minority and I am SO over screaming into the wind on it. But if you are buying season tixs or not working on your sprinkler system during sat games You SHOULD ask them

"If revenue share is going to FB and the effort is to fund raise for it and there are no whales should we know this is teh absolute tip top peak?"

Because as fans you deserve to know that and live with the answer. I think it is "Yes".

---

If we can sell 5,000 more tickets per game at $20 per for 20 home games that is $2 million in additional revenue. Would $2 million more in NIL produce a team that could generate that attendance? Quite possibly. Mostly, I see basketball as on opportunity for a moneyed alum to "own" the program for relatively little as far as sports franchises go. He or she could even be the "GM" or help select the GM.

---

$2m is not going to come close to increasing ticket sales by 5000 per game. You need to increase season tickets because half the games are with crappy opponents no one cares about. Cal at minimum needs a sweet sixteen to get that buzz, and I think maybe two. You aren't getting that with an extra $2m.

Basketball just doesn't have a good ROI at Cal. You won't get your money back. You won't lose a lot either. It's a matter of whether Cal and it's alums value the experience of winning basketball enough to pay for it.

---

This is true.Especially the last line. At present there does not appear to be enough of the sort of donors it wil take to push Cal hoops into the upper echelon of ACC hoops NIL. Virginia and NC State got it done. And now look at them. Miami has resources. So does Louisville. We know Duke and UNC do.

A former great program in Syracuse is struggling. Jim Boeheim (who would know) say they are in the bottom half of ACC NIL. He commented on the the 3 just fired HCs. All lack sufficient NIL. Players are needed.

I get why many donors are reluctant or flat out reticent against player NIL. But that is the way now. It is do it or lose. Cal football has seen the light. But look at how hard they had to push to get to this point. And they are still pushing that boulder uphill fighting those that are against the current athletic climate.

Hoops has a long way to go. Attendance stinks. No dedicated practice facility. No dedicated GM to push fundraising. The last time the program was relevant many of the current players were in middle school or younger. So no relevant history. And an NIL budget that is not close to where it needs to be to win at a high level.

Given those circumstances the program had a marvelous year. But IMO the program is looking at a return to losing if the NIL budget does not meet what the market dictates.

Teams turnover every year now. If you manage to keep 2 or 3 of your existing better players you have done great. Talent acquisition is the way. In football the gap between P4 and G6 is growing. It is happening in hoops as well.

I get that there is no guarantee of winning simply by donating. But you will lose if that does not happen. I no longer give to hoops. I give to football for a variety of reasons. I have limited resources for giving so i give what I can to football. Cal needs the mega donor to help Madsen. They have every right to give or not give. It is their money. They can spend it or not as they choose. No judgements. But they are the key to Cal hoops.

barsad said:

---

Kind of glad I missed this one, sounds like our perimeter defense once again failed us and the 12 turnovers committed showed we weren't taking care of the ball (20 points off turnovers for FSU, that's a big number)
But I do like that we "won" the 2nd half by 8 points, the guys didn't stop playing.
10 games over .500 is several wins past any of the most optimistic projections 7 months ago, so I'm going to say a success by any measure.
Do we want better talent next year? Definitely… let's keep who we can and roll the dice in the portal.

---

It felt like they shot 80% from 3 after they missed their first couple. Just a slew of no doubters

" This is true.Especially the last line. At present there does not appear to be enough of the sort of donors it wil take to push Cal hoops into the upper echelon of ACC hoops NIL. Virginia and NC State got it done. And now look at them. Miami has resources. So does Louisville. We know Duke and UNC do."

This gets at something where I am confused. Why do THEY get it done? Excepting Miami, they face the same threat (perhaps even more) about realignment 3.0. They also get the ACC media payout. They play in small media markets (or are third fiddle to Duke and NC). ANd yet they have donor support. Again, even accepting the "Sports brings donors to the university to give more": SB argument I am confused why FOOTBALL, with its ever up in the air game times, lack of comparative success than BB, is the chosen one for this strategy. I get that we can't be WOEFUL and avoid relegation. But I am not sure being just Wilcox level would not have gotten it done.

Or a question (and I realize they are blue blood). The SB/Football logic has the jayhawks getting relegated. And yet they won't because the idea of a power conference that doesn't include Kansas Basketball (or Duke BB) is unfathomable and will not happen. Ditto Zona I think though arguably a more dicey proposition.

(BTW - it may be no more complicated than that Pac10 and then 12 was always more of a FB oriented conference because USC and Washington drove the train and they were really awful historically at BB but good at FB and so demanded that be the focus on all the little decisions that would have mattered. Again, the malign neglect by scores of UCB presidents and ADs)

FSU looked very, very good against #1 Duke yesterday, took them to the wire and lost by 1 point in front of a large pro-Duke crowd. They have been playing a lot better than their record and finished the season very strong, they deserve a tourney berth.

Had we had SMU instead we would have likely won again and been on the bubble with a (small) chance of getting in.

Amazingly FSU shot 52% including 39% from 3 (11-28 on threes)

That's against the #1 ACC defense

FSU was 10-2 before yesterday's loss vs Duke by 1 point. Many are pointing to this game as why Cal isn't close, but I listened or watched 3/4s of that game and FSU scored on Duke exactly like they scored on us, and led by 8 with 6 minutes left

The only reason Duke won was rebounding and their 6-6 guard Evan's scored his record high 32 points

Our bad losses were our last home game, and to Pitt

Duke was without its 6-11 starting center and 6-5 starting point guard for the first time this season. This isn't the normal Duke team. They mainly played 6 players yesterday.

PenBear said:

---

Duke was without its 6-11 starting center and 6-5 starting point guard for the first time this season. This isn't the normal Duke team. They mainly played 6 players yesterday.

---

And Florida State is now a good tournament team, even if their resume keeps them out of it

They're 10-8 in the ACC reg season, 8th place, and playing much better in Feb/March. They've played their way into the bubble, will either be the last in or first out depending.