socaltownie said:

---

I think the main thing we have learned this year is that, come February and March, the Bears _PROGRAM_ is not ACC ready. What we know (or those that have watched BB in the past) is that as we wind toward March every conference NOT called the Pac12 would stop calling fouls. Yes, we had a Bizzaro game with the female ref who was HORRIBLE but most games over the past month have been called like today - not many fouls, lots of contact, let the boys play.

And when that happens the team that has more "physicality" and "athleticism" wins out.

And sadly, this is not rocket science, and so those players cost in the modern era $$$$$.

Really this is the question for the whales on the sideline and as well the AD because $$$ in fungible. What do you want? Because no amount of coaching and madsen bashing or running the old picket fence is going to solve a Wake Player essentially pushing off on drives with his off hand 12 times in a row (I counted) and moving our skinny unathletic players out of the way.

Now can the bears do well? Yes they can. I really believe in this staff. I think their approach makes a ton of sense and as well meets the eyeball test. But if the $$$$ is not there we better get right with the world that this is about peak....and that really I can count 4 more losses if teams didn't give up a 4 point play or suddenly stop making free throws.

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the main thing we have learned this year is that, come February and March, the Bears _PROGRAM_ is not ACC ready. What we know (or those that have watched BB in the past) is that as we wind toward March every conference NOT called the Pac12 would stop calling fouls. Yes, we had a Bizzaro game with the female ref who was HORRIBLE but most games over the past month have been called like today - not many fouls, lots of contact, let the boys play.

And when that happens the team that has more "physicality" and "athleticism" wins out.

And sadly, this is not rocket science, and so those players cost in the modern era $$$$$.

Really this is the question for the whales on the sideline and as well the AD because $$$ in fungible. What do you want? Because no amount of coaching and madsen bashing or running the old picket fence is going to solve a Wake Player essentially pushing off on drives with his off hand 12 times in a row (I counted) and moving our skinny unathletic players out of the way.

Now can the bears do well? Yes they can. I really believe in this staff. I think their approach makes a ton of sense and as well meets the eyeball test. But if the $$$$ is not there we better get right with the world that this is about peak....and that really I can count 4 more losses if teams didn't give up a 4 point play or suddenly stop making free throws.

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the main thing we have learned this year is that, come February and March, the Bears _PROGRAM_ is not ACC ready. What we know (or those that have watched BB in the past) is that as we wind toward March every conference NOT called the Pac12 would stop calling fouls. Yes, we had a Bizzaro game with the female ref who was HORRIBLE but most games over the past month have been called like today - not many fouls, lots of contact, let the boys play.

And when that happens the team that has more "physicality" and "athleticism" wins out.

And sadly, this is not rocket science, and so those players cost in the modern era $$$$$.

Really this is the question for the whales on the sideline and as well the AD because $$$ in fungible. What do you want? Because no amount of coaching and madsen bashing or running the old picket fence is going to solve a Wake Player essentially pushing off on drives with his off hand 12 times in a row (I counted) and moving our skinny unathletic players out of the way.

Now can the bears do well? Yes they can. I really believe in this staff. I think their approach makes a ton of sense and as well meets the eyeball test. But if the $$$$ is not there we better get right with the world that this is about peak....and that really I can count 4 more losses if teams didn't give up a 4 point play or suddenly stop making free throws.

---

Camden, Bell, Dort, Ilic, Dorsey, and Petraitis are all seniors. We will have a new front line next year, with a different mix of body types and talents.

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Big C said:

---

1a. We are ACC-ready, we just went .500 in the damn conference.

1b. We are what our record says we are.

2. (this is as much if not more directed to another poster after that game as it is to you) I love all you supposedly enlightened people who have to mention that the ref was female. Would you mention it if the ref were Black? Surely you would not, which means maybe you still have some "work to do".

---

On behalf of SoCal, when he says we are not ACC-ready, he is referring to the fact that if we want to achieve any amount of true success in the ACC, we need to put a team out there that can compete athletically and physically with the other teams in the conference. Anyone watching our conference games this year could see that we continually lacked athleticism. The games we won were almost all correlated to our 3 point shooting ability, and that is something that can only take you so far. And honestly, our record does not say who we are, based on our OOC schedule.
As far as SoCal's referee description, you know it could have been used as an easy way to describe the ref he was referring to - that is possible. And BTW, she really was horrible.

---

Big C said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Big C said:

---

1a. We are ACC-ready, we just went .500 in the damn conference.

1b. We are what our record says we are.

2. (this is as much if not more directed to another poster after that game as it is to you) I love all you supposedly enlightened people who have to mention that the ref was female. Would you mention it if the ref were Black? Surely you would not, which means maybe you still have some "work to do".

---

On behalf of SoCal, when he says we are not ACC-ready, he is referring to the fact that if we want to achieve any amount of true success in the ACC, we need to put a team out there that can compete athletically and physically with the other teams in the conference. Anyone watching our conference games this year could see that we continually lacked athleticism. The games we won were almost all correlated to our 3 point shooting ability, and that is something that can only take you so far. And honestly, our record does not say who we are, based on our OOC schedule.
As far as SoCal's referee description, you know it could have been used as an easy way to describe the ref he was referring to - that is possible. And BTW, she really was horrible.

---

All of that may be true, Red, but when I made my previous post, it was still the-day-of-the-game and I was feeling combative.

gradually coming to my senses this morning

---

sycasey said:

---

I feel like there are two issues at play here:

1. Donors may not be as willing to fund basketball as they are football, just in general.

2. Madsen really had to dig the program out of a deep hole and we are only just now seeing daylight.

It's frustrating to get close to the tournament and lose winnable games, but to even be close is a huge and unexpected improvement, given where we were. Hopefully that leads to more support for basketball, even if it's not a huge flood right away. It's hard to blame people for being apathetic about Cal hoops after what happened under Wyking and Fox.

---

calumnus said:

---

Camden, Bell, Dort, Ilic, Dorsey, and Petraitis are all seniors. We will have a new front line next year, with a different mix of body types and talents.

---

socaltownie said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I feel like there are two issues at play here:

1. Donors may not be as willing to fund basketball as they are football, just in general.

2. Madsen really had to dig the program out of a deep hole and we are only just now seeing daylight.

It's frustrating to get close to the tournament and lose winnable games, but to even be close is a huge and unexpected improvement, given where we were. Hopefully that leads to more support for basketball, even if it's not a huge flood right away. It's hard to blame people for being apathetic about Cal hoops after what happened under Wyking and Fox.

---

#1 ? Absolutely. SB has said that explicitly. My confusion is really why. Cal had like 4 years under Tedford that were better than 'meh". It can be deeply frustrating and arguably in Holmoe and Sonny year 1 we had teams just as bad or not worse as Fox/Jones. The Bay area I guess is sorta a football town but it also has a great hoops tradition and, if you look at home grown players, as good or better than any FB that call the bay area their hometown.

Now FB is king of modern TV sports. The NFL far outdraws NBA. So it may be little more complicated that FB has more fans than BB. But I know PERSONALLY I like BB better

"Less boring stoppages of play"
"Cinderellas are a thing in March"
"You can actually see the players faces and connect with them"
"You can see more of the sport unwind on TV than the panned out view that makes it hard to focus (on the line play) where actually football is won or lost. Indeed, TV gives a very disorted view of what matters because it is easier to focus on the skill positions.

Credit where credit is due. The NFL simply has been one of the greatest machines known to man in creating interest in their sport. Helps they have worked really hard to maintain competitive balance so that it is attractive to gambling - which I honestly think is a critical driver of interest.

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I feel like there are two issues at play here:

1. Donors may not be as willing to fund basketball as they are football, just in general.

2. Madsen really had to dig the program out of a deep hole and we are only just now seeing daylight.

It's frustrating to get close to the tournament and lose winnable games, but to even be close is a huge and unexpected improvement, given where we were. Hopefully that leads to more support for basketball, even if it's not a huge flood right away. It's hard to blame people for being apathetic about Cal hoops after what happened under Wyking and Fox.

---

#1 ? Absolutely. SB has said that explicitly. My confusion is really why. Cal had like 4 years under Tedford that were better than 'meh". It can be deeply frustrating and arguably in Holmoe and Sonny year 1 we had teams just as bad or not worse as Fox/Jones. The Bay area I guess is sorta a football town but it also has a great hoops tradition and, if you look at home grown players, as good or better than any FB that call the bay area their hometown.

Now FB is king of modern TV sports. The NFL far outdraws NBA. So it may be little more complicated that FB has more fans than BB. But I know PERSONALLY I like BB better

"Less boring stoppages of play"
"Cinderellas are a thing in March"
"You can actually see the players faces and connect with them"
"You can see more of the sport unwind on TV than the panned out view that makes it hard to focus (on the line play) where actually football is won or lost. Indeed, TV gives a very disorted view of what matters because it is easier to focus on the skill positions.

Credit where credit is due. The NFL simply has been one of the greatest machines known to man in creating interest in their sport. Helps they have worked really hard to maintain competitive balance so that it is attractive to gambling - which I honestly think is a critical driver of interest.

---

Football is what drives the revenues in college sports. It is what determines whether we remain in a P4 conference. Our revenues from the ACC (95% from football?) will eventually grow to a full $40 million share right around the time people are expecting the next phase of realignment. After 9 years of losing twice as many conference games as we win under Wilcox and nearly getting relegated, it makes sense to prioritize football to make sure our program survives the next round. The question is whether a marginal amount could be directed to basketball to make an impact there?

Cal and Stanford are currently mid-ACC teams. By comparison look at Oregon State and Washington States' seasons in the WCC. The ACC is a good spot though the travel is a hardship. I asked in another thread if $2 million more in NIL would move the needle ? It is probably not enough to generate the same revenue. Thus, we need an alum or alums who just really like basketball to embrace the opportunity to take ownership of the program. It might even be an advantage not having a GM as the donor could work directly with Madsen in building the team. JMO.

---