If Cal remained in the Pac Conference or played in a different conference or division such as the ones St. Mary's and San Diego State belong to, do you think they could be an upper/top contender in any of those conferences instead? Or would Cal not be able to recruit the level of players they already can get?

Isn't the recruiting now mostly money?

All I know is that it would be nice to be playing in a tournament in which the bracket schedule would be posted in pacific time zone instead of eastern time zone.

Look at how Washington State and Oregon State did this year in the WCC. It is tough to argue we would do better. I assume we attracted players because we play in the ACC, but even with the same team, according to Ken Pom, we would be the #7 team in the Mountain West.

I wouldn't be surprised if we lost to Gonzaga, St. Mary's, and Santa Clara (at least once to each) and wound up in the same bubble position anyway. We were what our record said we were.

Need sponsor

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if we lost to Gonzaga, St. Mary's, and Santa Clara (at least once to each) and wound up in the same bubble position anyway. We were what our record said we were.

---

I still wonder why we don't do a tourney at Chase and include all the Bay Area teams. Cal, Stanford, st. Marys, USF, Santa Clara, San Jose St. Throw in Davis & Sac St. and we could really showcase the basketball talent rich area we live in.

---

sycasey said:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if we lost to Gonzaga, St. Mary's, and Santa Clara (at least once to each) and wound up in the same bubble position anyway. We were what our record said we were.

---

We would probably lose a few we should win too like we did in the ACC. Even Gonzaga lost to Shantay Legans' Portland team.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if we lost to Gonzaga, St. Mary's, and Santa Clara (at least once to each) and wound up in the same bubble position anyway. We were what our record said we were.

---

We would probably lose a few we should win too like we did in the ACC. Even Gonzaga lost to Shantay Legans' Portland team.

---

Yes. Our record would be a bit better (assuming the same non-conference), owing to the bottom of the WCC being weaker than the ACC. But it would be the same bubble situation.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if we lost to Gonzaga, St. Mary's, and Santa Clara (at least once to each) and wound up in the same bubble position anyway. We were what our record said we were.

---

We would probably lose a few we should win too like we did in the ACC. Even Gonzaga lost to Shantay Legans' Portland team.

---

Yes. Our record would be a bit better (assuming the same non-conference), owing to the bottom of the WCC being weaker than the ACC. But it would be the same bubble situation.

---

It would actually be worse - since a WCC schedule would drag down our SOS compared to the ACC.

BeachedBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if we lost to Gonzaga, St. Mary's, and Santa Clara (at least once to each) and wound up in the same bubble position anyway. We were what our record said we were.

---

We would probably lose a few we should win too like we did in the ACC. Even Gonzaga lost to Shantay Legans' Portland team.

---

Yes. Our record would be a bit better (assuming the same non-conference), owing to the bottom of the WCC being weaker than the ACC. But it would be the same bubble situation.

---

It would actually be worse - since a WCC schedule would drag down our SOS compared to the ACC.

---

I mean "better" in the sense of having more raw wins in it.

sycasey said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if we lost to Gonzaga, St. Mary's, and Santa Clara (at least once to each) and wound up in the same bubble position anyway. We were what our record said we were.

---

We would probably lose a few we should win too like we did in the ACC. Even Gonzaga lost to Shantay Legans' Portland team.

---

Yes. Our record would be a bit better (assuming the same non-conference), owing to the bottom of the WCC being weaker than the ACC. But it would be the same bubble situation.

---

It would actually be worse - since a WCC schedule would drag down our SOS compared to the ACC.

---

I mean "better" in the sense of having more raw wins in it.

---

Got it

I think the only answer to this is "we don't know." A core tenant of #teamdropdown is that Cal in such a conference would be an 8000 lb gorilla. If you look at UCSD both before it moved up to d1 and even today its recruiting in a ton of sports leverages its dramatic difference in academic quality and selectivity as a recruiting edge.

Now I get why this distance is hard for people but Cal doesn't have THAT much of an edge in P4. Yes. Better. But institutons like UCLA, Michigan, Duke, NC, Texas, etc. etc. are not BAD truck school institutions. They are in the same ballpark if not a 4 hole hitter.

But in a different conference Cal gets a LOT of the benefits of ICA (alumni coming to campus, student engagement) without some of the baggage (P4 football costs, ESPN TV gods determining game time and wagging the dog for THEIR benefit). What it loses is "relevance" and then the ability to use P4 Football rights to I guess subsidize P4 olympic sports. It also (and I recognize this is critical) avoids imposing upon students P4 student fees like MANY other institutions do (including all UCs other than UCSC & UCLA).

The current MM saga again drives for me this point home. What other P4 that cares has a 2 headed monster as AD and dicks around with chump change for a coach who just won 21 games? The answer is NO OTHER SCHOOL. But because Cal is not serious (and arguably doesn't need to be) it plays this ridiculously cynical game - where it tells fans it DOES care and demands to "compete for championships" but really doesn't when compared to the actions of their peers.

If we do not retain MM I am so out till August. It just isn't worth it.

PS. It also makes cal a ****TY employer and that also pisses me off where it asks coaches to do impossible things with the resources it provides. I get why a guy like Dykes (and I am not defending his overall record or approach) gets pissed. Ditto Martin. If you are providing "meh" level of support be ok with "meh" results. Don't ***** about not getting into the CFP.

Lyons obviously is trying to save money by not hiring a new Athletic Director. It is false economy, as usual.

socaltownie said:

---

I think the only answer to this is "we don't know." A core tenant of #teamdropdown is that Cal in such a conference would be an 8000 lb gorilla. If you look at UCSD both before it moved up to d1 and even today its recruiting in a ton of sports leverages its dramatic difference in academic quality and selectivity as a recruiting edge.

Now I get why this distance is hard for people but Cal doesn't have THAT much of an edge in P4. Yes. Better. But institutons like UCLA, Michigan, Duke, NC, Texas, etc. etc. are not BAD truck school institutions. They are in the same ballpark if not a 4 hole hitter.

But in a different conference Cal gets a LOT of the benefits of ICA (alumni coming to campus, student engagement) without some of the baggage (P4 football costs, ESPN TV gods determining game time and wagging the dog for THEIR benefit). What it loses is "relevance" and then the ability to use P4 Football rights to I guess subsidize P4 olympic sports. It also (and I recognize this is critical) avoids imposing upon students P4 student fees like MANY other institutions do (including all UCs other than UCSC & UCLA).

The current MM saga again drives for me this point home. What other P4 that cares has a 2 headed monster as AD and dicks around with chump change for a coach who just won 21 games? The answer is NO OTHER SCHOOL. But because Cal is not serious (and arguably doesn't need to be) it plays this ridiculously cynical game - where it tells fans it DOES care and demands to "compete for championships" but really doesn't when compared to the actions of their peers.

If we do not retain MM I am so out till August. It just isn't worth it.

PS. It also makes cal a ****TY employer and that also pisses me off where it asks coaches to do impossible things with the resources it provides. I get why a guy like Dykes (and I am not defending his overall record or approach) gets pissed. Ditto Martin. If you are providing "meh" level of support be ok with "meh" results. Don't ***** about not getting into the CFP.

---

Agree with all of the above, except for retaining Madsen. If he does get hired away and Cal receives the pretty sizeable buyout and turns around and hires an interesting coach and perhaps adds some NIL funds, then I would actually be more excited about next season. That would be the smart play. Of course, Cal has never made the smart play - see Wyking Jones for the most recent MBB example.

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the only answer to this is "we don't know." A core tenant of #teamdropdown is that Cal in such a conference would be an 8000 lb gorilla. If you look at UCSD both before it moved up to d1 and even today its recruiting in a ton of sports leverages its dramatic difference in academic quality and selectivity as a recruiting edge.

Now I get why this distance is hard for people but Cal doesn't have THAT much of an edge in P4. Yes. Better. But institutons like UCLA, Michigan, Duke, NC, Texas, etc. etc. are not BAD truck school institutions. They are in the same ballpark if not a 4 hole hitter.

But in a different conference Cal gets a LOT of the benefits of ICA (alumni coming to campus, student engagement) without some of the baggage (P4 football costs, ESPN TV gods determining game time and wagging the dog for THEIR benefit). What it loses is "relevance" and then the ability to use P4 Football rights to I guess subsidize P4 olympic sports. It also (and I recognize this is critical) avoids imposing upon students P4 student fees like MANY other institutions do (including all UCs other than UCSC & UCLA).

The current MM saga again drives for me this point home. What other P4 that cares has a 2 headed monster as AD and dicks around with chump change for a coach who just won 21 games? The answer is NO OTHER SCHOOL. But because Cal is not serious (and arguably doesn't need to be) it plays this ridiculously cynical game - where it tells fans it DOES care and demands to "compete for championships" but really doesn't when compared to the actions of their peers.

If we do not retain MM I am so out till August. It just isn't worth it.

PS. It also makes cal a ****TY employer and that also pisses me off where it asks coaches to do impossible things with the resources it provides. I get why a guy like Dykes (and I am not defending his overall record or approach) gets pissed. Ditto Martin. If you are providing "meh" level of support be ok with "meh" results. Don't ***** about not getting into the CFP.

---

Agree with all of the above, except for retaining Madsen. If he does get hired away and Cal receives the pretty sizeable buyout and turns around and hires an interesting coach and perhaps adds some NIL funds, then I would actually be more excited about next season. That would be the smart play. Of course, Cal has never made the smart play - see Wyking Jones for the most recent MBB example.

---

All I ca n stay within the bounds of the terms of use is that the buyout is no where near the level that changes the overall economics.

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the only answer to this is "we don't know." A core tenant of #teamdropdown is that Cal in such a conference would be an 8000 lb gorilla. If you look at UCSD both before it moved up to d1 and even today its recruiting in a ton of sports leverages its dramatic difference in academic quality and selectivity as a recruiting edge.

Now I get why this distance is hard for people but Cal doesn't have THAT much of an edge in P4. Yes. Better. But institutons like UCLA, Michigan, Duke, NC, Texas, etc. etc. are not BAD truck school institutions. They are in the same ballpark if not a 4 hole hitter.

But in a different conference Cal gets a LOT of the benefits of ICA (alumni coming to campus, student engagement) without some of the baggage (P4 football costs, ESPN TV gods determining game time and wagging the dog for THEIR benefit). What it loses is "relevance" and then the ability to use P4 Football rights to I guess subsidize P4 olympic sports. It also (and I recognize this is critical) avoids imposing upon students P4 student fees like MANY other institutions do (including all UCs other than UCSC & UCLA).

The current MM saga again drives for me this point home. What other P4 that cares has a 2 headed monster as AD and dicks around with chump change for a coach who just won 21 games? The answer is NO OTHER SCHOOL. But because Cal is not serious (and arguably doesn't need to be) it plays this ridiculously cynical game - where it tells fans it DOES care and demands to "compete for championships" but really doesn't when compared to the actions of their peers.

If we do not retain MM I am so out till August. It just isn't worth it.

PS. It also makes cal a ****TY employer and that also pisses me off where it asks coaches to do impossible things with the resources it provides. I get why a guy like Dykes (and I am not defending his overall record or approach) gets pissed. Ditto Martin. If you are providing "meh" level of support be ok with "meh" results. Don't ***** about not getting into the CFP.

---

Agree with all of the above, except for retaining Madsen. If he does get hired away and Cal receives the pretty sizeable buyout and turns around and hires an interesting coach and perhaps adds some NIL funds, then I would actually be more excited about next season. That would be the smart play. Of course, Cal has never made the smart play - see Wyking Jones for the most recent MBB example.

---

They could use a buyout to help procure a new and perhaps better coach. But more NIL dollars would more likely come from the donors. More NIL may come if certain hires that have donor backing are made. But the department needs some alignment. They have to move on from the Knowlton era. Jay and Jenny are holdovers and not aligned with what the programs want and need to prosper.

I have no trust that these 2 are truly capable of finding a good coach and getting the donors on board.

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I think the only answer to this is "we don't know." A core tenant of #teamdropdown is that Cal in such a conference would be an 8000 lb gorilla. If you look at UCSD both before it moved up to d1 and even today its recruiting in a ton of sports leverages its dramatic difference in academic quality and selectivity as a recruiting edge.

Now I get why this distance is hard for people but Cal doesn't have THAT much of an edge in P4. Yes. Better. But institutons like UCLA, Michigan, Duke, NC, Texas, etc. etc. are not BAD truck school institutions. They are in the same ballpark if not a 4 hole hitter.

But in a different conference Cal gets a LOT of the benefits of ICA (alumni coming to campus, student engagement) without some of the baggage (P4 football costs, ESPN TV gods determining game time and wagging the dog for THEIR benefit). What it loses is "relevance" and then the ability to use P4 Football rights to I guess subsidize P4 olympic sports. It also (and I recognize this is critical) avoids imposing upon students P4 student fees like MANY other institutions do (including all UCs other than UCSC & UCLA).

The current MM saga again drives for me this point home. What other P4 that cares has a 2 headed monster as AD and dicks around with chump change for a coach who just won 21 games? The answer is NO OTHER SCHOOL. But because Cal is not serious (and arguably doesn't need to be) it plays this ridiculously cynical game - where it tells fans it DOES care and demands to "compete for championships" but really doesn't when compared to the actions of their peers.

If we do not retain MM I am so out till August. It just isn't worth it.

PS. It also makes cal a ****TY employer and that also pisses me off where it asks coaches to do impossible things with the resources it provides. I get why a guy like Dykes (and I am not defending his overall record or approach) gets pissed. Ditto Martin. If you are providing "meh" level of support be ok with "meh" results. Don't ***** about not getting into the CFP.

---

Agree with all of the above, except for retaining Madsen. If he does get hired away and Cal receives the pretty sizeable buyout and turns around and hires an interesting coach and perhaps adds some NIL funds, then I would actually be more excited about next season. That would be the smart play. Of course, Cal has never made the smart play - see Wyking Jones for the most recent MBB example.

---

All I ca n stay within the bounds of the terms of use is that the buyout is no where near the level that changes the overall economics.

---

The contract is a public document. Is the problem that the amount was posted on the paid board or in a premium article, so now you cannot say what the amount is here?