BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

stu said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

Freshies.

---

OK, thanks. We have only two and I don't know if Mitrovic has signed yet.

Anyway I don't think our freshies will matter right away since our transfer class looks much stronger. On paper.

Should I even use the term "class" when I expect most of them won't stay more than a year?

---

No.

Honestly, I no longer look more than a year out because we haven't kept a single player who had a truly successful year, so I think what they might develop into is kind of irrelevant.

---

Again, I apologize if I'm coming off too positive in a negative thread, but look at the resultsevery one of those guys who left was developed well. From Tyson going in the first round to Scottie Pippen landing a $3 million deal to play against Michigan at Ohio State, they all moved on to better opportunities.
Mark Madsen may not be able to sell team chemistry or NCAA tournament appearances right now, but he can sell player developmentand when players develop, they take the next step. That's a positive outcome, not a negative one.

---

1. You don't need to apologize for being relentlessly positive. You are where a lot of us have been. Not going to lie, for someone who has been in this place a bunch of times with Cal where things seemed to be positive but we haven't won anything yet (and we usually never did) I can find it gratingly annoying, but that is my problem, not yours.

2. It is blatantly untrue that they all got better and moved on to better things. You guys keep saying Tyson, Tyson, Tyson because no one else from that team did jack. There are a whole lot more guys who regressed or did the same and some of the guys you guys credit looked about the same at the end of the year as the beginning. They just got a bigger opportunity here. There is nothing magic here.

3. Not blaming Madsen, but no it isn't a positive that we trained up Pippen to "bigger and better things" making $3m somewhere else. We should have paid him $3.5m and been the biggest, best thing. We have literally lost almost all of our scoring 4 straight years. That is not a recipe for good times.

---

" 3. Not blaming Madsen, but no it isn't a positive that we trained up Pippen to "bigger and better things" making $3m somewhere else. We should have paid him $3.5m and been the biggest, best thing. We have literally lost almost all of our scoring 4 straight years. That is not a recipe for good times."

SB takes direct messages and would love to set up on a payment plan so we can meet those salary numbers.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

stu said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

Freshies.

---

OK, thanks. We have only two and I don't know if Mitrovic has signed yet.

Anyway I don't think our freshies will matter right away since our transfer class looks much stronger. On paper.

Should I even use the term "class" when I expect most of them won't stay more than a year?

---

No.

Honestly, I no longer look more than a year out because we haven't kept a single player who had a truly successful year, so I think what they might develop into is kind of irrelevant.

---

Again, I apologize if I'm coming off too positive in a negative thread, but look at the resultsevery one of those guys who left was developed well. From Tyson going in the first round to Scottie Pippen landing a $3 million deal to play against Michigan at Ohio State, they all moved on to better opportunities.
Mark Madsen may not be able to sell team chemistry or NCAA tournament appearances right now, but he can sell player developmentand when players develop, they take the next step. That's a positive outcome, not a negative one.

---

Agreed, that is Madsen's major selling point right now and that looks like our new group of recruits as well: guys who were highly rated as HS recruits who haven't had a lot of PT and/or need their games developed to be high major players.

To that I'd like to add foreign players.

Half our roster should be filled with "traditional" 4 year recruits who are not top 200 prospects (but may develop into solid college players) and value the education without (much) NIL. That would allow us to focus our NIL on difference makers/starters.

---

With all due respect, I don't there is these type of guys anymore.

---

Sure there are. You can not look at the return of the Hall kid to New Mexico and the recruitment of his brother and not draw that conclusion. Yes. MW. I know. The ACC is SOOOOOOOO much better and Cal looks down its nose at western schools (it really does. When was the last transfer from west of the Mississippi that got donors excited?)

Are there a lot of kids like this? No. But there are a still kids that can contribute, off the bench, for 5 minutes a game, who would value addmission to Cal, a scholarship and a modest (lets say mid 5 figure) NIL deal.

PS. Not saying Hall got 5 figures. My guess is high 6 or even 7. But if we can't afford Jeb Hall then I am pretty much into depressed mode and I refuse to be there today since ia wonderous sunny lowcal day.

stu said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

247 has Furd's recruiting class ranked 17th nationally. Cal sitting at 107 today.

---

If that just freshies or does it include transfers?

---

I despise clickbait type titles. However I was only mentioning the truth about Stanford's portal season. They have an excellent 2027 high School recruiting class. (Top 20)
Guess that's where the nil went.

concernedparent said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

stu said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

Freshies.

---

OK, thanks. We have only two and I don't know if Mitrovic has signed yet.

Anyway I don't think our freshies will matter right away since our transfer class looks much stronger. On paper.

Should I even use the term "class" when I expect most of them won't stay more than a year?

---

No.

Honestly, I no longer look more than a year out because we haven't kept a single player who had a truly successful year, so I think what they might develop into is kind of irrelevant.

---

Again, I apologize if I'm coming off too positive in a negative thread, but look at the resultsevery one of those guys who left was developed well. From Tyson going in the first round to Scottie Pippen landing a $3 million deal to play against Michigan at Ohio State, they all moved on to better opportunities.
Mark Madsen may not be able to sell team chemistry or NCAA tournament appearances right now, but he can sell player developmentand when players develop, they take the next step. That's a positive outcome, not a negative one.

---

2. It is blatantly untrue that they all got better and moved on to better things. You guys keep saying Tyson, Tyson, Tyson because no one else from that team did jack. There are a whole lot more guys who regressed or did the same and some of the guys you guys credit looked about the same at the end of the year as the beginning. They just got a bigger opportunity here. There is nothing magic here.

---

I generally agree with your posts but not this. It's not just a bigger opportunity. Players get bigger opportunities and face plant all the time. Just look at the 2 previous regimes where there were plenty of minutes and shots to go around. Matt Bradley is literally the only example of a player that improved enough to become a significant contributor to a competitive team. Ames' efficiency stats may look the same but the jump in volume is indicative of a major improvement. Do you think Rudy Gobert or any low-volume, high-efficiency player maintains that efficiency if they got 10 more shots a game? No, almost always efficiency goes down as their shots get more difficult due to defensive game planning or the pressure of carrying the load.

It's not just Tyson. Stojakovic did nothing at Stanford. Pippen did nothing at Michigan. Ames, role player at Virginia. Camden, good mid-major player. Sissoko, role player at Michigan State. Dort did nothing at Vanderbilt. Wilkinson, 3 star with mostly mid major offers. They come to Cal and all of them (Dort excepted) become big-time contributors that either moved onto a bigger paycheck at a big-time program, or if they had another year of eligibility, would've gotten a bigger paycheck.

There's just too many examples for it to be a coincidence. Madsen is either excellent at talent development, or excellent at talent scouting plus having a system that allows players to shine. Either way, players are way more productive here than they were before. It sucks that in the portal/NIL age this attribute isn't as indicative of team success, but it's not nothing.

---

First of all, let me be clear because I think I may have implied that Madsen is a poor developer of talent and that is not what I meant. I think he is fine. I don't think anything special is going on here and that has been implied over and over on this board. Or, frankly, stated as a foregone conclusion.

Second of all, I absolutely disagree with using the 2 previous regimes as a measuring stick. They were the worst of the worst. Absolute zero percentile. (though I disagree with not including Sueing with Bradley)

But the overall point is that on every non-defective team some guys develop and some don't. Most guys get somewhat better with experience. Some young players getting their first opportunity take advantage of it. Some prospects are better than their ranking. Some aren't as good. Many guys get a year under their belts and really improve.

As for the guys you mentioned.

Guys who undoubtedly took steps:

Tyson undoubtedly took a huge step in his year at Cal

Sissoko - if you read about him at MSU, they loved the guy. Clearly the guy was a hard worker who did whatever was asked and you expected him to do really well holding down the defense and pulling down boards. However, he developed an offensive game here that might not have been earth shattering, but was light years ahead of anything he had done previously. Big kudos to the staff.

Dort - He was wasted space. I don't think he is what I would call good, but he is a solid starter.

Guys who got an opportunity:

Pippen - To say Pippen did nothing is true, but misleading. He was a highly rated recruit who was a true freshman on the Big 10 champion team that went to the Sweet Sixteen. He "did nothing" because their roster was loaded. His game logs for us are pretty consistent throughout the season indicating he was pretty good at the start of the season. I'm not saying no credit goes to the staff because they contributed, but out of a group of prospects that come in, some of them are good when they get their first opportunity.

Wilkinson - he had 3 SEC offers, but yes, he was a three star recruit. I've seen three star recruits walk in and be good all the time. He was pretty good as soon as he got minutes for us. He has improved at Georgia including a substantial improvement in 3 point shooting. I think both staffs deserve credit, but I'm going to also say this guy is just plain and simple a good player

Guys who are who we thought they were:

Dai Dai Ames - Ames had an injury during the season at Virginia. When he recovered fully he scored 14.8 pts a game in his last 10. His totals went up this year because he was healthy and our best offensive player. But they weren't up that much beyond his last 10 games there and his shooting percentages were basically the same (negligibly down).

Camden - Not sure where you are going with that. His numbers are down a little bit across the board. Shooting %, 3pt%, EFG%, Assists, Rebounds, Points. Pretty much exactly as I would expect going from mid major to ACC. Good player. Had a good year. Same as last year.

Guy who, no, just no. I don't acknowledge that he is a quality player that counts here:

Andrej Stojakovic - Okay, he's not a bear anymore, so I will speak freely. Nothing personal - he may be a great guy. As a player, I hate that guy. Selfish nepo baby, who is a terrible 3 point shooter, who does not make guys around him better and consistently does less with more. He was a frosh at Stanford and got more usage at Cal because we were inept at shooting and scoring. I didn't want him to leave because I didn't know who would replace him, but I'm glad he did because I believe our team would have been worse with him.

Beyond that, what about players, of varying quality, who did not make big leaps:

Omot, Blacksher, Mahoney, Campbell, Pavlovic, Petraitis, Tucker, Curtis, Aimaq, Cone, Askew, Kennedy, Newell, Brown, Okafor, Bowser, Dorsey,

As I said, some guys do great, others don't. This is not a poor hit rate. This is not an awesome hit rate. We've basically had 1 or 2 guys a year take a step up and then they immediately leave. We've had a bunch of guys, as you'd expect not do much, and some guys keep on keepin on.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

stu said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

Freshies.

---

OK, thanks. We have only two and I don't know if Mitrovic has signed yet.

Anyway I don't think our freshies will matter right away since our transfer class looks much stronger. On paper.

Should I even use the term "class" when I expect most of them won't stay more than a year?

---

No.

Honestly, I no longer look more than a year out because we haven't kept a single player who had a truly successful year, so I think what they might develop into is kind of irrelevant.

---

Again, I apologize if I'm coming off too positive in a negative thread, but look at the resultsevery one of those guys who left was developed well. From Tyson going in the first round to Scottie Pippen landing a $3 million deal to play against Michigan at Ohio State, they all moved on to better opportunities.
Mark Madsen may not be able to sell team chemistry or NCAA tournament appearances right now, but he can sell player developmentand when players develop, they take the next step. That's a positive outcome, not a negative one.

---

Agreed, that is Madsen's major selling point right now and that looks like our new group of recruits as well: guys who were highly rated as HS recruits who haven't had a lot of PT and/or need their games developed to be high major players.

To that I'd like to add foreign players.

Half our roster should be filled with "traditional" 4 year recruits who are not top 200 prospects (but may develop into solid college players) and value the education without (much) NIL. That would allow us to focus our NIL on difference makers/starters.

---

With all due respect, I don't there is these type of guys anymore.

---

Go look at Harvard's roster. Seniors that have been there 4 years. No NIL collective or payments by the school. They don't even have athletic scholarships. Obviously, if a player is All Ivy and has his degree, and a year of eligibility remaining, he will probably test the market for a grad year.

What I am suggesting is a Moneyball approach. We need to focus our NIL on guys that are going to be on the court, the starters, the difference makers playing major minutes, not deep bench players.

Who would come to Cal for a scholarship but little or no NIL to (most likely) ride the bench (but have a shot at earning more) while receiving good coaching and a great education? Lots of kids is my bet. Players like the Ivies get. And those kids are likely to be 4 year players because they are there for the school as much as the basketball because they know the degree is their future.

calumnus said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

stu said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

Freshies.

---

OK, thanks. We have only two and I don't know if Mitrovic has signed yet.

Anyway I don't think our freshies will matter right away since our transfer class looks much stronger. On paper.

Should I even use the term "class" when I expect most of them won't stay more than a year?

---

No.

Honestly, I no longer look more than a year out because we haven't kept a single player who had a truly successful year, so I think what they might develop into is kind of irrelevant.

---

Again, I apologize if I'm coming off too positive in a negative thread, but look at the resultsevery one of those guys who left was developed well. From Tyson going in the first round to Scottie Pippen landing a $3 million deal to play against Michigan at Ohio State, they all moved on to better opportunities.
Mark Madsen may not be able to sell team chemistry or NCAA tournament appearances right now, but he can sell player developmentand when players develop, they take the next step. That's a positive outcome, not a negative one.

---

Agreed, that is Madsen's major selling point right now and that looks like our new group of recruits as well: guys who were highly rated as HS recruits who haven't had a lot of PT and/or need their games developed to be high major players.

To that I'd like to add foreign players.

Half our roster should be filled with "traditional" 4 year recruits who are not top 200 prospects (but may develop into solid college players) and value the education without (much) NIL. That would allow us to focus our NIL on difference makers/starters.

---

With all due respect, I don't there is these type of guys anymore.

---

Go look at Harvard's roster. Seniors that have been there 4 years. No NIL collective or payments by the school. They don't even have athletic scholarships. Obviously, if a player is All Ivy and has his degree, and a year of eligibility remaining, he will probably test the market for a grad year.

What I am suggesting is a Moneyball approach. We need to focus our NIL on guys that are going to be on the court, the starters, the difference makers playing major minutes, not deep bench players.

Who would come to Cal for a scholarship but little or no NIL to (most likely) ride the bench (but have a shot at earning more) while receiving good coaching and a great education? Lots of kids is my bet. Players like the Ivies get. And those kids are likely to be 4 year players because they are there for the school as much as the basketball because they know the degree is their future.

---

Ok, yes you make some good points. Just curious, out of the 15 roster spots, how would you break down the number of "4 year" guys from the "NIL" guys?

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

stu said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

Freshies.

---

OK, thanks. We have only two and I don't know if Mitrovic has signed yet.

Anyway I don't think our freshies will matter right away since our transfer class looks much stronger. On paper.

Should I even use the term "class" when I expect most of them won't stay more than a year?

---

No.

Honestly, I no longer look more than a year out because we haven't kept a single player who had a truly successful year, so I think what they might develop into is kind of irrelevant.

---

Again, I apologize if I'm coming off too positive in a negative thread, but look at the resultsevery one of those guys who left was developed well. From Tyson going in the first round to Scottie Pippen landing a $3 million deal to play against Michigan at Ohio State, they all moved on to better opportunities.
Mark Madsen may not be able to sell team chemistry or NCAA tournament appearances right now, but he can sell player developmentand when players develop, they take the next step. That's a positive outcome, not a negative one.

---

2. It is blatantly untrue that they all got better and moved on to better things. You guys keep saying Tyson, Tyson, Tyson because no one else from that team did jack. There are a whole lot more guys who regressed or did the same and some of the guys you guys credit looked about the same at the end of the year as the beginning. They just got a bigger opportunity here. There is nothing magic here.

---

I generally agree with your posts but not this. It's not just a bigger opportunity. Players get bigger opportunities and face plant all the time. Just look at the 2 previous regimes where there were plenty of minutes and shots to go around. Matt Bradley is literally the only example of a player that improved enough to become a significant contributor to a competitive team. Ames' efficiency stats may look the same but the jump in volume is indicative of a major improvement. Do you think Rudy Gobert or any low-volume, high-efficiency player maintains that efficiency if they got 10 more shots a game? No, almost always efficiency goes down as their shots get more difficult due to defensive game planning or the pressure of carrying the load.

It's not just Tyson. Stojakovic did nothing at Stanford. Pippen did nothing at Michigan. Ames, role player at Virginia. Camden, good mid-major player. Sissoko, role player at Michigan State. Dort did nothing at Vanderbilt. Wilkinson, 3 star with mostly mid major offers. They come to Cal and all of them (Dort excepted) become big-time contributors that either moved onto a bigger paycheck at a big-time program, or if they had another year of eligibility, would've gotten a bigger paycheck.

There's just too many examples for it to be a coincidence. Madsen is either excellent at talent development, or excellent at talent scouting plus having a system that allows players to shine. Either way, players are way more productive here than they were before. It sucks that in the portal/NIL age this attribute isn't as indicative of team success, but it's not nothing.

---

First of all, let me be clear because I think I may have implied that Madsen is a poor developer of talent and that is not what I meant. I think he is fine. I don't think anything special is going on here and that has been implied over and over on this board. Or, frankly, stated as a foregone conclusion.

Second of all, I absolutely disagree with using the 2 previous regimes as a measuring stick. They were the worst of the worst. Absolute zero percentile. (though I disagree with not including Sueing with Bradley)

But the overall point is that on every non-defective team some guys develop and some don't. Most guys get somewhat better with experience. Some young players getting their first opportunity take advantage of it. Some prospects are better than their ranking. Some aren't as good. Many guys get a year under their belts and really improve.

As for the guys you mentioned.

Guys who undoubtedly took steps:

Tyson undoubtedly took a huge step in his year at Cal

Sissoko - if you read about him at MSU, they loved the guy. Clearly the guy was a hard worker who did whatever was asked and you expected him to do really well holding down the defense and pulling down boards. However, he developed an offensive game here that might not have been earth shattering, but was light years ahead of anything he had done previously. Big kudos to the staff.

Dort - He was wasted space. I don't think he is what I would call good, but he is a solid starter.

Guys who got an opportunity:

Pippen - To say Pippen did nothing is true, but misleading. He was a highly rated recruit who was a true freshman on the Big 10 champion team that went to the Sweet Sixteen. He "did nothing" because their roster was loaded. His game logs for us are pretty consistent throughout the season indicating he was pretty good at the start of the season. I'm not saying no credit goes to the staff because they contributed, but out of a group of prospects that come in, some of them are good when they get their first opportunity.

Wilkinson - he had 3 SEC offers, but yes, he was a three star recruit. I've seen three star recruits walk in and be good all the time. He was pretty good as soon as he got minutes for us. He has improved at Georgia including a substantial improvement in 3 point shooting. I think both staffs deserve credit, but I'm going to also say this guy is just plain and simple a good player

Guys who are who we thought they were:

Dai Dai Ames - Ames had an injury during the season at Virginia. When he recovered fully he scored 14.8 pts a game in his last 10. His totals went up this year because he was healthy and our best offensive player. But they weren't up that much beyond his last 10 games there and his shooting percentages were basically the same (negligibly down).

Camden - Not sure where you are going with that. His numbers are down a little bit across the board. Shooting %, 3pt%, EFG%, Assists, Rebounds, Points. Pretty much exactly as I would expect going from mid major to ACC. Good player. Had a good year. Same as last year.

Guy who, no, just no. I don't acknowledge that he is a quality player that counts here:

Andrej Stojakovic - Okay, he's not a bear anymore, so I will speak freely. Nothing personal - he may be a great guy. As a player, I hate that guy. Selfish nepo baby, who is a terrible 3 point shooter, who does not make guys around him better and consistently does less with more. He was a frosh at Stanford and got more usage at Cal because we were inept at shooting and scoring. I didn't want him to leave because I didn't know who would replace him, but I'm glad he did because I believe our team would have been worse with him.

Beyond that, what about players, of varying quality, who did not make big leaps:

Omot, Blacksher, Mahoney, Campbell, Pavlovic, Petraitis, Tucker, Curtis, Aimaq, Cone, Askew, Kennedy, Newell, Brown, Okafor, Bowser, Dorsey,

As I said, some guys do great, others don't. This is not a poor hit rate. This is not an awesome hit rate. We've basically had 1 or 2 guys a year take a step up and then they immediately leave. We've had a bunch of guys, as you'd expect not do much, and some guys keep on keepin on.

---

Pippen played 28 games and had an eFG% of 36. He was playing against back ups or sharing the court with better players commanding attention, and he played often. He had an opportunity at Michigan, he just sucked. Madsen bought low and hit.

Ames. That was 10 games. If he did it over a bigger sample size (like this season), we would not be able to afford him. Plenty of guys go on heaters but it doesn't always translate to production over a season. Madsen bought low and hit here.

Camden put up similar volume and efficiency stats while moving up from Delaware State, which plays in the, what conference again? One of those conferences that gets one automatic bid for a play-in 16th seed probably. It is a huge win for someone to produce like that while moving up significantly in competition. Most see significantly drops in production and efficiency when making that jump. Hit here.

Stojakovic. Say what you will, and his ball hog game was offensive to me too, but he put up volume stats on average efficiency, which is real production, and that production was enough to get interest and serious run on a final four team despite being basically the same player after leaving Cal. He was a negative producer at Stanford. I don't see how this wasn't a hit.

Wilkinson. When was the last time you saw a 3 star come in at Cal and flash that much immediately? In 20+ years I cannot think of a single one. The average productivity of a player with Wilkinson's recruiting profile is probably Rodney Brown. Hit.

Yes some guys will be hits and others misses, but relative to the expectations of the players coming in I think Madsen has overperformed with regards individual player scouting and/or development. We were expected to be a bottom dweller in the ACC this year and ended up being on the bubble for much of the season because there were so many unexpected hits. Now does this make him the right guy for us? Hard to say, but at the very least, he deserves credit for being good at one aspect of the job.

The misses in my opinion (guys who were expected to play serious minutes and underperformed) were Tucker, Campbell, and Cone. All of those other guys performed to expectation (Aimaq, Kennedy, Blacksher, Petraitis, Ola-Joseph, Chris Bell), were hurt (Omot), and the rest were roster fillers or inherited, known busts. I don't know where to put Illic.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

stu said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

Freshies.

---

OK, thanks. We have only two and I don't know if Mitrovic has signed yet.

Anyway I don't think our freshies will matter right away since our transfer class looks much stronger. On paper.

Should I even use the term "class" when I expect most of them won't stay more than a year?

---

No.

Honestly, I no longer look more than a year out because we haven't kept a single player who had a truly successful year, so I think what they might develop into is kind of irrelevant.

---

Again, I apologize if I'm coming off too positive in a negative thread, but look at the resultsevery one of those guys who left was developed well. From Tyson going in the first round to Scottie Pippen landing a $3 million deal to play against Michigan at Ohio State, they all moved on to better opportunities.
Mark Madsen may not be able to sell team chemistry or NCAA tournament appearances right now, but he can sell player developmentand when players develop, they take the next step. That's a positive outcome, not a negative one.

---

Agreed, that is Madsen's major selling point right now and that looks like our new group of recruits as well: guys who were highly rated as HS recruits who haven't had a lot of PT and/or need their games developed to be high major players.

To that I'd like to add foreign players.

Half our roster should be filled with "traditional" 4 year recruits who are not top 200 prospects (but may develop into solid college players) and value the education without (much) NIL. That would allow us to focus our NIL on difference makers/starters.

---

With all due respect, I don't there is these type of guys anymore.

---

Go look at Harvard's roster. Seniors that have been there 4 years. No NIL collective or payments by the school. They don't even have athletic scholarships. Obviously, if a player is All Ivy and has his degree, and a year of eligibility remaining, he will probably test the market for a grad year.

What I am suggesting is a Moneyball approach. We need to focus our NIL on guys that are going to be on the court, the starters, the difference makers playing major minutes, not deep bench players.

Who would come to Cal for a scholarship but little or no NIL to (most likely) ride the bench (but have a shot at earning more) while receiving good coaching and a great education? Lots of kids is my bet. Players like the Ivies get. And those kids are likely to be 4 year players because they are there for the school as much as the basketball because they know the degree is their future.

---

Ok, yes you make some good points. Just curious, out of the 15 roster spots, how would you break down the number of "4 year" guys from the "NIL" guys?

---

Basketball has the advantage of 5 guys getting the bulk of the minutes and on offense the "usage" can be funneled through one guy. David Robinson plus a bunch of Navy cadets feeding him the ball got to the Final Four.

Now the caveat is that I don't know the market and that could greatly alter the following but in general you want to focus your talent acquisition geometrically:

Top 1 player (your offensive star with most usage)
Top 2 players (your star and a second option he can pass to if double teamed).
Top 4 (or 5) players (Starters).
Top 8 players (Starters and main rotation players).

I think you will find that most NBA teams have settled into some kind of pay structure like this. A pyramid (or inverted pyramid) with the stars getting the bulk and benchwarmers getting the minimum. Again, the above in college depends on "value" and Madsen has done a good job of finding good value players.

So in answer to your question, I would say at least 7 "Four year players" but some might develop into guys that are in your top 8, especially as upper classmen, so that number can grow somewhat over time.

concernedparent said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

stu said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

Freshies.

---

OK, thanks. We have only two and I don't know if Mitrovic has signed yet.

Anyway I don't think our freshies will matter right away since our transfer class looks much stronger. On paper.

Should I even use the term "class" when I expect most of them won't stay more than a year?

---

No.

Honestly, I no longer look more than a year out because we haven't kept a single player who had a truly successful year, so I think what they might develop into is kind of irrelevant.

---

Again, I apologize if I'm coming off too positive in a negative thread, but look at the resultsevery one of those guys who left was developed well. From Tyson going in the first round to Scottie Pippen landing a $3 million deal to play against Michigan at Ohio State, they all moved on to better opportunities.
Mark Madsen may not be able to sell team chemistry or NCAA tournament appearances right now, but he can sell player developmentand when players develop, they take the next step. That's a positive outcome, not a negative one.

---

2. It is blatantly untrue that they all got better and moved on to better things. You guys keep saying Tyson, Tyson, Tyson because no one else from that team did jack. There are a whole lot more guys who regressed or did the same and some of the guys you guys credit looked about the same at the end of the year as the beginning. They just got a bigger opportunity here. There is nothing magic here.

---

I generally agree with your posts but not this. It's not just a bigger opportunity. Players get bigger opportunities and face plant all the time. Just look at the 2 previous regimes where there were plenty of minutes and shots to go around. Matt Bradley is literally the only example of a player that improved enough to become a significant contributor to a competitive team. Ames' efficiency stats may look the same but the jump in volume is indicative of a major improvement. Do you think Rudy Gobert or any low-volume, high-efficiency player maintains that efficiency if they got 10 more shots a game? No, almost always efficiency goes down as their shots get more difficult due to defensive game planning or the pressure of carrying the load.

It's not just Tyson. Stojakovic did nothing at Stanford. Pippen did nothing at Michigan. Ames, role player at Virginia. Camden, good mid-major player. Sissoko, role player at Michigan State. Dort did nothing at Vanderbilt. Wilkinson, 3 star with mostly mid major offers. They come to Cal and all of them (Dort excepted) become big-time contributors that either moved onto a bigger paycheck at a big-time program, or if they had another year of eligibility, would've gotten a bigger paycheck.

There's just too many examples for it to be a coincidence. Madsen is either excellent at talent development, or excellent at talent scouting plus having a system that allows players to shine. Either way, players are way more productive here than they were before. It sucks that in the portal/NIL age this attribute isn't as indicative of team success, but it's not nothing.

---

First of all, let me be clear because I think I may have implied that Madsen is a poor developer of talent and that is not what I meant. I think he is fine. I don't think anything special is going on here and that has been implied over and over on this board. Or, frankly, stated as a foregone conclusion.

Second of all, I absolutely disagree with using the 2 previous regimes as a measuring stick. They were the worst of the worst. Absolute zero percentile. (though I disagree with not including Sueing with Bradley)

But the overall point is that on every non-defective team some guys develop and some don't. Most guys get somewhat better with experience. Some young players getting their first opportunity take advantage of it. Some prospects are better than their ranking. Some aren't as good. Many guys get a year under their belts and really improve.

As for the guys you mentioned.

Guys who undoubtedly took steps:

Tyson undoubtedly took a huge step in his year at Cal

Sissoko - if you read about him at MSU, they loved the guy. Clearly the guy was a hard worker who did whatever was asked and you expected him to do really well holding down the defense and pulling down boards. However, he developed an offensive game here that might not have been earth shattering, but was light years ahead of anything he had done previously. Big kudos to the staff.

Dort - He was wasted space. I don't think he is what I would call good, but he is a solid starter.

Guys who got an opportunity:

Pippen - To say Pippen did nothing is true, but misleading. He was a highly rated recruit who was a true freshman on the Big 10 champion team that went to the Sweet Sixteen. He "did nothing" because their roster was loaded. His game logs for us are pretty consistent throughout the season indicating he was pretty good at the start of the season. I'm not saying no credit goes to the staff because they contributed, but out of a group of prospects that come in, some of them are good when they get their first opportunity.

Wilkinson - he had 3 SEC offers, but yes, he was a three star recruit. I've seen three star recruits walk in and be good all the time. He was pretty good as soon as he got minutes for us. He has improved at Georgia including a substantial improvement in 3 point shooting. I think both staffs deserve credit, but I'm going to also say this guy is just plain and simple a good player

Guys who are who we thought they were:

Dai Dai Ames - Ames had an injury during the season at Virginia. When he recovered fully he scored 14.8 pts a game in his last 10. His totals went up this year because he was healthy and our best offensive player. But they weren't up that much beyond his last 10 games there and his shooting percentages were basically the same (negligibly down).

Camden - Not sure where you are going with that. His numbers are down a little bit across the board. Shooting %, 3pt%, EFG%, Assists, Rebounds, Points. Pretty much exactly as I would expect going from mid major to ACC. Good player. Had a good year. Same as last year.

Guy who, no, just no. I don't acknowledge that he is a quality player that counts here:

Andrej Stojakovic - Okay, he's not a bear anymore, so I will speak freely. Nothing personal - he may be a great guy. As a player, I hate that guy. Selfish nepo baby, who is a terrible 3 point shooter, who does not make guys around him better and consistently does less with more. He was a frosh at Stanford and got more usage at Cal because we were inept at shooting and scoring. I didn't want him to leave because I didn't know who would replace him, but I'm glad he did because I believe our team would have been worse with him.

Beyond that, what about players, of varying quality, who did not make big leaps:

Omot, Blacksher, Mahoney, Campbell, Pavlovic, Petraitis, Tucker, Curtis, Aimaq, Cone, Askew, Kennedy, Newell, Brown, Okafor, Bowser, Dorsey,

As I said, some guys do great, others don't. This is not a poor hit rate. This is not an awesome hit rate. We've basically had 1 or 2 guys a year take a step up and then they immediately leave. We've had a bunch of guys, as you'd expect not do much, and some guys keep on keepin on.

---

Pippen played 28 games and had an eFG% of 36. He was playing against back ups or sharing the court with better players commanding attention, and he played often. He had an opportunity at Michigan, he just sucked. Madsen bought low and hit.

Ames. That was 10 games. If he did it over a bigger sample size (like this season), we would not be able to afford him. Plenty of guys go on heaters but it doesn't always translate to production over a season. Madsen bought low and hit here.

Camden put up similar volume and efficiency stats while moving up from Delaware State, which plays in the, what conference again? One of those conferences that gets one automatic bid for a play-in 16th seed probably. It is a huge win for someone to produce like that while moving up significantly in competition. Most see significantly drops in production and efficiency when making that jump. Hit here.

Stojakovic. Say what you will, and his ball hog game was offensive to me too, but he put up volume stats on average efficiency, which is real production, and that production was enough to get interest and serious run on a final four team despite being basically the same player after leaving Cal. He was a negative producer at Stanford. I don't see how this wasn't a hit.

Wilkinson. When was the last time you saw a 3 star come in at Cal and flash that much immediately? In 20+ years I cannot think of a single one. The average productivity of a player with Wilkinson's recruiting profile is probably Rodney Brown. Hit.

Yes some guys will be hits and others misses, but relative to the expectations of the players coming in I think Madsen has overperformed with regards individual player scouting and/or development. We were expected to be a bottom dweller in the ACC this year and ended up being on the bubble for much of the season because there were so many unexpected hits. Now does this make him the right guy for us? Hard to say, but at the very least, he deserves credit for being good at one aspect of the job.

The misses in my opinion (guys who were expected to play serious minutes and underperformed) were Tucker, Campbell, and Cone. All of those other guys performed to expectation (Aimaq, Kennedy, Blacksher, Petraitis, Ola-Joseph, Chris Bell), were hurt (Omot), and the rest were roster fillers or inherited, known busts. I don't know where to put Illic.

---

Pippen was so good at Michigan he was inducted in the NBA Hall of Fame and named to the All Time NBA top 10 players list. I just thought if we were going to totally fabricate, I might as well make it good. He averaged 6 minutes a game. In the three games he played over 15 minutes, he had eFG of 50%, 75% and 62.5%. He didn't have a lot of opportunities and sucked. He barely had any and played well when he did. As I said, I give the staff credit, but he wasn't a bad player turned around by awesome coaching.

Ames got hurt and then had 12 straight single digit scoring efforts. He recovered and had 10 straight double digit scoring efforts at 14.8% per game average. You are ignoring his injury. His 3 point shooting dropped from 39.7% to 37.6% at Cal and his efficiency went down slightly. Moreover, he did what we pretty much thought he would do when we got him.

Camden - saying his numbers were similar is generous. Scoring down 20%. Assists down 30%, Rebounds down 12%, steals down 27%, 3pt shooting down from 41.6% to 39.5%. Pretty much on par reductions for a guy going up a level.

Stojakovic - I hate that guy. He scored in volume because no one else could. I don't know why you keep saying hit. My post was about coach development.

Wilkinson - so you are just going to give credit for a hit, but none of the HS recruits who did little are misses?

Which is what you and others are doing. You are naming a handful of guys and pretending like a whole lot of guys don't exist. Dorsey's stats cratered, for example, but you are apparently just classifying him as roster filler so he doesn't count.

If there are so many hits and the misses are all roster filler, one wonders why our record is what it is. Maybe we need to take fewer roster fillers.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

stu said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

Freshies.

---

OK, thanks. We have only two and I don't know if Mitrovic has signed yet.

Anyway I don't think our freshies will matter right away since our transfer class looks much stronger. On paper.

Should I even use the term "class" when I expect most of them won't stay more than a year?

---

No.

Honestly, I no longer look more than a year out because we haven't kept a single player who had a truly successful year, so I think what they might develop into is kind of irrelevant.

---

Again, I apologize if I'm coming off too positive in a negative thread, but look at the resultsevery one of those guys who left was developed well. From Tyson going in the first round to Scottie Pippen landing a $3 million deal to play against Michigan at Ohio State, they all moved on to better opportunities.
Mark Madsen may not be able to sell team chemistry or NCAA tournament appearances right now, but he can sell player developmentand when players develop, they take the next step. That's a positive outcome, not a negative one.

---

2. It is blatantly untrue that they all got better and moved on to better things. You guys keep saying Tyson, Tyson, Tyson because no one else from that team did jack. There are a whole lot more guys who regressed or did the same and some of the guys you guys credit looked about the same at the end of the year as the beginning. They just got a bigger opportunity here. There is nothing magic here.

---

I generally agree with your posts but not this. It's not just a bigger opportunity. Players get bigger opportunities and face plant all the time. Just look at the 2 previous regimes where there were plenty of minutes and shots to go around. Matt Bradley is literally the only example of a player that improved enough to become a significant contributor to a competitive team. Ames' efficiency stats may look the same but the jump in volume is indicative of a major improvement. Do you think Rudy Gobert or any low-volume, high-efficiency player maintains that efficiency if they got 10 more shots a game? No, almost always efficiency goes down as their shots get more difficult due to defensive game planning or the pressure of carrying the load.

It's not just Tyson. Stojakovic did nothing at Stanford. Pippen did nothing at Michigan. Ames, role player at Virginia. Camden, good mid-major player. Sissoko, role player at Michigan State. Dort did nothing at Vanderbilt. Wilkinson, 3 star with mostly mid major offers. They come to Cal and all of them (Dort excepted) become big-time contributors that either moved onto a bigger paycheck at a big-time program, or if they had another year of eligibility, would've gotten a bigger paycheck.

There's just too many examples for it to be a coincidence. Madsen is either excellent at talent development, or excellent at talent scouting plus having a system that allows players to shine. Either way, players are way more productive here than they were before. It sucks that in the portal/NIL age this attribute isn't as indicative of team success, but it's not nothing.

---

First of all, let me be clear because I think I may have implied that Madsen is a poor developer of talent and that is not what I meant. I think he is fine. I don't think anything special is going on here and that has been implied over and over on this board. Or, frankly, stated as a foregone conclusion.

Second of all, I absolutely disagree with using the 2 previous regimes as a measuring stick. They were the worst of the worst. Absolute zero percentile. (though I disagree with not including Sueing with Bradley)

But the overall point is that on every non-defective team some guys develop and some don't. Most guys get somewhat better with experience. Some young players getting their first opportunity take advantage of it. Some prospects are better than their ranking. Some aren't as good. Many guys get a year under their belts and really improve.

As for the guys you mentioned.

Guys who undoubtedly took steps:

Tyson undoubtedly took a huge step in his year at Cal

Sissoko - if you read about him at MSU, they loved the guy. Clearly the guy was a hard worker who did whatever was asked and you expected him to do really well holding down the defense and pulling down boards. However, he developed an offensive game here that might not have been earth shattering, but was light years ahead of anything he had done previously. Big kudos to the staff.

Dort - He was wasted space. I don't think he is what I would call good, but he is a solid starter.

Guys who got an opportunity:

Pippen - To say Pippen did nothing is true, but misleading. He was a highly rated recruit who was a true freshman on the Big 10 champion team that went to the Sweet Sixteen. He "did nothing" because their roster was loaded. His game logs for us are pretty consistent throughout the season indicating he was pretty good at the start of the season. I'm not saying no credit goes to the staff because they contributed, but out of a group of prospects that come in, some of them are good when they get their first opportunity.

Wilkinson - he had 3 SEC offers, but yes, he was a three star recruit. I've seen three star recruits walk in and be good all the time. He was pretty good as soon as he got minutes for us. He has improved at Georgia including a substantial improvement in 3 point shooting. I think both staffs deserve credit, but I'm going to also say this guy is just plain and simple a good player

Guys who are who we thought they were:

Dai Dai Ames - Ames had an injury during the season at Virginia. When he recovered fully he scored 14.8 pts a game in his last 10. His totals went up this year because he was healthy and our best offensive player. But they weren't up that much beyond his last 10 games there and his shooting percentages were basically the same (negligibly down).

Camden - Not sure where you are going with that. His numbers are down a little bit across the board. Shooting %, 3pt%, EFG%, Assists, Rebounds, Points. Pretty much exactly as I would expect going from mid major to ACC. Good player. Had a good year. Same as last year.

Guy who, no, just no. I don't acknowledge that he is a quality player that counts here:

Andrej Stojakovic - Okay, he's not a bear anymore, so I will speak freely. Nothing personal - he may be a great guy. As a player, I hate that guy. Selfish nepo baby, who is a terrible 3 point shooter, who does not make guys around him better and consistently does less with more. He was a frosh at Stanford and got more usage at Cal because we were inept at shooting and scoring. I didn't want him to leave because I didn't know who would replace him, but I'm glad he did because I believe our team would have been worse with him.

Beyond that, what about players, of varying quality, who did not make big leaps:

Omot, Blacksher, Mahoney, Campbell, Pavlovic, Petraitis, Tucker, Curtis, Aimaq, Cone, Askew, Kennedy, Newell, Brown, Okafor, Bowser, Dorsey,

As I said, some guys do great, others don't. This is not a poor hit rate. This is not an awesome hit rate. We've basically had 1 or 2 guys a year take a step up and then they immediately leave. We've had a bunch of guys, as you'd expect not do much, and some guys keep on keepin on.

---

Pippen played 28 games and had an eFG% of 36. He was playing against back ups or sharing the court with better players commanding attention, and he played often. He had an opportunity at Michigan, he just sucked. Madsen bought low and hit.

Ames. That was 10 games. If he did it over a bigger sample size (like this season), we would not be able to afford him. Plenty of guys go on heaters but it doesn't always translate to production over a season. Madsen bought low and hit here.

Camden put up similar volume and efficiency stats while moving up from Delaware State, which plays in the, what conference again? One of those conferences that gets one automatic bid for a play-in 16th seed probably. It is a huge win for someone to produce like that while moving up significantly in competition. Most see significantly drops in production and efficiency when making that jump. Hit here.

Stojakovic. Say what you will, and his ball hog game was offensive to me too, but he put up volume stats on average efficiency, which is real production, and that production was enough to get interest and serious run on a final four team despite being basically the same player after leaving Cal. He was a negative producer at Stanford. I don't see how this wasn't a hit.

Wilkinson. When was the last time you saw a 3 star come in at Cal and flash that much immediately? In 20+ years I cannot think of a single one. The average productivity of a player with Wilkinson's recruiting profile is probably Rodney Brown. Hit.

Yes some guys will be hits and others misses, but relative to the expectations of the players coming in I think Madsen has overperformed with regards individual player scouting and/or development. We were expected to be a bottom dweller in the ACC this year and ended up being on the bubble for much of the season because there were so many unexpected hits. Now does this make him the right guy for us? Hard to say, but at the very least, he deserves credit for being good at one aspect of the job.

The misses in my opinion (guys who were expected to play serious minutes and underperformed) were Tucker, Campbell, and Cone. All of those other guys performed to expectation (Aimaq, Kennedy, Blacksher, Petraitis, Ola-Joseph, Chris Bell), were hurt (Omot), and the rest were roster fillers or inherited, known busts. I don't know where to put Illic.

---

Pippen was so good at Michigan he was inducted in the NBA Hall of Fame and named to the All Time NBA top 10 players list. I just thought if we were going to totally fabricate, I might as well make it good. He averaged 6 minutes a game. In the three games he played over 15 minutes, he had eFG of 50%, 75% and 62.5%. He didn't have a lot of opportunities and sucked. He barely had any and played well when he did. As I said, I give the staff credit, but he wasn't a bad player turned around by awesome coaching.

Ames got hurt and then had 12 straight single digit scoring efforts. He recovered and had 10 straight double digit scoring efforts at 14.8% per game average. You are ignoring his injury. His 3 point shooting dropped from 39.7% to 37.6% at Cal and his efficiency went down slightly. Moreover, he did what we pretty much thought he would do when we got him.

Camden - saying his numbers were similar is generous. Scoring down 20%. Assists down 30%, Rebounds down 12%, steals down 27%, 3pt shooting down from 41.6% to 39.5%. Pretty much on par reductions for a guy going up a level.

Stojakovic - I hate that guy. He scored in volume because no one else could. I don't know why you keep saying hit. My post was about coach development.

Wilkinson - so you are just going to give credit for a hit, but none of the HS recruits who did little are misses?

Which is what you and others are doing. You are naming a handful of guys and pretending like a whole lot of guys don't exist. Dorsey's stats cratered, for example, but you are apparently just classifying him as roster filler so he doesn't count.

If there are so many hits and the misses are all roster filler, one wonders why our record is what it is. Maybe we need to take fewer roster fillers.

---

Agreed, teams with budget constraints should not spend NIL/salary cap money on "roster fillers" and instead spend on the guys that are most likely going to be your starters, get the lion share of minutes and the most usage on offense. Of course, that is subject to the market. Madsen has done a good job of finding "bargain" guys with upside. It is a good of not great model for us at this time. I really liked this most recent team and think it could have been a Tourny team if things broke differently. Now we roll the dice again. Madsen is on contact through 2030. We will see over the next two to three years if we can produce a Tournament team with this strategy, he changes his strategy or whether we need to make a change.

However, the next two to three years in football will have a bigger impact on what is possible for Cal, including basketball, going forward.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

TonyTiger said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

stu said:

---

Calfan92 said:

---

Freshies.

---

OK, thanks. We have only two and I don't know if Mitrovic has signed yet.

Anyway I don't think our freshies will matter right away since our transfer class looks much stronger. On paper.

Should I even use the term "class" when I expect most of them won't stay more than a year?

---

No.

Honestly, I no longer look more than a year out because we haven't kept a single player who had a truly successful year, so I think what they might develop into is kind of irrelevant.

---

Again, I apologize if I'm coming off too positive in a negative thread, but look at the resultsevery one of those guys who left was developed well. From Tyson going in the first round to Scottie Pippen landing a $3 million deal to play against Michigan at Ohio State, they all moved on to better opportunities.
Mark Madsen may not be able to sell team chemistry or NCAA tournament appearances right now, but he can sell player developmentand when players develop, they take the next step. That's a positive outcome, not a negative one.

---

2. It is blatantly untrue that they all got better and moved on to better things. You guys keep saying Tyson, Tyson, Tyson because no one else from that team did jack. There are a whole lot more guys who regressed or did the same and some of the guys you guys credit looked about the same at the end of the year as the beginning. They just got a bigger opportunity here. There is nothing magic here.

---

I generally agree with your posts but not this. It's not just a bigger opportunity. Players get bigger opportunities and face plant all the time. Just look at the 2 previous regimes where there were plenty of minutes and shots to go around. Matt Bradley is literally the only example of a player that improved enough to become a significant contributor to a competitive team. Ames' efficiency stats may look the same but the jump in volume is indicative of a major improvement. Do you think Rudy Gobert or any low-volume, high-efficiency player maintains that efficiency if they got 10 more shots a game? No, almost always efficiency goes down as their shots get more difficult due to defensive game planning or the pressure of carrying the load.

It's not just Tyson. Stojakovic did nothing at Stanford. Pippen did nothing at Michigan. Ames, role player at Virginia. Camden, good mid-major player. Sissoko, role player at Michigan State. Dort did nothing at Vanderbilt. Wilkinson, 3 star with mostly mid major offers. They come to Cal and all of them (Dort excepted) become big-time contributors that either moved onto a bigger paycheck at a big-time program, or if they had another year of eligibility, would've gotten a bigger paycheck.

There's just too many examples for it to be a coincidence. Madsen is either excellent at talent development, or excellent at talent scouting plus having a system that allows players to shine. Either way, players are way more productive here than they were before. It sucks that in the portal/NIL age this attribute isn't as indicative of team success, but it's not nothing.

---

First of all, let me be clear because I think I may have implied that Madsen is a poor developer of talent and that is not what I meant. I think he is fine. I don't think anything special is going on here and that has been implied over and over on this board. Or, frankly, stated as a foregone conclusion.

Second of all, I absolutely disagree with using the 2 previous regimes as a measuring stick. They were the worst of the worst. Absolute zero percentile. (though I disagree with not including Sueing with Bradley)

But the overall point is that on every non-defective team some guys develop and some don't. Most guys get somewhat better with experience. Some young players getting their first opportunity take advantage of it. Some prospects are better than their ranking. Some aren't as good. Many guys get a year under their belts and really improve.

As for the guys you mentioned.

Guys who undoubtedly took steps:

Tyson undoubtedly took a huge step in his year at Cal

Sissoko - if you read about him at MSU, they loved the guy. Clearly the guy was a hard worker who did whatever was asked and you expected him to do really well holding down the defense and pulling down boards. However, he developed an offensive game here that might not have been earth shattering, but was light years ahead of anything he had done previously. Big kudos to the staff.

Dort - He was wasted space. I don't think he is what I would call good, but he is a solid starter.

Guys who got an opportunity:

Pippen - To say Pippen did nothing is true, but misleading. He was a highly rated recruit who was a true freshman on the Big 10 champion team that went to the Sweet Sixteen. He "did nothing" because their roster was loaded. His game logs for us are pretty consistent throughout the season indicating he was pretty good at the start of the season. I'm not saying no credit goes to the staff because they contributed, but out of a group of prospects that come in, some of them are good when they get their first opportunity.

Wilkinson - he had 3 SEC offers, but yes, he was a three star recruit. I've seen three star recruits walk in and be good all the time. He was pretty good as soon as he got minutes for us. He has improved at Georgia including a substantial improvement in 3 point shooting. I think both staffs deserve credit, but I'm going to also say this guy is just plain and simple a good player

Guys who are who we thought they were:

Dai Dai Ames - Ames had an injury during the season at Virginia. When he recovered fully he scored 14.8 pts a game in his last 10. His totals went up this year because he was healthy and our best offensive player. But they weren't up that much beyond his last 10 games there and his shooting percentages were basically the same (negligibly down).

Camden - Not sure where you are going with that. His numbers are down a little bit across the board. Shooting %, 3pt%, EFG%, Assists, Rebounds, Points. Pretty much exactly as I would expect going from mid major to ACC. Good player. Had a good year. Same as last year.

Guy who, no, just no. I don't acknowledge that he is a quality player that counts here:

Andrej Stojakovic - Okay, he's not a bear anymore, so I will speak freely. Nothing personal - he may be a great guy. As a player, I hate that guy. Selfish nepo baby, who is a terrible 3 point shooter, who does not make guys around him better and consistently does less with more. He was a frosh at Stanford and got more usage at Cal because we were inept at shooting and scoring. I didn't want him to leave because I didn't know who would replace him, but I'm glad he did because I believe our team would have been worse with him.

Beyond that, what about players, of varying quality, who did not make big leaps:

Omot, Blacksher, Mahoney, Campbell, Pavlovic, Petraitis, Tucker, Curtis, Aimaq, Cone, Askew, Kennedy, Newell, Brown, Okafor, Bowser, Dorsey,

As I said, some guys do great, others don't. This is not a poor hit rate. This is not an awesome hit rate. We've basically had 1 or 2 guys a year take a step up and then they immediately leave. We've had a bunch of guys, as you'd expect not do much, and some guys keep on keepin on.

---

Pippen played 28 games and had an eFG% of 36. He was playing against back ups or sharing the court with better players commanding attention, and he played often. He had an opportunity at Michigan, he just sucked. Madsen bought low and hit.

Ames. That was 10 games. If he did it over a bigger sample size (like this season), we would not be able to afford him. Plenty of guys go on heaters but it doesn't always translate to production over a season. Madsen bought low and hit here.

Camden put up similar volume and efficiency stats while moving up from Delaware State, which plays in the, what conference again? One of those conferences that gets one automatic bid for a play-in 16th seed probably. It is a huge win for someone to produce like that while moving up significantly in competition. Most see significantly drops in production and efficiency when making that jump. Hit here.

Stojakovic. Say what you will, and his ball hog game was offensive to me too, but he put up volume stats on average efficiency, which is real production, and that production was enough to get interest and serious run on a final four team despite being basically the same player after leaving Cal. He was a negative producer at Stanford. I don't see how this wasn't a hit.

Wilkinson. When was the last time you saw a 3 star come in at Cal and flash that much immediately? In 20+ years I cannot think of a single one. The average productivity of a player with Wilkinson's recruiting profile is probably Rodney Brown. Hit.

Yes some guys will be hits and others misses, but relative to the expectations of the players coming in I think Madsen has overperformed with regards individual player scouting and/or development. We were expected to be a bottom dweller in the ACC this year and ended up being on the bubble for much of the season because there were so many unexpected hits. Now does this make him the right guy for us? Hard to say, but at the very least, he deserves credit for being good at one aspect of the job.

The misses in my opinion (guys who were expected to play serious minutes and underperformed) were Tucker, Campbell, and Cone. All of those other guys performed to expectation (Aimaq, Kennedy, Blacksher, Petraitis, Ola-Joseph, Chris Bell), were hurt (Omot), and the rest were roster fillers or inherited, known busts. I don't know where to put Illic.

---

If there are so many hits and the misses are all roster filler, one wonders why our record is what it is. Maybe we need to take fewer roster fillers.

---

Agreed. You got the money?

Without a draft, a salary cap, revenue-sharing and binding contracts, this what you get. My main interest now in watching is too see what individual player development Madsen can accomplish before people move on. Kind of like watching the G League.

annarborbear said:

---

Without a draft, a salary cap, revenue-sharing and binding contracts, this what you get. My main interest now in watching is too see what individual player development Madsen can accomplish before people move on. Kind of like watching the G League.

---

It is a bit like fantasy leagues: every season you have a new team to root for.

calumnus said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

Without a draft, a salary cap, revenue-sharing and binding contracts, this what you get. My main interest now in watching is too see what individual player development Madsen can accomplish before people move on. Kind of like watching the G League.

---

It is a bit like fantasy leagues: every season you have a new team to root for.

---

It is a lot like the top European soccer leagues, even though they have actual player contracts. If a player really wants to leave his team, and another team wants him, they find a way to make it happen even if the player has time remaining on his contract. And if a team really wants to offload a certain player, they find a way to make that happen. A few players, especially stars, stay with the same team for several years, but there are many who have a new team every year or every few years. Any given team can have a lot of turnover from year to year.

Can easily make the case this was the biggest stay-or-go swing decision of this year's draft. Stanford is a drastically different team without Okorie, who burst onto the scene last season and was one of the best scorers in college hoops. https://t.co/CeYodIB0x9

— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) May 13, 2026

Huge implications for TT.

Not expcting it but what a story if TT becomes the next EO.

Okorie staying in the draft is a massive blow for Stanford. I think they could've been a tourney team with him back.

They'll have some nice young pieces next year and if anyone could turn them into a competitive group, it's Kyle Smith. But they could've been a really good squad if Okorie returned.

stu said:

---

Not expcting it but what a story if TT becomes the next EO.

---

I like Carr, but there's literally a 0% chance that occurs.

Carr is a classic 4 year, solid floor general PG. I think he'll be quite good by the time he's an upperclassman.

But Okorie is an insane talent.

Huge blow to Stanford, and huge opportunity for Carr

But the gap between the two is large both offensively and defensively, although slight edge to Carr for passing

philbert said:

---

Can easily make the case this was the biggest stay-or-go swing decision of this year's draft. Stanford is a drastically different team without Okorie, who burst onto the scene last season and was one of the best scorers in college hoops. https://t.co/CeYodIB0x9

— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) May 13, 2026

---

The Cardinal added their first player from the transfer portal a few days ago: 7-foot center Austin Maurer, who previously played for Grand Canyon as a freshman and Seattle as a sophomore.

This is Stanford's roster of scholarship players for the 2026-27 season, assuming that Ebuka Okorie follows through on staying in the draft, and none of their outgoing players withdraw from the portal and return (Ryan Agarwal, Oskar Giltay, Cameron Grant, and Jaylen Thompson have already committed elsewhere).

I'm also assuming the standard 4 years of eligibility, though that may change.

Last year of eligibility

(none)

2 years of eligibility

6-3 guard Anthony Batson Jr (5.1 minutes per game in 2025-26)
6-10 post Aidan Cammann (21.7 mpg)
6-7 forward Evan Stinson (5.3 mpg)
6-11 post Tallis Toure (3.5 mpg)
6-8 forward Donavin Young (15.5 mpg)

7-0 center Austin Maurer (17.9 mpg at Seattle)

3 years of eligibility

6-10 freshman forward Kristers Skrinda (6.0 mpg)

4 years of eligibility

6-3 guard Myles Jones (2025 class; redshirted last season)

6-9 forward Drew Anderson (2026 class; top 200)
6-4 guard Elias Obenyah (2026 class; top 200)
6-7 forward Aziz Olajuwon (2026 class; RSCI final ranking #64)
6-2 guard Julius Price (2026 class; top 200)
6-2 guard Isaiah Rogers (2026 class; top 200)

I did this with the help of Andrew Parrish's 2026-27 Scholarship Tracker, a Google Spreadsheet he maintains for all Division I teams.

HoopDreams said:

---

Huge blow to Stanford, and huge opportunity for Carr

But the gap between the two is large both offensively and defensively, although slight edge to Carr for passing

philbert said:

---

Can easily make the case this was the biggest stay-or-go swing decision of this year's draft. Stanford is a drastically different team without Okorie, who burst onto the scene last season and was one of the best scorers in college hoops. https://t.co/CeYodIB0x9

— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) May 13, 2026

---

---

So the speculation or inside word is TT Carr to Stanford?

Bobodeluxe said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

When in the last 60-years has Cal put up TV numbers that if adjusted for today would make us a no brainer to add for our TV value? We talk about TV ratings but I can't recall at anytime in my life when we were anywhere close to other blue bloods in that same way. We seem to structurally lack something, and I don't think it is winning. It is general student body apathy towards sports.

---

"Other"?

wha, wha, what?

Blue laundry does not actually make a "blue blood".

---

Bue laundry and Blue Blood. I like it.

socaltownie said:

---

Ccajon2 said:

---

Obviously the furds are not going to play the nil game. They've lost six players to the portal including their best one Jalen Thompson. I don't feel any schadenfreude anymore. I guess we're still tied at the hip. I talked to a couple of bird fans I know and they seem inclined to think that both of us I mean Cal and fuds going to go back to the revamped pack 12. Hmmmm

---

Furd BB is in implosion mode. It is a false parallel between Cal and them as we are playing "money ball" and our signees have strong upside potential.

As has been pointed out and discussed in detail over on the premium board - if Cal had even just upper half NIL compared to our ACC breathern, the MM discount that players are willing to give because of his track record in player development would have us a top 25-30 team. Really this is why those that can give significantly (5 figures should strongly consider it....and why cal should absolutely look to increase demand for premium seatting at Haas and link it to NIL donations


#movethebandbacktohalfcourt

---

Sorry, the accounting office won't allow it. Move the band back to half court and they lose a lot of revenue from the Alums who want primo seating. (Years ago, my song girl cousin gave me free tix sitting in the rooting section next to the band. After 15 minutes, sweat was pouring down my brow. An hour after the game, I finally recovered my hearing.)

SFCityBear said:

---

... (Years ago, my song girl cousin gave me free tix sitting in the rooting section next to the band. After 15 minutes, sweat was pouring down my brow. An hour after the game, I finally recovered my hearing.)

---

Mine has never recovered.

stu said:

---

The LSJU WBB team is also imploding. I'm guessing due to a combination of NIL and coaching.

---

They can't stand their WBB coach who is a Furd legacy. She has blotted her copybook in some way beside just coaching apparently.

You will get that seating with a 20k nil donation.