tough sledding - Page 2

calumnus

9:22p, 5/4/24

Civil Bear said:
AZ Bear said:
Madsen looks like the best recruiter Cal has hired in any sport (not just MBB) in a very long time.

I agree that Madsen looks like an excellent recruiter. And what he's offering would be very appealing to me were I a player or the parent of a player.

I'll also agree that Madsen looks like one of the best recruiters we've had a Cal in a long time.

I'll disagree with one portion of your overall point: as far as being THE BEST recruiter Cal has had, I'd point out that Cuonzo Martin had phenomenal recruiting results in his short time at Cal. Jaylen Brown, Rabb, and some of the others is hard to top. We don't know how this year's crop of Madsen recruits will turn out yet, but if there's one thing you can say about Cuonzo's time at Cal, it's that the man recruited like a boss!

I'd rather have Madsen as a coach and I think over time Madsen could wrest the title of "best Cal recruiter" from Cuonzo. But I think we gotta give credit where it's due to Cuonzo...

The Bozoman was a way better recruiter than Guonzo. He just got caught.

Re-read Shareef's retelling of being recruited by Bozeman and you will see a masterclass of how to recruit to Cal. Bozeman was a great recruiter. Ask Jason Kidd. Bozeman even reported Tremaine Fowlkes to the NCAA for receiving impermissible benefits (a "loan" for a car) from an LA sports agent (Jelani's uncle) that resulted in the agent getting an NCAA ban. Jelani had already signed,

A year later, when Jelani got benched for too many turnovers, the Gardners and the agent went to the NCAA with a story of the agent funneling money to his sister, who lived blocks away, through Bozeman.

Big C

9:49p, 5/4/24

In reply to oskidunker

oskidunker said:
DaveT said:
Cal isn't a top-tier MBB program. We haven't appeared in the NCAA tournament since 2016. We haven't won our conference since 2010. We haven't had a winning record since 2017. Two years ago we were a clown show pretending to be a college basketball program. Our facilities are mediocre, as is our fan support. Despite valiant efforts, I doubt we have an elite NIL budget.

And yet, Madsen has been able to compile a top-8 portal class and convince players to come to Cal over offers from Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, LSU, Ole Miss, and Arkansas. What more can he do as a recruiter?

What you say is true however it is important to realize tbe following two things.

1. We were a top 20 recruiting class last year and had a losing record. You can talk about injuries, I guess

2. Recruiting class rankings are composed of two things. One is the number of players you get. The other is the stars
Since we always need to replace tbe whole team, the ranking will always be high.

Madsen is a good recruiter and this is a good portal class. No doubt.

But yeah, isn't one of the reasons that this class is ranked highly that we got so many guys? And the reason we got so many guys was because we had so many spots to fill? I don't think acknowledging that takes away from the good things that are going on; it's just reality.

Sebastabear

12:01a, 5/5/24

In reply to Big C

Big C said:
oskidunker said:
DaveT said:
Cal isn't a top-tier MBB program. We haven't appeared in the NCAA tournament since 2016. We haven't won our conference since 2010. We haven't had a winning record since 2017. Two years ago we were a clown show pretending to be a college basketball program. Our facilities are mediocre, as is our fan support. Despite valiant efforts, I doubt we have an elite NIL budget.

And yet, Madsen has been able to compile a top-8 portal class and convince players to come to Cal over offers from Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, LSU, Ole Miss, and Arkansas. What more can he do as a recruiter?

What you say is true however it is important to realize tbe following two things.

1. We were a top 20 recruiting class last year and had a losing record. You can talk about injuries, I guess

2. Recruiting class rankings are composed of two things. One is the number of players you get. The other is the stars
Since we always need to replace tbe whole team, the ranking will always be high.
Madsen is a good recruiter and this is a good portal class. No doubt.

But yeah, isn't one of the reasons that this class is ranked highly that we got so many guys? And the reason we got so many guys was because we had so many spots to fill? I don't think acknowledging that takes away from the good things that are going on; it's just reality.

Except it's not true. Look at On3. They currently have us ranked #9 (with only four recruits somehow). Seven of the next 10 schools ranked immediately below us have the same number of players coming in or more. So no, Cal is not unique. There was massive turnover as a result of the portal across teams this year. It's not even particularly noteworthy how many players we lost. We weren't in the majority, but it was a substantial minority of teams who found themselves in a similar situation to ours. Madsen is getting credit in these rankings for picking up excellent players, not just lots of players.

Cal fans always seem to work so hard to find reasons why our successes should be minimized. It's some kind of battered spouse syndrome. Sometimes things go bad for Cal. I'm on the front line with a pitchfork when that happens. But sometimes things go right. This is one of those times.

Big C

7:41p, 5/5/24

In reply to Sebastabear

Sebastabear said:
Big C said:
oskidunker said:
DaveT said:
Cal isn't a top-tier MBB program. We haven't appeared in the NCAA tournament since 2016. We haven't won our conference since 2010. We haven't had a winning record since 2017. Two years ago we were a clown show pretending to be a college basketball program. Our facilities are mediocre, as is our fan support. Despite valiant efforts, I doubt we have an elite NIL budget.

And yet, Madsen has been able to compile a top-8 portal class and convince players to come to Cal over offers from Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, LSU, Ole Miss, and Arkansas. What more can he do as a recruiter?

What you say is true however it is important to realize tbe following two things.

1. We were a top 20 recruiting class last year and had a losing record. You can talk about injuries, I guess

2. Recruiting class rankings are composed of two things. One is the number of players you get. The other is the stars
Since we always need to replace tbe whole team, the ranking will always be high.
Madsen is a good recruiter and this is a good portal class. No doubt.

But yeah, isn't one of the reasons that this class is ranked highly that we got so many guys? And the reason we got so many guys was because we had so many spots to fill? I don't think acknowledging that takes away from the good things that are going on; it's just reality.
Except it's not true. Look at On3. They currently have us ranked #9 (with only four recruits somehow). Seven of the next 10 schools ranked immediately below us have the same number of players coming in or more. So no, Cal is not unique. There was massive turnover as a result of the portal across teams this year. It's not even particularly noteworthy how many players we lost. We weren't in the majority, but it was a substantial minority of teams who found themselves in a similar situation to ours. Madsen is getting credit in these rankings for picking up excellent players, not just lots of players.

Cal fans always seem to work so hard to find reasons why our successes should be minimized. It's some kind of battered spouse syndrome. Sometimes things go bad for Cal. I'm on the front line with a pitchfork when that happens. But sometimes things go right. This is one of those times.

That's great to hear! Some of us have predicted that we might finish somewhere around .500 overall this coming season (a few more wins than last season). Maybe we should revise upward a bit? What do you think?

("some kind of battered spouse syndrome" ... not a bad analogy, actually... I'm not a doctor, but a good prescription for me and those of my ilk might be a steady diet of over-.500 seasons in football and basketball)

bearsandgiants

7:46p, 5/5/24

Sebastabear

7:49p, 5/5/24

In reply to Big C

Big C said:
Sebastabear said:
Big C said:
oskidunker said:
DaveT said:
Cal isn't a top-tier MBB program. We haven't appeared in the NCAA tournament since 2016. We haven't won our conference since 2010. We haven't had a winning record since 2017. Two years ago we were a clown show pretending to be a college basketball program. Our facilities are mediocre, as is our fan support. Despite valiant efforts, I doubt we have an elite NIL budget.

And yet, Madsen has been able to compile a top-8 portal class and convince players to come to Cal over offers from Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, LSU, Ole Miss, and Arkansas. What more can he do as a recruiter?

What you say is true however it is important to realize tbe following two things.

1. We were a top 20 recruiting class last year and had a losing record. You can talk about injuries, I guess

2. Recruiting class rankings are composed of two things. One is the number of players you get. The other is the stars
Since we always need to replace tbe whole team, the ranking will always be high.
Madsen is a good recruiter and this is a good portal class. No doubt.

But yeah, isn't one of the reasons that this class is ranked highly that we got so many guys? And the reason we got so many guys was because we had so many spots to fill? I don't think acknowledging that takes away from the good things that are going on; it's just reality.
Except it's not true. Look at On3. They currently have us ranked #9 (with only four recruits somehow). Seven of the next 10 schools ranked immediately below us have the same number of players coming in or more. So no, Cal is not unique. There was massive turnover as a result of the portal across teams this year. It's not even particularly noteworthy how many players we lost. We weren't in the majority, but it was a substantial minority of teams who found themselves in a similar situation to ours. Madsen is getting credit in these rankings for picking up excellent players, not just lots of players.

Cal fans always seem to work so hard to find reasons why our successes should be minimized. It's some kind of battered spouse syndrome. Sometimes things go bad for Cal. I'm on the front line with a pitchfork when that happens. But sometimes things go right. This is one of those times.

That's great to hear! Some of us have predicted that we might finish somewhere around .500 overall this coming season (a few more wins than last season). Maybe we should revise upward a bit? What do you think?

("some kind of battered spouse syndrome" ... not a bad analogy, actually... I'm not a doctor, but a good prescription for me and those of my ilk might be a steady diet of over-.500 seasons in football and basketball)

Let's talk after we get our point guard. Big last piece of the puzzle.

bearsandgiants

6:28a, 5/6/24

In reply to Sebastabear

Sebastabear said:
Big C said:
Sebastabear said:
Big C said:
oskidunker said:
DaveT said:
Cal isn't a top-tier MBB program. We haven't appeared in the NCAA tournament since 2016. We haven't won our conference since 2010. We haven't had a winning record since 2017. Two years ago we were a clown show pretending to be a college basketball program. Our facilities are mediocre, as is our fan support. Despite valiant efforts, I doubt we have an elite NIL budget.

And yet, Madsen has been able to compile a top-8 portal class and convince players to come to Cal over offers from Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, LSU, Ole Miss, and Arkansas. What more can he do as a recruiter?

What you say is true however it is important to realize tbe following two things.

1. We were a top 20 recruiting class last year and had a losing record. You can talk about injuries, I guess

2. Recruiting class rankings are composed of two things. One is the number of players you get. The other is the stars
Since we always need to replace tbe whole team, the ranking will always be high.
Madsen is a good recruiter and this is a good portal class. No doubt.

But yeah, isn't one of the reasons that this class is ranked highly that we got so many guys? And the reason we got so many guys was because we had so many spots to fill? I don't think acknowledging that takes away from the good things that are going on; it's just reality.
Except it's not true. Look at On3. They currently have us ranked #9 (with only four recruits somehow). Seven of the next 10 schools ranked immediately below us have the same number of players coming in or more. So no, Cal is not unique. There was massive turnover as a result of the portal across teams this year. It's not even particularly noteworthy how many players we lost. We weren't in the majority, but it was a substantial minority of teams who found themselves in a similar situation to ours. Madsen is getting credit in these rankings for picking up excellent players, not just lots of players.

Cal fans always seem to work so hard to find reasons why our successes should be minimized. It's some kind of battered spouse syndrome. Sometimes things go bad for Cal. I'm on the front line with a pitchfork when that happens. But sometimes things go right. This is one of those times.

That's great to hear! Some of us have predicted that we might finish somewhere around .500 overall this coming season (a few more wins than last season). Maybe we should revise upward a bit? What do you think?

("some kind of battered spouse syndrome" ... not a bad analogy, actually... I'm not a doctor, but a good prescription for me and those of my ilk might be a steady diet of over-.500 seasons in football and basketball)
Let's talk after we get our point guard. Big last piece of the puzzle.

So all of these amazing signings and we still don't have a true center nor point guard? I thought we just got an amazing one to start all of this. Did he not sign? Tucker averages 5 assists per game. I guess that's not our point guard.

sluggo

7:13a, 5/6/24

In reply to bearsandgiants

bearsandgiants said:
Sebastabear said:
Big C said:
Sebastabear said:
Big C said:
oskidunker said:
DaveT said:
Cal isn't a top-tier MBB program. We haven't appeared in the NCAA tournament since 2016. We haven't won our conference since 2010. We haven't had a winning record since 2017. Two years ago we were a clown show pretending to be a college basketball program. Our facilities are mediocre, as is our fan support. Despite valiant efforts, I doubt we have an elite NIL budget.

And yet, Madsen has been able to compile a top-8 portal class and convince players to come to Cal over offers from Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, LSU, Ole Miss, and Arkansas. What more can he do as a recruiter?

What you say is true however it is important to realize tbe following two things.

1. We were a top 20 recruiting class last year and had a losing record. You can talk about injuries, I guess

2. Recruiting class rankings are composed of two things. One is the number of players you get. The other is the stars
Since we always need to replace tbe whole team, the ranking will always be high.
Madsen is a good recruiter and this is a good portal class. No doubt.

But yeah, isn't one of the reasons that this class is ranked highly that we got so many guys? And the reason we got so many guys was because we had so many spots to fill? I don't think acknowledging that takes away from the good things that are going on; it's just reality.
Except it's not true. Look at On3. They currently have us ranked #9 (with only four recruits somehow). Seven of the next 10 schools ranked immediately below us have the same number of players coming in or more. So no, Cal is not unique. There was massive turnover as a result of the portal across teams this year. It's not even particularly noteworthy how many players we lost. We weren't in the majority, but it was a substantial minority of teams who found themselves in a similar situation to ours. Madsen is getting credit in these rankings for picking up excellent players, not just lots of players.

Cal fans always seem to work so hard to find reasons why our successes should be minimized. It's some kind of battered spouse syndrome. Sometimes things go bad for Cal. I'm on the front line with a pitchfork when that happens. But sometimes things go right. This is one of those times.

That's great to hear! Some of us have predicted that we might finish somewhere around .500 overall this coming season (a few more wins than last season). Maybe we should revise upward a bit? What do you think?

("some kind of battered spouse syndrome" ... not a bad analogy, actually... I'm not a doctor, but a good prescription for me and those of my ilk might be a steady diet of over-.500 seasons in football and basketball)
Let's talk after we get our point guard. Big last piece of the puzzle.

So all of these amazing signings and we still don't have a true center nor point guard? I thought we just got an amazing one to start all of this. Did he not sign? Tucker averages 5 assists per game. I guess that's not our point guard.

I think he is saying that Tucker may end up a reserve, not that he is not a point guard, since he is one. Sissoko is not a 7 footer but I think he will be fine rebounding and protecting the rim.

RedlessWardrobe

7:14a, 5/6/24

And just because Wilkinson is only a 3 star recruit, does that mean he doesn't exist? Christian Tucker who averaged over 5 assists per game was originally a walk on, so based on that do we simply just disregard Wilkinson altogether? Most young players progress in their early years, so Wilkinson just might end up being "our point guard."

sluggo

7:51a, 5/6/24

In reply to RedlessWardrobe

RedlessWardrobe said:
And just because Wilkinson is only a 3 star recruit, does that mean he doesn't exist? Christian Tucker who averaged over 5 assists per game was originally a walk on, so based on that do we simply just disregard Wilkinson altogether? Most young players progress in their early years, so Wilkinson just might end up being "our point guard."

Short players are not necessarily point guards. Watch Wilkinson play.

DaveT

9:01a, 5/6/24

Quote:
So all of these amazing signings and we still don't have a true center nor point guard?

We have both. We have a good team as constructed. Madsen is trying to improve it with the final scholarship. Hopefully he'll screw it up so we have something meaningful to complain about.

RedlessWardrobe

10:44a, 5/6/24

In reply to sluggo

sluggo said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
And just because Wilkinson is only a 3 star recruit, does that mean he doesn't exist? Christian Tucker who averaged over 5 assists per game was originally a walk on, so based on that do we simply just disregard Wilkinson altogether? Most young players progress in their early years, so Wilkinson just might end up being "our point guard."
Short players are not necessarily point guards. Watch Wilkinson play.

More like a Jalen Cone, yes?

barsad

11:01a, 5/6/24

In reply to DaveT

DaveT said:

We have both. We have a good team as constructed. Madsen is trying to improve it with the final scholarship. Hopefully he'll screw it up so we have something meaningful to complain about.

Amen to that, I'm getting pretty bored with nothing to complain about.
I would amend what you said by saying, yes, we have a set of good players. But a good team would be one with a solid No. 2 behind every starting position on the floor, so that one bad sprained ankle doesn't hobble the whole team because we have no one to step in. We don't have that, IMHO, at the 5, hence we do not yet have a good team. Fingers crossed on this last scholarship, but the further we get into late spring/summer, the less likely that there's someone still available. I guess we can always poach someone who regrets their first commit choice.

sluggo

11:28a, 5/6/24

In reply to RedlessWardrobe

RedlessWardrobe said:
sluggo said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
And just because Wilkinson is only a 3 star recruit, does that mean he doesn't exist? Christian Tucker who averaged over 5 assists per game was originally a walk on, so based on that do we simply just disregard Wilkinson altogether? Most young players progress in their early years, so Wilkinson just might end up being "our point guard."
Short players are not necessarily point guards. Watch Wilkinson play.
More like a Jalen Cone, yes?

More of a Gary Payton II

RedlessWardrobe

11:33a, 5/6/24

In reply to sluggo

sluggo said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
sluggo said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
And just because Wilkinson is only a 3 star recruit, does that mean he doesn't exist? Christian Tucker who averaged over 5 assists per game was originally a walk on, so based on that do we simply just disregard Wilkinson altogether? Most young players progress in their early years, so Wilkinson just might end up being "our point guard."
Short players are not necessarily point guards. Watch Wilkinson play.
More like a Jalen Cone, yes?
More of a Gary Payton II

Does that mean he ends up in the NBA? (haha)

RedlessWardrobe

11:39a, 5/6/24

In reply to barsad

barsad said:
DaveT said:

We have both. We have a good team as constructed. Madsen is trying to improve it with the final scholarship. Hopefully he'll screw it up so we have something meaningful to complain about.

Amen to that, I'm getting pretty bored with nothing to complain about.
I would amend what you said by saying, yes, we have a set of good players. But a good team would be one with a solid No. 2 behind every starting position on the floor, so that one bad sprained ankle doesn't hobble the whole team because we have no one to step in. We don't have that, IMHO, at the 5, hence we do not yet have a good team. Fingers crossed on this last scholarship, but the further we get into late spring/summer, the less likely that there's someone still available. I guess we can always poach someone who regrets their first commit choice.

I'd still like to land Boyed, but I have a hunch that Wisconsin is working on a sneaky way to open up a schollie.

sluggo

11:51a, 5/6/24

In reply to RedlessWardrobe

RedlessWardrobe said:
sluggo said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
sluggo said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
And just because Wilkinson is only a 3 star recruit, does that mean he doesn't exist? Christian Tucker who averaged over 5 assists per game was originally a walk on, so based on that do we simply just disregard Wilkinson altogether? Most young players progress in their early years, so Wilkinson just might end up being "our point guard."
Short players are not necessarily point guards. Watch Wilkinson play.
More like a Jalen Cone, yes?
More of a Gary Payton II
Does that mean he ends up in the NBA? (haha)

I will be happy if he can contribute. And maybe he can shoot better than Payton. But I don't think he is the same type of athlete, I am just comparing styles.

BearlyCareAnymore

12:14p, 5/6/24

In reply to Sebastabear

Sebastabear said:
Big C said:
oskidunker said:
DaveT said:
Cal isn't a top-tier MBB program. We haven't appeared in the NCAA tournament since 2016. We haven't won our conference since 2010. We haven't had a winning record since 2017. Two years ago we were a clown show pretending to be a college basketball program. Our facilities are mediocre, as is our fan support. Despite valiant efforts, I doubt we have an elite NIL budget.

And yet, Madsen has been able to compile a top-8 portal class and convince players to come to Cal over offers from Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, LSU, Ole Miss, and Arkansas. What more can he do as a recruiter?

What you say is true however it is important to realize tbe following two things.

1. We were a top 20 recruiting class last year and had a losing record. You can talk about injuries, I guess

2. Recruiting class rankings are composed of two things. One is the number of players you get. The other is the stars
Since we always need to replace tbe whole team, the ranking will always be high.
Madsen is a good recruiter and this is a good portal class. No doubt.

But yeah, isn't one of the reasons that this class is ranked highly that we got so many guys? And the reason we got so many guys was because we had so many spots to fill? I don't think acknowledging that takes away from the good things that are going on; it's just reality.
Except it's not true. Look at On3. They currently have us ranked #9 (with only four recruits somehow). Seven of the next 10 schools ranked immediately below us have the same number of players coming in or more. So no, Cal is not unique. There was massive turnover as a result of the portal across teams this year. It's not even particularly noteworthy how many players we lost. We weren't in the majority, but it was a substantial minority of teams who found themselves in a similar situation to ours. Madsen is getting credit in these rankings for picking up excellent players, not just lots of players.

Cal fans always seem to work so hard to find reasons why our successes should be minimized. It's some kind of battered spouse syndrome. Sometimes things go bad for Cal. I'm on the front line with a pitchfork when that happens. But sometimes things go right. This is one of those times.

I believe you accidentally reviewed the 2023 list which has us rated 9th with 4 players. The 2024 list has us rated 9th with 8 players and only Louisville matches or exceeds that number in the top 50.

People need to look at the individual players. On3 is just not designed for that type of ranking. It has had absolutely zero predictive value, not just as it comes to Cal.

Quote:
On3's Team Transfer Portal Index utilizes the On3 (P)erformance score to measure a team's production during the transfer process, compared relative against its roster and not a comparison against other schools. This proprietary algorithm determines if a school has improved its overall team talent, stayed the same, or declined in talent during the transfer window

Their top 3 teams rated teams last year (WVU, Penn State, Missouri) were terrible and UConn was not rated in the top 69.

Honestly, I long since gave up trying to judge recruits too much for myself and ultimately games are what determine your success, so I keep my powder dry until I actually see them in action at Cal. At this point in the process, probably the most important measure is who the coaches really wanted - a metric that I am in zero position to understand and you clearly have much info.

Sebastabear

12:27p, 5/6/24

In reply to BearlyCareAnymore

Quote:
I believe you accidentally reviewed the 2023 list which has us rated 9th with 4 players. The 2024 list has us rated 9th with 8 players and only Louisville matches or exceeds that number in the top 50.

You must be right. I keep toggling back-and-forth between them and 247 who absolutely does not have our player number correct. Assumed On3 was making the same mistake.

But my point somewhat remains the same. In 2023 we were ranked higher than many many teams who had the same number of transfers in. So it's not all quantity over quality with Madsen, which was the point I was trying to make

As to the On3 methodology, I agree it is odd. They are evaluating did your team get better versus how does it look compared to others. But where everyone is replacing their entire team every year (only a slight exaggeration) I think that issue is somewhat ameliorated. Whether you got better is eventually going to result in you being better vs your competitors.

And lastly, yes, my views are somewhat colored by my insights into this process. I know who Madsen wanted and I know he basically got all of them that could make it at a school like Cal. Were there a few others he would have gone after if we had an unlimited war chest? Almost certainly. But we really didn't have many if any conversations like that. Madsen is simply phenomenal at the recruiting game. As someone who is as deeply in this as anyone who doesn't work for an athletic department I am astounded. He has the players. Now we need to see what he can do with them

BearlyCareAnymore

1:02p, 5/6/24

In reply to Sebastabear

Sebastabear said:
Quote:
I believe you accidentally reviewed the 2023 list which has us rated 9th with 4 players. The 2024 list has us rated 9th with 8 players and only Louisville matches or exceeds that number in the top 50.
You must be right. I keep toggling back-and-forth between them and 247 who absolutely does not have our player number correct. Assumed On3 was making the same mistake.

But my point somewhat remains the same. In 2023 we were ranked higher than many many teams who had the same number of transfers in. So it's not all quantity over quality with Madsen, which was the point I was trying to make

As to the On3 methodology, I agree it is odd. They are evaluating did your team get better versus how does it look compared to others. But where everyone is replacing their entire team every year (only a slight exaggeration) I think that issue is somewhat ameliorated. Whether you got better is eventually going to result in you being better vs your competitors.

And lastly, yes, my views are somewhat colored by my insights into this process. I know who Madsen wanted and I know he basically got all of them that could make it at a school like Cal. Were there a few others he would have gone after if we had an unlimited war chest? Almost certainly. But we really didn't have many if any conversations like that. Madsen is simply phenomenal at the recruiting game. As someone who is as deeply in this is anyone who doesn't work for an athletic department I am astounded. He has the players. Now we need to see what he can do with them

No problem on the first.

I agree on your second point. On3 is somewhat opaque in their methodology, but it is clearly not the multiply the number of recruits by the number of stars that one recruiting service used. Quantity factors in (as it should) but it is also quality (as it should be).

On point 3, I think it depends where you are in the pecking order. The top teams are getting high school players and keeping who they want. And to their detriment in their ranking, the players they "lose" (or lose without scare quotes) are always ranked really high so in On3's unusual methodology they start off in a difficult place in trying to get an incoming transfer class that "beats" their outgoing class. Honestly, I don't like On3's methodology because I think they should be mostly ranking how good the players are that you got, not how good the ones are you don't have anymore. If team X, loses 13 guys who would be the number 5 ranked team in the country, and they gain 13 guys who would be the number 6 ranked team in the country, they should be ranked number 6, not something like 41. Bottom line is, for whatever reason, most of the elite teams do poorly in On3's ranking.

Your views SHOULD be colored by your insights in the process. If we got everyone Madsen wanted, that is a good thing. Now if you were telling me things were peachy because we got everyone Mark Fox wanted, I might say to you that we would be better off getting guys he doesn't want because he's an idiot.

coachdeke

2:20p, 5/6/24

In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear

Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oskidunker said:
91Cal said:
HKBear97! said:
Oakbear said:
ManBearLion123 said:
Wilcox has a fringe top 10 portal class coming in, what are you talking about lol
if he gets them and the team performs really well, I might just lift my expectations, but for now I remain a doubting Oakbear
I'm with you, Oakbear. The transfer rankings are pretty meaningless. Madsen had a top-8 portal class last year and that didn't amount to anything. Besides, so much depends on how quickly the staff can get a team to gel and play within a scheme which is even more difficult in football. In college, there is so little mandated practice time it's not an easy proposition.
LOL..."didn't amount to anything"

*** are you talking about? Did you not watch Cal basketball the previous 6 years??? The cupboard was absolutely bare. After early season stumbles, particularly painful stumbles, they gelled for most of the conference season and resembled an actual team, albeit one with no depth. All in all, pretty miraculous.

Not achieving a winning record with all the accolades of incoming transfers was disappointing. If that happens again this year then we have a coach who can recruit but cant coach. I am optimistic that this wont happen but it is a concern.
You really thought we would win 17+ games after a 3-29 season? Tough room.

I believe Cal would have been a bubble NCAA team and easily NIT if the entire roster had been immediately available.

calumnus

4:50p, 5/6/24

In reply to coachdeke

coachdeke said:
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oskidunker said:
91Cal said:
HKBear97! said:
Oakbear said:
ManBearLion123 said:
Wilcox has a fringe top 10 portal class coming in, what are you talking about lol
if he gets them and the team performs really well, I might just lift my expectations, but for now I remain a doubting Oakbear
I'm with you, Oakbear. The transfer rankings are pretty meaningless. Madsen had a top-8 portal class last year and that didn't amount to anything. Besides, so much depends on how quickly the staff can get a team to gel and play within a scheme which is even more difficult in football. In college, there is so little mandated practice time it's not an easy proposition.
LOL..."didn't amount to anything"

*** are you talking about? Did you not watch Cal basketball the previous 6 years??? The cupboard was absolutely bare. After early season stumbles, particularly painful stumbles, they gelled for most of the conference season and resembled an actual team, albeit one with no depth. All in all, pretty miraculous.

Not achieving a winning record with all the accolades of incoming transfers was disappointing. If that happens again this year then we have a coach who can recruit but cant coach. I am optimistic that this wont happen but it is a concern.
You really thought we would win 17+ games after a 3-29 season? Tough room.

I believe Cal would have been a bubble NCAA team and easily NIT if the entire roster had been immediately available.

Maybe, but we were 13-19. We needed to win 4 or 5 more games to match the worst records of teams invited to the NIT. We finished the season losing to Colorado, Utah and Stanford twice, ie 4 losses to finish. That was not due to not having players available early. We were just not that good. We just seemed so much better compared to the prior year when we had the worst record in the country and our history while scoring the fewest points In the country.

I think it is fair to say we could have been a .500 team if we had everyone available from the get go.

I started a new thread comparing last year's team and our incoming players. Suffice to say, we are looking at a significant upgrade,