Evaluating talent level?

blungld

7:14a, 4/30/24

In this age of NIL how does the casual fan have any sense of season expectation? Our team, for example, is completely overhauled. It's a brand new team. The talent level seems much higher...but how will these players gel and how long will it take and how does the talent level rate within the ACC?

I know we will have better handle once practice and pre-season begins, but what do people think? Team talent upgraded? Are we low or mid or high tier talent in the ACC? Can an overhauled team gel quick enough to make a run at NCAA or this a 2+ year project?

RedlessWardrobe

7:21a, 4/30/24

RedlessWardrobe

7:23a, 4/30/24

In reply to blungld

blungld said:
In this age of NIL how does the casual fan have any sense of season expectation? Our team, for example, is completely overhauled. It's a brand new team. The talent level seems much higher...but how will these players gel and how long will it take and how does the talent level rate within the ACC?

I know we will; have better handle once practice and pre-season begins, but what do people think? Team talent upgraded? Are we low or mid or high tier talent in the ACC? Can an overhauled team gel quick enough to make a run at NCAA or this a 2+ year project?

Ironically, your opening questions are really the answer to your final questions. The truth is, nobody really knows.

sluggo

7:39a, 4/30/24

Just speculation as only two players have formally signed. But sports boards are for speculating. Strengths of the team should be at wing and depth. Weaknesses look like post scoring, shooting from the point position, and bulk outside the 5 position. I think defense will be better as Sissoko should be a much better defender than Aimaq. Offense maybe is similar with more diverse scorers but no star like Tyson. If Sissoko or Tucker get hurt it could be a very long season, unless another point guard is found with the last scholarship.

Overall, I think they win about half their games. I don't see the upside that some others do. And it will take some time with a completely new roster.

brevity

7:40a, 4/30/24

In reply to blungld

blungld said:
In this age of NIL how does the casual fan have any sense of season expectation? Our team, for example, is completely overhauled. It's a brand new team. The talent level seems much higher...but how will these players gel and how long will it take and how does the talent level rate within the ACC?

I know we will; have better handle once practice and pre-season begins, but what do people think? Team talent upgraded? Are we low or mid or high tier talent in the ACC? Can an overhauled team gel quick enough to make a run at NCAA or this a 2+ year project?

Enjoy the ride. The ACC is crazy.

Last season Georgia Tech, led by first-year head coach Damon Stoudamire, beat Duke and UNC in Atlanta and also won on the road at Clemson and Wake Forest. But somehow they finished with a 7-13 conference record, same as Notre Dame and first-year head coach Micah Shrewsberry.

Over at Syracuse, first-year head coach Adrian Autry reversed decades of Boeheim Ball by playing primarily a man-to-man defense instead of zone. The Orange beat UNC at home and swept the regular season series against NC State and Pittsburgh. They finished 11-9, tied for 5th in the league with Clemson and Wake Forest.

There is something of a power vacuum in the ACC, and newcomers can make a dent. Cal (and SMU and Stanford) are unknown quantities to the other 15 teams, even more so with the constant roster turnover. This can be an advantage. Maybe it translates to wins, or maybe it doesn't, but it's going to be a lot of fun.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_Tx8YubMAA-wjP.jpg:large

(There are a lot of similar images, but most of them crop out the spoon. The fact that Morgan Freeman can deliver this line with such gravitas while holding a spoon is one of the best parts of this scene.)

Edited to add: sorry, the image won't embed for me. Here's the whole scene:

DaveT

7:58a, 4/30/24

Compared to last season, we have more talent, athleticism, and depth. We lack a proven ACC-level scoring threat, although some guys could develop into that, and we'll have more balance so we won't be as dependent on one guy. Our team defense should be vastly improved. I think this is a superior roster compared to last year, and we should field a more competitive and consistent team.

The ACC is a whole different level of competition, though. Last year the conference had nine teams with 20+ wins, and only four teams with losing records. Ending the season with a winning record and .500+ in conference would be a good year - something like VT or FSU did last season. If everything clicks, maybe we could win 20+ games - comparable to WF or Syracuse last year.

Rebuilding the program is a process. Madsen is making huge strides. Two years ago who would have thought we'd have a legit shot at winning 20 games and finishing in the top third of the ACC?

HearstMining

7:59a, 4/30/24

In reply to blungld

blungld said:
In this age of NIL how does the casual fan have any sense of season expectation? Our team, for example, is completely overhauled. It's a brand new team. The talent level seems much higher...but how will these players gel and how long will it take and how does the talent level rate within the ACC?

I know we will; have better handle once practice and pre-season begins, but what do people think? Team talent upgraded? Are we low or mid or high tier talent in the ACC? Can an overhauled team gel quick enough to make a run at NCAA or this a 2+ year project?

I think we have to treat it like Christmas. We don't know what's inside those pretty wrapped boxes (ok, mostly gift bags these days), different sizes and shapes, sitting under the tree, until we can open them up on the big day. The only difference is that we don't have to pretend to be excited when that one box that you've been eyeing for days turns out to be . . . a sweater.

HKBear97!

8:13a, 4/30/24

In reply to blungld

blungld said:
In this age of NIL how does the casual fan have any sense of season expectation? Our team, for example, is completely overhauled. It's a brand new team. The talent level seems much higher...but how will these players gel and how long will it take and how does the talent level rate within the ACC?

I know we will; have better handle once practice and pre-season begins, but what do people think? Team talent upgraded? Are we low or mid or high tier talent in the ACC? Can an overhauled team gel quick enough to make a run at NCAA or this a 2+ year project?

Personally I am very intrigued by this group - on paper, looks like a better defensive team. Also very excited to see Cal play in the ACC. However, I have zero expectations on the outcome. Last year I was excited about the team only to be thoroughly unimpressed once OOC started. Only thing that saved Cal from another single-digit win total was a terrible Pac-12. Not sure how the ACC will be this coming season, but its unlikely to be as bad as the Pac-12 was this year.

RedlessWardrobe

8:28a, 4/30/24

In reply to HearstMining

HearstMining said:
blungld said:
In this age of NIL how does the casual fan have any sense of season expectation? Our team, for example, is completely overhauled. It's a brand new team. The talent level seems much higher...but how will these players gel and how long will it take and how does the talent level rate within the ACC?

I know we will; have better handle once practice and pre-season begins, but what do people think? Team talent upgraded? Are we low or mid or high tier talent in the ACC? Can an overhauled team gel quick enough to make a run at NCAA or this a 2+ year project?
I think we have to treat it like Christmas. We don't know what's inside those pretty wrapped boxes (ok, mostly gift bags these days), different sizes and shapes, sitting under the tree, until we can open them up on the big day. The only difference is that we don't have to pretend to be excited when that one box that you've been eyeing for days turns out to be . . . a sweater.

I'm hoping that with all of those new presents, the one that surprises us and grabs our attention is Nwanko. Its just a gut feeling, could be a bust, but that's what I'm hoping for.

BeachedBear

8:30a, 4/30/24

In reply to HearstMining

HearstMining said:
blungld said:
In this age of NIL how does the casual fan have any sense of season expectation? Our team, for example, is completely overhauled. It's a brand new team. The talent level seems much higher...but how will these players gel and how long will it take and how does the talent level rate within the ACC?

I know we will; have better handle once practice and pre-season begins, but what do people think? Team talent upgraded? Are we low or mid or high tier talent in the ACC? Can an overhauled team gel quick enough to make a run at NCAA or this a 2+ year project?
I think we have to treat it like Christmas. We don't know what's inside those pretty wrapped boxes (ok, mostly gift bags these days), different sizes and shapes, sitting under the tree, until we can open them up on the big day. The only difference is that we don't have to pretend to be excited when that one box that you've been eyeing for days turns out to be . . . a sweater.

What kind of sweater? Is it Blue and Gold with a Bear pattern or does it light up like a Furd Band tree monster?

HKBear97!

8:39a, 4/30/24

In reply to BeachedBear

BeachedBear said:
HearstMining said:
blungld said:
In this age of NIL how does the casual fan have any sense of season expectation? Our team, for example, is completely overhauled. It's a brand new team. The talent level seems much higher...but how will these players gel and how long will it take and how does the talent level rate within the ACC?

I know we will; have better handle once practice and pre-season begins, but what do people think? Team talent upgraded? Are we low or mid or high tier talent in the ACC? Can an overhauled team gel quick enough to make a run at NCAA or this a 2+ year project?
I think we have to treat it like Christmas. We don't know what's inside those pretty wrapped boxes (ok, mostly gift bags these days), different sizes and shapes, sitting under the tree, until we can open them up on the big day. The only difference is that we don't have to pretend to be excited when that one box that you've been eyeing for days turns out to be . . . a sweater.
What kind of sweater? Is it Blue and Gold with a Bear pattern or does it light up like a Furd Band tree monster?

South Park Mr. Hanky Ugly Christmas Sweater

HearstMining

8:46a, 4/30/24

In reply to HKBear97!

HKBear97! said:
blungld said:
In this age of NIL how does the casual fan have any sense of season expectation? Our team, for example, is completely overhauled. It's a brand new team. The talent level seems much higher...but how will these players gel and how long will it take and how does the talent level rate within the ACC?

I know we will; have better handle once practice and pre-season begins, but what do people think? Team talent upgraded? Are we low or mid or high tier talent in the ACC? Can an overhauled team gel quick enough to make a run at NCAA or this a 2+ year project?
Personally I am very intrigued by this group - on paper, looks like a better defensive team. Also very excited to see Cal play in the ACC. However, I have zero expectations on the outcome. Last year I was excited about the team only to be thoroughly unimpressed once OOC started. Only thing that saved Cal from another single-digit win total was a terrible Pac-12. Not sure how the ACC will be this coming season, but its unlikely to be as bad as the Pac-12 was this year.

I think that's a little unfair to last year's team. They underperformed in the pre-conference, but did improve during the Pac-12 (and yes, it wasn't a great year for the conference). Let's face it, they were mostly mid-major players for a reason - they had a flaw in their game. Cone really performed as billed in very few games. Daws didn't match up well against athletic big men. But that was the best Madsen could attract, given Cal's horrific recent history.

A bigger reason for your (and my) disappointment was probably a combination of our desperation after the Fox era, and maybe over-promotion on the part of the Cal AD (still, at least they were making an effort as opposed to whining about the number of injuries the team experienced). This upcoming season can be better - I like your use of the word "intrigued".

parentswerebears

8:56a, 4/30/24

We all need to remember that this is year 2 of a rebuild of a program that took 8 years to kill. Madsen will have us in the tournament soon enough.

calfanz

9:10a, 4/30/24

Love the job that MadDog and company have done since our mass exodus number 2.

This team looks fun with lots of different scoring options and much better defense and depth.

But- caution as what happened last year.

Out of the gate we tremendously underperformed, and that ultimately killed any post season chances for us.

This was blamed on no chemistry and injuries.

We again will have limited time to get our team mojo rolling and of course we're Cal so there will obviously be some horrible unexpected injuries.

sluggo

9:15a, 4/30/24

In reply to parentswerebears

parentswerebears said:
We all need to remember that this is year 2 of a rebuild of a program that took 8 years to kill. Madsen will have us in the tournament soon enough.

Yes. Most of the players are not one year rentals. If team most of the players can be kept with a few more additions the tournament looks like a strong possibility in 25-26.

AZ Bear

9:26a, 4/30/24

In reply to sluggo

Excellent synopsis of what our squad looks like, Sluggo (and nicely amplified by DaveT and others)!

I would add that a big swing factor for our overall record this coming season will be whether we can get all these strangers to gel quickly enough to post a much better non-conference record than last season.

As stated by many, the ACC is tough. But Cal used to routinely go 10-3, 9-3, 9-4, in non-conference, even when the team wasn't all that good in Pac play. Last year was the worst non-conference result I can remember, relative to my expectations. We may have been worse in the later Fox or Jones years, but I had low expectations for those teams.

As others have mentioned on other strings, Kennedy getting injured hurt us early last year. It also took Madsen time to figure out the right tactics for that squad. He has a similar challenge with this bunch that is even less familiar with each other.

But if Madsen can get it figured out enough to win a bunch of early, easier games, and then really get the team humming in the latter part of conference play -- like this year's squad did -- then maybe a record around or even above the .500 level is possible. It would be nice to at least play in the NIT again, even though most schools decline their bids these days.

It's certainly going to be really interesting to see how all these pieces fit together! Great job so far, Coach Madsen! The hard part of building a roster from scratch is nearly over; now comes the other hard part of getting all the pieces to work together in the best way!

Go Bears!

HKBear97!

12:53p, 4/30/24

In reply to HearstMining

HearstMining said:
HKBear97! said:
blungld said:
In this age of NIL how does the casual fan have any sense of season expectation? Our team, for example, is completely overhauled. It's a brand new team. The talent level seems much higher...but how will these players gel and how long will it take and how does the talent level rate within the ACC?

I know we will; have better handle once practice and pre-season begins, but what do people think? Team talent upgraded? Are we low or mid or high tier talent in the ACC? Can an overhauled team gel quick enough to make a run at NCAA or this a 2+ year project?
Personally I am very intrigued by this group - on paper, looks like a better defensive team. Also very excited to see Cal play in the ACC. However, I have zero expectations on the outcome. Last year I was excited about the team only to be thoroughly unimpressed once OOC started. Only thing that saved Cal from another single-digit win total was a terrible Pac-12. Not sure how the ACC will be this coming season, but its unlikely to be as bad as the Pac-12 was this year.
I think that's a little unfair to last year's team. They underperformed in the pre-conference, but did improve during the Pac-12 (and yes, it wasn't a great year for the conference). Let's face it, they were mostly mid-major players for a reason - they had a flaw in their game. Cone really performed as billed in very few games. Daws didn't match up well against athletic big men. But that was the best Madsen could attract, given Cal's horrific recent history.

A bigger reason for your (and my) disappointment was probably a combination of our desperation after the Fox era, and maybe over-promotion on the part of the Cal AD (still, at least they were making an effort as opposed to whining about the number of injuries the team experienced). This upcoming season can be better - I like your use of the word "intrigued".

I was excited by the addition of Tyson and Aimaq coupled with the return of Celestine and expected improvement of Okafor and Newell. That, plus getting that 8th transfer class ranking and Madsen pumping up the biggest win improvement in NCAA history spiel influenced my optimism. Then OOC happened and I saw a team that aside from Tyson, looked equivalent in athleticism to those mid-major programs. And by the way, this incoming class is also mostly mid-major transfers (with one JC).

Regarding the "improvement" during the Pac-12. We went 4-6 over the last ten games, with several of those being blow-outs (UCLA, Colorado, WSU, Utah, Stanford). And of the wins we did have, we beat USC who was just getting out of a six-game losing streak and OSU who finished last in the conference. Not to mention we ended on a four-game losing streak. I don't buy the team just "needed time to gel" narrative.

Specifically last year makes me concerned about two things: 1) Can this staff identify talent? Tyson was a home run, the rest was hit and miss, so to me, the jury is still out. 2) Can they get a bunch of new pieces to play together quickly? Didn't see that last year, so that's a concern. My reasons for optimism: 1) supposedly team chemistry was an issue last year, hopefully that's not an issue this year. 2) Madsen and staff were brand new last season too, so perhaps they too needed time to figure everything out. With one year under their belt, maybe this year is different. We'll see!

concernedparent

1:10p, 4/30/24

In reply to HKBear97!

HKBear97! said:
HearstMining said:
HKBear97! said:
blungld said:
In this age of NIL how does the casual fan have any sense of season expectation? Our team, for example, is completely overhauled. It's a brand new team. The talent level seems much higher...but how will these players gel and how long will it take and how does the talent level rate within the ACC?

I know we will; have better handle once practice and pre-season begins, but what do people think? Team talent upgraded? Are we low or mid or high tier talent in the ACC? Can an overhauled team gel quick enough to make a run at NCAA or this a 2+ year project?
Personally I am very intrigued by this group - on paper, looks like a better defensive team. Also very excited to see Cal play in the ACC. However, I have zero expectations on the outcome. Last year I was excited about the team only to be thoroughly unimpressed once OOC started. Only thing that saved Cal from another single-digit win total was a terrible Pac-12. Not sure how the ACC will be this coming season, but its unlikely to be as bad as the Pac-12 was this year.
I think that's a little unfair to last year's team. They underperformed in the pre-conference, but did improve during the Pac-12 (and yes, it wasn't a great year for the conference). Let's face it, they were mostly mid-major players for a reason - they had a flaw in their game. Cone really performed as billed in very few games. Daws didn't match up well against athletic big men. But that was the best Madsen could attract, given Cal's horrific recent history.

A bigger reason for your (and my) disappointment was probably a combination of our desperation after the Fox era, and maybe over-promotion on the part of the Cal AD (still, at least they were making an effort as opposed to whining about the number of injuries the team experienced). This upcoming season can be better - I like your use of the word "intrigued".
I was excited by the addition of Tyson and Aimaq coupled with the return of Celestine and expected improvement of Okafor and Newell. That, plus getting that 8th transfer class ranking and Madsen pumping up the biggest win improvement in NCAA history spiel influenced my optimism. Then OOC happened and I saw a team that aside from Tyson, looked equivalent in athleticism to those mid-major programs. And by the way, this incoming class is also mostly mid-major transfers (with one JC).

Regarding the "improvement" during the Pac-12. We went 4-6 over the last ten games, with several of those being blow-outs (UCLA, Colorado, WSU, Utah, Stanford). And of the wins we did have, we beat USC who was just getting out of a six-game losing streak and OSU who finished last in the conference. Not to mention we ended on a four-game losing streak. I don't buy the team just "needed time to gel" narrative.

Specifically last year makes me concerned about two things: 1) Can this staff identify talent? Tyson was a home run, the rest was hit and miss, so to me, the jury is still out. 2) Can they get a bunch of new pieces to play together quickly? Didn't see that last year, so that's a concern. My reasons for optimism: 1) supposedly team chemistry was an issue last year, hopefully that's not an issue this year. 2) Madsen and staff were brand new last season too, so perhaps they too needed time to figure everything out. With one year under their belt, maybe this year is different. We'll see!

The team last year had poor roster construction. The whole was less than the sum of its parts. Cone should be a microwave guy off the bench, not the starting point guard. We didn't have any real point guards on our roster so half the game Tyson was expending his energy initiating the offense. Daws needed a bouncy, rangey 4 next to him make up for his defensive shortcomings. Keonte Kennedy was the only consistently above average defender on the whole team and we were often playing 3-4 turnstiles at once.

Big C

1:59p, 4/30/24

In reply to sluggo

sluggo said:
Just speculation as only two players have formally signed. But sports boards are for speculating. Strengths of the team should be at wing and depth. Weaknesses look like post scoring, shooting from the point position, and bulk outside the 5 position. I think defense will be better as Sissoko should be a much better defender than Aimaq. Offense maybe is similar with more diverse scorers but no star like Tyson. If Sissoko or Tucker get hurt it could be a very long season, unless another point guard is found with the last scholarship.

Overall, I think they win about half their games. I don't see the upside that some others do. And it will take some time with a completely new roster.

That is about my take, too. A .500 team overall (and that's with the staff tweaking a few things so we get off to a faster start). Going .500 in the ACC is probably "aspirational" (as they say).

Still, we're headed in the right direction:

3-29 two years ago
13-19 last season
16-16 this coming season

I can spot a trend as well as the next guy.

parentswerebears

2:30p, 4/30/24

I agree with .500 unless the last guy is an absolute baller.

HearstMining

5:52p, 4/30/24

In reply to concernedparent

concernedparent said:
HKBear97! said:
HearstMining said:
HKBear97! said:
blungld said:
In this age of NIL how does the casual fan have any sense of season expectation? Our team, for example, is completely overhauled. It's a brand new team. The talent level seems much higher...but how will these players gel and how long will it take and how does the talent level rate within the ACC?

I know we will; have better handle once practice and pre-season begins, but what do people think? Team talent upgraded? Are we low or mid or high tier talent in the ACC? Can an overhauled team gel quick enough to make a run at NCAA or this a 2+ year project?
Personally I am very intrigued by this group - on paper, looks like a better defensive team. Also very excited to see Cal play in the ACC. However, I have zero expectations on the outcome. Last year I was excited about the team only to be thoroughly unimpressed once OOC started. Only thing that saved Cal from another single-digit win total was a terrible Pac-12. Not sure how the ACC will be this coming season, but its unlikely to be as bad as the Pac-12 was this year.
I think that's a little unfair to last year's team. They underperformed in the pre-conference, but did improve during the Pac-12 (and yes, it wasn't a great year for the conference). Let's face it, they were mostly mid-major players for a reason - they had a flaw in their game. Cone really performed as billed in very few games. Daws didn't match up well against athletic big men. But that was the best Madsen could attract, given Cal's horrific recent history.

A bigger reason for your (and my) disappointment was probably a combination of our desperation after the Fox era, and maybe over-promotion on the part of the Cal AD (still, at least they were making an effort as opposed to whining about the number of injuries the team experienced). This upcoming season can be better - I like your use of the word "intrigued".
I was excited by the addition of Tyson and Aimaq coupled with the return of Celestine and expected improvement of Okafor and Newell. That, plus getting that 8th transfer class ranking and Madsen pumping up the biggest win improvement in NCAA history spiel influenced my optimism. Then OOC happened and I saw a team that aside from Tyson, looked equivalent in athleticism to those mid-major programs. And by the way, this incoming class is also mostly mid-major transfers (with one JC).

Regarding the "improvement" during the Pac-12. We went 4-6 over the last ten games, with several of those being blow-outs (UCLA, Colorado, WSU, Utah, Stanford). And of the wins we did have, we beat USC who was just getting out of a six-game losing streak and OSU who finished last in the conference. Not to mention we ended on a four-game losing streak. I don't buy the team just "needed time to gel" narrative.

Specifically last year makes me concerned about two things: 1) Can this staff identify talent? Tyson was a home run, the rest was hit and miss, so to me, the jury is still out. 2) Can they get a bunch of new pieces to play together quickly? Didn't see that last year, so that's a concern. My reasons for optimism: 1) supposedly team chemistry was an issue last year, hopefully that's not an issue this year. 2) Madsen and staff were brand new last season too, so perhaps they too needed time to figure everything out. With one year under their belt, maybe this year is different. We'll see!
The team last year had poor roster construction. The whole was less than the sum of its parts. Cone should be a microwave guy off the bench, not the starting point guard. We didn't have any real point guards on our roster so half the game Tyson was expending his energy initiating the offense. Daws needed a bouncy, rangey 4 next to him make up for his defensive shortcomings. Keonte Kennedy was the only consistently above average defender on the whole team and we were often playing 3-4 turnstiles at once.

Recruiting Criteria #1: "Will they come to Cal?". At some point, they had to take who they could get. And wasn't there a guard who committed and then bailed at the last minute? Not sure if he was a PG, or not. Anyway, Cal wasn't and still isn't the most attractive team for anybody who aspires to the NBA - at least now Madsen can point at Tyson. Maybe that's why he took all those one-year-left guys - so he'd get another shot to recruit better players.
Anyway, I think we're all intrigued about how this new group will gel.

Bearly Clad

6:47p, 4/30/24

Here's my take:

1. The defense will be much better having an interior defender like Sissoko and length all over the court that we didn't have last year

2. We don't have a great go-to scorer like Tyson. That may end up being a positive in the long run as it will force Madsen to put in an offensive system that relies on movement and multiple options and could be much more versatile and dangerous in the long run. But right now, not having a Tyson-level player to carry the load can only be seen as a negative

3. I believe the team improved immensely over the course of the year, yes the record in the last 10 games and the 4 game losing streak to end the season weren't great but record in close games and the eye-test support the "progress through the season" stance. Did Madsen learn and will he adjust quicker or have them gelling sooner? That remains to be seen but I do believe as the season goes on we can come on stronger. And we did compete with some tough teams early in the season non-conference, we just couldn't finish

4. I think this team is deeper than last year but has less top-end talent unless Stojakovic or Sissoko perform at their prospective potential from HS

5. Overall we increased the win total by 10 in Madsen's first year. Yes there was significant roster overhaul but that is a massive leap into, at least, competency in year 1. Unlikely they make that same 10-game leap in year 2 but just another 5 or so makes us a viable power-4 team with no shame and no equivocation

Johnfox

8:17p, 4/30/24

This is a team that has a high floor and high ceiling. We have enough talent to be better than last year, but if people over perform, we are a NCAA team.

JimSox

8:46p, 4/30/24

I thought last year's team failed late in the season because of sheer fatigue. They basically played six guys the whole game, with a few minutes each by Larson and Brown. But maybe there was dissension in the locker room. At least that's what some here are hinting.
As for this coming season the consensus I'm reading is that we'll go .500. But I have no idea. Can 11 guys who never met each other before become a team? And how good are the players really? But I'm excited to watch and find out!

HoopDreams

9:04p, 4/30/24

In reply to JimSox

JimSox said:
I thought last year's team failed late in the season because of sheer fatigue. They basically played six guys the whole game, with a few minutes each by Larson and Brown. But maybe there was dissension in the locker room. At least that's what some here are hinting.
As for this coming season the consensus I'm reading is that we'll go .500. But I have no idea. Can 11 guys who never met each other before become a team? And how good are the players really? But I'm excited to watch and find out!

the 'dissension' in the locker room is overblown

many teams have issues at some point in the season, especially if the team's success is below expectations. some players are always going to be dissatisfied with PT, how they are used, etc.

that is nothing new. I remember a post season chat with a couple players hosted by BI. One of the players was The Thurmanator. I was surprised when he expressed his frustration that he wasn't allowed to take the midrange shot (Coach Monty). I thought he would have been happy with his Cal career considering he came in as a walkon project.

But I remember a game vs USC where we were down late big, and he started hitting 10-15 footers and brought us all the way back for the win. Then after Cal he went on to a successful pro career overseas.

Maybe he was right

But back to the point, our lack of cohesion and injuries hurt us in the early season, and our lack of depth and too heavy minutes on 5 players were the biggest reason for our late season fade. Still upset by losing to Stanford after we had a big lead, but it started when two starters got in foul trouble, and then fouled out

Big C

9:09p, 4/30/24

In reply to JimSox

JimSox said:
I thought last year's team failed late in the season because of sheer fatigue. They basically played six guys the whole game, with a few minutes each by Larson and Brown. But maybe there was dissension in the locker room. At least that's what some here are hinting.
As for this coming season the consensus I'm reading is that we'll go .500. But I have no idea. Can 11 guys who never met each other before become a team? And how good are the players really? But I'm excited to watch and find out!

I'm assuming/hoping that Madsen and his staff will learn some lessons from last season, in terms of taking a bunch of disparate pieces and getting them off to a faster start.

Dana Altman's Oregon teams do this every year, reaching a fairly high ceiling.

Civil Bear

9:56p, 4/30/24

In reply to JimSox

JimSox said:
I thought last year's team failed late in the season because of sheer fatigue. They basically played six guys the whole game, with a few minutes each by Larson and Brown. But maybe there was dissension in the locker room. At least that's what some here are hinting.
As for this coming season the consensus I'm reading is that we'll go .500. But I have no idea. Can 11 guys who never met each other before become a team? And how good are the players really? But I'm excited to watch and find out!

Concensus mencensus. If this team with less top end talent manages to duplicate last year's record in a tougher conference then I will consider it win. A .500 overall record may be possible but would be impressive. Hopefully we avoid the early injuries and win all our cupcake OOC games.

sluggo

10:14p, 4/30/24

In reply to HearstMining

HearstMining said:
concernedparent said:
HKBear97! said:
HearstMining said:
HKBear97! said:
blungld said:
In this age of NIL how does the casual fan have any sense of season expectation? Our team, for example, is completely overhauled. It's a brand new team. The talent level seems much higher...but how will these players gel and how long will it take and how does the talent level rate within the ACC?

I know we will; have better handle once practice and pre-season begins, but what do people think? Team talent upgraded? Are we low or mid or high tier talent in the ACC? Can an overhauled team gel quick enough to make a run at NCAA or this a 2+ year project?
Personally I am very intrigued by this group - on paper, looks like a better defensive team. Also very excited to see Cal play in the ACC. However, I have zero expectations on the outcome. Last year I was excited about the team only to be thoroughly unimpressed once OOC started. Only thing that saved Cal from another single-digit win total was a terrible Pac-12. Not sure how the ACC will be this coming season, but its unlikely to be as bad as the Pac-12 was this year.
I think that's a little unfair to last year's team. They underperformed in the pre-conference, but did improve during the Pac-12 (and yes, it wasn't a great year for the conference). Let's face it, they were mostly mid-major players for a reason - they had a flaw in their game. Cone really performed as billed in very few games. Daws didn't match up well against athletic big men. But that was the best Madsen could attract, given Cal's horrific recent history.

A bigger reason for your (and my) disappointment was probably a combination of our desperation after the Fox era, and maybe over-promotion on the part of the Cal AD (still, at least they were making an effort as opposed to whining about the number of injuries the team experienced). This upcoming season can be better - I like your use of the word "intrigued".
I was excited by the addition of Tyson and Aimaq coupled with the return of Celestine and expected improvement of Okafor and Newell. That, plus getting that 8th transfer class ranking and Madsen pumping up the biggest win improvement in NCAA history spiel influenced my optimism. Then OOC happened and I saw a team that aside from Tyson, looked equivalent in athleticism to those mid-major programs. And by the way, this incoming class is also mostly mid-major transfers (with one JC).

Regarding the "improvement" during the Pac-12. We went 4-6 over the last ten games, with several of those being blow-outs (UCLA, Colorado, WSU, Utah, Stanford). And of the wins we did have, we beat USC who was just getting out of a six-game losing streak and OSU who finished last in the conference. Not to mention we ended on a four-game losing streak. I don't buy the team just "needed time to gel" narrative.

Specifically last year makes me concerned about two things: 1) Can this staff identify talent? Tyson was a home run, the rest was hit and miss, so to me, the jury is still out. 2) Can they get a bunch of new pieces to play together quickly? Didn't see that last year, so that's a concern. My reasons for optimism: 1) supposedly team chemistry was an issue last year, hopefully that's not an issue this year. 2) Madsen and staff were brand new last season too, so perhaps they too needed time to figure everything out. With one year under their belt, maybe this year is different. We'll see!
The team last year had poor roster construction. The whole was less than the sum of its parts. Cone should be a microwave guy off the bench, not the starting point guard. We didn't have any real point guards on our roster so half the game Tyson was expending his energy initiating the offense. Daws needed a bouncy, rangey 4 next to him make up for his defensive shortcomings. Keonte Kennedy was the only consistently above average defender on the whole team and we were often playing 3-4 turnstiles at once.
Recruiting Criteria #1: "Will they come to Cal?". At some point, they had to take who they could get. And wasn't there a guard who committed and then bailed at the last minute? Not sure if he was a PG, or not. Anyway, Cal wasn't and still isn't the most attractive team for anybody who aspires to the NBA - at least now Madsen can point at Tyson. Maybe that's why he took all those one-year-left guys - so he'd get another shot to recruit better players.
Anyway, I think we're all intrigued about how this new group will gel.

I do not agree, Cal is equally fine as anywhere to get to the NBA, especially with Madsen coaching. The NBA is about size, athleticism and skills development. The first two are innate and the third is a matter of work. The only negative in terms of the NBA is that the schoolwork might be distracting.

sluggo

10:16p, 4/30/24

In reply to Big C

Big C said:
sluggo said:
Just speculation as only two players have formally signed. But sports boards are for speculating. Strengths of the team should be at wing and depth. Weaknesses look like post scoring, shooting from the point position, and bulk outside the 5 position. I think defense will be better as Sissoko should be a much better defender than Aimaq. Offense maybe is similar with more diverse scorers but no star like Tyson. If Sissoko or Tucker get hurt it could be a very long season, unless another point guard is found with the last scholarship.

Overall, I think they win about half their games. I don't see the upside that some others do. And it will take some time with a completely new roster.

That is about my take, too. A .500 team overall (and that's with the staff tweaking a few things so we get off to a faster start). Going .500 in the ACC is probably "aspirational" (as they say).

Still, we're headed in the right direction:

3-29 two years ago
13-19 last season
16-16 this coming season

I can spot a trend as well as the next guy.

Yes, a few games better than .500 out of conference and a few games worse in conference. But there are lots of juniors coming and the team should be very competitive in 25-26.

RedlessWardrobe

7:20a, 5/1/24

sluggo said,
"I do not agree, Cal is equally fine as anywhere to get to the NBA, especially with Madsen coaching. The NBA is about size, athleticism and skills development. The first two are innate and the third is a matter of work. The only negative in terms of the NBA is that the schoolwork might be distracting."

I completely agree Sluggo. But wow, isn't it crazy to think what "college" basketball has become?

HearstMining

8:09a, 5/1/24

In reply to RedlessWardrobe

RedlessWardrobe said:
sluggo said,
"I do not agree, Cal is equally fine as anywhere to get to the NBA, especially with Madsen coaching. The NBA is about size, athleticism and skills development. The first two are innate and the third is a matter of work. The only negative in terms of the NBA is that the schoolwork might be distracting."

I completely agree Sluggo. But wow, isn't it crazy to think what "college" basketball has become?

On another thread, I speculated that there will eventually be a lawsuit demanding that players not be required to actually be students. After all, if they're being paid to play a sport, wouldn't the requirement that they study, which has nothing to do with their "job", be considered restraint of trade?

bearmanpg

9:56a, 5/1/24

In reply to HearstMining

HearstMining said:
RedlessWardrobe said:
sluggo said,
"I do not agree, Cal is equally fine as anywhere to get to the NBA, especially with Madsen coaching. The NBA is about size, athleticism and skills development. The first two are innate and the third is a matter of work. The only negative in terms of the NBA is that the schoolwork might be distracting."

I completely agree Sluggo. But wow, isn't it crazy to think what "college" basketball has become?
On another thread, I speculated that there will eventually be a lawsuit demanding that players not be required to actually be students. After all, if they're being paid to play a sport, wouldn't the requirement that they study, which has nothing to do with their "job", be considered restraint of trade?

I've hesitated to post this for years....I have a close friend who was Cal player recruited by Padgett back in the late 60's...he has told me that he never saw the majority of his teammates attending classes, let alone studying...Don't like to pop bubbles but it seems like this has been an unofficial policy for decades....OK, you can start swatting me around now....

stu

11:11a, 5/1/24

In reply to bearmanpg

I've heard a few things but not first hand. I suspect academic irregularities persisted at least through the Bozeman years.

It would be nice to hear some Rod Benson stories on this topic...

RedlessWardrobe

11:14a, 5/1/24

OK, you can start swatting me around now.

No worries, don't think anybody here is going to swat you.

I guess it just amazes a lot of us that the reality has become so "up front" in the more recent years. With NIL and the transfer portal now a fixture, I don't think any upcoming changes will surprise any of us anymore.