Thanks Nick. We are the worst in the Pac because we have less talent than others. We are far, far too easy to defend. We have too few who can score inside the paint, or two point shots. And if you shut down our three point shots, we've lost, period. No one has to fear us driving to the basket, other than Bradley. Grant is quite versatile, and Kelly is solid but not Leon Powe. But what about the others? Only mediocre or worse in terms of Pac scoring or talent. I'm not knocking guys I root for, just saying that our stats show that we can't score enough to keep up. So this leads me back to recruiting. To Fox. If Fox doesn't bring in a solid class next year, and the year after, then I'm afraid he will have to move on. As much as I like his demeanor and the clean program and guys playing hard, we can't stay the worst in the league.
This is exactly correct. It is all about whether Fox can recruit a good class or two. The reality is that you need gold star talent (+ good coaching) to win. The first year matters a lot (look at what Cuonzo did). Unfortunately, I think it might already be too late for Fox. He whiffed on two classes...and losing does not help pull recruits. I will give him a ceremonial year, but I doubt things will change much. I hope I have to eat crow...but you heard it here first. Doooooom.
Yeah, it's tough. The guys do play hard and are likeable, but some baseline expectations for winning should be part of the goals for a revenue sport for the greatest public university in the country. This program has shown that it can be an attractive destination when we show we're interested in winning, and the area at large has shown it will support us when we do as well. Just doesn't feel like the current administration is as concerned with winning, so much as they are concerned with managing the bottom line.
I kinda feel like the team could make a leap if we could ever unlock Brown. The guy can get to any spot on the court whenever he wants to like few Bears before him, but doesn't have any plan once he gets there. His FG and 3pt percentages are good, but he seldom shoots and is not much of a distributor at just over 3 assists/game. Too many minutes for too limited production.
I do think that Paris Austin and Kareem South are better defenders than Betley/Foreman, but I was hoping that the returning players on the roster would have improved as defenders. It’s perplexing
Are we looking for a more sophisticated answer than Coaching? hahaha but tbf we may have gained more perimeter firepower/size in betley/foreman over austin/south, we lost a step in athleticism and driving ability.
yes, we are missing Paris's ability to get to the basket. Bradley and Paris were the guys with the ball in their hands when the clock was winding down, and Paris put a ton of pressure on the defense because he could either score, pull up or get to the FT line (and hit his FTs)
I was concerned about losing him last year as I felt he was under valued. Maybe that is the biggest difference between the two teams
Yeah, great article. In the immortal words of Denny Green: "Mark Fox is who we thought he is." Any explanation for Furd's sudden recruiting success? Not only did they get the Zaire, but they have a top 12 and two top 50 guys coming next year. Considering Haase has but one NIT invite in four years, seems odd that the program would become so attractive now. If not for the recruits, I'd guess Haase would be fighting for his job. I guess we could hope the same late recruiting bloom for Fox, but the trajectory of that Stanford program is such a curious outlier, it seems impossible to hope for.
He's probably arguing for the idea that when Bradley was injured that the team ball movement was a lot better, especially in regards to setting up people like Grant Anticevich (especially with open 3's he had from movement against Utah and UCLA)and Andre Kelly against Utah and ASU. On a personal level I think Cal did a lot better job at the fundamentals and ability to have confidence in themselves without Bradley. Now arguing the team is better without him is a whole different animal but I think going by the eye test there is some merit to that when simply not deferring to Bradley every possession.
Thanks Nick. We are the worst in the Pac because we have less talent than others. We are far, far too easy to defend. We have too few who can score inside the paint, or two point shots. And if you shut down our three point shots, we've lost, period. No one has to fear us driving to the basket, other than Bradley. Grant is quite versatile, and Kelly is solid but not Leon Powe. But what about the others? Only mediocre or worse in terms of Pac scoring or talent. I'm not knocking guys I root for, just saying that our stats show that we can't score enough to keep up. So this leads me back to recruiting. To Fox. If Fox doesn't bring in a solid class next year, and the year after, then I'm afraid he will have to move on. As much as I like his demeanor and the clean program and guys playing hard, we can't stay the worst in the league.
This is exactly correct. It is all about whether Fox can recruit a good class or two. The reality is that you need gold star talent (+ good coaching) to win. The first year matters a lot (look at what Cuonzo did). Unfortunately, I think it might already be too late for Fox. He whiffed on two classes...and losing does not help pull recruits. I will give him a ceremonial year, but I doubt things will change much. I hope I have to eat crow...but you heard it here first. Doooooom.
Yeah, it's tough. The guys do play hard and are likeable, but some baseline expectations for winning should be part of the goals for a revenue sport for the greatest public university in the country. This program has shown that it can be an attractive destination when we show we're interested in winning, and the area at large has shown it will support us when we do as well. Just doesn't feel like the current administration is as concerned with winning, so much as they are concerned with managing the bottom line.
I kinda feel like the team could make a leap if we could ever unlock Brown. The guy can get to any spot on the court whenever he wants to like few Bears before him, but doesn't have any plan once he gets there. His FG and 3pt percentages are good, but he seldom shoots and is not much of a distributor at just over 3 assists/game. Too many minutes for too limited production.
Let me be the first to say. Great article Nick. Thank you.
a big question for me is: WHY IS OUR DEFENSE WORSE THAN LAST YEAR?
we lost Paris and South, both undersized guards who's defense was average at best (although Paris improved)
...and all the returners are in their second year of Fox's defensive system, and presumably stronger
I do think that Paris Austin and Kareem South are better defenders than Betley/Foreman, but I was hoping that the returning players on the roster would have improved as defenders. It’s perplexing
Are we looking for a more sophisticated answer than Coaching? hahaha but tbf we may have gained more perimeter firepower/size in betley/foreman over austin/south, we lost a step in athleticism and driving ability.
yes, we are missing Paris's ability to get to the basket. Bradley and Paris were the guys with the ball in their hands when the clock was winding down, and Paris put a ton of pressure on the defense because he could either score, pull up or get to the FT line (and hit his FTs)
I was concerned about losing him last year as I felt he was under valued. Maybe that is the biggest difference between the two teams
Yeah, great article. In the immortal words of Denny Green: "Mark Fox is who we thought he is." Any explanation for Furd's sudden recruiting success? Not only did they get the Zaire, but they have a top 12 and two top 50 guys coming next year. Considering Haase has but one NIT invite in four years, seems odd that the program would become so attractive now. If not for the recruits, I'd guess Haase would be fighting for his job. I guess we could hope the same late recruiting bloom for Fox, but the trajectory of that Stanford program is such a curious outlier, it seems impossible to hope for.
I just assume some guys want to go to Stanford almost regardless of the coaching situation
Blasphemy.
Very nice analysis. Seems to sum up the current state of Cal basketball.
Great article Nick...thank you.
“ The other players blossomed when he was not on the floor.” Gonna need to see some real evidence for a claim like that
He's probably arguing for the idea that when Bradley was injured that the team ball movement was a lot better, especially in regards to setting up people like Grant Anticevich (especially with open 3's he had from movement against Utah and UCLA)and Andre Kelly against Utah and ASU. On a personal level I think Cal did a lot better job at the fundamentals and ability to have confidence in themselves without Bradley. Now arguing the team is better without him is a whole different animal but I think going by the eye test there is some merit to that when simply not deferring to Bradley every possession.
I literally did that in this article
Nick never asserted that the other players blossomed when Matt wasn't on the floor.