Is Cal Basketball's Season A Success If It Ends Tonight?
I would never wish ill on our Bears. But it's safe to say our season stands a good shot of ending this weekend. We are underdogs tonight. We're 3000 miles away from California. We're likely playing a six man rotation, maybe seven if we're lucky. We face a deep Louisville squad that can put us away with 3s and size inside. And after all that, even if we survived, we'd probably have to deal with the Dukies, who while being the weakest #1 seed in the tourney are still probably going to have plenty of rest after beating up the Pine Bluffs. The only possible scenario I see us surviving is if
(a) We go lights out against the Cardinals, take a 25-30 point lead by the middle of the second half and rest our starters for the home stretch.
AND
(b) Duke gets stuck in a dogfight with Arkansas Pine-Bluff, leaving them exhausted and tired for our game (not likely)
OR
(c) Duke blows Arkansas Pine-Bluff out and runs the score up in typical Coach K fashion (don't believe me? Go check the scores for some of Duke's games against their weaker foes). Dukies come in extra confident, pump their chests, just seem to be happy to have avoided Louisville. Then they get the game taken to them (possible).
Since that scenario probably has a 1 in 50 chance of happening, let's take a step back one last time and assess what our Golden Bears have accomplished, and whether we're satisfied with how far they've gone or whether we're left wanting more. I don't want to see too many sad faces because I feel this has been a successful team, even if the final result is another first round exit. The only thing unsuccessful about this year is that it would end with a loss, like another 62 teams playing in this Dance.
If Cal falls to Louisville tonight, will you consider this season a success? Or do you need to see more?
I imagine our objectives for Cal football and Cal basketball are different. For Cal football, it seems like the only type of good season these days is at least 9 wins. Period. We will soon reach the point where only a Pac-10 championship will suffice, because that is the ultimate prize that opens up the Rose Bowl. Nothing else matters. All of us are definitely happy that our Golden Bears won the Pac-10 title in hoops, but I'm pretty sure if you asked Golden Bear fans if they could get a Pac-10 hoops conference title or a ticket to Pasadena, the majority of them would be setting themselves up on Colorado Blvd. right now.
The big prize in college basketball is much different, because unlike college football there's a true national championship in place. The goal for many fans isn't the conference title, but doing well in March Madness, despite its often harsh and arbitrary nature. If Cal goes one-and-done two years in a row, I expect to see some Bears fans throw their hands up and say, "Well, they were good enough to win the weakest Pac-10 ever, but they weren't good enough to do anything else." And that would be sad. This team deserves more than that, win or lose this weekend.
Here are my big arguments for why this team is already a success, regardless of what happens in March.
They have never played as a complete unit. Literally. From the beginning, our team was cut down to 90% of its strength without Harper Kamp. Kamp was our best post defender, a guy who was slowly developing his own offensive moves, a guy who could've complemented Jamal Boykin and made the Bears a decent, if not dominant team down low. To lose Kamp was a devastating blow to our team's long-term viability to compete with the best--if we had him Cal would've run away with the Pac-10 and could've definitely won some of those big games.
On top of that, the injuries came, one-by-one. So many of them. Theo Robertson, out for three of our losses, two of which were winnable with him. Jorge Gutierrez downed for another two. Half the team catching the flu before New Mexico. It goes on. Although we didn't endure a Texas-style trip to the emergency ward, it wasn't like we ever saw Cal that much at full strength. That we managed to scrape away with a Pac-10 championship is that much more impressive.
And it looks like to complete the season we won't see Omondi Amoke either. Gives a whole new meaning to "Sturdy Golden Bears", as Rece Davis so lovably calls us.
This year's team isn't that much better than last year's. I didn't think we'd miss Jordan Wilkes that much, but Cal could have used more size with Kamp's loss. Despite all the players returning, only Boykin has made huge strides in their games from the previous seasons. Amoke, Gutierrez, Randle and Robertson have gradually improved as players, but the big leaps came last year for them. Patrick Christopher isn't much different from last year other than an uncanny nose for the boards. Nikola Knezevic and D.J. Seeley aren't that much better. Max Zhang can block a lot and dunk a bit, but he's got things to learn. And although Markhuri Sanders-Frison has helped out, he's still a little bit away from being a full-time contributor.
It's no surprise Cal has 'underachieved', at least according to the national pundits. Mike Montgomery got the most he could out of them last season, and we thought we'd see another big leap this season. In actuality, the real big leap for Cal basketball was changing from Ben Braun to Monty. It wasn't as if Phil Jackson was here guiding our Bears to a higher level of basketball consciousness. These guys have gone as far as they can go in college development.
This is a really likable group of guys. The big intangible for me. You have Randle the bulldog. You have Boykin the aspiring artist. You have Christopher, college basketball's version of Project Runaway. You have Theo, the quiet and humble worker. You have Jorge, our own version of [insert every Pac-10 defender who maxed out because of his work ethic we've faced over the years]. You feel like these guys not only personify the Cal experience, but you could probably chill with these guys for a few hours and not recognize these guys also play basketball for the school (this is also assuming you're six feet tall, since the height thing would probably give it away). You can tell they enjoy playing with each other and would love to keep on doing it for as long as they can.
Contrast that to a group like Kentucky, which has a future set of pros in John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins Patrick Patterson, Erik Bledsoe...all will be in the NBA in a year or two. But you watch them and realize that they are only good by their talent. These guys can ball, but they don't really buy into their school and often check out at the most puzzling of times. If there were no restrictions in place, they'd probably be trudging alone on the Nets and Timberwolves of the league already. They're Calipari's mercenaries, for better or for worse.
I'm not saying our guys are Rhodes Scholars or anything (although getting a Bill Bradley would be tight), but since you don't see many guys finish getting their degrees in this age of "one-and-done", it's nice to see athletes recognize there are more important things than gauging your professional worth. I thought it was worth noting that this team has five seniors who have or are on track to finishing their degrees. Pete Newell would've loved watching these guys.
0 recs |
176 comments
|
Comments
I don’t think its the result of the game – but really the manner in which we lose (if we win, its a success in any way – even if its a win but 1 jerome randle free throw: 1-0)
If we battle L’ville all the way and go out firing, and lose on a great play or L’ville just making one or two more plays or a loose ball or two more – I think I’d be satisfied with this season. If we get beat right out of the gates and don’t compete at all, it’d be a Poinsietta Bowl like experience with a bitter taste.
I don’t know. I think we need to find a way to win no matter what the circumstances are. Louisville shoots well, we gotta shoot (or defend) better. The refs suck ass? We gotta play through the tough calls. They get a lucky shot? We got to get a luckier one. Whatever it takes to win.
Personally I don’t think it’s going to be that close but even if it’s the ugliest game we’ll ever see with a combined point total of 40, we really have to get that W.
I’m satisfied with the season (wins over the furd, exciting run in the pac10 tourney, and of course PAC 10 CHAMPS!) but I feel for the season to be a “success” we’ll need a win in the NCAA’s.
That’s pretty much how I feel. It’s been a good season, certainly not a failure by any stretch. We won the Pac-10, which was awesome, but we were expected to do that. I think for the season to truly be a success, we need to get to the second round of the Tourney.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions
grumble grumble Avinish, you are a grumpy Bear. Where were you in 1993?? Even with Amoke’s departure, I’d give our experienced, hungry team far better than a 50-to-1 shot at beating L’Ville and Duke this weekend. UW is on fire and we came within a play or two of beating them last week, even though we were a lock for the tourney already. The Big East definitely didn’t scare anyone yesterday— Robert Morris had ‘Nova beat until the end, and had they held on, the Big East would’ve pitched an 0fer for the entire day. We’ll put the icing on round 1 tonight by pasting the Cardinals, then I’ll take our puncher’s chance in round 2.
For real. I was a little surprised at how badly the Big East did yesterday, and I hope that Lousville is as overrated as the rest of the conference.
I hope Syracuse is actually as good as advertised though.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I think they are (and I’ve seen them play a bunch AND I’m knowledgeable about basketball), but they could be in a lot of trouble depending on how things go with Onuaku. They need him.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions
They have a fairly decent draw. If it’s only a quad strain and not a knee issue, hopefully by next week he’ll be ready to play at a high level in the Sweet 16/Elite 8. I think Syracuse can beat Vermont and Gonzaga without him at 100%.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Well the problem is their biggest vulnerability is inside – like Cal, they’re not deep or big down low, and Onuaku is basically their only capable player of guarding a good big man. Depending on the matchup, that could be a problem if they don’t have him or he’s playing hurt.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
You’re saying that you don’t think Rick Jackson plays defense?
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Isn’t he one of the guys that usually plays an outside forward position in their zone?
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but he’s 6-9, 240… He should be able to guard a big man if necessary.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, one of the reasons I think Syracuse is so good this year is they have the right personnel for their zone, like they did when ‘Melo was there. Guys like Melo, Warrick and the guys they have now we long and athletic enough to effectively guard the wings, but also big and strong enough to guard down low when need be, and then the guys up top of the zone can match up with any wings. So yes, I do think their forwards can guard big guys, but if we’re talking about a Samhan-type Richmond killing big guy, Onuaku is their only real hope.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I said before the season they needed to make the Sweet 16, and I stand by that. If they beat Louisville, it’s somewhat of a success, but still a bit less than what could/should have been. Given how weak the Pac-10 was, Cal should have rolled it and won the conference tournament – I honestly believed the team was capable of more throughout the whole season (and I think I was one of the more pessimistic people before the season in terms of how good they were), and by not winning more they put themselves in the 8 spot where Sweet 16 looks like a tough road. We should be looking at a 5 seed with a much more reaslistic shot at it. Yeah, Oh St, Syracuse, Kansas and NM are tough teams, but I don’t think it’s out of the question to expect Cal to win one of them. 13-5 is also disappointing given how weak the Pac-10 was – I believe the gap between Cal and everyone else was big enough that they should have been looking at 2-3 losses instead.
Anyways, that’s all negative, but I really don’t think anyone should feel down on the season or anything, especially if they beat Louisville. They still won the Pac-10 regular season, could win a tournament game, it’s more a “what might have been” than “the season was a failure”. I think the team was definitely capable of more, but it’s not like they were unsuccessful, exactly. Just not as successful as I thought they should be.
I think we should’ve done better, too. We had no business losing to UCLA, USC, or Oregon St.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Success is such a subjective thing, isn’t it? Not only between people, but within the same person depending on the day.
Overall, even with a loss tonight, I would call this season satisfying because our guys won the conference title. But satisfying in the way a hot meal of spaghetti out of a can is. Not satisfying in the way a perfectly cooked filet mignon is. It would be an empty satisfaction. Because we acquitted ourselves so poorly against Ucla in Haas. Because we went to sleep and got thumped by OSU. Because we lost to UW in the Pac-10 Tourney title match.
Yes, there are reasons for that. Yes we’ve suffered key injuries. But in the end those are excuses. A loss tonight leaves this season as unfinished and lacking true contentment.
But regardless, I think we can all take some pride in the team and what it’s done. Particularly in regards to using this as a preview of things to come.
Whose Axe?
OUR AXE!
Avi, baby.
Let’s not get too espnorific and/or myopic here. This season is a success, period. This is Cal. Last I checked we hadn’t won a conference championship in 50 years. We finally won one this year. This season was a success. Simple as that.
Winning the conference championship and then losing in the first round is not a success. Clearly this team has the talent to win a few games when it counts.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 7:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Baby steps my friend. This is not some historical powerhouse of a program. see not having won conference in 50 years.
You are the type who is never satisfied?
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t mind if the basketball team loses. I’m not invested in basketball like I am with football. But I don’t want meaningless banners hanging in the rafters celebrating non-accomplishments. Get rid of the clutter and we’ll wait to celebrate when the time comes.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions
You don’t have to be a historical powerhouse to expect to win 1 game in the tourney. We’re a good team this year, so why shouldn’t we have some realistic but high expectations.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
What do you mean not a historical power house?
10 NCAA Tournaments 7 Sweet 16s
1959 Champs
1960 Runner up
We were historically good, until Newell left then were weren’t good for a little bit. The history is there! The history is there!
I’m with you 33SS. I am amazed at all these people who are still placing conditions on success for this year. You guys are a tough crowd.
Best result in my lifetime works for me.
Well on a site like this you will see a selection bias. The more casual fan is not the type who will generally bother to post. The more involved supporters will tend to have higher expectations. I’d actually say that seeing an opinion that if we lose tonight and can still call this season an unqualified success is much more amazing.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s hard to say that involved supporters have higher expectations without some support…
…I am offer the opposite from my personal experience, but then that argument wouldn’t really be any better.
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Well everyone has different reasons for being a fan, but sports are entertainment, and winning makes for better entertainment. The most ardent supporters stick around even during losing times with the hope that better days will come, not because they actively enjoy losing.
Winning creates memories that pulls fans through down years. I would agree that your level of expectation is based on your relationship to the program. Donors who begin donating because they want the program succeed probably soften their expectations if they begin interacting with the athletes personally. Programs that win more do have more donors and long term season ticket holders.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Here, I'll say it for you CaliforniaEternal.....
If we lose tonight this season should be considered an unqualified success.
Our expectations were raised beyond reality by that ridiculous number 12 pre-season ranking. We have no real big man and a thin bench.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, just speaking for myself, I don’t think my expectations before the season were offbase. I thought we were ranked too high and were more of a 15-20 team, and I still think Cal has the talent level of that kind of ranking.
"Richmond, VA. For when West Virginia is too classy"
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions
In one way, this team is more successful than any team of the last 50 years! In another way, we’d have to win 2 more games to match success as recent as about 15 years ago. So, it’s a tough call. What do you constitute as success? Regular season or tournament?
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Well, you also have to take in context. The Pac-10 was awful. This Cal team was good. On the one hand, the results in a historical perspective might be successful, on the other hand, many (including myself) feel this team was capable of more.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't give a shit about the PacX being awful.
In three years when you look up at the rafters and see the banner, you aren’t going to say: “Oh boy, we only one the pac x that year because it was awful.”
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions
That completely misses the point.
many (including myself) feel this team was capable of more.
That’s the point.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, this is it exactly.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Please explain what games we should have won that we lost.
Please explain to me that this team should have been able to overcome the injuries to Kamp, Theo, etc.
And then, while your at it, tell me that having a deep bench is “HUGELY OVERRATED.”
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
UCLA, USC, OSU, going 1-3 against Top 10 teams instead of 0-4. And based on people that actually do research into basketball, a huge bench is “hugely overrated”. I’m sorry that you don’t believe the players that play the most minutes and do the most for the team determine how the team does more than backups, but it’s true.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Who cares? We won. There’s been more than enough times that Cal had the opportunity to win something big and then it failed. So, you take what you can get when you get it, you dont throw it back into the ocean bc it might, to some, stink.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Who’s throwing anything back in the ocean?
1) It’s great we won the Pac-10. Wooooo!
2) If we had won some more games, including a few that we shouldn’t have lost in conference play, we would’ve had a better tourney seed and been set up for a better chance at a deep run.
I think those are both fair points.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t doubt that if you win more you get a better seed. But we won the Pac10. I mean c’mon. Sure, it would have been nice to beat UCLA at home, but that was a fluke bounce. It would have been nice to beat OSU on the road, that D is really annoying. But seriously. We won hella games, we won the Pac10, I feel like you guys are always looking for fault.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
It’s all about the quest for a perfect season. Which will never happen. Then we can start arguing about margin of victory.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes. In this hypothetical season we will get pissed when we don’t win by double digits. And the overtime game becomes unacceptable.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Margin of victory IS more important to future succeess than simple W-L record!
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t expect a perfect season. I actually don’t really expect that we’ll win tonight, because I’m a fearful Cal fan. I do think we’re more than capable of winning, though. I’m happy we won the Pac-10, and it’s been a very good year, but what’s wrong about wanting to win 1 more game to be truly satisfied?
If we lose tonight, we had a pretty successful year, but we lost in the 1st round again.
If we win tonight, this year was an unmitigated success.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Not throwing it back. A Pac-10 title is a Pac-10 title. “The Pac-10 is weak” is part of the larger argument that they should have won more Pac-10 games to better set them up for the NCAA tournament.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
A good regular season is only useful to gain the highest seed possible and be matched up against weaker teams. The goal is the NCAA championship.
I don’t know about you guys, but I am frankly embarrassed by the NIT banner hanging in Haas Pavillion. The NIT banner is the same size as the banner listing our 1959 championship is it not?
And then the banner listing tournament appearances. Great, being listed on a bracket with 5 other Pac 10 teams is an accomplishment?
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions
A good regular season is only useful to gain the highest seed possible and be matched up against weaker teams. The goal is the NCAA championship.
Disagree. Yes, the goal should be a championship, but the NCAA tournament is a huge crapshoot where you play anywhere from 1-6 games, the regular season you have 18 conference games and a number of OOC games. It matters, too. If all that matters is the end of the season crapshoot, I think you’re missing out on a lot.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Sure it’s a crapshoot, but gaining a 1 seed is a guarantee of advancing to the 2nd round. That’s a huge deal when you only have to win 6 games. Plus the that 1-16 game almost always allows teams to rest their starters compared to the 8-9 game which is a dogfight.
Not to mention the general home court advantage a really high seed brings.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m not saying a higher seed shouldn’t be a goal – it should, but if you’re viewing the entire season based on one crapshoot tournament, I believe you’re missing most of what actually happens – even if you get to the Elite 8, the tournament is what, 10% of the entire season?
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions
People like California Eternal are IMPOSSIBLE to please. No point arguing with him.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Hey I agree that winning a regular season is a HUGE accomplishment in its own right and should be celebrated with a banner. That can still be evaluated separately from the tournament performance, which does have a major impact on how the season as a whole is viewed.
And frankly, I find your attitude extremely condescending. Reasoning that having high standards for what is considered a success does not make someone impossible to please.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions
My attitude is condescending because it's the type of attitude that calls for
Tedford’s resignation etc. Let’s keep our expectations reasonable until we demonstrate that we can compete with the big boys on a consistent basis.
Shooting for the stars is great, but I’m just asking for a little bit or reasonableness thrown in there as well.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Hey, I support Montgomery and Tedford 100%. I love what both are doing for the university and I’ve been arguing that stability along with their coaching talent is actually the main key to success. You probably feel like I’m one of the reactionaries who enjoys firing coaches, which is not the case. I am confident that Tedford will reach amazing heights this decade if he sticks around.
I would like you to re-evaluate your outdated “This is Cal” attitude. We already do compete with the big boys. We are one of the big boys. I like your humility, but not to the extend that it tolerates losing. I’m just curious, were you in favor of firing Ben Braun?
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions
I am not really a "this is Cal" type. I just like to think that I understand
that it takes time to build a program that competes with the big boys year in and year out. This process does not happen overnight and many people lack the patience it takes to get to the top of the mountain. We are trending in the right direction and we will get there sooner rather than later. The foundation is there.
Re: Braun – I wanted him gone two years before he was actually fired. He had been floundering for many years and seemed to always win that “important” game here and there to save his job. By the end of his tenure I was pulling for the team to fail because success meant that he would come back. I had the same MO with the Holmoe era as well.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Completely agree
CAL never had the resources or tradition to be a contender. Our fan base is even a bit wishy washy; we sure are zealous because we are so goddamn hungry.
Tedford’s early success gave us an opportunity to lay the foundation to be great one day. It’s happening in front of our eyes now. Just thinking about the building of the SAHPC, renovation of Memorial, being relevant year in and year out, running a clean program, graduating good student athletes and watching the best of them in the NFL just brings a tear to my eye.
Surprising good success with bad resources = motivation to get good resources = getting good resources = being great one day. Just wait for it, with the foundation in place, CAL’s future is bright.
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions
that it takes time to build a program that competes with the big boys year in and year out.
Completely agree, though I don’t think this applies to this years Cal team at all. Braun was a horrible coach, but a very able recruiter – this team has plenty of talent this year, and a great coach who’s had 2 years now to teach them. I fully expect rebuilding next year, which is acceptable, but for this season, expectations were, and should have been, high.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
This
II am frankly embarrassed by the NIT banner hanging in Haas Pavillion. The NIT banner is the same size as the banner listing our 1959 championship is it not?
And then the banner listing tournament appearances. Great, being listed on a bracket with 5 other Pac 10 teams is an accomplishment?
Whose Axe?
OUR AXE!
That is why actually winning something, the Pac X title, is noteworthy. It is a banner that we can be proud of.
Ergo, the season is a success.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Haha, guaranteed that these banners were orchestrated by Ben Braun to showboat his amazing coaching.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Embarrassed of that NIT banner?
Sure, I could care less that we won the NIT, but being embarrassed of it is really shitting on the people that were involved in winning that championship.
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Shouldn’t we start hanging banners for winning the Golden Bear Classic? We wouldn’t want to hurt all those teams feelings either.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Moving to one extreme to try to prove a point doesn’t help your argument.
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
It would be fair to have that banner in the locker room or maybe the practice gym at the RSF.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
3 Seasons
We are an amazing success in Season 1 – the regular season
We are a moderate but disappointing success in Season 2 – The conf tournament
We are not successful in Season 3 if we lost in the first round.
I’m sick of being “happy to be here”. Let’s go deep this year (That’s what she said!).
Although, really hard to argue against winning the Pac-10 championship. I’m so torn. Can’t someone else figure this out and let me know.
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
I'm gonna go ahead and say
…that tonight, better than any night, is DJ Seely’s night to step up.
Randle’s been saying that once the seniors leave, DJ is going to surprise people… and man… tonight’s the night to show that off. Please?
no cal bear? no care
He seems like he has such a good stroke (twss) so if he hits a couple of jumpers early there’s always a chance he could have a big game. For some reason he just seems out of it a lot, like he’s just going through the motions. If Jorge’s mind and Seely’s body morphed into one…
by ucsdgoldenbear on Mar 19, 2010 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Flags fly forever
Winning the Pac-10 makes the season a success, period. Of course I’d like to make a deep run in the tournament, but they won’t take the banner down if we don’t.
What about the probable lack of a Sweet 16 flag? I think this team had the talent that it should have gotten to the Sweet 16, but by not performing as well during the season as they were capable of, now it looks very ulikely given their poor seed.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Where exactly did this team fuck up? Did we fuck up because we scheduled, and lost to, 4 TOP 10 teams?
If you take out those teams and replace them with four patsies we are 27-6. That’s pretty damn good. If we go 2-2 in those games we would then be 25-8; also pretty damn good. Outside of the OSU game, which every team is entitled to, I think we had a pretty damn good year. It’s not like we have a deep bench or anything like that.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I thought they could have done better in league play, and I also thought they coud have pulled off one of those four games. Cal has the talent level to be a 15-20 ranked team. A team like that should compete with Top 10 teams. Bench is hugely overrated in basketball – your starters, and generally your best 3 or so players, are a much bigger determinant of how your team does. I thought the team was capable of a season deserving of a 4-5 seed, which would have put them in much better position to make the Sweet 16. They were more talented than an 8 seed. I completely agree they should celebrate and be proud of their Pac-10 championship, and I’m not too concerned about the Pac-10 tournament – losing in the finals is never a disappointment, crap happens, but overall, I think the team was very capable of positioning itself much better for a deeper tourney run, and how they do in the tournament is one factor that should be taken into account when talking about their success.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Talented, yes.
But we are a flawed team. We don’t have an inside game or a deep bench. Talented guards and 1 undersized post player? Yes. But flawed teams typically get exposed when you’re trying to win 6 in a row against the top competition.
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions
But flawed teams typically get exposed when you’re trying to win 6 in a row against the top competition.
Agreed, I’ve never claimed I expect this team to compete for the championship, just that they’re capable of making a deeper tournament run than they’re currently set up to.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions
True that
I’m a hugely optimistic bear fan (I always think we’re going to win, blowout even). I even think we can take Duke.
But being talented just isn’t everything these days (in football too).
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
for each of those 4 losses against the top 10 teams we DID NOT have Robertson.
Damn, that bench argument is overrated, huh? Sure wish we didnt need to run our starters out there for 38 mins again. I assume you believe the loss of Amoke will not hurt us since the bench is HUGELY OVERRATED.
Our seeding was also hurt by the perception that the Pac-10 is weak. What Pac-10 games should we have won.
I believe you to be completely unreasonable on this issue.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
What Pac-10 games should we have won.
I mentioned it above but I’ll say here too: We had no business losing to UCLA, USC, or Oregon State. I think losing to UW in Seattle (though we shouldn’t have been blown out like we were) and losing to Arizona in Tempe is understandable. Those are decent teams and we lost playing them on their home courts.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Unfortunately, every team lays an egg or two every year. While they were bad losses
they are almost sure to happen to even the nation’s best teams. Shit happens. Can’t hold it against the team.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
I mean wasnt Syrcause like the #1 team overall and still lost to Louisville twice? Im just saying that teams are going to lose games. It happens. It might take a fluke bounce against UCLA, but its going to happen.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Yeah, it was a fluke bounce, but should the game been close enough when a fluke bounce, at home, could determine the outcome? We may be no Syracuse, but 2010 UCLA isn’t exactly Louisville, either.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
It shouldn’t have been close but the shots wouldn’t fall. Basketball is a probabalistic sport, sometimes you end up on the wrong side of probability.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
I think we also didn’t play with a lot of intensity/effort for the first half of the game or more. It happens, but it wasn’t one of those things that was completely outside of our control.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions
I assume you believe the loss of Amoke will not hurt us since the bench is HUGELY OVERRATED.
Actually, team rebounding is possibly the single most important factor in winning and losing basketball games. I think it’s a huge loss.
I believe you to be completely unreasonable on this issue.
How so? It’s fine that you don’t agree, but to call me unreasonable? I think my whole case has been entirely reasonable – a regular season Pac-10 championship was great, the Pac-10 tournament was fine, but I’m disappointed by how the NCAA tournament will probably play out for this team because they had too much talent to be out first round, and even enough talent that I think “success” is Sweet 16. So that aspect of the season might end up being a disappointment, and give a fan feelings of “what might have been”. What about that is unreasonable?
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
You fail to address your ABSURD proposition that a bench does not matter.
I find that very telling.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I didn’t say it doesn’t matter, I said it’s not nearly as big a factor as people make it out to be. I said that your starters, and especially your top 3 or so starters, are much more influential to winning basketball games than your bench. I say this based on discussions with knowledgeable people who have done research into these things. So no, I’m not going to back off that statement.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Bench matters...ask the Coach...
If you need 100% to win a game, sure your starters can provide 90% of that, still need your bench to complete the win.
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m with Barry on this one. The bench shrinks for the best teams, and pundits with presumably (big Assumption) more expertise than us also say that the bench becomes less important in the tournament. Good teams play with 6-7 guys in main rotation. 8th guy comes in if there is big foul trouble. = bench not a huge factor
To be honest, I think YOUR view is just as ridiculous as someone who only judges sucess by the NCAA tournament. Yes, Cal won the Pac-10. Yes, there’s more to the season than that. NCAA tournament sucess, Pac-10 tournament sucess, Pac-10 regular season success, OOC….how you do in all of these factor into how successful the season was. Just like ignoring everything an only focusing on how the team didn’t win the championship ignores a good season, focusing only on a Pac-10 tournament ignores other meaningful things, like the NCAA tournament. Yes, Cal won the Pac-10 regular season. That’s great. How successful were they over the other parts of the season? In my opinion, the rest is pretty “meh” if they lose in the first round to Louisville, and still less than full fledged sucess if they don’t make the Sweet 16.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Because you talked to someone "knowledgeable" i will surely to defer to
your third hand opinion. Dude, you are unreal. Not wasting any more time with you.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
No, because I’ve had long conversations with other knowledgeable fans, conversations based on things like actual research, and if you want to get into it, I can explain why it makes sense, but that would take an open mind. You seem pretty hostile to anything that doesn’t agree with you, and haven’t shown any interest in a legitimate discussion, so I’m not sure if that conversation is appropriate at the moment, but if you want to have it, I’m here.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Swisher is in Troll mode, Barry. Best to leave him be. He’s distorting others opinions, setting up strawman arguments to knock down, and generally acting outrageously offended by minor things.
YLEE....because I disagree with Missing Barry I am in troll mode, eh?
Missing Barry is disagreeing with me, yet he is not a troll? Where’s the logic in this?
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd welcome your "research."
Give it to me.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, here’s a couple quick links:
http://www.wagesofwins.com/NBABenchesMid0708.html
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/2010/insider/news/story?id=4999551 – Unfortunately, the second one is Insider, which I don’t have. Maybe someone that does can give us a couple of the important sentences or something?
Maybe I’ll find some more for you in the near future. :)
"Richmond, VA. For when West Virginia is too classy"
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions
You really should...
Let’s see the first link is about NBA benches (different game)
The second link, well, you dont have access to.
Pretty legit argument right there.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, the NBA is different than college basketball to some degree, but basketball still is basketball. I have yet to see you offer anything to counter what I’ve said besides taking shots at my credibility. If you want to discuss this, we can.
So, let’s discuss: there are a few reasons it makes sense. First, your starters in general play a lot more minutes than your bench – 5 starters each averaging more minutes than 3-4 players off the bench each puts a huge disparity between total minutes. Second, your starters are better (which is why they’re starting), and thus contribute more to winning. Your bench guys generally come in and fill roles – someone like Jorge, for instance, that comes in to play D but isn’t expected to do the things he isn’t all that good at (like his offensive responsibilities are minimized). Next, your best ~3 players get the most usage – they’re expected to contribute in every way, and the offense generally runs through them. Randle creates more for himself and others than anyone on the team by far. He still has to play defense. He still has to rebound for his position. And he has more offensive responsibilities. Next, foul trouble isn’t as big an issue as you’d expect. We’re talking less than 20 fouls per game for a team on average – of course a couple guys are gonna get in foul trouble each game, but how many minutes do they actually miss because of it? 6? You tend to notice when guys do get in foul trouble, but not when they don’t – it’s kind of like everyone thinking Kobe Bryant is a clutch player. Yeah, you notice when he hits big shots, but not when he misses.
Well, that’s the beginning of a discussion. Long paragraph is long. Now….discuss!
"Richmond, VA. For when West Virginia is too classy"
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
A bench matters more for games on back to back days, which hurt us in the Pac 10 tournament but with a day of rest in between games it’s less of a concern.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
When you start running out scrubs Kenezivich, Zhang, and arguably MSF
out there (who lack any threat of scoring) you start to realize your bench matters. Players get tired, players pick up fouls, and players get hurt. It sure would have been nice to have a back up to Theo. It sure would be nice to have guys who can score to come off of the bench when Randle, Christopher, or Robertson can’t go. It sure would be nice, but we dont have those horses in the stable. Ask Montgomery if a bench doesn’t matter.
California eternal, you also fail to realize the importance of a bench on the foul count of a team. If randle picks up 3 in the first half/early second half we are essentially f’d.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions
This team is good with fouls, give or take a few with MSF. I don’t recall foul trouble being a major concern even with our 7-8 man rotation as of late. Zhang and MSF will have to provide minutes and everyone just has to play smart.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
If Seeley and even Nikola can come in for just a couple of minutes to give the starters a breather, that would be very useful.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
True. Knezovic should be called on to relieve the guards and provide some defense. I only mentioned the bigs because Boykin is the one starter who has a major dropoff with heavy minutes.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
A bench matters more for games on back to back days, which hurt us in the Pac 10 tournament but with a day of rest in between games it’s less of a concern.
None of what you said contradicted this point….
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Also.....
With the excessive TV timeouts and longer halftime that comes with tournament games, IMO there’s a lot more “down time” than in a regular pac10 game so our starters will be able to get more rest than usual. I don’t have facts to back this up, but it sure seems to be the case.
by ucsdgoldenbear on Mar 19, 2010 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually, college basketball as a whole is like this. I don’t know when the current rules came into play, but a couple years ago I noticed they take a TV timeout every 4 minutes (16, 12, 8, 4). In addition to normal breaks in the action AND timeouts…..I honestly don’t see how these guys ever get tired (that’s a bit of hyperbole, for the record).
"Richmond, VA. For when West Virginia is too classy"
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions
So, Missing Barry, you just recently figrued out the TV timeout rule?
Adds significantly to your credibility. ;)
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions
If you’d like to discuss strategies for beating a press, you’re more than welcome to participate with me! My opportunities to display my basketball knowledge seem to be limited around here….
"Richmond, VA. For when West Virginia is too classy"
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Dude, you dont DISCUSS your strategy/reasons
you go on and on about what people told you, some bunk links, etc.
by 33SwisherSweet on Mar 19, 2010 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions
The point is the few opportunities I get around here I do demonstrate my basketball knowledge. Just defending my “credibility”. :)
"Richmond, VA. For when West Virginia is too classy"
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions
The tourney is a crapshoot. You’re going up against nothing but winning teams, so a single off night will knock you out. It could happen in Round 1, or it could happen in the final, but either way, you ended the season with a loss.
I like deep tournament runs because they are fun, but aside from the top 2 seeds, I don’t see them as being indicative of the quality of the team. So much of it is about matchups and luck.
Absolutely agree on all accounts, but just because luck is involved doesn’t mean it’s any less of an accomplishment. The farther you go, the more successful the NCAA tournament was!
"Richmond, VA. For when West Virginia is too classy"
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
A successful TOURNAMENT, yes
But I thought the original question was about a successful season. I don’t think a couple of games in March decide how successful your season was, again, unless you were good enough to earn a really high seed (which we were never going to be, IMO).
Well, as I’ve said, I judge the season on multiple factors. Pac-10 play, Pac-10 tournament, regular season OOC, NCAA tournament. Pac-10 regular season was an absolute success, the rest was….it was ok I guess. Not saying we should complain about the season, just saying it’s not a complete success. This team was talented enough to go farther in the tournament at a very reasonably high percentage.
(And who knows, maybe they get by Louisville and upset Duke all over again! In that case, I would call the season a complete success)
"Richmond, VA. For when West Virginia is too classy"
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Complete Success
It’s year 2 of Mike Mont.
We won an outright PAC-10 Championship.
Let me say that again.
We won an outright PAC-10 Championship.
The first time in 50 years.
If you’re disappointed by this year, you’re probably the same person that is calling for Jeff Tedford’s head.
Let’s just enjoy our championship and Jerome Randle’s award as Pac-10 player of the year please.
And oh yea, next year, Mike Mont will have his recruits in…and if you haven’t noticed…they are BAD ASS! GO BEARS!!!
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 9:41 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I think you’re painting a false dichotomy. Yes, we won the Pac-10 and that’s indisputably great. But we were EXPECTED to win the Pac-10. If we hadn’t, the year would have been a failure. It’s not a failure. But if we lose tonight, it won’t be an unambiguous success, either. We lost in the first round of the tourney last year; where’s the progress on that front? With 4 very talented seniors, shouldn’t we expect more from them?
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't know what dichotomy means and I'm lazy to look it up but...
…just because we are expected to win something, the satisfaction is left in the proper execution and obtaining the goal.
I think one of the top goals for the players and coaches this season was to win a Pac-10 Championship.
Erasing that success because you lost to another quality team in the NCAA tournament is overlooking the hard work that each player put into this successful season.
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
I think it’s very possible to appreciate the hard work that players put in [which is much more evident if when you attend games] and at the same time saying that the team as a whole doesn’t meet expectations.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
How is it “erasing that success”??
By “false dichotomy”, I mean you’re setting up two extreme opposing views and saying that people are either at one end or the other, whereas I think the world isn’t that black and white, and that there’s a middle ground where you can appreciate what the team has done but still think that they’re capable of more.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions
I consider this season to be a success, win or lose tonight.
Some people are in the camp that losing tonight could make this an unsuccessful season…that’s what I meant by “erasing success”.
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, I don’t think it would be an “unsuccessful season”. Even if we lose tonight, this season certainly can’t be called a failure. But it wouldn’t be a complete success, either, in my opinion. That’s what I’m saying about not thinking about it in total black-and-white, success/failure terms.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, I don’t think it would be an "unsuccessful season". Even if we lose tonight, this season certainly can’t be called a failure. But it wouldn’t be a complete success
This, and I could be wrong, but I think I’ve been consistent and fairly clear in this point. Not a comment I’ve seen yet has tried to take away from winning a Pac-10 title (well, maybe CaliforniaEternal!), but is it really that outlandish that we consider more than one factor?
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s not outlandish to consider more than one factor…but let’s give proper weight to the biggest factor entering the season…obtaining something we haven’t had in 50 years.
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
That’s fair, and while I guess I don’t weight the Pac-10 regular season as much as you, I wouldn’t suggest that your view is wrong. When it comes to the Pac-10 regular season, the best you can do is win the conference outright, and by that measure, that aspect of the season was an absolute success. How do you look upon the rest of the season, and how do you view it in terms of success? I haven’t suggested this is an unsucessful season, I just see the other factors as important enough that Cal should have to do something (like get to the Sweet 16) to call the season a complete success.
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Hey, all I said was that winning the conference title then losing in the first round would not make this season an unqualified success.
I was unbelievably happy to win the Pac-10 title and I have neighbors who think I’m deranged from all the yelling I did during the clinching furd game.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, yea, a complete success would be a win over Duke to reach the sweet 16 for the first time since like ’97?
But then you’re going have to fight off the dogs that will then say, “well if they could reach the sweet 16, they should be final four material with all that heart and talent…” :)
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
That wouldn’t be fair. You gotta base it on what you thought at the beginning of the season.
Did you think we could win the Pac-10? Sure, that was definitely within reason. We did? Woo, success on that front!
Did you think we could make the NCAA tourney again? Certainly – I mean, we expected to win the Pac-10, right? Why wouldn’t we be in the tourney?
Did you think we could make it past the first round? Sure, I don’t see why not. That’s a reasonable goal.
Did you think we would be a Final Four team? No way. It’s not impossible, but it’s extremely unlikely. No reasonable person could base their evaluation of Cal’s season on reaching the Final Four.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Yea but not checking off #3 on the list doesn’t negate the success from checking off #1 and #2…
…my list from the start for a success has been 1) Winning the Pac-10. Jerome winning the Player of the Year was icing on the cake.
If your list includes winning the first round of the tournament to be a success, well then it is what it is and my feelings on success really has no bearing on anything.
Just FYI, I do have a rabid CAL football friend that told me, “Let me know when we’re in the final four.” … So I guess we all measure success differently…
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Of course it doesn’t negate it. I’ve been saying that all along. Qualified success is still pretty good.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm OK with qualified
it’s close enough :)
see below for another question…
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
One thing, curious…
I’m really a football fan and basketball simply just ties me over a little bit…
…there might be a similar situation if compared to CAL football.
Would you consider winning the PAC-10 (in football) and going to the Rose Bowl (first time in 5 decades) … but then losing the game…a success? No right or wrong, but just curious…
by DavidsonBear on Mar 19, 2010 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Me? Football is slightly different. We’ve been to the Tourney several times, and winning 1 first round game isn’t that much to hope for.
The Rose Bowl is a completely different beast… I will be slightly disappointed if we play poorly, but mostly I will just be thrilled beyond belief to be there, win or lose.
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Ok, the moment we clinch the Rose Bowl I will be shedding tears. It will be a sight to revel in. I don’t think we can ever make up for the 50+ year absence with enough appearances.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Apparently
Yikes, we have to beat Louisville AND Duke to satisfy our community. Could be a long weekend.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Well, the most popular one notes that people are already satisfied, so that is good news.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I think you’re just trying to prepare yourself fmentally if we lose tonight. Some fans just like to wait for that until afterward.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, honestly, I think some of it is because we’ve been forced to defend our position, so we’ve come across more negative than we are by repeating the arguments against the season being a complete success. Cal won the Pac-10 title. That’s very successful, and makes it a good season no matter what. If in the end, we look back at this team and think “they could have done more”, that doesn’t take away winning a Pac-10 title. We aren’t all that negative or unsatisfied, just pointing out that there is more than just the Pac-10 title!
"Richmond, VA. For when West Virginia is too classy"
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Aw, I personally thought Swisher was the loudest (at least he was in the internet typing-to-speaking conversion I did in my head!)
"Richmond, VA. For when West Virginia is too classy"
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Mr. Swisher might be upset that the A’s will be moving sometime soon. Or maybe if he lives in the South Bay he’ll be happy. Barry, how much of their Oakland/East Bay fanbase do you think the A’s will lose if they move to San Jose?
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
As an East Bay native, I honestly don’t think it will be that much. It depends on where they move, though. If they move to Western San Jose or something they could definitely lose a lot in the East Bay, but easily make it up in the South Bay/Silicon Valley region (which, as a Giants fan, I’m scared of, I want them in Fremont). If they move to Fremont, they lose nothing in the East Bay – it’s just as accessible as Oakland to almost everywhere.
"Richmond, VA. For when West Virginia is too classy"
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
The current plan would put the ballpark right near the Diridon station in a redevelopment district downtown. Excellent freeway and transit links. Public support for the A’s in San Jose is really increasing too according to a recent poll that also found the Niners Santa Clara stadium at 50/50.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Don’t you think that if people already live in the Bay Area, they have already self-selected into Giants or A’s fans, no matter where they live? It’s not like people change team affiliation at the drop of a hat.
I could see people from the East Bay paying more attention to the Giants if the A’s move south. SF and Oakland/Berkeley have more in common than with the South Bay.
However, the A’s will gain a huge new fanbase in the South Bay, more than offsetting any losses in the East Bay. Geographically, Oakland and SF are the same distance from San Jose. I think the main reason South Bay people prefer the Giants right now is because the Giants pay more attention to them and AT&T Park is a nicer game experience. It’s really a no-brainer for the A’s to be in SJ rather than Oakland.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions
we have to beat Louisville AND Duke to satisfy our community
Well, atomsareenough and I are trying to make the point that Cal shouldn’t have to beat them, Cal should have done a little better and gotten a better seed to have an easier road to the Sweet 16! :)
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
But it helps a lot.
"Richmond, VA. For when West Virginia is too classy"
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
They’d only have to beat Louisville to satisfy me personally :)
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions
On another note ...
Allen Crabbe was just named the Gatorade Player of the Year for California…
When was the last time we had such a highly rated recruit in BBall?
I thought people said Monty was a bad recruit…maybe it was due to the smaller pool of candidates at Stanford?
If my understanding is correct, Crabbe seems like one of those “diamond in the rough” types – basically, while he was a fairly highly rated recruit when he signed, he’s shot up in status after he committed because of a strong senior season. So it’s more that Monty (or someone on the Cal staff) has a good eye for talent?
"Richmond, VA. For when West Virginia is too classy"
by Missing Barry on Mar 19, 2010 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Definitely the furd factor. Not many people are dreaming of playing hoops in Palo Alto. I think he can do great things if he sticks around another six-seven years.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Past Gatorade Players of the Year for California to play for Cal
Jamal Boykin
Leon Powe
Jelani Gardner
Jason Kidd
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
This one’s a weird one for me. I voted that we need to win today only because our team is very capable to win today. For that I’m proud of our team. But it will definitely be disappointing to go one and out in the tournament and end what’s been really a dream season on such a sour note.
I’d love to see our players validate the “terrible pac10” tonight and put an exclamation on their season. Taking down Louisville will do just that.
The season is a success no matter what
Win or lose today, these seniors have done Cal proud. They have served our school with honor and are truly student athletes.
by One Armed Explorer on Mar 19, 2010 3:44 PM PDT reply actions
Absolutely a success
Counting down those last 10 seconds of the ASU game with my 4 year old in my arms (unfortunately not at the game – kid #2 was a couple days away) and seeing the confetti stream across Haas will be a memory that I’ll cherish forever. Unless we make it AT LEAST to the sweet sixteen, I doubt I will even remember this tournament visit – it will always be “Wait, who did we play that year? Oh ya…”.
Pac-10 champions for the first time in 50 years. I don’t care the level of competition – just as when I finally watch my Bears in the Rose Bowl I won’t care one whit if the Pac-10 was down that year.
IMHO success is what you accomplish not what you accomplish as compared to expectations. Expectations are exceeded, expectations are met, expectations are missed. Whatever. Accomplishment mean something and my deeper self knows this : I will remember the accomplishment of this year but not the expectations of this year.
CAL HAD A SUCCESSFUL SEASON!!!!!
"atomsareenough—cleaning up CGB one day at a time until we finally get that press pass." - Berkelium97
by atomsareenough on Mar 19, 2010 11:01 PM PDT reply actions
NOW THE SEASON IS AN UNQUALIFIED SUCCESS! WHERE YOU AT SWISHERTROLL
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Mar 19, 2010 11:15 PM PDT reply actions
Happy yet?
We torched Louisville. Now you’re telling me we have to beat Duke in order for this to be a successful season?? You’re a bunch of football homers, drinking haterade and dreaming about spring practice. Pbpbttt. GO BEARS! PAC-10 CHAMPS!




















